The investigation leads a stylobate

On June 9, the first open meeting in the case of the leader of the “League of the Defense of Moscow” Daniil Konstantinov, repeatedly considered in the Chertanovsky District Court, should be held.

Recall that Konstantinov is accused of murder, despite the fact that there is no evidence of his involvement in the murder. The accusation is built on the testimony of a single witness, Alexei Sofronov, a friend of the murdered who was repeatedly sitting for the burgundy, in the investigation and in court gave conflicting answers to specific questions. In addition, the case file contains protocols of the interrogations of the witness Sofronov in Moscow, dated retroactively, including the protocol of interrogation that allegedly occurred on the day when Sofronov was in the Nizhny Novgorod region. The prosecution has no picture of the crime at all. In response to the Alibi Konstantinov - on the day of the murder of Alexei Temnikov near the metro station “Academician Yangel Street”, on December 3, 2011, he celebrated his mother's birthday in a restaurant on Mira Avenue, and the prosecution was not even able to state the prosecution, how, according to her version, Konstantinov reached the scene. (Not to mention the fact that Konstantinov was not familiar with Temnikov and, according to investigators, killed him on the basis of a sudden personal hostility, as well as hostility “to the informal movement of the punks”, although there was no evidence that Temnikov was a panmus, the accusation did not present.)

Moreover, during the first process it turned out that the prosecution could not establish the crime scene itself. This was one of the formal reasons for the judge Galina Turkina to decide on the return of the case to the prosecutor's office. And after two months of investigation, the case is back in court. During this time, only two new interrogations appeared in the case, which in no way related to Konstantinov, but the investigation solemnly established what the place where someone was jammed with a knife of Alexei Temnikov. An employee of the subway explained that this place is called a stylobat (the upper surface of the step base), and this beautiful Greek word migrated to many documents in the case file. And then it turned out that the investigation itself drove into a trap. As Denis Zatsepin, one of the lawyers of Konstantinov, explained to the OVD-Info, if the stylobat was established as the crime scene, that is, the space belonging to the metro station, then the case should be transferred from the investigative department in the southern administrative district, which all this time studied him all this time, to the investigative department for the investigation of crimes in the metro. And in this case, the supervision was not to be carried out by the Yuao prosecutor’s office, but by the Moscow Transport Prosecutor's Office. The defense stated these arguments during preliminary hearings. The prosecutor objected that since Temnikov had already died on the street, the case was supposed to be managed by the authorities of the Southern District. But in this case, Zatsepin explains, the place of the crime is blocked again: “That is, either the deficiency is not eliminated, because of which the court returned the case, or the place is determined in such a way that the case must still be deployed to the prosecutor and the investigator to redundinate the jurisdiction.”

The problem for accusing in both cases is that if the case is returned to the prosecutor’s office again, then Konstantinov should leave the custody, since 18 months during which the investigation may be conducted. According to Zatsepin, no one is ready for this. Therefore, the court did not heed the arguments of the defense, did not return the case to the prosecutor’s office - and extended to Konstantinov the term of detention until November, refusing to let him go under the guarantee of three people and transfer it to his parents under house arrest.

Konstantinov’s case is overgrown with an increasing number of all kinds of violations. Numerous material evidence has been lost. On identification, the witness together with Konstantinov is presented to the statists dissimilar to him. The investigator, quoting the testimony of a witness who tried to help the dying Temnikov and a briefly saw his pursuers, but could not identify anyone, confidently enters that one of the persecutors was Konstantinov. For all the time of the investigation, neither the accused nor the defense had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the audio and video materials of the case. Finally, in early May, when the investigation was completed and Konstantinov began to get acquainted with the case, the investigator petitioned the limitation of the period of acquaintance of the accused with the case, despite the fact that by this moment Konstantinov managed to read about five volumes of the case of seventeen. To top it all, both meetings dedicated to the consideration of the petition of the investigator were marked , according to another lawyer Konstantinov, Valery Shkred, unheated for the practice of Moscow courts the publication of the public from the building with the use of force . All this court is not embarrassing, and the case continues its way, and Konstantinov remains in the pre -trial detention center, where it was placed on March 22, 2012. The current extension of the detention for six months also raises questions for protection: according to Zatsepin, “according to the Criminal Procedure Code, for six months the judge can extend once, and in the future each time for three, and the extension for six months we already had in the last process. The judge believes that since she is listening to a new thing, it can extend for six months in a new one, and we count differently. ” Zatsepin managed to achieve support from the Commissioner for Human Rights Ella Pamfilova, who asked the Presidium of the Moscow City Court to cancel the decision on the previous extension of the term of detention - but in the meantime, the Chertanovsky court again extended the term of detention, which creates a procedural problem that the courts may not want to solve.

Nevertheless, the lawyers at this stage are satisfied that Judge Julia Chernikova, who took the case of Konstantinov, agreed to demand a number of important evidence that the defense could not be obtained during the previous process. This is information about Internet connection from Konstantinov’s phone, which could help establish, where the accused was actually the accused at the time of the murder, as well as the details of information from the phones of the deceased and the witness of Sofronov. If information about Internet connections could not be preserved for such a long period of time, then the details regarding calls and SMS messages mobile operators, according to the government decree, are required to store for three years. As Zsetsepin explains, “the investigation was supposed to check if Temnikov and Sofronov called someone in the subway to disassemble, was there a call, was there SMS, what kind of communication was that day directly in the period preceding the events.” And it is very likely that using the detailing of the phone Sofronov, it will be possible to prove the falsification of some protocols of his interrogations in the case. The defense hopes that she will succeed, as the last time, according to Zatsepin, “destroy the position of the accusation,” and then “the court will face the same dilemma: either justify, or invent something.”

Konstantinov, who actively participated in the protests of December 2011, was included in the Human Rights Center “Memorial” among political prisoners. This is a rarest case when the opponent of the authorities is charged not just in a violent, but in a particularly serious crime, and even with such, to put it mildly, a weak evidence base.