Clubs against feathers

People who scare journalists with the Criminal Code didn't give a damn about him

The Union of Journalists of Russia sent a letter to the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Prosecutor General, the head of the Investigative Committee, the chairman of the relevant State Duma Committee, as well as the chairman of the Presidential Human Rights Council. Attached to the letter is a list of journalists who suffered from the illegal actions of the security forces.

The Union of Journalists of Russia sent a letter to the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Prosecutor General, the head of the Investigative Committee, the chairman of the relevant State Duma Committee, as well as the chairman of the Presidential Human Rights Council. Attached to the letter is a list of journalists who suffered from the illegal actions of the security forces.

The letter reads, in part: “We hope to receive comments on the list... For each of the incidents involving law enforcement agencies included in it, there is more detailed information on our official website, all of them were widely covered in the media, for a number of them the Union of Journalists sent special statements to the relevant departments. Unfortunately, we cannot recognize their reaction as satisfactory.”

The Russian Union of Journalists said it was ready to initiate a business meeting on this issue, which seems to be of fundamental importance, with the participation of the heads of the Prosecutor General's Office, the Investigative Committee, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the Presidential Council for Interaction with Civil Society.

A working meeting of the secretaries of the Union of Journalists of Russia with the editors-in-chief of a number of federal publications was held the other day to develop a common position on this issue. We are publishing the speech of the UJR Secretary Pavel Gutiontov.

First, it's an old story.

Two years ago, an unsanctioned rally took place near the presidential administration building, during which its participants raised letters over their heads, folding the slogan: “Observe the Constitution!” The action, of course, was dispersed. Among the detainees was a RIA Novosti photojournalist, on whom a report was drawn up. It turns out that the journalist also held an obscene letter in his hands, resisted the policemen and did not comply with their demands. The world court sentenced the photographer to a fine of 500 rubles. The arguments that his hands were occupied with something completely different, in confirmation of which the photographs taken by the journalist were presented, did not impress the court.

We held a special working meeting with the leadership of the Russian Academy of Sciences (to its credit, it did not resolutely stand up for its employee), took a number of actions, as a result, the court decision was reviewed, and the policeman, who made a deliberately false report, admitted that the person he brought to plot, "confuses with someone." It seemed to us that at last there was a reason to unwind this case to the end, to go through the entire chain - from Sergeant Syakin and his immediate superiors to the justice of the peace, who stamped knowingly false accusations, to punish them all - if only to create a precedent. But, unfortunately, the leaders of RIAN did not dare to take further, previously agreed steps, and issued a statement in which they welcomed the "good will" shown by the police. The precedent did not take place. We helped a colleague save 500 rubles, but nothing more.

And one more case. The heroic suppression of the action of Vladivostok owners of right-hand drive cars by the Zubr SOBR near Moscow was accompanied by the beating of journalists who covered the action. First, we were told from the Prosecutor General's Office that there were no statements from the alleged victims. We collected statements and handed them over to prosecutors. Then they sent an order to Vladivostok, and from there they reported to us that the “bison” were wearing masks and generally flew back to the Moscow region; it's impossible to sort this out. To our timid assumption that the "bison" had some bosses, and, perhaps, to try to punish one of them, they did not begin to answer us.

And so on.

It seems to us that all these stories fall within the scope of, among other things, Article 144 of the Criminal Code on obstructing the legal professional activities of journalists. Let me remind you that this article was put into effect back in 1990. Over the 22 years of its operation, I know of only six cases of bringing defendants under this article to trial - and not a single real sentence. But in December last year, the 144th was enriched with the third paragraph, according to which “obstruction”, associated with the use of force against a journalist, was transferred to serious crimes and, thus, became the jurisdiction of not the police, but the Investigative Committee. This was regarded by a number of my colleagues in the union, who have made great efforts to lobby for this amendment, as an important step and our major achievement. Personally, I then reacted to the innovation with restraint: does it matter what sanction against criminals WILL NOT be applied by those who are obliged to do this? Nevertheless, since December 6 last year, this article has been present in the Criminal Code. And now I think that it is a sin for us not to use it.

That is why the list that we compiled and sent to the security forces includes incidents that have taken place since December 6. There are a scandalous number of them. None of them have been prosecuted.

What served as the basis for inclusion in this list?

1. Journalists are detained during street protests, taken to the police, kept there for as long as they like, and then released without a protocol being drawn up.

2. The same is true with the drawing up of a protocol, which is often the fruit of the artistic creativity of the police.

3. The same applies to the use of force against journalists. Moreover, journalists are beaten, obviously knowing that it is journalists who are being beaten.

The first on our list is Kommersant correspondent Alexander Chernykh, who was beaten by policemen just before the introduction of the “Third Point” of Article 144. Chernykh was detained during an unsanctioned rally while performing an editorial assignment. He showed his identity card to the police, but they dragged the journalist into a paddy wagon, beat him, and then threw him out. The journalist "removed" the beatings in the nearest hospital and wrote a statement to law enforcement agencies. In connection with this, the SZHR Secretariat turned to General Bastrykin with a request to take the investigation of the case under his personal control. A month later, we received a copy of the letter: the case was entrusted to Moscow investigators, who, in turn, undertook to carry out the necessary steps to verify all the circumstances by mid-February. In March (three months after the commission of a serious crime), a Moscow investigator sent a strict order to the chairman of the SZHR to come to him and tell him what he knew about this. There were no other investigative actions (for three, I repeat, months). Nobody contacted the journalist himself.

Bastrykin did not respond to our repeated appeal.

I suspect something similar awaits our new letter.

By the way, in addition to direct recipients, we sent it to news agencies, newspaper editorial offices, television, posted it on our website. None of the colleagues showed any interest. Although, in my opinion, it is obvious that the matter can be moved forward only by joint efforts, within the framework of a campaign supported by the entire professional community. Our opponents must know that we will seek from them not only specific answers to our questions, but also real punishment for specific perpetrators of violating the law. Let this knowledge make them at least a little less comfortable in this world.

A month and a half ago in Makhachkala we held an off-site meeting of the secretariat of the union. In Dagestan, 16 of our colleagues have been killed in recent years; it seems that no one here believes in the integrity of the investigation into the murders, including the president of the republic. We invited the leaders of the Dagestan law enforcement agencies to the meeting, and the first leaders of the power bloc of the North Caucasus Federal District also arrived. The conversation lasted over three hours. The very fact that people could at least LISTEN to each other caused amazement. I don’t think, of course, that this conversation in itself will solve the problems that have accumulated here, but people with big stars on shoulder straps, I hope, were already impressed by the fact that they had to answer direct questions and listen to assessments of their answers to these questions.

We want to repeat the Makhachkala experience in Moscow. We have questions for both Kolokoltsev and Chaika.

So.

We must develop a common plan in the fight for what, I hope, is obvious to us: we have the right to demand compliance with the law. It seems to me that it is necessary, first of all, to accumulate all the information about violations of the rights of journalists. While we are collecting it bit by bit, from the Internet, from scattered notes, we have to check it, calling it to the editors, weeding out the husks, often as a result we are simply substituted in a dialogue with the police and the prosecutor's office. In this regard, I urge you to inform us about what is happening with your employees, what officials are responding to your letters, how the investigations of certain incidents are (if they are).

We understand that the editorial policy of publications in each individual case dictates one or another line of behavior, and we are in no way going to encroach on your sacred right to determine this line yourself. We will not forcefully protect anyone. But in cases where you are ready to get into a fight, we are ready to provide you with resources. Take the time to call or send a short e-mail.

Well, the last. We asked the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) for information about the "foreign" experience, which we are so fond of referring to when passing laws on "foreign agents", insulting the feelings of believers or protecting children from pedophiles. So. The IFJ was surprised at our request: there are no special instructions for police officers regulating their relations with journalists, at least in Europe. There are no recorded conflicts in this regard. Our colleagues simply do not know about the existence of such a problem.