In the opposition

Process. Issue 8

August 25, 2009 Daily Journal

Process: day 165-day 171st

The main events of the last week in the Khamovnichesky court were the satisfaction of the prosecution of the extension of the extension of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Plato Lebedev for the term of detention in the pre -trial detention center for three months and the refusal to satisfy the defense of the evidence of the prosecutors. At the request of the “daily magazine”, these two court decisions were commented by the lawyer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Vadim Kluvgan.

“I call the decision on the extension of the term of detention. As there are standards of length and mass, so there is a standard of how it should be and how it should not be. This is the standard of what a court decision should not be. Because it does not meet any of the criteria presented by law to any court decision - legality, validity and motivation. This decision is not legitimate, is not justified and completely and has not been motivated in any way. Despite the fact that the court had all the opportunity to make it legal, and justified, and motivated. We analyzed each income of the prosecution, explained what its falsity, far -fetched, slanderous character and presented their explanations to the court in writing. We handed over to the court sixteen pages, and we were answered by one paragraph of seven lines, and only two lines were dedicated to the content of one of the arguments, and then not quite accurately transmitted. Everything else was devoted to the fact that the defense introduced written objections that were attached to the case. The arguments of the prosecution that people who are already in custody in a colony are already in custody, if they do not extend the arrest, being free, can escape, destroy evidence, influence witnesses - this is not only a frank falsification, but also a reservation on Freud. She gives out a true goal: it is necessary that they always sit, under any pretext and under any kind of free.

The question of how the process would continue if the petition of the prosecution was not satisfied is decided by the simplest way. It is settled by the Criminal Executive Code, in which there is article 77.1. It says that if it is necessary to participate in the hearing, including the accused, convicted person serving a sentence of a sentence in places of imprisonment, can be transferred to an investigative insulator (or left in the investigative isolator), but he must be provided with such conditions of serving in the verdict. That is, this is a general regime, as in our case, it means that these are conditions corresponding to the general regime. Therefore, all excuses that the extension of the detention of detention is carried out to ensure the possibility of conducting the trial are frankly false. Of course, both prosecutors and the court are well aware of this law. The current decision is a way to keep the defendants not just in custody, but in a prison conditions, to which no one said them. As a result, it turns out that in a colony of general regime, to which Khodorkovsky and Lebedev sentenced the court, no matter how to relate to that sentence, they were only one year of the age of six.

As for the question of the refusal to give out the accusers, the motivation of the court is very interesting. This decision is not quite empty. The court did not reject, did not refute, and did not even question - and I want to emphasize this - not a single argument. We said that the prosecutors in the process are unscrupulous and incompetent, and confirmed this with references to specific facts. The court did not say in the decision that he did not agree with us that we are mistaken or telling a lie, or that he doubts, or that we did not substantiate our statements enough. There is none of this in the decision. The court said that he does not consider our arguments the basis for the withdrawal. From this, following the laws of formal logic, we can draw a very simple and understandable conclusion: firstly, we now have albeit expressed in indirect form, but the assessment of prosecutors not only by ourselves, but also by the court, and secondly, since the court does not consider this basis for the allocation, it means that he is ready to work with the unscrupulous and incompetent prosecutors. ”

Artist Alexander Kotlyarov

Issue 1
Issue 2
Issue 3
Issue 4
Issue 5
Issue 6
Issue 7
Issue 8
Issue 9
Issue 10
Issue 11
Issue 12

To be continued...