In the opposition

The effect of presence

October 23, 2009 Mikhail Delyagin

The combination of several (practically in a row) visits to the process of MB Khodorkovsky and P.L. Lebedev, with the subsequent acquaintance with what is happening there, only according to eyewitnesses, allowed me to look at the process under two different points of view.

And their comparison caused an extremely unpleasant sensation.

In my opinion, the “effect of the presence”, he is also the “observer’s effect”, as in physics, plays with us, thinking and writing about this process, an evil joke: sitting in the courtroom, we involuntarily fall under the gloomy charm of what should theoretically be called “justice”, and begin to relate to what is happening with some seriously.

Think about the words of words that is unequering into the languages ​​of developed countries: it seems to us that Judge Danilkin decides something!

We are seriously discussing the absurdity of the “accusations” and “evidence” made!

We sincerely rejoice that witnesses of accusations testify to the accused!

Have mercy, this is the courts in Stalin in the fierce 30s (though not the “triples”) passed about 10% of the acquittal. Putin's justice of such a “marriage” does not allow itself: acquittals of the sentences is clearly less than 1%, and in some years - less than 0.5%. And it is unlikely because the evidence base over the past 70 years began to prepare much better.

The fact that from the courtroom seems small absurd, when looking from the side, it is built into a harmonious and quite logical system, in which not only prosecutors participate.

Yes, the accusation is engaged in a frankly meaningless case: as far as I can judge, from the point of view of law, it is the same with the same success that, stabbing and intermitting, it read out its “evidence”, could read the phone book of Maputa, and directly in the Portuguese.

But we admit, it is on the heart, to ourselves, the diligent attempts of the prosecutors to depict at least some legal actions testify not to the misunderstanding of the essence of the functions performed, but only about the deepest intelligence, culture and conscientiousness of these places of pretty people.

After all, what we hear from them and from their witnesses suggests that prosecutors could completely dilute the bones on the floor, get vodka, cut into a newspaper (or on the case file) herring, expand the melted cheese named after Comrade Shenderovich and peacefully speak with each other on their topics that are really interested. And if there are no one (because they are still different people), just culturally drink and quietly engulf, enjoying a pleasant process.

And on the outcome of the court, this, apparently, would have no influence.

Because now it is not 2005.

It was too late to prove something to someone, but many judges, in all likelihood, still made decisions under pressure.

And now the system is built, and the pressure is probably no longer needed, because the “rules of the game” not only are known to everyone - they are almost accepted by all.

It seems that even the most cute, intelligent and sympathetic to the law people will make sentences based on not their ideas about the law and not even their understanding of state interests, about which lawyer Medvedev so touchingly wrote, but on the basis of long -formed ideas about the will of the authorities.

As far as one can understand, for their implementation no longer needs “telephone law”, no threats and the notorious “administrative resource” are needed: the remaining in the system know the rules and fully accept them. It seems that the power impact on the judicial corps today and tomorrow will be needed if someone suddenly wants to judge by the law: then you really have to yell obscenities, scare, knock with fists on the table-until the judges believe that they are required.

And in today's situation, all this is not necessary: ​​after all, if the absurdity is excusable and prosecutors have not yet been expelled from the courtroom for systematic mockery of it, it means that this is probably the rules.

I do not want to create a feeling of hopelessness, I do not want to pour water on the mill of experienced provocateurs who use the absurdity of public actions as an instrument of demonstrating their strength, and even more so I do not call for suicidal disrespect for the court.

I just do not want to forget that turning a blind eye to the obvious means to engage in manovism.

The point is not that, apparently, the decision in the case will not be made on the basis of the law: the fact is that, as far as you can understand, administrative pressure is required in the system created in recent years not to violate the law, but in order to resolve its compliance with the judges.

This does not mean that the outcome of the process is a foregone conclusion.

This does not mean that the outcome of the process will be decided in the courtroom.

This only means that the triumph of the law today requires significantly and significantly less trivial efforts than even four and a half years ago.

And these efforts must be made.

Author - Director of the Institute of Problems of Globalization, Doctor of Economics

Photos of RIA Novosti