THE COURT IS GONE, BUT THEY ARE TRYING TO BRING IT BACK

AFTER THE ELECTION

Exactly one month the Supreme Court heard the case on the cancellation of the results of the last parliamentary elections. On Thursday, he issued a decision: "Yabloko", the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and members of the "Committee-2008" to refuse on all counts. During the process, it turned out: the activities of the Central Election Commission during ...

Exactly one month the Supreme Court heard the case on the cancellation of the results of the last parliamentary elections. On Thursday, he issued a decision: "Yabloko", the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and members of the "Committee-2008" to refuse on all counts. During the process, it turned out that the activities of the Central Election Commission during the election campaign were actually beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and TV channels broadcasting illegal campaigning were not punishable.

Having accepted the case for consideration, that is, assuming that the elections were held in violation of the law, and the parliament was illegitimate, the Supreme Court surprised everyone. The act was taken as a challenge to the Kremlin: the court is in a hurry to show its defiance in response to recent proposals to form the highest judicial authority exclusively by senators and the president. The question remains: what will be enough of this rebelliousness. The optimists hoped, if not for the cancellation of the election results, then at least for a private determination against Putin, Veshnyakov, and the heads of TV channels - a recognition that they had violated the law, and instructions to take action. At the debate before the end of the process, the judge was promised a place in history if he showed courage.

And although at the beginning of the process, Judge Vladimir Zaytsev stated promisingly: “The Supreme Court does not play with anyone and does not participate in the show,” the case never went beyond the political show. The court outlined its position already in the first days: it refused to consider the issue of recognizing as illegal the inaction and evasion of decision-making by the Central Election Commission. That is, in principle, he did not want to judge the CEC for ignoring violations of the rules of pre-election campaigning. The Central Election Commission, for its part, refused to interfere in the campaigning activities of the media - it does not monitor television broadcasts, it considers possible violations only if complaints are received.

The judge offered to apply with this to the district court of Moscow - Tverskoy. “The Supreme Judiciary of Russia itself evaded making a decision on evading a decision by the Central Election Commission,” said Yabloko lawyer Vladimir Suvorov.

As a result, the Supreme Court ruled by calling only one witness out of more than a hundred proposed by the plaintiffs and denying most of the motions. We have summarized in a table the main demands of the plaintiffs and the reaction of the judge to them.

Even during the process, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against the supreme judge Vladimir Zaitsev with the High Qualifications Board of Judges - as "there are doubts about his impartiality." According to the complainants, the bias manifested itself even in the fact that the judge did not allow the plaintiffs to leave bags with transcripts (television transcripts), but allowed the CEC. The appeal has not yet been considered.

Within ten days after the final decision is made, a cassation appeal can be filed. This is a necessary procedure - only after it you can go to the European Court of Human Rights. Which, apparently, will be done.

APPLICANTS:

Massive violations of the procedure for informing voters had an unlawful impact on citizens and distorted their real will.

SUPREME COURT:

From 302 videocassettes (broadcast from September 2 to December 7, 2003) I watched one. I read the transcripts of the videos in only 11 days of broadcasting. He refused to subpoena the heads of state television channels: Oleg Dobrodeev, Konstantin Ernst; Vladislav Surkov, who was involved in the election campaign of United Russia; experts who conducted a study of the results of the influence of television campaigning on the voter.

APPLICANTS:

Voters were misled by knowingly providing false information: 37 regional heavyweight candidates knew in advance that the mandates would be abandoned. According to the expert's conclusion, S. Shoigu's statements of consent to become a deputy, and then the refusal were signed by different people.

SUPREME COURT:

He refused to call witnesses 37 "refuseniks" to give explanations.

He refused to attach to the case the expert's conclusion about the falsification of S. Shoigu's statement.

APPLICANTS:

In the protocols of 73 district election commissions (that is, almost a third of the total number), the control ratios do not match, that is, they contain errors. Extra 254,303 ballots were found, issued to no one knows.

SUPREME COURT:

Didn't include protocols.

He refused to conduct a random check of voter lists in precinct election commissions.