THE JURY HAS CONDITIONED

COURT YES CASE

Not every open letter, even if it is addressed to the President of Russia, is published in Novaya Gazeta. But it was signed by those whose civic position and fate are not indifferent to us: jurors of two collegiums of the Moscow City Court, who...

Not every open letter, even if it is addressed to the President of Russia, is published in Novaya Gazeta. But it was signed by those whose civic position and fate are not indifferent to us: the jury of two panels of the Moscow City Court, who are discouraged by the unmotivated annulment of their acquittal. You will learn the rest from the letter, which we are printing in an abridged form, given that the story of these jurors is already well known to regular readers of Novaya Novaya (see Novaya No. 82 and 92 for 2004, No. 9, 11 and 15 for 2005). ).

An open letter from the jury to the President of the Russian Federation VV Putin Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich!

Pain for Russian justice and fears for its fate make us resort to this last resort in the form of an open letter to the President of Russia.

We do not see any benefit in applying either to the Supreme Court, which, in our opinion, does not deserve respect in our history, or even to the prosecution authorities, which have discredited themselves in relations with us. We appeal to you as the guarantor of the Constitution, especially since you have proclaimed judicial reform as one of the main goals of your policy.

As jurors of the Moscow City Court, we experienced what it means to administer justice, to assess the guilt or innocence of the defendants. We have fulfilled our constitutional duty. But our verdict, as we believe, was overturned without any grounds in the Supreme Court, and the people acquitted by us were again taken into custody under circumstances that cause us ambiguous feelings in relation to the prosecutor's office and, unfortunately, to the court.

We are two panels of jurors who consecutively considered the same case in the Moscow City Court on charges of economic crimes against two businessmen. Both panels concluded that the defendants were innocent. Moreover, for ourselves, we concluded that the criminal case was inspired by their competitors, and the Investigative Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the prosecutor's office of the city of Moscow, for reasons that were not within our competence as a jury, went on about the offshore company acting as a civil plaintiff . (Details in the above issues of "New". - Ed.).

The first jury was dissolved, as it seems to us, under an artificially created pretext, three days before the verdict was delivered. Before that, an attempt was made to bribe the jury to reach a guilty verdict - we testified about this in the prosecutor's office. After the verdict of not guilty, handed down by the second board in February 2005, the prosecutor's office organized criminal prosecution against us and discredited us on Central Television and in the newspapers. The meeting of the two collegiums, which we held eight days after the verdict was delivered on our own initiative, in order to get to know each other better and share our experience in the administration of justice, was rushed by a task force that filmed us on a video camera. This record, violating our constitutional right to privacy, was transferred to the media by someone, and the prosecutor, who spoke to the media at the same time, commenting on the record, called us, in fact, bribed ignoramuses, in fact, cattle. She believes that "Russia has not grown up to a jury trial", and this is her business. But there's the Constitution, and there's us jurors who don't think so.

Explain to us, dear Mr. President, why this prosecutor was not dismissed from the prosecutor's office after she stated in the media that "the jury acquitted the smugglers"? Does the prosecutor's office decide the question of guilt and innocence? Why, then, did we delve into all the details of this case for several months, why did we vote for the verdict?

After the verdict of acquittal, the jury of the second panel began to be summoned to the Moscow prosecutor's office and interrogated about what we discussed in the deliberation room. We, the judges, were rude by the investigators, intimidating and confusing us. We understood that this was contrary to the foundations of justice, but we testified in good faith. None of us, who delivered a unanimous acquittal, testified to any pressure. We answered all the questions we were asked. There were no signs of pressure or bribery against us by the prosecutor's office.

For the fact that we honestly fulfilled our constitutional duty, we were persecuted, humiliated, slandered on television and in newspapers. We did not demand that prosecutors and investigators be held accountable, believing that we had already done the main thing: we delivered an honest and fair verdict, acquitted the innocent. One of them was released in the courtroom, the second remained to serve his sentence for a scuffle in a pre-trial detention center with an investigator until July 30, 2005.

On July 22, the Supreme Court overturned our acquittal. We do not know on what basis the decision was made, since the attempts of the prosecutor's office to detect "pressure" did not lead to any results. As they explained to us, the verdict was canceled due to the fact that the lawyer “discredited the prosecution” during the trial. Mr. President, this is some kind of nonsense. The prosecution discredited itself by failing this very strange case and trying to bribe the first jury to reach a guilty verdict.

On July 29, the day before the release of the second defendant, realizing that all the terms of his imprisonment had expired, Judge Natalya Olikhver, already the third person to whom this case was entrusted in the Moscow City Court, scheduled an emergency hearing and arrested the person who was acquitted by us, who has been in the pre-trial detention center for six years , for the period of consideration of the case with the third jury. The second acquitted man, released by our verdict, was also taken into custody, although he did not try to hide from justice anywhere and came to all court sessions in the Supreme and Moscow City Courts.

We took this action of Judge Olikhver as her groveling before the prosecutor's office and as a mockery of justice and of each of us personally. It seems to us that this is a blow to the prestige of the court, to faith in the Russian Constitution and democracy, and to the authority of the state. If we have to tell about this story in the European Court of Human Rights, then we, the citizens of Russia, will be very ashamed of our fatherland.

We have reason not to believe Judge Natalia Olikhver. But, on the other hand, she was appointed to her position by you personally. We consider it our duty to go in turn to open court hearings in order to personally see how justice is administered in this case, which has become ours. We urge our colleagues, other former as well as future jurors to do the same, which, according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, any honest citizen can become.

Mr President, we don't know who else to turn to. Alas, based on our personal experience, we have come to the conclusion that there is no court in Russia and the Constitution is also in question. And you say that judicial reform has taken place. There were twenty-three of us, the jurors who delivered, in fact, two acquittals, minus those who betrayed the idea of ​​justice, but this letter has already been signed by only twelve. Some of us no longer believe in the possibility of finding the truth, but on the other hand, we all understand that the signing and publication of this letter can lead to trouble for us, which we all have already experienced. We will be glad if you manage to dissuade us.

Elena DENISOVA, economist; BARABANOVA Lyudmila, bibliographer; Natalenko Anna, dressmaker; Yegorova Irina, supplier; VASILKINA Elena, teacher; Fedorov Alexander, teacher; Marina KAKALASHVILI, entrepreneur; DANILOV Yevgeny, mechanic; Nadezhda OVSOVA, retired; Alexander TSARKOV, fashion designer; LEVITSKY Yevgeny, repair master; Yevdokimova Iraida, retired

PS On August 31, a press conference of jurors in defense of Russian justice was held in Moscow. It was held with the support of the Moscow Helsinki Group. Its chairman, Lyudmila Alekseeva, drew attention to the fact that the feelings expressed in the “open letter” are shared by many hundreds of other jurors, whose acquittals, handed down in courts in various regions of Russia, are also overturned without clear arguments. Lyudmila Alekseeva, as well as Karinna Moskalenko, head of the Center for Assistance to International Protection, who joined the "jury case" as one of the lawyers for the defendants, and other human rights activists called on everyone who was or could become a juror to morally and financially support the movement "juries for the protection of justice ". "New" joins this initiative. We will inform you about the account number for jury support after it is opened.