Translated material
Madness of the Brave
The Constitutional Court protected the defendants from psychiatrists
The Constitutional Court (CC) of the Russian Federation yesterday recognized that the norms of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code violate the rights of citizens recognized as mentally ill. Until now, they could not represent their own interests in the courts, effectively depriving them of the right to defense, and they could not even appeal the decision made to declare them insane. Human rights activists called the decision of the Constitutional Court, which essentially redrawn the entire chapter of the Code of Criminal Procedure governing legal proceedings on the application of compulsory medical measures, revolutionary. From now on, they are sure, cases where people diagnosed with a mental disorder were actually deprived of all rights and could do whatever they wanted with them or with their property, if they do not disappear completely, then at least will be significantly reduced.As the Vremya Novostei newspaper has already reported , three citizens applied to the Constitutional Court to protect their rights - Olga Lobashova, Sergei Ablamsky and Vladislav Matveev. Compulsory medical measures were applied to all three by court decisions at different times. Thus, Sergei Ablamsky was accused of libel, and the Soviet court of Bryansk sent him to a psychiatric hospital in the city for a forensic psychiatric examination. He was denied consideration of the complaints because “he needs compulsory treatment and therefore does not have the right to personally challenge the court’s decisions.” Olga Lobashova, accused of using violence against a government official, was forced by a decision of the Leninsky District Court of Yaroslavl “to be observed by a psychiatrist in a psychiatric dispensary.” All complaints were returned to her with the reference that, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, “she is not one of the persons who has the right to appeal court decisions and file petitions.” Vladislav Matveev also turned out to be guilty of using violence against a government official, and the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Novosibirsk forced him to be observed “by a psychiatrist at his place of residence.” He too was denied consideration of the complaint, since “the Code of Criminal Procedure gives the right to appeal such decisions only to the defense lawyer, legal representative or close relative of the person against whom the criminal case was considered, and the prosecutor.”
In connection with the failures that befell them, the applicants challenged in the Constitutional Court a number of provisions of Chapter 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure “Proceedings on the application of compulsory measures of a medical nature.” Namely, Articles 433-3 (grounds for proceedings on the application of compulsory medical measures), 437 and 438 (participation of a legal representative and defense attorney), 439-3, 439-6 (end of the preliminary investigation), 441-1 (trial proceedings), 444 (procedure for appealing a court decision) and 445-1 (termination, modification and extension of the application of compulsory medical measures ). These articles, the applicants are sure, violate the provisions of the Constitution (Article 19, Part 2 of Article 45, Part 1 of Article 46, Part 3 of Article 45) that everyone is equal before the law and the court, that everyone has the right to defend their rights and freedoms, that everyone is guaranteed judicial protection of their rights and freedoms, that the rights and freedoms of man and citizen can be limited by federal law only to the extent necessary in order to protect the foundations of the constitutional system, morality, health, rights and legal interests of other persons, ensuring the defense of the country and state security.
In other words, it is enough just to obtain a psychiatrist’s conclusion that a person has a mental illness, and he is automatically deprived of the right to familiarize himself with the materials of his criminal case, participate in a court hearing during its consideration, file petitions, initiate consideration of the issue of changing and terminating the use of compulsory medical measures and appeal procedural decisions taken in the case.
What this can lead to was clearly demonstrated by the case of Muscovite Alla Petrova, who yesterday specially came to the Constitutional Court to hear its decision. “Last December, three police officers from the Vykhino police station came to my apartment and said that I should go with them to psychiatric hospital No. 13. I couldn’t resist them, and I had to submit,” she told Vremya Novostey. “The hospital didn’t explain anything to me either, because it was the weekend and the doctors were on vacation. There they announced to me that there was a court decision against me to apply compulsory medical measures. What kind of decision, when it was made and by whom, I found out only a few days later.”
Alla Petrova was lucky - since she is actively involved in social activities, her placement in the clinic caused a wave of indignation, and the doctors were forced to let her go. Then it turned out that several months before, in July, the police collected information that Ms. Petrova was allegedly walking down the street naked (the woman was visiting a friend abroad at that time), and in August, while she was tending to her garden at a dacha near Moscow, the Kuzminsky District Court decided to place her in a psychiatric hospital. “And all this time I had no idea about anything!” - Mrs. Petrova was indignant.
The Constitutional Court, recognizing that the applicants were right, justified its decision as follows. The court pointed to international legislation, which, in the absence of regulation of certain provisions by Russian laws, prevails over them. In particular, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that everyone has the right, in any criminal charge brought against him, to be tried in his presence and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing. This provision is also enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. “The Principles for the Protection of Mentally Ill Persons and the Improvement of Mental Health Care (adopted in December 1991 by a resolution of the UN General Assembly) provide for the right of any mentally ill person to the enjoyment of all internationally recognized civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights and expressly indicate the inadmissibility of any or discrimination,” says the Constitutional Court decision. PACE also issued several recommendations regarding the legal protection of mental patients. Actually, the Russian law “On psychiatric care and guarantees of the rights of citizens during its provision” states that “those suffering from mental disorders have all rights and freedoms.” And the European Court of Human Rights in the case “Romanov v. Russia” indicated that the presence of the applicant at the court hearing is “a necessary condition so that the judge can personally verify his mental state and make a fair decision.” “The absence in the field of criminal proceedings of direct regulations regarding the rights granted to persons suffering from mental disorders allows the law enforcement officer to interpret the norms of Chapter 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as not requiring the obligatory consideration of the actual ability of the person to personally participate in the proceedings and independently carry out actions aimed at protecting their interests.” , concluded the KS.
“Soviet criminal practice, when a person was declared insane and he was automatically deprived of all rights, flowed into Russian legislation. Now this has been cancelled,” said Alexander Priyatelchuk, a member of the Civil Commission on Human Rights of Russia and the CIS, who participated in the CC meeting. His colleague, Sofya Dorinskaya, herself a psychiatrist by training, added: “This is a revolutionary decision, it puts Russia on a par with other democratic states. Psychiatrists slandered people, deprived them of their rights, and now these rights have been returned to them.”