New Year's compromising evidence

The Prosecutor General's Office is completing an inspection of its Investigative Committee

Already this week, as Vremya Novostei learned, the Prosecutor General's Office plans to complete an inspection of the recently formed new department - the Investigative Committee under the Prosecutor's Office (ICP), which became known two weeks ago . According to available information, the audit materials must be received from the regional and specialized divisions of the department directly to the Prosecutor General’s Office for analysis and synthesis no later than December 28. At least, such instructions were given to the employees who actually carried out the inspection of the UPC units. Thus, 2008 for the Russian security forces will most likely begin with another scandal surrounding the publication of the results of this audit.

It is expected that the official results of the prosecutor's audit of the UPC will be announced at the board of the Prosecutor General's Office based on the results of work in the past year, which is usually held at the end of January. However, it is possible that “leaks” on this matter may follow already in the first working days after the holiday holidays.

The SKP was formed as a result of changes in the criminal procedural legislation made in the summer of 2007 on the basis of the investigative units of the prosecutor's office. Despite the name, the SKP has actually become an independent department. At the same time, the prosecutor's office as a government agency lost many of its previous powers, including, to a large extent, supervision over the investigation of criminal cases. Representatives of the Prosecutor General's Office were initially against this reform, saying that it would lead to massive violations of the law and the rights of citizens. But they could not convince the country’s leadership that they were right, and the UPC began work on September 7. Thus, the relationship between the Prosecutor General’s Office and the UPC, by definition, turned out to be “unfriendly.” Then the two departments, according to unofficial data, fiercely divided premises, personnel and funding. When the SKP finally started working, prosecutorial departments began accusing each other of bias and violations of the law when investigating scandalous criminal cases. Obviously, against this background, the inspection of the UPC, initiated by the leadership of the Prosecutor General’s Office, did not promise anything good and, as many observers noted, was most likely aimed at “visually” confirming the opinion that the reform was “harmful.”

According to some information, the Prosecutor General’s Office two weeks ago sent all its departments “assignments” on five pages, which set out point by point in great detail what violations should be looked for in the UPC. The main areas for audit were the state of supervision over the implementation of legislation regulating the reception, registration and resolution of reports of crimes in the UPC, as well as compliance with the constitutional rights of citizens ensuring access to justice; the state of prosecutorial supervision over the procedural activities of the Investigative Committee at the stage of preliminary investigation, including the legality of the detention of citizens and criminal prosecution; the state of prosecutorial supervision over the implementation of laws on criminal prosecution, exposing persons guilty of committing a crime (how departmental control and prosecutorial supervision in this area are organized); the state of supervision at the stage of approving the indictment in criminal cases (it should be separately indicated whether there are cases of cancellation by the heads of the UPC of the decisions of prosecutors made by them in criminal cases, if so, then indicate the reasons and grounds); consideration of prosecutorial complaints and citizens' appeals on issues of criminal proceedings.

The Prosecutor General's Office also became interested in the personnel composition of the UPC. Now personnel officers are finishing a careful study of the personal files of the investigators - checking where they were transferred from, whether applications for transfer from one department to another were completed correctly, whether the investigators have a legal education, etc. If it turns out that the SKP employees were registered in violation of the requirements necessary for specialists of this level, the Prosecutor General’s Office will submit a proposal to deprive them of their investigator status and punish the management team. If violations of the law are revealed in the performance of their official duties by both investigators of the Investigative Committee and their leaders, the Prosecutor General’s Office also reserves the right to report this to other departments in order to make decisions on bringing them to criminal responsibility.

“In fact, this check is just a frightening maneuver,” said the newspaper’s source in one of the prosecutor’s departments. - It was invented in connection with the growing confrontation between the leaders of two powerful structures that have certain powers. In the current situation, no one wants to agree to reconciliation. The command was given “from above” to find compromising evidence on the UPC in order to convince the country’s leadership of the incapacity of the newly created department. Considering the tasks assigned to the inspectors, it is practically impossible for them not to find violations. Moreover, the UPC has only been operating for three months and is not even fully staffed yet.”

However, as observers believe, the audit is unlikely to lead to real revelations and criminal cases. After all, the prosecutor’s office itself no longer has the right to prosecute anyone. According to the law, she must report violations to the same SKP, since no one else can initiate criminal cases against its employees. The UPC, most likely, will not agree with the claims of the Prosecutor General’s Office, and therefore, most likely, everything will be limited to just a public squabble between the two departments. This, in turn, threatens to escalate the ongoing “special services war.” However, it is unlikely to lead to a weakening of the position of the UPC at this stage - after all, the head of this department, Alexander Bastrykin, is known as one of Vladimir Putin’s associates, with whom he studied at Leningrad University.

Ekaterina KARACHEVA, Victor PAUKOV