Incompetent authorities

Deputies decided to limit the use of jury trials

Last Friday, the State Duma adopted in the first reading a bill that would significantly limit the operation of jury trials. Now they can consider almost all criminal cases of grave and especially grave crimes, within the jurisdiction of the courts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation - regional, republican and regional. Now, from their competence, legislators intend to remove criminal cases relating to almost one and a half dozen crimes - terrorism, hostage-taking, organizing illegal armed groups, organizing mass riots, high treason, espionage, violent seizure of power, armed rebellion and sabotage. And from now on, it is proposed to consider such cases without involving the “court of the people”, with the participation of only professional judges.

Formally, the authors of the bill explained their initiative by improving legislation “on issues of countering terrorism.” The bill actually also envisages toughening penalties for crimes related to terrorism. However, as many lawyers have noted, this is, apparently, nothing more than a cover for much deeper and more fundamental legal innovations, which is what the limitation of the jury trial seems to be. This method of dispensing justice throughout the world is considered one of the integral attributes of democracy - it is no coincidence that it is often called the “court of the people”, and accordingly, many human rights activists and independent lawyers immediately started talking about the open attack of the Russian authorities on democratic values ​​and on the right of citizens to access to fair justice. The real reason for the emergence of such an initiative was considered by many to be the general dissatisfaction of the security forces with the result of the work of jury trials, which are much less likely than “ordinary” courts to issue guilty verdicts, thereby demonstrating the poor work of the special services and the investigation.

It is characteristic that although this bill was successfully passed on Friday by a majority of votes in the first reading, even during its discussion in the State Duma itself, severe criticism was voiced against it, which has been quite rare lately. And the authors of the bill themselves were unable to clearly explain its expediency. Moreover, experts regarded many of their arguments as an outright distortion of facts and a distortion of the true state of affairs both in Russia and in world legal practice.

This bill, as often happens recently, was prepared in record time - in just a month. Its authors were members of United Russia, head of the Duma Security Committee Vladimir Vasiliev and his deputy Mikhail Grishankov. Presenting the project to his colleagues, Mr. Vasiliev admitted that “this is not an elegant formula” and “seemingly not a liberal measure,” but he insistently asked to vote for it as a very “necessary” one.

Mr. Vasiliev explained the need for this measure by the fact that it is “dictated by the growing terrorist threat to society” and that terrorists, because of juries in Russia, too often, in his opinion, do not get what they deserve. According to the deputy, jury trials of cases involving crimes that involve mass deaths of people “often led to lenient and even acquittal verdicts for obviously serious crimes due to the jury’s fear for their lives or the presence of family ties to the defendant.” This problem, as Mr. Vasiliev noted, is especially relevant for the North Caucasus, where in some places up to 80% of the population are relatives and people with teip connections, from whom the jury has to be selected. Thus, he cited data that from 2005 to 2007 in Dagestan and Kabardino-Balkaria, out of 26 verdicts by juries, in 12 cases acquittals were made, although they were “committing serious crimes, including murders.” The deputy also cited as justification for such an initiative the fact that cases involving the mentioned “terrorist” crimes “are not tried by jury courts anywhere in the world.” It was therefore proposed that henceforth such cases could only be heard by panels of three professional judges.

Companions of Messrs. Vasilyeva and Grishankova supported this initiative, ensuring its adoption, noting that in this case “the law does not imply a violation of democracy or some kind of constitutional retreat.” But other deputies spoke very harshly. A Just Russia representative, Elena Mizulina, compared the bill to a mousetrap, “where the term ‘fight against terrorism’ is used as cheese,” into which “a lot of people could get caught,” since we are talking not only about terrorism, but also about other crimes—in total 14, including about mass riots. “That is, the leadership of any political party can be held accountable if someone, for example, breaks a window,” she noted. “Our people are not afraid. to participate in trials, they want a fair trial.” Representative of the LDPR faction Sergei Ivanov expressed concern that the refusal of jury trials and transfer of cases to a panel of three judges could result in the notorious “extraordinary troikas.” Representative of the Communist Party faction in the State Duma Sergei Reshulsky. expressed surprise that the relevant committee in the draft resolution limited the period for submission of amendments to the second reading to only three days, the first deputy leader of the A Just Russia faction, Gennady Gudkov, called the bill “harmful.” “The investigation is being conducted today so poorly, and often in a biased manner, that this does not convince the jurors of the fairness of the decisions made,” he noted. “By refusing a jury trial, we are actually admitting that we cannot organize an objective competition between the prosecution and the prosecution in court.” protection."

However, none of the deputies decided to analyze the arguments of the authors of the bill point by point, although, as many experts noted, they can be seen as egregious from a legal point of view. For example, even without being a lawyer, one can note that complaints that juries too often acquit those accused of “knowingly serious crimes” are, in fact, nothing more than a violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence. According to the Constitution and generally according to the canons of world law, no one can be recognized as a criminal except by a court decision. In this case, it turns out that the authors of the bill took it upon themselves to name the criminals themselves and determine which of them was convicted or acquitted “rightly or wrongly.” In addition, at the very least, it is an obvious misconception to say that “nowhere in the world” do jury trials try cases of terrorism, hostage-taking or riots. Well-known lawyers interviewed by Vremya Novostei unanimously noted these inconsistencies.

Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation Vladimir Lukin:

- Regarding the fact that allegedly nowhere in the world the crimes discussed in the bill are considered by jury trials, this is not true. As far as I know, only Spain and Ireland introduced some restrictions in this regard. However, this is not the main thing. First, the point of the legislation is that the greater the severity of the crime, the more severe the sentence the defendant faces, the more protection systems he must have. And this initiative turns everything on its head. The fate of those accused of such serious charges will be in the hands of a panel of three people, and their conviction rate is significantly higher than that of a jury. All this brings back unpleasant associations with the notorious Stalinist “troikas”. Secondly, it is not clear why it was necessary to pass this law now? In the early 90s, the situation in the country was much more difficult. Now the situation in all areas is more prosperous, so why change anything? This is a serious retreat, especially in the context of what Dmitry Medvedev recently said about the need to liberalize the judicial system. I urge all MPs to think carefully again.

Chairman of the Moscow Helsinki Group Lyudmila Alekseeva:

- One has to ask the question: why was it necessary to pass this law now? The fight against terrorism is, in fact, just an excuse to take away important cases related to crimes against the state from the jury, and leave them with only “everyday affairs”. In addition, the list of articles mentioned in the law also included an article on mass riots. What does it have to do with terrorism? The authorities are simply afraid that because of the financial crisis, people may take to the streets and unrest and riots will begin. This is precisely why it is being adopted so hastily. The idea that there is nothing like this “nowhere in the world” is nonsense. In the United States, 95% of all criminal and civil cases are tried by jury, including espionage cases. If the jury acquits those who actually committed a crime, it is only because the investigative authorities simply cannot prove their guilt. Here questions should only be addressed to them. And the jury, unlike the judge, evaluates the picture not based on the investigator’s papers. And if the evidence of guilt is doubtful, then how can a person be punished? In recent years, ordinary courts have handed down an average of 0.1% acquittals, while in jury courts this figure is tens of times higher. By the way, in countries with normal justice this figure is 12-15%, and no one there makes a tragedy out of this. To ensure the independence of the jury, the law provides for a simple measure - moving it to another region. Moreover, the law says that if a convincing composition of the court cannot be formed, such a transfer is necessary.

Lawyer Heinrich Padva:

- Jury trials have so far remained the fairest in our country. They are more difficult to influence; you cannot put pressure on everyone at once; they are more difficult to bribe. And not everyone likes this. Laws cannot be passed that make the situation worse for suspects. This deprives a person of the right to a fair trial, enshrined in the Basic Law of the country. Thus, the introduction of such restrictions is contrary to the Constitution. Opponents are being disingenuous when they say that jury trials are too often acquitted compared to cases heard by ordinary federal judges. Convictions handed down by federal judges are overturned significantly more often than those based on jury verdicts. It is very difficult to restore order in the system; it is much easier to tighten measures. So they found the easiest way.

Former Prosecutor General Yuri Skuratov:

- This is stupidity. How will they be abolished? After all, then it will be necessary to change the Constitution in terms of human rights. And this is not possible yet. Therefore, I think that nothing will work out for them. I don’t know why there is so much attention on jury trials, since they were only recently introduced. How much effort was spent on this, so why abolish it. I think this is some kind of gamble. The deputies probably simply have nothing to do. It would be better to make the investigation system work. On the contrary, it is necessary to look at the mistakes of the investigation, and the court - at least as a last resort - can reveal them. This reform is far-fetched and, I believe, misses the mark.

Lawyer Yuri Bagraev:

- I think this is a violation of the Constitution. A person has the right in certain situations to have his or her criminal case tried by a jury. You can, of course, find a million reasons why this institute is not working well so far. But nevertheless, the principle itself, which exists throughout the world, should also exist in our country. Even if there is a process of acquittals by the jury, this does not mean that they acquit the guilty. All over the world, the percentage of acquittals by jury trials is about 10-12%, but in our country sometimes it’s not even 1%. And, by the way, our investigation is not of such high quality, so a not guilty verdict does not mean that the guilty person has been acquitted. I also have a complex attitude towards jury trials, there really is a lot of subjectivity, but there is the concept of legality, and there is the concept of justice, and these concepts do not always coincide.”

Alexey GRISHIN, Anatoly KARAVAEV, Ekaterina KARACHEVA, Eduard LOMOVTSEV