Blind and "consonant"

A blind and disabled person was registered as a violent oppositionist on his way to the theater.

As Vremya Novostei learned, the Moscow City Court recently received an unprecedented complaint of its kind. Formally, its essence is simple. The author of the application, a student from Domodedovo near Moscow Artem Buzenkov, asks that the decisions of the world court and the Tverskoy district court of Moscow, which imposed a fine of 500 rubles on him, be declared illegal. for participating in an unauthorized “march of dissent.” This, perhaps, would not be surprising if not for one circumstance - Artem Buzenkov is a visually impaired person of the 1st group, that is, simply blind. According to him, on December 14 last year he was not going to any “march”, but was going to the Satire Theater, but instead of a performance, he first ended up in the police custody, and then on trial.

Now Artem Buzenkov wants to prove that he is not to blame for the fact that he unwittingly ended up in the center of Moscow on that day and hour when the police dispersed “dissenters” there; that he could not see what was happening around him - neither the protesters nor the police; that he resisted when they twisted him and dragged him into the car, not at all because he did not want to obey, but because he did not know who attacked him; that the police “didn’t notice” that he had a white cane in his hands - an identifying sign of blind people. The blind student did not see the reports about the alleged offense he had committed, which the police handed to him and under which he signed, did not see the subpoenas and was only surprised at the strange questions from the judge about how he, a blind man, could go to the theater. Perhaps the judge could not imagine how a blind person could listen to the performance, but he perfectly imagined how a blind person could go to unauthorized rallies, shout anti-government slogans and fight with the police.

Mr. Buzenkov's misadventures clearly demonstrated that, despite discussions on the topic of caring for people with disabilities, Russian legislation still considers them “equal” to all other members of society, and therefore does not provide them with any additional guarantees in respect of their fundamental rights. And if minors cannot be interrogated in the absence of teachers and lawyers, in order to exclude any possibility of putting pressure on an immature person, if foreigners must be provided with the services of an interpreter so that they understand the meaning of the questions asked and the protocols drawn up, then no one will compensate for their shortcomings for citizens with disabilities obliged.

International law proceeds from the fact that a person who cannot adequately defend himself in a particular situation must be provided with qualified legal assistance. The Constitution also guarantees the right to provide such assistance to everyone and even states that every detainee has the right to have the assistance of a lawyer from the moment of detention. But neither the police nor the court were guided by these norms in the case of Mr. Buzenkov, since they, apparently, are too abstract for them, are not spelled out in procedural laws, and therefore are not mandatory.

24-year-old student Artem Buzenkov lives in Domodedovo, studies and works as a massage therapist. He said that he visits Moscow often, knows his way around the city well, despite his illness, and moves independently along familiar routes. He even decided to create a special website on the Internet that would help blind people navigate the metro and the surrounding areas of metro stations.

Artem Buzenkov says he has not heard anything about the intentions of the “dissenters” to hold a rally on December 14 on Triumfalnaya Square and the authorities’ promises to “toughly, but within the law” to suppress such attempts. And that day he was going to the Satire Theater to listen to a play, however, leaving the metro at the Mayakovskaya station, he unexpectedly found himself in a strong crush. “The police shouted something into megaphones, people answered them: “Shame!” recalls Artem. - I can hardly see, I walk with a white cane. It was not clear to me what was happening there, and I stopped to understand the situation.” He says that everyone around was shouting and pushing, and a man moved a helpless young man to a pole so that he would not be knocked down. And some woman began to explain what was happening around, that the police were grabbing people and taking them to cars. Then the stampede began again. Suddenly someone started putting Artem’s hands behind his back. “Without having time to take even two steps, I found myself twisted, I tried to straighten up, but to no avail, then it turned out that the riot police regarded my actions as an attempt at resistance. In response to my cries that I was disabled and requests to be let go, they simply threw me down the steps and I was badly hurt. Then, taking me by the arms and legs, they threw me into the car and took me to the police station,” said the young man.

According to him, he spent about five hours at the Krasnoselskoye police station, where the hospitable hosts invited a blind person to sit on a “pink chair” (obviously, the guards of law and order found it funny). OMON officer Boytsov wrote a report, according to which the district police officer Belenky drew up a protocol on an administrative offense under Part 2 of Article 20.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses: “violation of the established procedure for holding a meeting, rally, demonstration, procession or picketing,” namely participation in an unauthorized rally. Only then could Artyom only guess about this - he was simply handed some papers, which he was told to sign, adding that then he would have to come to court, but they did not say when exactly.

The court summons arrived in February, and it stated that the hearing would take place on December 16. Following the summons, came the decision of the magistrate of precinct No. 423 Zaitseva to find Artem Buzenkov guilty of an administrative offense and to impose a fine on him in the amount of 500 rubles.

And then the young man decided to prove that he had not committed any offenses, he had nothing to be punished for, and wrote a complaint to the Tverskoy court, demanding that the decision of the magistrate be canceled. “I am a visually impaired person of the first group, I see absolutely nothing and use a special cane. The police officers grabbed me, without explaining anything, put me in a car and took me to the police station. After about five hours they began to give me papers to sign. “I cannot read on my own, and the police officers did not properly explain to me the documents that they gave me to sign,” the young man wrote in his complaint. - Only Art. was explained to me. 51 of the Constitution that I have the right not to testify against myself. The meaning of the other documents I signed was not explained to me, and due to blindness I did not understand what I was signing.” He also complained that the trial was held without his participation and thus he was deprived of any right to defense: “There is no evidence of my guilt in the case materials, I myself do not fully admit my guilt, since at the time of the rally I did not participate in it, but just happened to leave the subway just at the moment when the police were detaining the protesters. And the police officers did not react in any way to my explanations that I was blind.”

A review of Buzenkov's case was scheduled for March 2. But the judge of the Tverskoy court, Neverova, did not believe the blind student. Artem retells the questions she asked him: how were you going to buy tickets if you wrote in the complaint that you couldn’t read? what will you do in the theater if you can't see? Both the tone and content of the questions seemed offensive to the young man; he decided that the judge doubted his mental abilities. The meeting was postponed twice - they were waiting for the riot police to deign to come and detain the student. The hearing took place on March 13. Artem was already there with a lawyer and a support group from the public movement of disabled people “Our Right”.

The judge read out the materials of the case, from which it followed that Buzenkov “took part in an unauthorized rally “march of dissent”, shouted slogans aimed at undermining the state system and interfered with the passage of citizens.” They also stated the time and place of the trial and bore Buzenkov’s signature.

In response, the student talked about how he went to the theater and ended up in the police station. Riot police officer Boytsov reported to Judge Neverova that on December 14, on Triumfalnaya Square, everyone who was caught in the cordon, including Buzenkov, was detained. True, Boytsov did not very clearly describe the principle of operation of the cordon - at first it seemed to be “not continuous”, and random people could pass through it (that is, it turns out that it was not a cordon as such), but then it was made “solid” , after which the command to detain was received. As the policeman admitted, they did not find any anti-government propaganda materials on the young man, but stated that he refused to obey the lawful demands of the police and resisted during the arrest, and he allegedly did not notice the white cane in Buzenkov’s hands.

Lawyer Elizaveta Prikhodina drew the court's attention to the fact that the young man was actually deprived of the right to defense. Thus, she stated that Magistrate Zaitseva, when making her decision, relied only on the written testimony of the police officers, and did not even want to listen to the accused himself. “As a person with disabilities, Buzenkov has the right to count on the fact that the police officers, and especially the magistrate, will take this into account and ensure the implementation of his legal rights,” the lawyer said. “Buzenkov is personally charged with a certain general charge, they say, he chanted slogans and interfered with the passage of citizens and the passage of vehicles, although it is obvious that this can only be done collectively, and even chanting slogans individually is the inalienable right of every citizen.”

Ms. Prikhodina also noted that it was absurd to accuse her client of allegedly “independently assessing the ban of the deputy prefect of the Central Administrative District on holding a rally on Triumfalnaya Square, not finding out the legality of the public event being held and taking part in it, thereby committing an unlawful act " According to the lawyer, Buzenkov could not have known about such a document, especially since it was not in the case file. In the same way, she believes, there was no participation in the unauthorized rally, if only because the rally itself did not take place, since the attempt to hold it was stopped.

But the Tver court left the blind man’s complaint unsatisfied. Buzenkov violated the established procedure for holding a meeting by taking part in it, judge Neverova decided, and since the case file contains a receipt from the blind man about his notification of the date of consideration of the case by the magistrate, then no rights were violated in this part.

“When signing this notice, Buzenkov did not include information that the text of this obligation was not read out to him, due to the fact that Buzenkov is visually impaired,” the Tverskoy court’s decision stated. The fact that his signature also appeared on written explanations of his rights, including the right to receive legal assistance from a defense attorney, also played against the young man.

The public movement of disabled people “Our Right” expressed its attitude to this process from the point of view of the rights of people with disabilities. “We are not going to declare the guilt or innocence of this or that person, because this is a matter for the court, and we do not have the right to arrogate the competence of the judiciary. We also do not claim that disability gives a person even the slightest reason to break the law or evade responsibility for violating it,” the movement said in a statement. “However, in the process of investigation and legal proceedings there must be firm rules that completely exclude the slightest possibility of infringement of human rights due to disability, and law enforcement and judicial officials must have special instructions regarding disabled people of various categories.” In particular, according to the Our Right movement, law enforcement officers must not only introduce themselves to blind citizens, but also “provide evidence that their oral representation is not false.” In addition, “Our Law” believes that “the signature of a person who is unable to physically familiarize himself with the document being signed without outside help cannot have legal force without the signature of another person certifying the fact of full reading (reading aloud) of the document being signed.”

“Judicial officials should keep in mind that while ensuring accessibility in accordance with Art. 15 and 16 of the federal law “On social protection of people with disabilities in the Russian Federation”, as well as in accordance with the letter and spirit of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to which Russia has signed, people with disabilities will increasingly participate actively in cultural, social and political life, in including visiting theaters, exhibitions, museums, sporting events and other public events,” the statement said. -- And if in a number of countries law enforcement officers are required, for example, to know about 40 words in sign language, then in Russia, which is preparing to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, there must be precise, clear and understandable instructions on the interaction of law enforcement officers with a variety of categories of disabled people. We hope that thanks to the joint efforts of public, law enforcement organizations and judicial and law enforcement agencies, the facts of arbitrariness and inappropriate behavior towards people with disabilities will be reduced to zero.”

The Institute of State and Law (IGP) of the Russian Academy of Sciences told Vremya Novostey that the political rights of people with disabilities, relating, in particular, to issues of detention, investigative actions and trial, are enshrined only in international norms and the Constitution, but are not regulated in detail in codes, for example, in the same Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure or Code of Administrative Offences. “The principles of international law stipulate that in situations where a person cannot adequately defend his rights, he is obliged to provide qualified legal assistance,” said IGP leading researcher Natalya Kolotova. - The right to defense is also enshrined in the Constitution. However, there are no specific norms in relation to people with disabilities in procedural laws.”

Ekaterina BUTORINA, Ruslan GIRFANOV