A boy with a bright gaze

The memoirs of Svetlana Gannushkina ("Memorial") from the collection "Nobody except me: Stanislav Markelov", which Stas's friends prepare for the publication.

I can’t say that we somehow met on purpose. A boy with a “tail” was running along the “memorial” and was called Stas. This is the first memory. A boy with a bright gaze. And he behaved completely like a boy who can be sent somewhere, ask for something. It was completely normal. Because everyone around was adults, and he was not quite. Then from some moment they began to ask him: "Stas, go here and tell me as a lawyer." I then realized that Stas Markelov is a lawyer, that he is studying at the Faculty of Law. Then there was some kind of failure in a relationship, I do not remember him. In the late 90s, he already appears in my memory as a lawyer. Stas replaced a long sweater with a jacket, a tail - to a neat hairstyle, and began to look very respectable and perceived by all as a lawyer.

He came to me, probably in 2001. And he said that he wanted to help a public organization. He brought a book where it was written about him that he was a famous lawyer, won some high-profile affairs, I don’t remember which ones. There was a book where it was written that the famous lawyer Markelov participated in the case.

I looked at him with a look of an elderly aunt and said: "What are they writing about you -" Famous Lawyer "?" Probably, in these words it was heard: "You still have no milk on the lips." He was unhappy, but friendly enough. And he began to tell me about the “Krasnodar business” (about the alleged attempt on the governor of the Krasnodar Territory Nikolai Kondratenko. - Ed.), Which he achieved incredible results there, and how I do not understand that he is a really famous lawyer. I say: "Well."

And at that time in the Tver region there was a story with a young man, a Chechen. He studied a legal specialty in the evening department and lived there with his parents. He was detained. As usual, Chechens are detained in Russia - just in case. The Chechens was detained, and a long-free story began, which was associated with extortion, with the initiation of a criminal case against him. Apparently, they first wanted to get money from him, but did not receive. Then, also according to the standard, he was already accused of the fact that he somehow had a core with police officers. And it could end poorly. The criminal case was instituted, he was called, and all this lasted a very long time. Our local consultant lawyer could really do nothing either and was pulling time.

I told Markelov: "Here, please, is it a thing, what can be done here?" Stas went there and returned just a few days later with the decision to terminate the criminal case. That was the result. He achieved this very simply.

Unfortunately, lawyers (I used to come across this often, now a little less, but I also come across) often accept violations as a status quo. They say: "Yes, everyone does it." I say: look, violated this and that. And the lawyer says: "That we will find fault with the little things." That is, the Criminal Procedure Code is violated all the time, and the defense side does not look at it not just through the fingers, but as something completely natural. In fact, such things turn out to be the most vulnerable places for the violating side, because they are easier to fix than violations on the merits. And besides, they are much better perceived by the European court. When the complaint goes to formal, procedural violations, the European court easily writes a request to the state authorities. And as soon as we primarily begin to write that, for example, the case was built on the testimony of an incompetent person and at the time of the trial already a deceased - the answer: "We do not evaluate the evidence." Indeed, here you can argue. Such issues must be pre -appealing separately in all instances.

In the case of this young man, Stas found a way out. He began to check the documents - and on the basis of what was detained? This is easily checked if the court wants to do it. Here the police officer submit a petition, and the prosecutor’s office supports him about the election of a preventive measure - detention. The normal judge asks the question: "In general, why was he stopped?" - "In the process of checking documents." - "What are the grounds to check the documents?" Rarely, almost never asked. After the police have nothing to answer to such a question, the defense can not try to prove that the client was placed by drugs. Already the fact that he was stopped on the street to check the documents was illegal.

Thus, hooking them - they say, I’ll show your authorities now - Stanislav achieved an instant decision. This was the first common thing with him. Although, of course, this cannot be called a serious business.

And then in the Budanov case, when the lawyer Abdullah Khamzaev fell ill, they called me from him and asked me to find a lawyer who would go there in order to postpone the case.

I called Stas and asked: "Do you have any friend, not as famous as you, who would connect to this matter exclusively at the request of Khamzaev, until he gets out of the hospital?" And his condition was serious - he survived the clinical death. He was literally revived from the dead in order to finish Budanov’s work (Abdullah Khamzaev died on June 13, 2004 at the age of 67. - Ed.).

According to the conversation, I felt that in itself the inclusion of Stas in this matter - this, of course, is some danger. Because Stas said to me: "You know, there can be no other suggestions for such a question except what I will do." I was very grateful to him. Then it was necessary to act immediately, go to the place of court.

There were surprises, there were two of them. Firstly, Khamzaev recovered faster than expected him. One of the reasons for the quick recovery was that Stas was actively involved in the case. Secondly, Stas, of course, did not go there in order to simply postpone this business, the boy-Russian boy with Khamzaev. Of course, he immediately joined the case. He put it off at all for the long time that Khamzaev wanted. He quickly read the case (as Khamzaev believed that it is impossible to get acquainted with the materials for such a period, this is too soon). And connected. He had legal ideas on how to continue to do, how to conduct this business.

Khamzaev kept the point of view that the evidence of Budanov’s guilt that is is enough. Unfortunately, they did not manage to put a difficult question about conducting a second study for the presence or absence of rape. I believe that rape took place because the girl was undressed. And the testimony was enough.

When Stanislav worked in business, he worked efficiently. And their style with Khamzaev was completely different. But I believe that Stas brought a lot of good things to this thing. And from a legal point of view, because he had his own position. It is interesting when two lawyers who have different tactics. Not that the position in relation to the case is different, but different tactics, different mechanisms are used. This is on the one hand.

On the other hand, Stas was really known to the human rights community and the journalistic community, so with his arrival the matter began to sound louder. His presence was useful there. Journalists came to him. Then we held several press conferences at which both Stas and Khamzaev performed. Everyone spoke about his own.

In the Budanov case, as well as in the previous one, Stas had tactics precisely the development of the procedural errors of the investigation. What violations were, which was not done, in which the investigation showed negligence. And Khamzaev has a completely different politics. Markelov is a logic like a mathematician, a support on the right, a very well -built argument system. Khamzaev has a very emotional style, a poor defense line. Somewhere he, perhaps, “replayed” according to Stanislavsky. But at the same time he had his own method. He could make the witness get to such a state that he had already said everything that Khamzaev wanted.

He was a great master of interrogation. When it repeats the same questions twenty times, it would seem that everything is clear, and suddenly the witness says what they achieve from him and what he did not say for some reason. Or even a judge. Once, already in another case, he put a judge in a position when she was forced to declare aloud that she did not listen to the parties, but writes a decision in another case.

Abdullah Khamzaev was a different, unconditionally honest man. They and Stas were two large personalities. It is a pity that grievances arose between them. Stas did not support his company at the dining table and once even went away to talk with the nationalists who came to express support to Budanov. For Khamzaev, these were obvious enemies, he was very offended. When I asked Stas about it, he told me: "They threatened me. I wanted them to understand the principles of a lawyer in general, I felt that I was the one that, if necessary, can protect even their violated rights." Of course, Khamzaev could not understand such an attitude and asked Stas to leave the case.

Visa Kungaeva, the father of the murdered Elsa, liked both defenders. And when Stas was gone, he said that he had lost another child. He was terribly tormented by their discord with Khamzaev. He called me and said: "Well, what is it, Svetlana Alekseevna, well, how is it that they are both good."

Stas was offended by me. He was very unhappy with my respectful position for Khamzaev. But I wasn’t that Khamzaev supported - it was clear that Khamzaev was leaving us ... And, of course, it never occurred to me that Stas would leave us by age much earlier. I thought sincerely that he could bow a little and persuade his young head in front of the old man. Well, what happened, it turned out. In fact, in the eyes of Khamzaev, I supported Stas. Once on him, I spoke very sharply with Khamzaev, as a result we did not extend the contract with him for the next year, for the last period. And I apologized on my behalf before Stas. But we did not allow any public condemnation of Khamzaev’s behavior. I was not ready for this and glad that I did this. Dokka Itslaev (lawyer, employee of the Memorial, living in Chechnya. - Ed.) Then I was very supported in this.

And one and the other lawyers in Budanov did everything they could. Of course, Stas helped, he played his role in the Budanov case in all respects, and at the very last time he did not let the opinion that Budanov was completely served his own.

As a defender of the victims, Markelov used the mechanisms that Khamzaev did not like to use. I don’t know whether he owned them or not, but this was not part of Arsenal Khamzaev. It is thanks to Stas and Politkovskaya that the true circumstances of the case are known among influential people who, if desired, can actively behave in public life.