Lev Simkin: They are no longer only grumbled for court

Lev Simkin

The court is no longer only grumbled. More and more different recipes for its reform. However, the question "What to do?" Not so popular, much more people who want to speak out on the topic "Who is to blame?" This year, Alexei Kudrin joined them.

An experienced politician, known for his caution, a month ago he saw “too big risks for our country” in the simultaneous reform of two of the three branches of power due to the “ weak third ” - the judicial one.

The other day, he called the name of the culprit of this state of things. “When Medvedev became the president, I expected that we would achieve order in the judicial system, the creation of the judicial corps and, in general, the judicial system as a very objective arbitration mechanism in disputes.” Kudrin’s expectations did not come true, and he, however, in an indirect form, called for holding the official in their failure by an official liable, albeit political.

In order for such a judicial system to be lined up, “as a precedent step towards real reform,” in his opinion, a new trial in the second case of Khodorkovsky could become.

How fair are the claims of the disgraced minister?

In the same case, Khodorkovsky-Lebedev, Medvedev seemed to try to do something. Another thing, it was, speaking of a legal language, an attempt with unusual means.

When they really want to influence the adoption of a court decision, they do this, as you know, quietly. Nevertheless, the president loudly entrusted the consisting advice on the development of civil society and human rights Prepare an opinion on a specific case. Why is it to be surprised at the reactions of the court and the prosecutor's office to the multi -page report of experts? The Moscow City Court left supervisory complaints, and the head of the Presidential Council of Human Rights Mikhail Fedotov could only admit that he "absolutely agrees with the assessment of Egorova ( Olga Egorova, P Redseder Mosgorsud) regarding the procedural significance of the report."

The Prosecutor General of Chaika, according to the same Fedotov, was "said by black and white that the private opinions of individual" specialists "cannot serve as the basis for a review of a court decision."

I already had to refer to the words of one of the judges who once noticed the members of the presidential council: “Well, you will conduct your public examination, well, you will not agree with the sentence, and what's next? In what position will you put the president who, by law, will not be able to do anything about it? " However, the president himself set himself in the position in which he was.

Perhaps Medvedev, we must pay tribute to him, counted on another - with the help of “public scientific analysis” to draw law enforcement officers into a conversation with the participation of experts recognized by the society that it is not suitable for citizens in the work of the court, which is why he was so susceptible to influence from above, and thus somehow influence the fate of the case.

The conversation, as we see, did not work.

We will leave the work of Khodorkovsky-Lebedev by brackets, let's talk about the situation as a whole. Back in February 2008, presidential candidate Medvedev called the provision of genuine independence of courts from the legislative and executive branches the key priority of their work. According to the Pravo.ru portal, over the entire time of the presidency, he held fourteen meetings on the improvement of the judicial system.

This is not to say that nothing but meetings was done in this direction. Thanks to the adoption and application of the law on disciplinary trial, unjust decisions on the application of disciplinary punishments to judges began to be much more likely to be canceled. Significant liberalization of criminal legislation was carried out. Attempts were made to limit corruption in the judicial environment.

Why are the results of the measures taken so little noticeable? I will give an accurate remark on this subject, belonging to Henry Reznik: “Here are Medvedev, Putin, I don’t know, there ... Leaders ... Are they really wanting to have a judicial system, or something, corrupt? But they want, as you remember, Raikin, right? So let everything be, but something is not enough. They want that according to the category of cases, very small in this mass, where there is interest in the authorities, so that the courts are controlled. ”

There was such an ancient Raikin monologue about the commodity deficit of Soviet times on behalf of the head of the base, which, thanks to this deficit, had considerable power.

At a meeting with law enforcement officers on November 23, 2011, Medvedev called for attempts to ask judges to make the right decisions (orders are usually camouflaged under such requests), after which he unexpectedly added : “In any case, the state should somehow convey its position, but the state in other countries does it much more intelligent, not in the form of direct calls-do so that the judges are understood that the position is understood what the position is understood. states, this is also important, by the way. This is not a banality, it is true. ”

This is really not banality. For example, I do not know anything about how in other countries (I mean those where the separation of powers exists) do this. Well, they adopt laws, monitor their strict execution - that’s “bring their position.” What else, I can’t know the mind.

If non -interference is proclaimed anyone in judicial activity, then it applies to all cases.

If for some - it is allowed, then this is a spoonful of tar in a barrel of honey.

The vast majority of cases (and this several million) are considered by the courts objectively and impartly. According to a recent survey of the Levada Center, 63-67% of people who directly encounter the courts are generally satisfied with the level of objectivity and the impartiality of the trial. Moreover, the "judges" evaluate his work much more critical (an average of 10% more critically than "rushing"). And this is understandable, both sides of the judicial dispute are rarely satisfied by the court decision.

In fact, in many cases they influence the court from above? No one can know this, therefore I will put a question differently - does society often suspect such an influence? Not as often as at first glance it may seem.

Here, say, are cases of violations in the State Duma elections, declared the same Medvedev the most pure in history. Perhaps the elections were like that, I will not argue. But people did not have less suspicion, maybe because they themselves changed a bit and began to react more nervously to the fraud. Especially those who went to observers. Others even followed the advice of Putin given on a direct line on December 15 of last year - "turn to the court, and of course, it is necessary to proceed from the fact that our courts will act vigorously and objectively."

As Dmitry Oreshkin assures in “Ogok” dated January 30, 2012, according to a selective study, in 10-15 percent of cases an observer, having received a copy of the final protocol just drawn up at night, the next morning he found that “on the official portal of the CEC of the Russian Federation, the numbers are not the same. The main postscript is always in favor of United Russia. The situation, which are thousands in Russia. But rather, tens of thousands. Hundreds of people got to the court. ... Of the hundreds of similar cases, there is not one where the court would take the side of the plaintiff. ”

The reasons are not necessarily in judicial bias. Experts consider it “not the most effective appeal of elections in the manner of civil proceedings. ... leaning over the two protocols of the same precinct election commission, which are strikingly different in voting figures, not every judge will decide to explore them to the whole depth within the framework of a civil case. A more adequate tools for evaluating such evidence can be found in the framework of a different, criminal process (interrogations, excavations, including electronic media, full -time rates, examinations, etc.). ”

Well, there are appeals to the Investigative Committee, several dozen cases of crimes during the election were instituted there, but nothing is known about the results of their investigation. True, the other day, the statement of the representative of the IC Vladimir Markin was made that Internet videos fixing violations during voting and voting, “have installation elements”, and “all the videos were distributed from one server, which is located in the United States in the state of California”. I believe, the turn will come to our latitudes.

In any case, there can not be many such cases (both criminal and civilian) - a drop in the sea of ​​legal proceedings. Should I worry?

Alas, it doesn’t happen-that everything is, but something was missing. What do you think at what point does a panic arise due to a shortage of any product? They say that there is enough shortage of two or three percent so that people begin to sweep it from the shelves. In the summer of 2010, remember, buckwheat disappeared ? This happened after the buckwheat supply in procurement and processing enterprises decreased by only 8 thousand tons compared to the previous year (in total, Russia is needed by 800 thousand tons of buckwheat grain per year).

Psychology is already beginning here.

Doubt in the justice of the resolution of one percent of cases or even half a percent is the point of no return, after which people have a feeling of an acute lack of objectivity of justice as a whole.

The psychological consequences of what happened to us still have to realize.