"Will you go to court - guards with machine guns. Who to guard? These louds are these?"

A graduate of the law faculty of Moscow University, Gennady Krylov was a judge, and then - the chairman of the city court of the city of Zhukovsky from the city of Zhukovsky from 1970 to 1979. After that, he worked as a referent of the Minister of Internal Affairs of the USSR Shchelokov. For the past 20 years, the city collegium of Zhukovsky’s lawyers has been heading.

- How did you become a judge?

In 1970, December 13, I was elected people by the people's judge of the Zhukovsky city folk court. Unanimously. I was a candidate from the Bloc of the Communists and non -partisans.

-It was a completely pure formality, or did you do something for the election?

But how, there was a pre -election struggle at that time

- Were there other candidates?

There was no alternative, I was the only candidate from the Bloc of the Communists and non -partisans.

- And with whom was the election struggle then?

Yes with anyone! I just told the people how I would work. I myself did not know how I would work - I only received a diploma. I visited the courts, but only as a spectator, or I dismantled the archives. Now there is a lot of conversations that there was a "telephone right". For 9 years of my work, no one called me: neither the first secretary, nor the second secretary of the regional committee, nor from the region - no one called. Although there were such things that demanded the intervention, I felt.

-What were these things that, in your opinion, demanded interference ?

Yes, different.

- Well, for example?

Well, for example ... Yes, I already forgot them.

- Strange, usually the judges remember their first things.

I remember the first thing, but it was not interested in anyone. It was a case of depraved actions. Nobody wanted to take him - and they gave him to me. And in order to expose him (defendant), I had to buy and bring dolls (to court) - the girl (victim) was 3 years old. But there was nothing “”: the defendant simply showed her his organs. Well, I pushed him 6 years old.

- What was your most severe sentence?

I had a bar - for more than 15 years I could not give. Or 15 years, or death penalty.

- Did you have a death sentence?

I didn’t have it. I had 15 years. The death penalty was sentenced by large tender people, killers of one or more people. And we have murders on the city-one or two per year, and then on household grounds. We worked literally at 16 hours. There were no computers before - they wrote everything with a stream. And the salary was (this, if we talk about our city) almost lower than the average. And I also had to act as chairman of the court - all the same, only a salary of 15 rubles higher.

- How many judges did you have under the lead?

There were only two of us - I and one more.

- You were the chairman of the court, which consisted of two judges? That is, you were the boss of that second judge?

Of course, someone had to be a chairman. In silver ponds, one judge was - he and the chairman.

- Have you had acquittal sentences?

At that time, there were no acquittals and could not be. But the judge who had a conscience - as, for example, had an outlet - had an outlet: we had the right to send the case for the investigation, and then it disappeared there in the bowels of the investigation.

- How did it disappear?

When sent for the investigation - they gave as many instructions as investigators could not fulfill. And the assignments of the court were mandatory. For example, I had one thing when I had to pass an acquittal.

The essence of the matter is this: at that time, the refrigerator was strategic at that time - in it, reserves were stored just in case "h". And the new head of the technological workshop, a party candidate, came there. And there was just a large flow of oil from France, they were scored all the containers. And one woman who was a merchandiser there (I called them "goods") decided to steal the oil. The guards were-grandmothers-old. And she decided not to stole the pack on top, but from below, and this whole mountain (there was oil in large packs) fell on it, and she received serious bodily harm. This is article 140 - "Violation of safety precautions." And just before this was an article by the regional prosecutor to strengthen the struggle with safety violations. As a result, they attracted the head of the workshop - but he was not in business, everything happened there in the evening, did he have to sit there around the clock? And I immediately saw that there was no corpus delicti. But I had to consider the case in court, to interrogate witnesses.

I looked: a young man, 26 years old, a candidate for members of the CPSU. There, the deprivation of freedom did not smell there, but any sentence means an exception to the party, and this would mean that he would have to part with his career as the head of the workshop. And I sent the case for the investigation, and it disappeared there. So-everything is human.

- Did you take bribes in the courts under the Soviet regime?

They did not take bribes then.

- At all?

I can’t vouch for everyone, but my hands are clean - everyone can confirm. Those whom I judged - for example, those who stole the bicycles steal with me. When such came across, they were immediately arrested, and when preparing the case for listening to them, I changed the measure of restraint. Some of them later became scientists - and if I sent them there? Of course, they were displeased, so I did not give out letters. Although there were much less dissatisfied. Now you will go to the court - there are guards with machine guns. Who to guard? These louds are these? These are these? You make out things according to the law, and nothing else is required of you, no one will touch you with a finger. People are indignant when decisions make contrary to the law. Everything is rotten. I can compare. And I would like to know who today is engaged in the development of the law on the status of judges.

“ Do you want to offer changes to it?”

It's time, it has already matured. Because we do not have a court - there is only a institution called a "court". And I want you to emphasize: the judge is a crown of a legal career. A person, in order to achieve her shining peaks, must go through all the steps. He must work as an investigator, well, or an assistant prosecutor’s office, to work in the national economy, a lawyer - necessarily. In any so -called civilized states, if you have not been a lawyer, you will simply not be appointed a judge. Because a lawyer is a person who is worried about the fate of his clients, even criminals. And now we have what position: she sat with a secret - and now, she is already a federal judge. If the judge (whose secretary was) is educated and smart, then she will get something, and if the judge is a habalka, and in general-a dark and uneducated person, then the secretary will then also send justice, but in fact-to create ugliness. It will be dependent on everyone, because she has little knowledge, education is zero, she does not read newspapers, but she knows how to use the computer. Well, now everyone knows how to use the computer. The judge should be independent: a worthy salary, but no bonuses! So transfer the law to the developers. Bonuses are the purchase of representatives of the judiciary and the opportunity to keep them on a short leash. In fact, it is necessary that the people choose the people. And we are appointed, and all - secretaries.

- And what is the main drawback of their formation?

The judges should know that there is a presumption of innocence in any code. You tell him-to the same (judge) Pasha (Sidorov) (the magistrate from Zhukovsky Pavel Sidorov first acquitted several participants in the protest actions , however, after the abolition of all sentences , he began to write out fines and days of arrest even in the complete absence of any evidence -PP) that his offender should not prove his innocence, and on the contrary, they must prove it to the guilt. He (Sidorov) is a normal guy, but, excuse me, "What do you deign?" - When they call from the region or from the cop.

Here is an academician who is absolutely innocent (we are talking about a recently sentenced to resist the police officers with an activist of movement in defense of the Tsagovsky Forest - Rrost), he presented testimonies, and the judge writes (verdict), based on the testimony of a cop, which for the sake of the notorious stick for everything goes.

-Do they somehow explain to you such sentences? You communicate.

Yes, I know all of them as peeling! They do not explain in any way. Sidorov says: "What do I need to write an application for care?" And I say: "Write."

- Is there really not a single judge who would spit on the bonus and good relations with the area for the sake of honest work?

Well, we don’t have sailors now! God forbid the war will begin - no one will close the embrasure.

- And in your time were the Matrosovs? Indeed, then, in Soviet times, it was necessary to judge from articles that are now not in the Code - for example, sodisting. Didn't you meet this?

No, this was not. There were rape. They were generally interesting - from the point of view that now the girl could pick up the application, but before she could: she wrote - and that’s it.

There was such a case. Sunny day, summer, a girl sits, and Dembel goes by - just from the army. It was not a hooligan, a hard worker, but the guy needs to appear, but she is young, she only turned 17 years old. He asked: "What are you doing in the evening?" She: "Nothing." They met, he took the guitar. We drank, of course, not without it. And on a warm day, right on the bench, they did their pleasant work. Then we went to the dining room (she was where the city hall was now), there were just elections, the election commission was sitting, they went there to the garden, he says: “We have not tried it yet on logs. Well, youth, you understand.

- Understand.

And so, I listen to all this (at the court session)-and I say: "Well, tell us how it was on logs, in more detail." She tells. I ask her: "Are you scared?" She says: "Why be scared? Silence, normal weather." I say: "Why did you not shout? There, the police are nearby - it protects this polling station." That is, in court, she forgot that she was reached in the prosecutor's office, and tells the truth. Then they continued in the entrance, mother came out, saw everything - and this statement arose. The girl says: "He exerted psychological pressure on me." And I ask her: "Maybe it was called love, love?" She says: "Maybe so." There was no bodily harm - that is, there was no violence, but there is all physiological evidence. And I have a dilemma: what to do? I don’t remember what I complained about, but I could not condemn him and sent the case for the investigation. Then his Ramenians (judges from Ramensky) were judged, given for 5 years.

- You sent the case for the investigation, but it was not lost?

They could not stop it, although the investigators with me all agreed. The girl already says: "We will marry." I say: "You will marry now, a girl, you will come out when he leaves the zone. Previously, you had to think." I could not take responsibility (and bear the conviction to him). But there was no other way in any other way.

- That is, it was impossible to justify?

It was impossible to justify, you know?! Our organs are not mistaken, okay?

-It was told to you someone or is written somewhere- what cannot be justified?

No one wrote anything - you see what idealists you are. Unwritten rules - they are more stable than written.

“ But by law it was possible to justify?”

According to the law, everything is possible. We had the most advanced constitution in 1937, by the way, the most democratic. Yes, it was possible, it was possible ... But I had a little baby - now he is a big boss. I didn't want him to suffer.

- What would it be with you?

Well, they would have recalled, maybe they would have failed at something. Would you find it, don't worry. They quickly do it. Yes, you can regard this as cowardice, but I do not consider it cowardice: I fundamentally did not judge, and sent for a subsequence.

- In this case, you must understand the judge of Sidorov. He also has a child, he also does not want a review, does not want to cancel his sentences.

I don't understand Pasha Sidorov. Nobody forbids them to pass the right sentences now. The time was different then - then there was a CPSU, a member of which was your counterpart. He (Sidorov) can do everything. There used to be a party. The party would say that I do not adhere to the line - and that’s all, and nothing else needs to be said. And today there is a corporate conspiracy between the court and the police that fights for the stick system.

- So what to do with today's judges?

First conduct certification. First, professional. And you can also ask the population that should trust the court, give an assessment to specific judges - you can order, for example, a sociological survey. Here, a citizen Petrova, you see, the people spoke out: for the fact that you are a boor of, - 50 percent of the respondents, for the fact that you are a fool - 90 percent of the respondents. Thank you, citizen Petrova, that you worked, go now work in the national economy.

Here they are all from the secretaries immediately fall into federal judges. This is a huge power, but you still need to be able to use power. And power - they must understand this - a temporary matter. Today you have it, but no tomorrow. How many we knew the rulers (what the rulers were), but everything changed - and Kirdyk!