Photo: from personal archive

Speaking about the degree of dependence and independence of the Russian media and the influence of law enforcement agencies on this degree, which Evgeny Roizman recently discussed on the pages of RBC daily in the article “Four Cases of Independent Journalism,” let’s remember what the police do and what their function is.

The police respond either to an apparent crime or to a report of a crime. The police are obliged to conduct a thorough, scrupulous check. If, of course, she takes her work responsibly. We take our work responsibly - that’s why we carry out such an audit in the so-called Ura.Ru case.

In the case of the news agency Ura.Ru and its creator, journalist Aksana Panova, there were allegations of a crime. We do not declare people right or wrong, but rather collect evidence that is relevant. Whether the collected evidence exonerates the accused or, on the contrary, emphasizes his guilt, is decided by the court.

Proof that we worked impartially is an example voiced by Ms. Panova herself: she told everyone that one of the criminal cases had been dropped. This happened because during the process of collecting evidence it became obvious that she was innocent. But in other cases, unfortunately, everything is not so rosy for the accused. Therefore, we have collected evidence and will submit it to the court. This is for a general understanding of the picture.

Now about the free press. Theoretically, there could be a situation where a representative of the free press turns out to be, for example, a pedophile. Or a drug dealer. Or a killer. Or he committed some other crime. But I would like to remind you: in the Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes of the Russian Federation (and we work according to them and it is with them that we compare people’s actions) there is no clause that we must establish the degree of freedom of the press and, if this degree is recognized as high enough, terminate criminal proceedings case.

The police are not at all interested in whether it is the press, much less the degree of its freedom. And we will not move away from this point of view, since this would already be a malfeasance on our part, and we do not break the law - we protect it. So in court you will hear, see and learn everything. In an open, public meeting.

The case of Aksana Panova: a question of freedom