Translated material
"There are a lot of questions about the role of city authorities and power structures"
In the opposition
"There are a lot of questions about the role of city authorities and power structures"
Konstantin Eduardovich , what, in fact, was an investigation?
In the process of public investigation, there were three main acting forces. These are, in fact, eyewitnesses of events that provided certificates. To date, there are more than 600 such people. Further-a working group, the formation of which was initiated by the RPR-Parnas and the Committee on May 6. These are people who have taken over the work on contacts with eyewitnesses and the formation of the entire set of materials that describe the facts regarding the events of May 6 and their consequences. The third force is a commission consisting of 23 people, it includes human rights activists, cultural figures, journalists. Their function is to evaluate the facts that were provided to them. The commission is now completing the preparation of a report that sets out those approaches, criteria and values on the basis of which the commission is suitable for facts, as well as all these facts, as a result of the application of approaches and criteria, these facts are evaluated and some conclusions are made about the entire situation around May 6. These conclusions contain answers to three questions that were formulated in December at a meeting of the “round table on December 12”:
1. What was May 6? Were these mass riots? Were they organized?
2. What is the role of law enforcement forces in this situation?
3. What is the very mechanism of the development of a peaceful procession in the clashes that took place?
The report, as I understand it, is somewhat beyond the limits of the mandate that was originally formulated, that is, the commission plans not only to answer these three questions, but also to analyze how federal channels covered events on May 6, and evaluate the course of the investigation in the case. The situation related to the organization of the action itself is evaluated - there are a lot of issues regarding the realization of the rights of citizens to freedom of peaceful assembly. The entire course of the action is analyzed, starting from the collection of people in the area of Kaluga Square, describes a peaceful procession, contact with riot police, confrontation, collision, and the description of the detentions ends. Everything is described in great detail, literally permanently, with specific links to collected certificates, video and photographs that were analyzed in a huge amount. Everything that was available was used.
There are a lot of questions about the role of city authorities and power structures. Everyone admits that there were violent actions by the participants in the action. Another question is how to evaluate them. The commission, of course, proceeds from the fact that it is impossible to evaluate violent actions by the participants of this public event in relation to the police without evaluating actions or inaction from the city authorities and police forces.
Did lawyers participate in the investigation?
Of course, experts were involved. The report contains rather large sections setting a legal approach. In the conclusions, the commission will lead the entire list of norms that, according to the commission, were violated by certain actions by the authorities, starting with the Constitution and international obligations that the Russian Federation officially took upon itself as a result of ratification of the relevant conventions and contracts, and ending with internal legislation, including the law “On meetings, rallies, demonstrations and pickets” and,,,,, of Naturally, the law "On the Police". The commission will consider the possibility of sending to the Prosecutor General and the Investigative Committee of the application for detected violations of the law with the application of the entire array of legislation, which is contained in the report. At the same time, the commission reserves the right to act further, depending on what the reaction from the Prosecutor General’s Office will be, to which, according to the law, we have a function of monitoring compliance with the law.
Can you talk about any specific violations now?
For example, there are obvious violations in the work of the investigation. There are very great doubts about the legality of the courts making decisions on the choice for the accused preventive measures in the form of detention. Further: the law “On the Police” quite clearly prescribes the detention procedure, the grounds for the actions of the police in the detention of certain persons in the case of administrative and criminal violations. So, the policeman must have an identification sign, he must introduce himself and clearly explain to the person, for which he is delayed. It is obvious to everyone that on May 6 this rule was not observed. I'm not talking about the more general provisions of the law, which require the police to be guided primarily by the supremacy of human rights. One of these rights is the right to a peaceful meeting without weapons. We know very well that the action on May 6 was agreed. There are questions related to the advent of the forces of riot police and military personnel of internal troops within the perimeter of the agreed action, which in itself causes some bewilderment. Of course, the commission cannot but pay attention to it. The report describes in great detail the course of negotiations between the organizers and the city authorities. The question arises, why on the part of the city authorities and internal affairs bodies there were no working relations with the organizers of the action, while the law “On Meetings ...” requires this, there are relevant provisions. The commission also notes that the law is extremely unsatisfactory. He was unsatisfactory as of May last year, that is, even before the introduction of absolutely unacceptable additions to it. The report sets out specific proposals to change this law in order to really guarantee the right contained in the 31st article of the Constitution on freedom of assembly. But even this ugly law contains norms that obligate the city authorities and internal affairs bodies to ensure interaction with the organizers in order to avoid mutual accommodations and to maximize the organizers in the action. It is quite obvious that on May 6 there was no such interaction, these norms of the law by the city authorities and internal affairs bodies were violated. At the same time, the investigation in the “swamp case” considers exclusively violent actions by the participants in the action, which is biased and illegal.
I still want to dwell in detail on an important issue: do I understand correctly that the commission comes to the conclusion that the agreements between the organizers and the authorities were violated?
The report of the commission does not yet lie on the table, but I can already confidently say that certain facts have been established. One scheme of the event was agreed, and in fact it turned out to be another: part of the coordinated territory of the event was somehow taken, that is, cordoned off. The entire area opposite the shkator cinema, on the other hand, limited to the square, was seized in fact. There are quite clear evidence on the part of the organizers that during the meeting, which took place at the mayor's office on May 4, it was clearly said that the design of the coordinated action zone completely coincides with the one that was used on February 4, during the so -called cold march. Everyone remembers that the whole area was free, that the ceiling was located at the very beginning of the large stone bridge, and therefore people freely moved to the area of the square and the Bolotnaya embankment, which absolutely excluded the crush. In addition, on May 6, for some reason, they put an additional framework for the passage to the rally zone, which was not on February 4 either. Then there were only a framework for the passage of people who did not participate in the procession and could come to the event, limiting their participation in it a rally. On May 6, for some reason, the framework for the new passage of people who participated in the demonstration itself were set. It is quite obvious that if these frames are less than on Kaluga Square - and that was exactly the case - then a cork inevitably arises. It’s good that people didn’t turn there right away, but there would still be a crush. It is not clear how much it would be possible to organize a queue. One way or another, and the exclusion of part of the rally territory from the area of the agreed action, and the installation of additional frames were outside the approval of May 4 at the meeting. This is evidenced by the scheme attached to the report, they illustrate this moment well to understand that of course the initial point of this whole story was the emergence of the forces of riot police and the internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs within the perimeter of the coordinated action.
Next, there are a lot of issues relating to the nature of the application of force, provocations from both the police and some unidentified persons. There is a lot of evidence that there were provocateurs, that in terms of the so -called breakthrough, and in the part of the so -called asphalt throwing the role of these provocateurs is significant, these facts are established in essence and cannot but be taken into account by the commission in an objective assessment of events.
Was there any of the representatives of the Moscow authorities on May 6 directly at the scene?
There is a number of evidence that they were there. But in what capacity and where specifically, in fact, is not very clear. Obviously they were not in the thick of events, but somewhere behind the police forces. But I repeat once again: the law acting today and acting as of May 6 clearly regulates the participation of the city authorities and forces of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the process of interacting with the organizers. There are relevant articles on which the official document, by the decision of the mayor or government of Moscow, should be determined by the person responsible for interaction with the organizers. The document must be transferred to the organizers, as written in the law, in advance. There was no such document. Or, if he was, then he did not become a public fact and was not transferred to the organizers of the rally. There is a similar norm for the actions of the city department of internal affairs: the Commissioner must also be appointed from the Main Directorate, and the meaning of his appointment is just for him to come in contact with the organizers and continuously interact with them to ensure all the possibilities to fully realize the rights of opinions and freedom of peaceful meetings. Neither one nor the other was done. Therefore, the presence somewhere around the corner of some city leaders, of course, is of some interest, but has no legal consequences, from the point of view of evaluating their actions.
Did anyone try to get in touch with them?
Gennady Gudkov claims to come into contact with the head of the Department of Regional Security of Moscow Alexei Mayorov. This was just at the time of the confrontation, when some of the organizers - Navalny, Nemtsov, Yashin - sat on the asphalt. It was about the cordon, which was formed in the turning area from the small stone bridge to the Bolotnaya embankment towards the square, took a distance. It was an absolutely appropriate and legal proposal, but, as we know, it was not properly considered and nothing happened. On the contrary, from the side of law enforcement, there was an obvious desire to give in, to push people away, which created the basis for tension growth. I note that Gudkov was not a representative of the organizers, that is, it was a manifestation of goodwill, an attempt to defuse the situation. But the law obviously demanded precisely from authorized persons by the government of the city and the Internal Affairs Directorate of Contact with the organizers - this contact was not established. There is a feeling that the wine here lies completely on the representatives of the authorities. Obviously, they had no desire to make contact with the organizers, which pushes us to the conclusion that the authorities were interested in ensuring that the tension was supported and led to a provocative situation to justify the further use of violence by the police.