Ekaterina Samutsevich: "And who wants to go to the camp?"

Interview with the soloist of Pussy Riot, who is fighting with his former lawyers

Ekaterina Samutsevich, August 2013

In the history of the trial in the case of Pussy Riot, it still remains unclear: why did Ekaterina Samutsevich, after she refused lawyers, replaced the real term with conditional? It is generally accepted that they just do not go to freedom: only having pleaded guilty or concluding any deal with justice. The guilt of Samutsevich did not admit whether she concluded some kind of transaction is not known for certain. Having been released, she accused her former lawyers of “evading defense” of that they gathered behind the back of their clients commercial activities, supposedly wanted to assign the Pussy Riot brand and even seemed to “put” the soloists of the punk-grain. Samutsevich filed complaints with the lawyer chambers, trying to deprive his former defenders of the license. Why? We may find out the truth only when they return from the colony of her friend.

Judicial race

The process in the Pussy Riot case began a year ago, lasted less than three weeks. How was it?

It was a strange time: I first faced a similar situation, and the lawyers said that there are many ways to stretch the process. And then, apparently, they didn’t succeed in something. And the meetings took place every day, and every morning, leaving the camera, to take a mattress with you, to hand it into a special room.

As a rule, people have courts once a week, so for most it is not madness. And for us it was torture, every time you get up early in the morning, barely woke up, and this mattress ... and they do not warn when they open the doors, it suddenly happens. Just open the door: "Come out!" And only someone poured coffee for you, and you did not have time to drink it. And then - to the car and the court. And this judicial race as a result leads to the fact that, without getting enough sleep every day, you don’t understand what is happening in the meeting room, you can’t analyze anything, you can’t write a petition, nothing is heard in the Aquarium ... And in the end we were so tired that we ourselves wanted it to end up, no longer wanted to protect ourselves, nor nothing ... nothing ...

What did you talk about in Avtosak with Masha and Nadia?

About different. Sometimes they were distracted, discussed something, some books that someone brought us. Once Masha brought me a jig's book. The court, of course, was also discussed, surprised at what was happening, were surprised at the behavior of the defenders. But this does not mean that we immediately saw some violations.

And what surprised you then?

I surprised some passivity of lawyers. That is, we thought that they would defend us like ceres, but it turned out that we defended ourselves more than they. Because, for example, in the same debt ... The debate is, in theory, you need to go again according to evidence and somehow comment on at least the court and draw some conclusions from what was presented to the court. And this, in fact, did one Nadia, as far as I remember ... She said that she decided to go completely according to evidence, because she thought that the defenders would most likely not do this. So it happened.

For example, I really liked the speech of the lawyer Mark Feigin in the debate, it seemed to me that she was quite convincing, he explained to the court that you did not commit any criminal offense under the laws of a secular state, at least we can talk about an administrative offense, and that we are talking about political reprisal.

Yes, the speech is good. But this part is more likely for the public than for the court. And there should still be a speech for the court, there should be a certain procedural language and, apparently, the lawyer must include this and that. It is better to talk about politics outside the court, and we ourselves did, in my opinion, not bad. In court, you can say something about Putin, of course, but it is pointless, it just goes past the judge’s ears.

Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Ekaterina Samutsevich in the secret shelter of the War group in Moscow. June 2009

 ** Seven months in jail **

At what point did you decide to change the defenders?

After the sentence, I had some doubts. Firstly, of course, disappointment.

You did not expect a real sentence?

At the preliminary investigation, I was sure that they would quickly let us go. Then, when the courts had already begun, there was a double sensation, it was unpredictable. But still, to the last, I hoped that they would give a fine or a conditional period.

What did the lawyers promise you?

At first they said that everything would be cool, they will “tear everyone around”, everyone would understand that we are innocent. And then, before the trial, Feigin arrived and said that everything was very bad and that at best we are threatened with a year and a half, three in the worst. This, of course, was very surprised, but we thought that it was just such moral preparation.

When you returned to the camera after the sentence, did you cry?

No. It was just an unpleasant feeling that everything was decided without your participation, that this whole machine works without taking into account your opinion. And I did not even know how to resist this.

Was it scary? I didn't want to go to the camp?

And who wants to go to the camp? Firstly, this is something unknown, and secondly, the worst thing that is in prison, oddly enough, people who can be found there. Conditions, employees are somehow limited to law in their actions. But cellmates are the most incomprehensible moment. For example, I’m a soft person, I don’t like any conflicts at all, and you can press me very much. This was not in the pre -trial detention center, it could have been in a colony where there are large detachments, many people. There are people who take a scream, hysteria. About what happens in the colony was told by Irina Orlova, a woman who was accused under the 159th article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Fraud”), she was sitting with me all my term in the SIZO “Pechators”. She spared us three, said that we were intelligent, and in the colony you have to be harder, because there are different people there, they can slip something forbidden under the bed, and then you will receive a penalty for it. She told me: “You are soft, they will start screaming, crushing, you will simply become isolated in yourself - and there will be nothing good.”

I heard that in the cells to prisoners, especially in resonant matters, they specially plant the so -called “brows”, which influence the cellmates, scare them, affect them in one way or another. Didn't you have a “bride” in your cell?

No. “Hormers” are needed in such matters where the investigation lacks some kind of information. Our case is completely different: the investigation of us knew everything perfectly, even had more information than us. There was nothing to find out, but, for example, the names and surnames of other participants in the punk mayobine we would not have reported under any conditions.

And Irina Orlova did not have any influence on you? She did not suggest you change the lawyer, for example?

No. In the cell, it is not very customary to talk about criminal cases. Mostly they talk about prison problems. Orlova watched reports from the court in our case and commented on them. For example, when Nadia said that she considers our performance in the temple ethical mistake, Orlova said to me: “It is strange why you said nothing about this, you have to be more active.”

When on October 1 you went to the car cassation in the Moscow City Court in the car, you said to Nadia and Masha that you would refuse a Volkova lawyer?

Yes, we discussed, and the girls said that they would not yet refuse, they suggested seeing what would happen after my refusal.

In the cassation appeal, your new lawyer Khrunova said that your actions and actions of Nadia and Masha were not “identical”, that you, in fact, did not participate in the punk-grain, did not even have time to combine the guitar and you were taken out of the salt. But Volkova’s former lawyer spoke about this.

But she spoke about this at another stage, after the prosecutor’s speech, and the court did not specifically listen to her.

Did you believe that after you changed the lawyer, you will be released home?

Of course not. When we were taken out of the convoy and raised to the courtroom, the escort asked us: "What do you think will be now?" We replied: “It is clear what will happen. We will go to the colony in a few days. ”

Protection Samutsevich

In the first interviews after liberation, you said that you will protect Nadia and Masha, talk about their innocence. What is this protection today? In the cancellation of the sentence?

The fact that I came out gives a certain trump card to us all. If I were now in the colony, I would, like them, were completely ignorant of procedural violations in the case. And I can go to court, take a picture of the materials, give a lawyer, see something myself, because a lawyer can also skip some things. I can consult with any lawyers, I can change the lawyer if something is wrong again. For example, I abandoned Irina Khrunova.

Why?

She conducts Masha and Nadi's affairs and is very loaded. And she did not have time to work with me. And the second reason is a violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when one lawyer leads three clients in one case. (E.S. is mistaken: on the Code of Criminal Procedure, one lawyer cannot deal with several clients, if their positions diverge, the Pussy Riot defendants have until recently that they are innocent, completely coincided. - The New Times.)

Why do Nadia and Masha do not blame their former lawyers of violating their right to defense, how do you do it?

They are now not at all up to this, they have a hard life in the colony. Masha has its own heavy and significant struggle. I corresponded with the girls, and they explained to me that everything that was happening here seems to them such a trifle. Even the abolition of the sentence - it seems to them that it is very far and impossible.

Why don't you go to them for court sessions?

I am a handle in a criminal case, and there may be any provocations, they can arrange some kind of fight, and then they will write me an administrative offense. If I will capture to one of them with a hand, this may damage them: they will say that they still communicate with the criminal community. I can’t even write letters, only under a different surname, I can’t call them, they say that in the colony they already know my voice.

I carefully watched your defense lawyers Feigin, Volkov and Polozov, and despite the fact that, probably, they made some mistakes, their main line was the only possible: they revealed the political essence of this process and attracted the increased interest of society, which as a result led the verdict not the most terrible-you, in fact, insulted Putin’s president and broke the challenge ROC. For the authorities, lawyers were like a bone in the throat, and some experts, in particular, the famous dissident Alexander Podrabinek, believe that the authorities used you for their own purposes and you, perhaps, without understanding it yourself, concluded a kind of deal: you abandoned lawyers - and you were released from prison. This has become a signal for the rest of the defendants: do not take "political" lawyers. In addition, the unity of Pussy Riot was destroyed. And now your whole fight against lawyers is, in fact, self -justification. What do you say?

There is some kind of confusion. Still, we are talking about the criminal process. And the main thing in the criminal process is the protection of the clients. If the defenders themselves spit on the rights of their customers, show a negligent attitude towards them, then I do not understand why they need to cover them? The function of lawyers is not to explain why people are planted, but to find court mistakes, press the court, press the prosecution, force to make concessions and, perhaps, even cancel the sentence, prove that this is a complete absurdity, and the judge will not have another exit, how to retreat under the onslaught of a lawyer.

You never had discomfort that you are free, and Masha and Nadia are behind bars?

Yes, sure. Another thing is that this is guilty of a court that divided us like that. In fact, on October 10, the judges had to simply cancel the sentence and release all three, because if there is a serious mistake, the sentence is canceled. But the court decided on this little concession. Of course, I want the girls to come out as soon as possible. But for this I do everything that is possible, at least legally. Now I am a supervisory appeal to the Presidium of the Moscow City Court. And all errors are listed in the complaint: errors on the part of the court, accusations, including defender errors.

Are you sure that if Pussy Riot were protected by lawyers who would have built protection otherwise, would the result be different?

Yes, there could be a conditional term for everyone.

Photos: Mitya Aleshkovsky, Thomas Peter/Reuters