Translated material
Hall 303
Most often scheduled at 11.30, meetings almost never begin in time: only once judge Natalya Nikishina, in the absence of half of the lawyers and defendants, opened a meeting at 11.30 - to report that she did not see the grounds to divert herself from the process, which the defense was applied a day earlier.
I have been traveling to meetings in the "Swamp case" from the very beginning of the hearings on the merits - from June 24. Then the case was listed in the premises of the Moscow City Court, quite a few people came there.
Last Thursday, about 20 activists gathered at the fence of the Nikulinsky court, about two times more at the fence - in the queue for the entrance to the court. A rather atypical picture: after moving to the Nikulin court, interest in the process began to decline. “The queues are always here, but not like that,” notes a journalist standing nearby, who also monitors the “swamp business” from the very beginning. Lawyers, without taking advantage of their status, are in line with everyone, journalists are discussing what will happen on the day of the sentence, some of the activists, in spontaneously holding hands, forms a chain in solidarity with the "prisoners of Bolotnaya" - no one is in a hurry. The late participants of other cases are in a hurry, outraged by an incomprehensible stir with a court and a long burst. Obviously, they are not aware that for almost two months they listen to number 303 in the hall.
An hour later, several dozen people are standing on the floor at the 303rd hall. The police pushes everyone in one direction - the right signal that the defendants will soon be guided into the hall, relatives and relatives are trying to get into the front rows.
About twenty minutes later the meeting begins. The hall is clogged to the eyeballs. "How many more places are there to me to know how many people to plant?" -the press secretary of the court shouts to the public. “Please do not plant anyone else,” activists comment on this ambiguous phrase. There are two spacious cells in the hall. In one nine defendants, for more than 60 days, Sergey Kryvov in the farthest corner for more than 60 days. It is possible to make out only his figure in a dark tracksuit, due to the dark color of clothes, he seems completely losing weight and haggard. In another cage - only Maxim Luzyanin, the first convicted in this case, brought from the colony in Novomoskovsk specifically for this court as a witness.
Lawyer Vyacheslav Makarov addresses Judge Natalya Nikishina: he has a petition. The judge clarifies in a tired voice: "What?" The lawyer explains: his client Sergei Krivov , who is already starving the 63rd day, needs to conduct an independent medical examination. Krivov on this day was taken to the court, accompanied by a medical worker who should monitor his condition. The judge is interested in Krivov himself, whether he was examined today. Krivov, who before the hunger strike was one of the most active participants in the process, spoke loudly, as if minting phrases, now answers in a quiet but still confident voice: "There was no inspection. In the morning they measured the pressure - and that’s it." The judge does not convince the judge: the ruthless "petition is not subject to satisfaction." The indignant whisper of the audience in the hall does not allow to hear the motivation of the judge - this does not bother anyone. Already at the end of the meeting, Lawyer Makarov will again call an ambulance to his client and doctors again - for the third time in a week - they will not let go to Krivov ... "Nothing that we have a Gestapo here?" - the lawyer Makarov asked the judge a couple of meetings ago. “Nothing,” answered Judge Nikishin.
The cell where Luzyan is sitting is opened, he is asked to go to the rostrum for witnesses. A year ago, Luzyanin made a deal with the investigation, admitted that he participated in the riots and struck the police - according to some, in the hope of a conditional period - and received 4.5 years of real imprisonment in the colony. Now in court Luzyanin gives evidence in the obvious hope of another - not to harm the rest. “Nobody is familiar with any of the defendants, he came to the authorized rally,” he answers barely audibly to the questions of the prosecutors. "Have you seen the use of violence by the police?" "Did the demonstrators be thrown with bottles, stones, saw the facts of destruction of property?" - ask lawyers. Luzyanin refuses to answer, then asks for help from his lawyer, after - quite quietly - he answers: "I do not remember." -"Do you even know anything about the events of May 6?" - The judge takes the interrogation into its own hands, which happens infrequently. What Luzyanin answers is impossible to disassemble. “So you adhere to the testimony given earlier,” the judge summarizes.
Prosecutors immediately ask these testimonies to announce: due to the existing significant contradictions and the incompleteness of answers. Lawyers unanimously object: Luzyanin gave testimonies as the accused. Then it was important for him to facilitate his fate, and not to present an objective picture of events. The argument of the lawyer Vadim Keveganes applauds the argumented speech of the lawyer. The judge demands to leave the hall of those who violated the order, and the tone of the school teacher reproaches for the cowardice of those who are afraid to go out. Several people come out themselves, several - bring bailiffs. "Judge for soap!", "Shame!" - The subservient cries of the emerging are heard. The meeting continues.
“I admit my guilt in full,” the prosecutor reads the testimony of Maxim Luzyanin on June 5, 2012. The judge still allows them to be announced. As follows from the testimony of Luzyanin, he came to Bolotnaya Square for the agreed rally with his wife. At some point, bottles, stones flew into the police. It began to detain especially active people, which outraged Luzyanin. “I decided to interfere with the detentions,” says his testimony. He began to grab police officers for body armor, bring down on asphalt, even applied a suffocating reception. “A group of young people came up to me and asked if I was ready to support them in the riots,” the prosecutor Luzyanin quotes. They laugh in the hall, understanding the absurdity of sounding words.
"As a result, which of the testimony will the court consider when making a decision?" - I ask after a meeting with the lawyer Maxim Luzyanin Haji Aliyev. “This remains at the discretion of the court,” he answers sadly. “The law says in black and white: the judge’s internal beliefs allow her to reason which of the testimony was true.”
Natalia Dzhanpoladova - Judicial Reporter Radio Liberty