Strange term

On December 11, the Tver Regional Court revised the case of rural teacher Ilya Farber, accused of receiving a bribe. The term of punishment has been reduced from seven to three years in prison

Ilya Farber in the Ostashkovsky court of the Tver region. Nearby is the son of Peter. September 24, 2013

I was not allowed into the courtroom for a very strange reason, for the first time I ran into this. On this day, the building was guarded by employees of the quick response group. These are not ordinary bailiffs, but enhanced guards: they were in body armor, leather gloves, berets. Everyone was tightly controlled, even the money from the wallets was asked to take out. These people walked along the corridor and constantly provoked everyone themselves, demanded not to interfere, promised to withdraw from the court of the court for “bad behavior”. In the corridor, I showed people booklets that I distributed in my last action, the guard did not like it. They said that it is strictly forbidden to distribute leaflets. Then I showed lawyer Elena Romanova photography on an iPhone, and one bailiff thought that I was shooting something. I was brought under my arms, explaining that the shooting in court is prohibited and that I won’t come here anymore.

I was shocked because I didn’t take anything away, and I know that this rule is in the courtroom, but I did not hear the fact that it acts in the corridor. They took me by the scruff and threw me out the door. Only when lawyers filed a petition, did they ask if Ilya’s son could be allowed. The judge was surprised that this was not immediately done.

There was still a funny story: Pope’s lawyers Elena Romanova and Anna Stavitskaya went to the chairman of the court, they climbed the stairs, and the guard began to shout: “Strengthening to the second floor, urgently!” Lawyers did not pay attention and smiled. And they were shouted after them: "Stand, we will arrest now!" It was obvious that these people were called specifically to follow our hall.

The lawyer Stavitskaya, analyzing each proof of the prosecution, showed that they are all either unacceptable or do not prove anything at all. As in the first process, when the prosecutor spoke about the "Crushing of the Five -thousandth bills" on audio recordings.

When the prosecutor performed in the debate, she ignored everything that had sounded before, as if she had not been in the hall at all. She speaks “accordingly” or “based on that”, although nothing corresponds there at all and nothing to come of. She read a piece of paper, she herself was very nervous, swallowed words, she was generally silent for a while. There was a feeling that she would now cry with tension. And such ridiculous things said that Farber partially pleaded guilty and therefore we would partially soften his punishment. Such a strange term - through what addition did it turn out?

Three years and three million fines - this is more than the prosecutor asked for a fine, but less than the prosecutor asked for a deadline. Three years, three million, three judges were sitting-there was some strange feeling. Of course, I do not feel joy. Anna Stavitskaya says that in the framework of our judicial system this can be considered an acquittal. But the numbers are taken from the air. Strict mode - why is it strict? Why not conditional punishment? Three years fell like a slot machine. Papa remains still a third of punishment, now he is transferred to a maximum security colony. He can not even theoretically go out ahead of schedule. From the moment of arrival at the stage, six months should pass before the possible issuance of a positive characteristic for UDO. Then the petition will be sued, in the seventh month he will be considered, after another two weeks it will enter into force. This means that dad can be released at a maximum two weeks earlier than his deadline.

Then there will be a cassation, we will complain. Although I, of course, do not hope for this cassation.

Photos: Maxim Blinov/RIA Novosti