IK, Criminal Code and Udo

I would like to pay attention to a good tradition that has been established over the past two years (pah-pah, so as not to jinx it): in late autumn and early winter, the supreme power tries to be fair. 2013-as believed because of the Olympics-turned out to be especially productive. The amnesty “guided” in honor of the twentieth anniversary of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the presidential act on the pardon of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. If the amnesty was still expected, then pardon happened like a thunder in the middle of a clear sky. Viktor Shenderovich, according to his own statement, was simply shocked, because he was absolutely sure that this was impossible.

I repeatedly wrote that both Igor Sutyan and Mikhail Khodorkovsky strictly on the basis of the law were to leave the colonies and serve his sentence before the expiration of the deadline, not in the form of imprisonment, but under the supervision of the place of residence. It is simply amazing how the judiciary has been managed to be guided by old, still Soviet, criminal laws, while new ones should operate in the country. And now it has been evidenced that the chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considers it possible to revise the verdict against Plato Lebedev and Mikhail Khodorkovsky in the first criminal case. The result of such a revision of the deadlines may be Lebedev’s release earlier than May 2014, when the full term of his punishment ends.

Instead of satisfying Lebedev’s petition for Udo in the same supervisory order, to which he has unconditional legal law, the judiciary chooses the old way of adjusting the sentence towards a decrease in the deadline. A decrease in the term for Lebedev and Khodorkovsky would make sense five years ago, when it would lead to earlier provision of parole or transfer from IR to a colony-settlement, and now the train has long left!

Similarly, with the amnesty of girls from Pussy Riot. What amnesty, when almost a year ago they had to be released from the colonies under the supervision of the place of residence? Instead of granting UPO by law, another basis for release was applied - amnesty. If we take into account that the parole is provided only on the basis of a court decision, and the exemption in amnesty is issued by the administration of the correctional institution, it turns out that the administration of the correctional institution with its actions corrects the focus of the judiciary. Then the salary of the correctional institutions must be installed as judges if they do their work!

Or take a case of criminal cases on events in Bolotnaya Square. I believe that if the accused really do not admit their guilt and if they insist on their innocence, then they did not need to agree to the termination of the trial in amnesty, since the termination of the court on this basis is not rehabilitating. For 30 Greenpisis, the amnesty, indeed, was fully acceptable. The fact is that in the eyes of the world community the reputation of our judicial power is low, which means that Greenpeace had every reason to use amnesty, and not to defend their innocence in the Russian court.

One paradoxical conclusion follows from all of what has been said - the courts do not work in the Russian Federation, and they perform their function: either the president, through the pardon mechanism, or the state Duma (together with the heads of correctional institutions) - through an amnesty. Excuse me, why then do the judges receive such weighty monthly rewards?

Valentin Danilov is a physicist-physicist, former director of the thermophysical center in Krasnoyarsk. In 2001, he was arrested on suspicion of disclosing state secrets, in 2004 he was sentenced to 14 years in a maximum security colony. Conditionally released in 2012. Danilov’s case was one of the most high -profile processes over scientists and, according to human rights activists, took place with serious violations of the procedural code.