Translated material
Judicial system: media digest (January 10-15)
system
The Supreme Court clarified the issue of apologizing to the rehabilitated
"Rossiyskaya Gazeta", January 14 :
“According to the decision of the judge of the [Krasnoyarsk] Regional Court, the Deputy Prosecutor General for the Siberian Federal District had to pronounce the words of apology on behalf of the state. This has never happened, so the prosecutor’s office did not agree with this decision of the regional judge. But the higher authority, the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, left this resolution unchanged. Then the Deputy Prosecutor General, in his supervisory submission, asked an even higher authority - the Presidium of the Supreme Court, to change the court decisions. In particular, about the exclusion of the instruction on imposing on the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation for the Siberian Federal District the obligation to apologize on behalf of the state. <…> The Presidium of the Supreme Court noted that the court should not at all specify which prosecutor should utter the words of apology. Because the articles of the law stipulate such an obligation even without the opinion of a judge. Now, if a prosecutor breaks the law and does not utter words of apology, then his inaction must be appealed in court. From all that has been said, the Presidium of the Supreme Court concludes that the court’s instruction that the one who approved the indictment should apologize simply contradicts the Criminal Procedure Code.”
The Duma rejected the draft amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses on fines for officials who ignore requests from lawyers
“According to the bill, Article 19.35 should have appeared in the Administrative Code, the sanctions of which would include a fine of 3-5 thousand rubles for officials and 10-30 thousand rubles for government bodies and organizations that delayed or did not respond to a lawyer’s request at all. And for providing “inaccurate information or forged documents,” a fine of 10 thousand rubles was proposed, and for legal entities - from 50 to 100 thousand rubles. As the authors of the project, LDPR deputies Ivan Sukharev and Alexander Kropachev, explained, officials of various bodies and organizations often do not provide lawyers with the requested information, or provide it in incomplete or distorted form. Defenders have to wait an unreasonably long time for answers to their letters. “Violation of a lawyer’s right to timely receipt of information and documents significantly reduces the quality of provision of qualified legal assistance and <...> may lead to a violation of the constitutional rights of citizens to judicial protection,” the explanatory note to the project said. However, the fate of the document was initially predetermined, since the government had previously insisted on the rejection of a similar bill by the Legislative Assembly of the Krasnoyarsk Territory. Government lawyers considered that the current legislation already provides for sanctions and a mechanism for holding accountable officials who violate the rules for handling citizens' appeals. Thus, the current Article 15 of the law “On the procedure for considering appeals from citizens of the Russian Federation” establishes that persons who violate the established procedure for considering appeals are liable under Article 5.39 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in the form of a fine of 1 to 3 thousand rubles.”
changes
The Ministry of Justice proposes to create specially protected courts - “citadels of justice”
“The Russian Ministry of Justice proposes to create “citadels of justice” in Russia - special places for the consideration of the most complex criminal cases in the safest possible conditions. This is provided for by the draft state program "Justice" for 2014-2020, developed by the ministry. The department believes that the creation of specially protected places will increase the level of security in the administration of justice, primarily during socially significant trials, and will also become a continuation of the currently operating witness protection system. “Citadels of Justice” will have to ensure the safety of not only judges and trial participants, but also the building of justice itself. Therefore, the layout of court buildings will have to take into account the need to ensure security by the Federal Bailiff Service of Russia, and the courts will also be equipped with modern technical security and alarm systems. At the same time, to improve the level of security, a constant increase in the number of bailiffs will not be required.”
Government human rights activists want to exclude judges from qualification boards
Nezavisimaya Gazeta, January 15 :
“As NG learned, representatives of the Presidential Human Rights Council (HRC) and the Council for the Development of Public Control (CPOC) under the State Duma are preparing a project for a radical “reboot” of the judicial system. They plan to start with the exclusion of judges from qualification boards. Human rights activists will also demand that the Federation Council reassess the criteria for selecting candidates for the boards. According to the head of the SROC, Vladimir Osechkin, the number of complaints against judges is now growing. Individuals who are outraged by the stereotyped nature of court decisions, numerous violations of their procedural rights, etc. turn to human rights organizations. “In theory, all these issues, along with the appointment of judges, should be dealt with by the QCC. But most of it consists of sitting judges who are unlikely to want to take action against their colleagues. This paralyzes the entire system. Therefore, we believe that the majority of the composition should in the future consist of representatives of public chambers, supervisory commissions, human rights activists and journalists,” Osechkin said.”
practice
Paralyzed prisoner sentenced to six years in prison
“The Tverskoy Court of Moscow sentenced Moscow auditor Vladimir Topekhin to six years in prison for fraud on an especially large scale. The verdict was announced in unusual conditions - at an outdoor session in the Matrosskaya Tishina pre-trial detention center - since the defendant was paralyzed in the lower part of his body some time after the car accident. The lawyer of the convicted person appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), believing that in conditions of deprivation of liberty there was a threat to the life of her client. The Tverskoy court referred to the conclusion of doctors who decided that the illness did not prevent the defendant from participating in the process, and even suspected that the auditor might be faking it. As the lawyer of the convicted person, Svetlana Sidorkina, told Kommersant, Vladimir Topekhin was taken into custody in mid-July 2013. “In August, he had an unsuccessful fall in his cell and hit his spine on the floor. After that, first one leg was paralyzed, and then the entire lower part of his body,” said Mrs. Sidorkina. “The fact is that back in 2008, Topekhin, while riding on motorcycle in the Czech Republic, received a serious spinal injury, and in January 2013, my client got into a new accident. And since he was not given proper care after the fall in the pre-trial detention center, Vladimir Topekhin suffered from paralysis."
“The Russian judicial system is a service that can be very intrusive. As the case of Sergei Magnitsky shows, exceptions are not made even for the dead. Just as they don’t do them for defendants confined to a hospital bed. However, what can we say about some kind of “system”. There is a specific judge of the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Tatyana Neverova. Some time ago, she acquitted prison doctors who were accused of involvement in the death of Magnitsky in the Matrosskaya Tishina pre-trial detention center. And on Monday she spent the whole day in the Matrosskaya Tishina pre-trial detention center, where the accused Vladimir Topekhin is being held. He cannot be brought to court because Moscow does not yet have paddy wagons for paralyzed citizens. Therefore, Judge Neverova came in person and, during just one meeting, considered the case on its merits and pronounced a sentence - 6 years in a general regime colony. Vladimir Topekhin was accused under Part 4 of Art., which is classic for entrepreneurs. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - “Fraud on an especially large scale.” There is, perhaps, no point in delving into the plot of the accusation, or trying to independently answer the question of whether Topekhin is guilty or not. It is obvious that he is accused of committing a non-violent crime, the degree of public danger of which cannot in any way be correlated with the six years spent simultaneously in a hospital bed and in prison. Topekhin ended up in a pre-trial detention center in July 2013; he lost the ability to move independently a little later - the consequences of a car accident he suffered in freedom and the conditions of detention affected him (details in the lawyer’s commentary) . This did not prevent the court from extending the period of detention. Well, as usually happens: he can hide from the investigation, destroy evidence, continue to engage in criminal activities...”
Anna Karetnikova's blog, January 15 :
“And public observers have a couple more rhetorical questions for Judge Neverova.
Should a judge, in company with the prosecutor and the secretary of the court session, during a break in the session, when the defendant is given an anesthetic injection, invite the victim and witnesses into a separate office (even if not in the deliberation room), and laugh and discuss something with them there? Hm. The office has a glass door. It all looked so strange that we were forced to discuss this situation. I’ve worked in court since childhood, I’ve seen different things, but somehow there’s still no need to cross a certain line. Our jurors are expelled from the panel for asking witnesses for their room number. This situation is incomprehensible to me. Is this some kind of demonstration? Okay, we took note of it, you should know about it too. I believed that the court should be impartial. Is it still possible to make a decision and pass a verdict in 10-15 minutes, that is, time that is not enough even to type three pages on a computer without thinking about anything? Was the sentence really prepared in advance and brought with you?”
“The European Court of Human Rights took up the case of the paralyzed Vladimir Topekhin, who is under arrest in a pre-trial detention center. Strasbourg requested information from the Russian government about his state of health, conditions of detention and the amount of medical care he received. The lawyer previously appealed to the ECHR with a request to facilitate the immediate release of Topekhin from custody and conduct a medical examination. The case of a paralyzed prisoner, 31-year-old Vladimir Topekhin, located in the capital's Matrosskaya Tishina detention center, has attracted the attention of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). On Wednesday, his lawyer Svetlana Sidorkina received a response from Strasbourg, in which the court reported on the steps taken. The ECHR ordered the Russian government to provide information about Topekhin’s state of health, the conditions of his detention and the amount of medical care he is currently receiving. Sidorkina applied to the ECHR on December 14, and already on the 17th the court secretariat registered the complaint, assigning it a number.”
New jurors selected for trial of Anna Politkovskaya case
“The Moscow City Court has selected a new jury in the case of the murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya. The Interfax agency reported this on January 14. The previous board was dissolved on November 14, 2013. The decision came after three jurors withdrew due to health and professional reasons. The prosecutor and the judge agreed that the panel could not continue to consider the case with a reduced composition. It was with the selection of a new jury that the defendant's lawyer, Murad Musaev, linked the search conducted in his house on January 13. The search was carried out as part of a case of bribery of witnesses and threats to the jury in the murder of Yuri Budanov (Musaev defended the accused in the murder).”
Ilya Farber was released
“Rural teacher and artist Ilya Farber, previously sentenced to three years for “receiving a bribe” from a subcontractor during the renovation of a cultural center in the Tver region, today finally left the walls of the pre-trial detention center in Tver, where he spent a total of 2 years and 4 months. Let us recall that the Farber case caused a public outcry due to the dubious nature of the evidence base and anti-Semitic statements made by the prosecutor during the trial. Near the prison, Ilya was met by his son Peter, friends and relatives. On December 31, 2013, the Moskovsky District Court of Tver granted Farber's request for parole. The petition was supported by the prosecutor and the administration of the pre-trial detention center. And shortly before this, on December 11, the Tver Regional Court reduced Farber’s sentence from 7 to 3 years in a maximum security colony and a fine of 3 million rubles.”