Translated material
Political pressure: media digest (June 11-17)
"Bolotnaya case"
The defense of those accused in the Bolotnaya case and released under the amnesty filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights
“The defense of the amnestied defendants in the case of the riots on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) about the violation of their rights. The lawyer of one of the convicts, Dmitry Agranovsky, told reporters about this. “We filed a complaint about the violation of the rights of the amnestied defendants in this case. We believe that Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms were violated, that is, a violation of the right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of assembly,” Agranovsky said . <…> The possibility of conducting an examination of the “Bolotnaya case” was announced on Monday by the Presidential Council for Human Rights (HRC). As HRC member, lawyer Yuri Kostanov clarified at a press conference in Moscow, an examination is possible after the verdict comes into force. He also stated that human rights activists do not believe that mass riots took place on May 6 on Bolotnaya Square. Kostanov noted that not any mass actions that violate public order are “mass riots” from the point of view of the law.”
The defense of Sergei Udaltsov and Leonid Razvozzhaev filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court in connection with Konstantin Lebedev's plea deal
“The defense of Left Front leader Sergei Udaltsov appealed in the Constitutional Court the deal with the investigation of another person involved in the case of organizing riots on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow - Konstantin Lebedev. Lawyer Dmitry Agranovsky reported this to ITAR-TASS. Lebedev previously gave confessions incriminating Udaltsov and another defendant in the case, Leonid Razvozzhaev. Lebedev was convicted, but released on parole in May. Udaltsov and Razvozzhaev are in the dock of the Moscow City Court as defendants in the same case. “We appealed Lebedev’s deal with the investigation to the Constitutional Court as unconstitutional,” Agranovsky said.”
Commentary by Agranovsky OVD-Info
Navalny
Navalny was sued by the Deputy Mayor of Moscow
“Deputy Mayor of the capital Maxim Liksutov filed a lawsuit for the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation against oppositionist Alexei Navalny. “This is not the first time that unfounded accusations against me have been voiced on Alexei Navalny’s resources. I would like to stop this once and for all, so I filed a lawsuit to protect my honor, dignity and business reputation,” Liksutov told Interfax on Thursday. At the end of May, in the blog of ex-candidate for mayor of the capital Alexei Navalny, material appeared that Liksutov, who heads the department of transport and development of road infrastructure in Moscow, owns shares in the Cyprus company Intellectico Holdings Limited. Navalny believes that the official thereby “deliberately and grossly” violates the Russian law “On Combating Corruption,” and also does not comply with the ban on officials owning foreign assets. Liksutov then denied the charges against him.”
About the case against Navalny's associates
“Under circumstances that are not precisely established, on an unspecified day, but no later than July 2013, N.N. Lyaskin, K.S. Yankauskas, V.L. Ashurkov and persons unidentified by the investigation entered into a criminal conspiracy aimed at committing theft by defrauding someone else’s property on an especially large scale” - this is an excerpt from the decision to bring him as an accused, which investigator Vitaly Tyurin handed to Nikolai Lyaskin on the morning of June 11 . The case took place in the building of the Main Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee (IC) of the Russian Federation in Moscow on Novokuznetskaya Street, where Lyaskin and another person involved in the case, Konstantin Yankauskas, were summoned for questioning. The fact that a criminal case had been opened against supporters of opposition politician Alexei Navalny became known on May 23 - on that day investigators conducted searches in their apartments, as well as in the office of the Yandex.Money company. The law enforcement version is as follows: allegedly last summer, during Navalny’s election campaign, members of his headquarters were Nikolai Lyaskin (businessman, head of the Moscow branch of Alexei Navalny’s Progress Party), Konstantin Yankauskas (municipal deputy of the Zyuzino district, co-founder of the December 5 party) and Vladimir Ashurkov (executive director of the Anti-Corruption Foundation) - stole about 10 million rubles from electronic accounts (“Yandex wallets”), which received donations from citizens. Lyaskin was initially involved in the case as a “suspect”, Yankauskas as a witness. On June 11, everything changed. Investigators transferred both of them to the status of “accused”: Lyaskin was left under recognizance not to leave the place, and Yankauskas, by court decision, was sent under house arrest until July 17. They plan to put Ashurkov, who is currently abroad, on the wanted list. The defendants in the case have been charged under Art. 159 part 4 “Fraud committed by an organized group or on an especially large scale.” Punishment is imprisonment for up to 10 years with a fine of up to 1 million rubles. According to The New Times, a team of 100 investigators is working on the case; law enforcement officers are going to interview almost 600 people as witnesses - from those who transferred money to Alexei Navalny’s campaign for the mayoral elections in Moscow last summer... <...> On social media On the Facebook and Twitter networks, new messages appear almost daily from people who have already been interrogated or want to be interrogated by law enforcement officials in the case of Yandex wallets. Someone, like the former general director of the Kommersant Publishing House, Demyan Kudryavtsev, received a telephone call and was invited to the economic crimes department (he postponed his visit for health reasons). They came to others' homes. Psychologist Maria Rabinovich, who was not found in the apartment, was left a note: “I ask you to call the police O.A. Sumsky by phone. <…> Urgently!” (Rabinovich did not call back.) They did not find the daughter of the famous actor Alexandra Filippenko at home, but they “mortally frightened” her neighbor. “My dad and I were on tour. On June 9, we returned from Voronezh from the Platonov Festival, and we were met at the door by a neighbor with square eyes. He exclaimed: “Horror! Horror! An investigator came to see Sashenka!” — Alexandra Filippenko told The New Times. It turned out that the investigator came to her on Saturday, June 7, and, having waited at her door to no avail, called a neighbor at the apartment, said that he had come to find out whether Filippenko had transferred money through Yandex Wallet to Navalny’s election campaign, and left his number phone. Alexandra did not call back.”
“As a source in the Investigative Committee explained to Vedomosti, there are still no victims in this case. On the blog of Navalny, who is under house arrest in the Yves Rocher case, an entry appeared that he himself does not consider himself a victim and has no claims against Lyaskin, Yankauskas and Ashurkov. At the beginning of last week, it became known about mass interrogations of people who donated money to Navalny’s campaign: the investigation was interested, in particular, in whether these people knew Lyaskin, Yankauskas and Ashurkov and whether they knew what their money would be used for. Information about the donors was provided to the investigation by the administration of Yandex.Money, citing the obligation to disclose such data at the request of the investigative authorities.”
OVD-Info about the “case of wallets”
prosecution
About the case of Kaliningrad residents who hung the German flag on the FSB headquarters building
“On March 11, at about 7 am, a German flag appeared near the FSB building in Kaliningrad. Local oppositionists say that it was not hanging on the building itself: the flagpole was inserted into an empty “glass” on a garage belonging to the FSB Directorate for the Kaliningrad Region (by the way, none of them saw the action that took place at 7 am, and there are no photographs). According to the investigating authorities, this is punishable by 7 years in prison - the case was opened under Article 213 of the Criminal Code, Part 2 (hooliganism committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy). This article acquired a reputation as a political one - it was the reason for which they gave Pussy Riot a two-piece, and it was the basis for which the Greenpeace members who were arrested at the Prirazlomnaya platform were accused. There are three accused in the case: local political activists Mikhail Feldman, Oleg Savvin and their Moscow comrade Dmitry Fonarev. All three are in pre-trial detention, they do not admit guilt and do not give evidence. In the letters they explain to me: no one, of course, gave any signs to Germany to take Kaliningrad for itself. This is not about Germany at all, but about Ukraine. This was an action against the encouragement by the Russian authorities of separatism in the southeast. The flag in Kaliningrad—German until 1945—was hung “by analogy” with what was happening in Crimea: if you can wave the flags of a foreign country there, then why not here? <...> The activists have already served 10 (Fonarev - even 25) days in a special detention center: on the day the flag appeared, they were detained “for obscene language” - this administrative article is often used against activists in the regions. It seemed that the punishment had been served and they could continue to live - but a criminal case appeared, and soon all three were back behind bars. So far they have been arrested for 2 months during the investigation.”
The arrest period was later extended until the end of August
“Today the arrest of Kaliningrad activists accused in the case of hanging the German flag near the FSB building was extended. Members of the local movement “Committee for Public Self-Defense” Mikhail Feldman, Oleg Savvin and Dmitry Fonarev were arrested at the end of May and were kept in custody until June 26. Extending the period of arrest is a common procedure, but, as a rule, the arrest is extended a week before the expiration of the period, but not earlier. However, this time the trials were scheduled in a hurry. Even the lawyers were not notified about the meetings - the defense attorneys of Oleg Savvin and Mikhail Feldman did not even have time to come to their clients; instead of them, appointed, duty lawyers worked at the meeting. Judge Aliyeva made a decision: all three will remain in pre-trial detention until August 26 while the investigation is ongoing.”
OVD-Info about the “flag matter”
The head of the district education committee in the Novgorod region, who fights for the rights of orphans, was sentenced to a fine for official forgery
“Novaya Gazeta - St. Petersburg”, June 12 :
“ The court convicted Svetlana Vasilyeva without proving her guilt. All her life she worked as a history teacher in a village school, and shortly before her retirement she unexpectedly became the head of the district education committee in Chudovo (a town in the Novgorod region with a population of 16 thousand people) and provided apartments for 14 orphans - a small feat for the Russian outback, where children have been destitute for years They nurse and find housing to no avail. But it was precisely for this that the FSB accused the woman of a crime “against state power.” “Novaya” talked about this far-fetched, incredible, full of paradoxes case. <...> On June 11, what Vasilyeva feared most happened: the guilty verdict closed her way to school - the article that was charged against Svetlana Valerievna prohibits the kind of work that she has been yearning for for a long time. <...> ...according to the investigation, Chudov officials signed acts of acceptance and transfer of apartments for orphans, accepted the buildings and transferred the money at that moment (December 15, 2011) when “two residential premises in the house - the apartments of Natalya Lunina and Vladimir Kudasov - were not yet suitable for habitation." Lunina and Kudasov themselves do not think so; they did not recognize themselves as victims. There is no damage in the case. The “unsuitability” was that in one of the apartments the wallpaper had to be re-glued, and in the other the wallpaper had to be re-glued, and the developer did this. But in September 2013, Vasilyeva was charged with a crime under Art. 292 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Official forgery” and sent the case to court. The woman was accused of having “acted intentionally”, “out of personal interest”, “out of personal motives caused by the desire for career growth”, and thereby committed “official forgery” and “undermined the authority and prestige of state power” by signing the acts. ". Understanding the history of the delivery of the house, the investigative authorities revealed official violations of many high-ranking officials, and accused Vasilyeva of the crime. <...> Vasilyeva was sentenced to a fine of 20 thousand rubles. But given that during the investigation and trial all the statutes of limitations in the case have expired, Svetlana Valeryevna is forced to be released from criminal liability.”
List of Moscow judges who most often rule against oppositionists
Alexey Sokirko's blog, June 15 :
“I studied the websites of Moscow district courts, looking for cases against oppositionists. Found 1883 cases for 2013 and 2014. For the most part, these are cases under 20.2 (Violation of the established procedure for organizing demonstrations), there are also a few election cases. If you order the judges by the number of opposition cases, it turns out that about 80% of all cases were handled by just 20 judges. There are about 600 judges in Moscow in total. Probably, the opposition “specialization” is explained by the fact that these are judges from the central districts (Tverskoy, Zamoskvoretsky), maybe there are other reasons.”
About the problems that house arrest imposes on Konstantin Jankauskas
Zyuzino district community, June 15 :
“A huge problem is getting “official” registration. It was no coincidence that the swindlers and thieves placed her husband under house arrest. No matter how cynical it may sound, even from a pre-trial detention center it would be easier to apply for Kostya’s nomination than being a house arrest. Why? Thanks to the wording of the election legislation in Moscow.
8. The documents specified in parts 1 , 1.1 , 3 and 3.1 of this article must be submitted by the candidate in person *. These *documents may be submitted at the request of the candidate by other persons in cases where the candidate is sick or is being held in places of detention of suspects and accused (in this case, the authenticity of the candidate’s signature on the application in writing must be certified by the administration of the inpatient medical institution in which the candidate is undergoing treatment, by the administration of the institution in which suspects and accused are detained), other cases established by federal legislation...
This is paragraph 32 of article of the Electoral Code of the city of Moscow. Exactly the same wording, word for word, is contained in Article 33 of the federal law “On the Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation.” That is, how to submit documents for removal from a pre-trial detention center is prescribed by law. How to submit documents if the candidate’s freedom of movement is not limited is also spelled out (in person). It’s not clear how to move forward while under house arrest. An apartment where a person is under arrest is not a “place of detention of suspects or accused,” but a person cannot leave it and personally submit documents.
Actually, a year ago, Sergei Udaltsov encountered this legislative conflict when he tried to nominate his candidacy for mayor of Moscow while under house arrest.”
extrajudicial prosecution
Police came to a Taganrog resident who told Novaya Gazeta about recruitment to be sent to Donbass
“Oleg Rudikov, who gave an interview to Novaya Gazeta about recruitment, said by phone that the police and an employee of the Taganrog military registration and enlistment office were heading to him. Oleg himself connects this with the publication that appeared. Currently, Rudikov's phone number is not available. <…> Oleg Rudikov said that he did not meet with the police and the military registration and enlistment office because he was not at home. He also said that he is currently outside of Taganrog. Oleg Rudikov connects the visit of the police officers with the publication in Novaya Gazeta, which, according to his sources, was interested in Defense Minister Shoigu.”
How the FSB searches for extremists in Crimea
“[Civil activist Anastasia Vasilyeva:] Quite a lot of people are being detained now. I know that the guys from the “ultras” were called in for conversations. I know that even some punks were interrogated. Of course, as always, journalists are at the top of the arrests, for example, Osman Pashayev, Sergei Mokrushin and his colleague. The most “popular” detainees are Sasha Kolchenko and Oleg Sentsov. <...> The first detention that we became aware of was the detention of Gena Afanasyev. He was taken right in the city center, on May 9 in the afternoon. Then Oleg Sentsov was detained. They arrived at his home at 23.00. At 4 am, Oleg managed to send a message to journalist Katya Sergatskova that he had been detained. What happened during those five hours from 11 p.m. to 4 a.m. is unknown. In all likelihood, a search. Oleg was taken away in front of his children - his 9-year-old son Slad, who suffers from autism, and 12-year-old Alina. The next detainee was Sasha - he was taken by people in civilian clothes in the city center, without his belongings, during the day. Then they came to search the house. They seized packed construction gloves (Sasha is a handyman), a can of spray paint and my sister’s laptop.”
Political emigration
A certain Russian citizen asked for political asylum on the territory of Ukraine