In Russia, as you know, the law has long been drawn - that the people were drawn up, and the people have always relied on the "good master" and a fair judge. But, it seems, there are times when the last hope for the Supreme Court disappears

In Russia, as you know, the law has long been drawn - that the people were drawn up, and the people have always relied on the "good master" and a fair judge. But, it seems, there are times when the last hope for the Supreme Court disappears

“New” repeatedly talked about the loud “Sorokin case”, an entrepreneur from Vladivostok (New Gazeta, No. 18 of 02/20/2012 - “ Citizens - Chiefs? ”, No. 44 of 04/20/2012 - “The case is hidden from falsehood” , No. 93 of 08.20.2012 - “Do not give, do not take it , No. 67 of 06/23/2014 - “ without protection ” ). This topic is also continued by the New Gazeta in Vladivostok. We reprint this material without amendments and abbreviations.

In the city of Vladivostok, an entrepreneur Alexei Sorokin, a patient with diabetes, has been in a pre -trial detention center for the fourth year. Criminal cases against him, starting in March 2010, only multiply and get confused. Here, slander at the ex-prosecutor of the city of Dmitry Romanchenko (which is already dismissed from the prosecution authorities), here the theft, fraud, and the damage of someone else's property through arson, and even the organization of assassination attempts-such a “magnificent bouquet” of the episodes of the accusation of not every obscenity recidivist will meet!

The main thing in the case of Sorokin is not even what exactly attracts him for, but - how the consequence of the “awl and quenched” these criminal cases. Because there were so much lawlessness, outright forgery and replacement in the materials of the case of procedural documents, according to the defenders of the entrepreneur, they did not meet in any case for their rich practice.

In this regard, having exhausted the possibilities to exercise the constitutional right of the client to judicial protection, the lawyer addressed the very chairman of the Supreme Court of Russia Vyacheslav Lebedev, indicating in his complaint the following:

“On February 6, 2014, the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Rusakov V.V.,“ ... Having studied the cassation appeal of the convicted Sorokin Alexei Markovich and the lawyer of Pototsky V. Yu. In his interests for the verdict of the Frunze District Court of the Primorsky Territory of December 6, 2012, the decision of the Frunze District Court of Vladivostok of the Primorsky Territory of February 22, 2013 Cassation ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Primorsky Regional Court of April 25, 2013, as well as for the decision of the Frunze District Court of Vladivostok, Primorsky Territory of December 6, 2012 and the cassation ruling of the Judicial Criminal Board of the Primorsky Regional Court of April 25, 2013 ... ”,“ ... decided: refuse to transfer the cassation appeal of the convicted Sorokin Alexei Markovich and lawyer Pototsky V. Yu. ... For consideration at the court session of the court of cassation ”, indicating that“ ... there are no grounds for transferring it to the court of cassation ...

Article 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (as amended by the Federal Law of December 29, 2010 No. 433-F3) provides for the right of the cassation instance to cancel the verdict, ruling and the decision of the court and transfer the criminal case for a new trial, while the grounds for making such a decision ... are significant violations of the criminal or criminal procedure law that affected the outcome of the case.

Such circumstances in the case are not established ...

The arguments of the cassation appeal about the inadmissibility of evidence underlying the basis of the sentence cannot be recognized as reasonable ... "

***

The lawyer categorically disagrees with such a response of the Supreme Court, and this is why: from the very beginning of his work to defend Alexei Sorokin, his lawyers pointed to egregious violations of the investigation! I submitted documents to the court where, for example, the dates, surnames of participants in the procedural actions did not comply with, the number of pages could differ significantly, and even the originals of the case materials differed from their copies certified by the investigator. However, our judges liberally tuned to the prosecution, as well as vigilant prosecutors, did not see in this, sorry, the mess is nothing significant!

So, in his complaint, the lawyer gives concrete examples, reinforcing them with documents, which he is returned from the Supreme Court over and over again:

“The judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Rusakov V.V. claims that“ ... the arguments of the cassation appeal about the violations of the requirements of the criminal procedure law that were committed during the preliminary investigation cannot be recognized as substantiated.

Protection in its complaints approved and claims that the criminal case was investigated illegally, and, in particular, referred to the criminal case in the criminal case and investigated by the court of 1st instance:

1. The resolution of the investigator with OM No. 4 of the SU under the Internal Affairs Directorate for Vladivostok Zarudneva O. A. dated February 28, 2010 - on the suspension of the preliminary investigation due to the non -control of the person to be attracted as the accused in accordance with paragraph 1 of part 1 of the part of Art. 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

2. Decree of the chief from OM No. 4 of the SU under the Internal Affairs Directorate for Vladivostok Ironosova E.V. dated July 15, 2010 - on the cancellation of the resolution of the investigator Zarudneva O. A. dated February 28, 2010 on the resumption of the preliminary investigation in the case.

3. The certificate No. 5/P-9 of the investigator from OM No. 4 of the SU at the Daliakfes LLC in the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Internal Affairs Directorate for Vladivostok Zokirova V.A. on August 25, 2010-on the suspension of the preliminary investigation in the criminal case in connection with the release of the person to be involved as the accused in accordance with paragraph 1 of the part 1 of the part of the first Article. 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, moreover, this certificate was adopted and investigated by the arbitration court.

Since the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation illegally returned all the copies of documents attached to the cassation appeal confirming the arguments set forth in it, the defense considers it necessary to place them directly in the text of this complaint ... "

***

Thus, Vladimir Pototsky claims, it is proved that the investigator carried out investigative actions during the period when the investigation of the criminal case was officially suspended, which is unacceptable from the point of view of the law. But if it is impossible, but the side of the prosecution really wants, then it turns out, can I?

“... When we concluded the illegality of the investigation of the criminal case, the protection is based on the following norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, namely:

Article 156 - the beginning of the preliminary investigation "...

1. If the investigator or interrogator is entrusted with the proceedings in an already initiated criminal case, then he makes a decision on his adoption to his production, a copy of which within 24 hours from the date of its adoption is sent to the prosecutor ... ”

Article 208 - grounds, procedure and terms for suspension of the preliminary investigation ... "

...

1. On the suspension of the preliminary investigation, the investigator makes a decision, a copy of which sends the prosecutor ...

2. Prior to the suspension of the preliminary investigation, the investigator performs all investigative actions, the production of which is possible in the absence of a suspect or accused, and takes measures to search for him or establish a person who committed a crime ... ”

Article 209 - The actions of the investigator after the preliminary investigation is suspended "...

1. Having suspended the preliminary investigation, the investigator notifies the victim, his representative, civil plaintiff, civil defendant or their representatives and at the same time explains to them the procedure for appealing this decision. In case of suspension of the preliminary investigation on the grounds provided for in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the first of Article 208 of this Code, the suspect, the accused and his defender are also notified of this.

...

1. After suspension of the preliminary investigation, the production of investigative actions is not allowed ... "

The defense claims that during the investigation of the criminal case No. 113922 the above norms of the criminal procedure law were not implemented by investigators.

In the text of the decision of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, V. Rusakov, there is not even an attempt to correlate the investigators performed by investigators during a preliminary investigation of procedural actions with the procedure established by the criminal procedure law. In the text of the decision of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, V. Rusakov, there is no analysis of the procedural documents indicated by the protection, or even mention or any reference to the above, as the defense believes, still existing articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation ... "

***

The persistence of lawyers in this case has already resulted in specific troubles: in particular, the case of a disciplinary sanction of the lawyer chamber has been initiated against the defender of Vladimir Pototsky. But the lawyer who is stubborn in his position does not lose hope of the Supreme Court of answers on the merits of the questions about obvious violations of the investigation, studied by the court and not recognized as significant, although every such document of the case is human fate, the legal rights of a Russian citizen:

“The defense claims that some of the above documents of the investigation (without references to other“ documents ”that were investigated and to which defense in their complaints referred to) carry traces of a criminal act committed by investigators - falsification of evidence in the criminal case provided for in Article 303 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The defense claims that the totality of only the above documents of the investigation allows us to conclude that there are in the actions of investigators a different corpus delicti - abuse of the official powers established by Article 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Based on the complaints in the text of the proceedings of the procedural and other documents investigated by the court, the defense reasonably believes that the judges, including the deputy chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation A. Tolkachenko, do not see the actions of investigators who have drawn up illegal protocols and have issued illegal decisions and completely falling under the criminal code of the Russian Federation, nothing even nothing at all, nothing even nothing reprehensible.

The defense will not agree with the conclusions set forth in the Decree of February 6, 2014 by the judge of the Supreme Court Rusakov V.V., nor with the answer No. 56-UKS13-1231 dated March 13, 2014 of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Fetisov S. M., nor with the maxims of the deputy chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation A. A. Tolkachenko, presented by the latter in letter No. 56-UKS13-1231 dated February 26, 2014, until Article 50 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation is canceled (in particular, part 2, which establishes: “... during justice, the use of evidence obtained in violation of the federal law ...”), until the provisions of the criminal procedure of the Russian Federation are valid, regulating the preliminary investigation and the preliminary investigation procedure and the preliminary investigation The procedure for the production of specific investigative and other procedural actions ... "

And further:

“... Based on those accepted by the judges, including the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, V. Rusakov, the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Fetisov S. M. and the deputy chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation A. Tolkachenko, in this criminal case of decisions, the protection has the right to conclude that the judges who considered the complaints and made decisions on them in violation of the norms of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation are considered that:

1. Investigator Kruglov R.V. During the investigation of criminal cases No. 113922 and No. 123645, he had both legal grounds and law (not granted by law) to conduct investigative actions in a criminal case, which was not resumed in the procedure established by the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

2. Investigators had both legal grounds and the right (not granted by law) to the conduct of investigative actions in criminal case No. 113922, which, in the procedure established by the procedural law, was not accepted for their proceedings.

3. Investigator Kruglov R.V. During the investigation of criminal cases No. 113922 and No. 123645, he had both legal grounds and the right (not granted by law) to falsify protocols and other procedural documents (“legal” “legitimate” defenses repeatedly attached to its petitions, complaints, statements), that is, for the preparation or manufacture of or manufacture or manufacture or manufacture or manufacture or manufacture of or manufacture or manufacture or manufacture or manufacture or manufacture or manufacture or manufacture or manufacture of various options for the same document, but having different content.

4. Investigator Kruglov R.V. During the investigation of criminal cases No. 113922 and No. 123645, he had both legal grounds and law (not granted by law) both to illegally allocation of criminal cases and criminal cases.

5. Investigator Kruglov R.V. During the investigation of criminal cases No. 113922 and No. 123645, he had both legal grounds and the right (not granted by law) to carry out procedural actions in the criminal case at the stage of familiarization with the criminal case materials, that is, after the announcement of the preliminary investigation of the preliminary investigation in the case in the established Criminal Procedure Code.

6. Investigator Kruglov R.V. During the investigation of criminal cases No. 113922 and No. 123645, he had both legal grounds and the right (not granted by law) to throw protocols and other procedural documents from the materials of the criminal case in any volume.

7. Investigator Kruglov R.V. During the investigation of criminal cases No. 113922 and No. 123645, he had both legal grounds and law (not granted by law) in any other way to violate the current Constitution of the Russian Federation, the constitutional rights of A. M. Sorokin and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

As a result of illegal manipulations of investigators with the allocation of criminal cases and materials, Sorokin A. M. was deliberately deprived of the possibility of exercising the right to protect the right to protection guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the criminal procedure law, since he could not in accordance with the principle of adversity and equality to react to violations of his rights and timely appeal the actions carried out by investigators to the court. ”

***

But even in the Supreme Court, which, by definition, is a stronghold of the legality in the country, the judges, obviously, are at least indifferently unreasonable about the complaints they received against the investigative-suited arbitrariness. And they answer defenders not on the merits of the questions they put:

“... Sorokin A. M. I defenders were extremely surprised, receiving the response of the deputy chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation A. Tolkachenko dated February 26, 2014 for No. 56-UKS13-1231 and a letter from the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation S. M. No. 56-UKS13-1231 of March 13, 2014, of which the following facts unexpectedly learned for themselves:

I. Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation A. Tolkachenko for some reason without a complaint by Sorokin A. M. or his defense, that is, on a personal initiative, “concerned” by the problems of Sorokin A. M. and his defenders, examined by lawyer Gorshvkova S. A. Cassation appeal against the following court decisions: the following court decisions:

a) the verdict of the Frunze District Court of December 6, 2012 in case No. 1-11/2012;

b) the decision on the termination of the criminal case of the Frunze District Court of December 6, 2012 in case No. 1-11/2012;

c) the decision of the Frunzensky District Court of February 22, 2013 on the reject of protection comments on the minutes of the court session;

d) cassation rulings of the judicial board for criminal cases of the Primorsky Regional Court of April 25, 2013 in case No. 22-2564/13 and

e) the decision of the judge of the Primorsky Regional Court of September 03, 2013 in case No. 4U-3058/2013 on the refusal to transfer the cassation appeal for consideration at the court session of the cassation court.

II. Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation A. Tolkachenko, “... having studied the cassation appeal ...”, did not find “... the grounds for canceling the decision of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 6, 2014 ...”, but neither Sorokin A.M., nor his defenders and did not appeal any decision of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (the above is given an exhaustive list of the appealed Sorokin A. M. and above defenders of court decisions), and also illegally returned the “procedural” documents attached to the complaint of 274 sheets attached to the complaint.

III. Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation A. Tolkachenko, “... having studied the cassation appeal ...” and not finding “... the grounds for canceling the decision of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 6, 2014 ...”, also did not make decisions on the decision of the Judgment of the Primorsky Regional Court of September 03, 2013 in the case No. 4u-3058/2013 on the refusal to transfer the cassation for consideration in the judicial Court of court meetings.

IV. Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation S. Fetisov in a letter No. 56-UKS13-1231 dated March 13, 2014 indicated that "... Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, having checked this decision on February 26, 2014 in accordance with Part 3 of Art. 4018 УПК РФ, по жалобе адвоката Горшкова С. А. в интересах осужденного Сорокина А. М., согласился с ним ...», но и в этом случае приложенные к жалобе светокопии «процессуальных» документов на 382 листах были незаконно и необоснованно возвращены.

V. Из текстов указанных выше писем защитники так и не смогли понять, что же все-таки изучал заместитель председателя Верховного суда РФ Толкаченко А. А. — кассационную жалобу адвоката Горшкова С. А. или постановление судьи Верховного суда Российской Федерации Русакова В. В., которое ни Сорокиным А. М., ни его защитниками в порядке, установленном статьей 401.8 (частью 3) УПК РФ, не обжаловалось.

В действительности статьей 401.8 (частью 3) УПК РФ установлено, что «...председатель Верховного суда Российской Федерации, его заместитель вправе не согласиться с постановлением судьи Верховного суда Российской Федерации об отказе в передаче кассационных жалобы, представления для рассмотрения в судебном заседании суда кассационной инстанции и вынести постановление об отмене такого постановления и о передаче кассационных жалобы, представления с уголовным делом для рассмотрения в судебном заседании соответствующего суда кассационной инстанции...», в то же самое время за весь период адвокатской практики защитники впервые столкнулись с ситуацией, когда заместитель председателя Верховного суда Российской Федерации при отсутствии соответствующей жалобы заинтересованного лица или его защитников на принятое судом решение по собственной инициативе в порядке упреждения и в не процессуальной форме изложил свое мнение по судебному решению (которое ни Сорокиным А. М., ни его защитниками не обжаловалось), поскольку жалоба на это решение не подавалась…»

***

Таким образом, остается открытым главный вопрос судеб сотен тысяч российских граждан, попадающих под следствие и суд: где, у кого, в какой инстанции искать законности и соблюдения прав, если даже в Верховном суде российского государства после всех проведенных реформ законность не гарантирована?

Виктор ПАНИН,

«Новая газета во Владивостоке»