Translated material
Political pressure: media digest (August 21-27)
"Bolotnaya case"
The European Union condemned the sentences of the accused in the Bolotnaya case
“The European Union criticized the sentences of six defendants in the Bolotnaya case, handed down by Moscow courts in July and August of this year. <…> A statement released by the office of EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said that the sentences imposed on those convicted were “disproportionate in light of the events and offenses with which they are charged.” The sentences also restrict freedom of speech and assembly in Russia, the statement noted. The European Union called on Russia to comply with its obligations in the field of protecting human rights, in particular the right to a fair trial, freedom of speech and assembly.”
Of those convicted in the “Case of Eight,” Stepan Zimin can count on parole with the greatest confidence
“Of the seven defendants in the Bolotnaya case who were convicted and sentenced to real terms of imprisonment, only one, Stepan Zimin, can be released on parole in the near future. Most of the rest found guilty of participating in mass riots either have a significant number of penalties, or are only hoping to gain positive characteristics in the colony. Yaroslav Belousov, convicted of participating in mass riots on Bolotnaya Square on May 6, 2012, will serve his entire sentence in prison. On Friday, on formal grounds, the Preobrazhensky Court of Moscow was unable to consider his request for parole and sent the materials to the Federal Penitentiary Service in the Stavropol Territory, in one of the colonies of which the person involved in the “Bolotnaya case” is currently being held. But the case will not even have time to go to court: Belousov’s sentence will expire in two weeks, on the morning of September 8, and he must be released. His lawyer Dmitry Agranovsky told RBC that the defense will now seriously think about filing a complaint with the Constitutional Court to challenge the procedure for submitting applications for early release. “Convicts are actually deprived of the opportunity to ask for early release while they are in prison,” notes Agranovsky. Agranovsky filed a petition for the parole of his client at the end of June, after the verdict in the “Bolotnaya case” came into force, and Belousov was given a final sentence of 2.5 years in prison. The petition was then sent to the Tverskoy Court of Moscow, since the convict was in the Butyrka pre-trial detention center. But after some time, Belousov was transferred to Matrosskaya Tishina, and the petition was transferred to the Preobrazhensky Court. While the materials were moving from court to court, Belousov was transported from the capital, first to Volgograd, then to Pyatigorsk, from where he was supposed to go to a colony in the Stavropol Territory. In the meantime, he is in transit and his whereabouts have not been reliably established, no court can consider a request for parole. <...> As RBC learned, except for Belousov, none of the seven sentenced to real imprisonment as a result of the first “Bolotnaya case” has yet filed a petition for early release, although all of them have already been taken to correctional colonies. Thus, according to lawyer Farid Murtazin, his client Artem Savelov will not ask for parole for ideological reasons. “He doesn’t want to do this on principle,” notes Murtazin. “He is innocent, but he was convicted and sent to a colony, he will serve his entire sentence without asking for anything.” Now, according to the lawyer, he is in correctional colony No. 6 in the Ryazan region. Aleksey Polikhovich and Andrey Barabanov are also serving their sentences there with him. Their defenders also confirmed to RBC that for now they will not submit any requests for early release. Barabanov’s lawyer, Svetlana Sidorkina, noted that she and her client plan to file a petition, but “not in the near future.” “He has only recently been in the colony, and it takes time to receive positive characteristics from the colony administration,” she said. According to her, Barabanov can file a petition for parole no earlier than in a few months. “We are now analyzing all the circumstances and have not decided on the issue of filing a petition,” said Polikhovich’s lawyer Alexey Miroshnichenko. As Dmitry Dinze, the lawyer of Denis Lutskevich, another convicted in the Bolotnaya case, noted in a conversation with RBC, “the whole point is that many guys came to the zones with the baggage of penalties.” “Lutskevich now has 12 violations, and Polikhovich, as I know, has 15 in total,” Dinze said. According to the lawyer, the defendants in the “Bolotnaya case” received all these penalties from the administration of the capital’s pre-trial detention centers specifically to prevent their early release. “When Lutskevich was kept under investigation, he had no penalties, he did not complain about anything,” the lawyer notes. Lutskevich is currently being held in a correctional colony in the city of Tula. In the near future, only the lawyer of the convicted Stepan Zimin, Sergei Panchenko, is preparing to submit a petition for parole. “Zimin doesn’t have such a deplorable picture of penalties. He is a two-meter tall man, a calm guy. He had no problems at all during the entire period of detention,” Panchenko said. “We will apply for parole in the fall.” His client ended up in a colony in the Tula region, where he lives in a two-story building with 100 other prisoners. <…> RPR-PARNAS party activist Sergei Krivov, who received the longest sentence (4 years) and the right to parole only on August 18, according to his lawyer Vyacheslav Makarov, has still not been delivered to a correctional colony in the city of Bryansk, where will serve his sentence. The application for parole will be sent to the court after his arrival, Makarov assures. The lawyer noted that Krivov was the last to be transported from Moscow due to the fact that he planned to have heart surgery (coronary bypass), but in the end he changed his mind. “Of course, the operation would have been performed in the hospital, but he would have had to undergo rehabilitation in the zone,” notes Makarov. He hopes that his client's health will influence the decision on early release. But at the same time, according to Makarov’s lawyer, Krivov twice went on hunger strike in pre-trial detention centers, which was regarded by the management of the institutions as opposition to the administration. This may be reflected in Krivov’s personal file and characteristics.”
Navalny
The court allowed Navalny to communicate with everyone except witnesses in the Yves Rocher case
“Not a single witness in the Yves Rocher case appeared in the Zamoskvoretsky court on Thursday. It was not possible to find out which of the 200 witnesses in the case were called to this meeting and why they did not come. Instead, prosecutors announced their intention to change the procedure for presenting evidence and begin not with questioning witnesses, as was previously assumed, but with the announcement of the case materials: it was proposed to hear a number of documents - from marriage certificates and birth certificates of the defendants’ children, to Oleg Navalny’s job descriptions, orders transferring him from one department of the Russian Post to another, extracts from his work record book, statements from Alexey’s bank account, various contracts for the provision of services and additions to them... The defense, of course, protested: the logic of the process was being violated. Instead of starting the trial by finding out what exactly the Navalny brothers are accused of and what real claims the victims have against them, the court is asked to start by reading out a strange set of documents from which nothing follows. “Let's interrogate the victims,” Navalny's lawyers again suggested, but the judge again refused them: prosecutors present evidence, it is up to them to decide in what sequence to do this. However, before starting the three-hour reading of excerpts from the documents (not everyone in the room survived this reading to the end), the judge suddenly remembered the openness and publicity of the process. “Do you have information that some people did not get into the hall? So far, how many people haven’t been caught?” – she suddenly asked Navalny and their lawyers. And then, in a completely friendly tone, she asked everyone present whether, from their point of view, there really was a need for a video broadcast below for those who were not in the hall. Having received many affirmative answers, Judge Korobchenko announced a ten-minute break and returned the broadcast, which was prohibited at the last meeting. Then something completely surprising happened: the judge granted Navalny’s request to allow him to communicate with persons who were co-defendants in a number of civil cases. Moreover, following the letter of the decision, Navalny was allowed to communicate not only with his co-defendants, but also with any people except witnesses in the “Yves Rocher case” under consideration. “There is another prohibition - not to give comments to the press on the case,” grumbled an employee of the Federal Penitentiary Service displeasedly accompanying the politician to the trial. “I do not comment on the case,” Navalny replied, although this is exactly what he has always been doing, including before filing the petition. It’s just that earlier, when making a statement, he dramatically and deliberately addressed his lawyers, and the cameras simply happened to be nearby. Now he could finally afford to talk directly with the journalists he knew... <...>
“Your honor, I want to find out what happened to the witnesses,” [Navalny’s lawyer Olga] Mikhailova continues. – Why don’t we interrogate witnesses? Either they didn’t come, or they weren’t called at all.
“From the court’s side, I’ll tell you,” the judge suddenly decides to be frank, “since the case was postponed for only a week, there was no point in issuing subpoenas that take 5 days to travel around Moscow. To date, we have not called any witnesses from the court.
– Will there be witnesses at the next court hearing? – Mikhailova’s lawyer once again tried to find out.
– The prosecution presents evidence. “I don’t know which witnesses they will ensure the appearance of next time,” the judge answered.
– But the court will send them a summons?
– The court will not issue a summons to them.
The next hearing in the Yves Rocher case will be held on Friday, August 29, at 10 am.”
Navalny's associates summoned for questioning in connection with the theft of a painting
“Yesterday, Alexei Navalny’s wife Yulia was interrogated in the case of the theft of a painting by street artist Sergei Sotov . The interrogation was conducted, as stated in the summons, by “the investigator for especially important cases of the third investigative department of the department for investigating especially important cases of crimes against state power and in the economic sphere of the Main Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee A.V. Alekseev.” “He appears in all of Navalny’s cases, from Kirovles to the disappearance of a poster from the fence at the Vladimir train station,” Navalnaya wrote on her husband’s Twitter . She refused to answer questions, citing Article 51 of the Constitution, which allows not to testify against loved ones. “The point of the interrogation was intimidation, of course. These are ridiculous threats to prosecute people for refusing to testify,” the wife of the oppositionist believes. Today, employees of the Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK) Anna Biryukova and Galina Koposova, FBK volunteer Vladislav Naganov , head of the Moscow branch of the Progress Party Nikolai Lyaskin and the mother of Navalny’s former press secretary Anna Veduta have been summoned for questioning. Journalist Olga Romanova received a summons for September 15. The painting “A Bad and a Good Man” was hung on one of the streets of Vladimir. After FBK employees gave it to Navalny for his birthday, investigators seized the painting and opened a case of theft against unidentified persons. FBK employee Georgy Alburov was the first to be called in for questioning. He said that the investigation had not contacted him for a month and a half, although before that interrogations took place every week. According to Alburov, “this case is a gift for the investigation, with its help they can interfere with the work of the FBK, confiscate our equipment and terrorize people as much as they want.” Biryukova also says that the reason for calling for questioning is the very fact of their work in FBK. “I think that in the entire history of the State Investigative Directorate, its employees have never investigated cases of theft at the level of the district police department,” Navalny’s lawyer Vadim Kobzev is perplexed. In his opinion, now everyone who organizedly congratulated Navalny that day is being summoned. “A painting costs a couple of rubles; you can’t steal something that was left in a public place. Julia was asked questions: “Why did your husband like the picture?”, “How did he plan to dispose of it?” We can only respond to such absurdity with general silence. Most likely, all the summoned employees will exercise their right not to testify,” Kobzev said. Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (theft) provides for up to five years in prison, depending on the damage, says Maxim Shabarin, a lawyer at the Shabarin and Partners bureau: “To establish the value of the painting, the investigator will be required to conduct an examination.” “It is strange that the investigation is being carried out by the Investigative Committee , since the investigation of cases under this article falls within the competence of the police. The exception is if the crime was discovered as a result of a search conducted by ICR officers,” explains lawyer Vladislav Kocherin . But as a consequence, it is not clear to the lawyer to prove the significant value of a sheet of paper with a drawing that was never the subject of sale.”
prosecution
The second trial has begun in the case of Rostov journalist and blogger Sergei Reznik
“In the Leninsky Court of Rostov-on-Don, court hearings began on the second criminal case of Rostov journalist and blogger Sergei Reznik: he is accused under Art. 306 (false denunciation) and 319 (insulting a government official) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In particular, the prosecution believes that Sergei Reznik, in his diary on LiveJournal, insulted former deputy prosecutor of the Rostov region Roman Klimov (called him a “tractor driver” and a “prosecutor-swindler”), an employee of the department for combating extremism of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for the Rostov region Dmitry Ishchenko (called him “low-minded”) and Don police operative Andrei Glinkin (suspected the operative of sexual acts towards a minor). All three act as victims at the trial, and Andrei Glinkin also accused Sergei Reznik of falsely denouncing a crime (pedophilia). Sergei Reznik himself is now serving a sentence in his first criminal case: on November 26, 2013, by decision of the Pervomaisky Court of Rostov-on-Don, he was found guilty under three articles of the Criminal Code (commercial bribery, false denunciation and insult of a government official) and sentenced to one and a half years in prison with serving a sentence in a general regime colony. However, the blogger spent only a month and a half at the place where he was serving his sentence. After the verdict was pronounced, he was taken into custody in the courtroom and placed in a pre-trial detention center in Novocherkassk. There he awaited consideration of the appeal: the decision was made in mid-April, the appeal was denied. From Novocherkassk the blogger was transported to Kamensk-Shakhtinsky, to colony No. 5. But at the beginning of June he was charged with four new crimes and transported to Rostov-on-Don to pre-trial detention center No. 1 (where he got acquainted with the new case and is currently staying). The trial is being conducted by Judge Vladimir Strokov. On August 11, the first preliminary meeting took place, and open hearings began on August 20. <...> As expected, the first meeting was procedural in nature - the parties filed several motions and challenges. First, Sergei Reznik himself (with the support of his lawyer Zhanna Pavlova) challenged the judge and the representative of the prosecution, prosecutor Svetlana Kashubina: he suspected both of them of bias, since both were seen (and photographed) by his defense attorneys in the judge’s office. In addition, Svetlana Kashubina had already acted on the side of the prosecution in the trial of the first criminal case of Sergei Reznik, on the basis of which the defendant concluded that she had developed a hostile attitude towards him. The judge rejected both challenges. The defense filed a motion to include two defenders in the process: Elena Dragunova (who participated in the consideration of the appeal against the first verdict of Sergei Reznik and will participate in the consideration of the cassation) and the defendant’s wife Natalya Reznik. The court rejected the first candidate on the grounds that Ms. Dragunova was summoned as a witness in the case under consideration (although she refused to testify at the investigation stage). At the same time, he allowed her to defend herself through lawyer Zhanna Pavlova, who was already participating in the process. In the process of discussing the candidacy of Natalya Reznik, Judge Vladimir Strokov found out that she did not have a legal education, but still allowed her to participate in the process as a defense attorney (who, according to current legislation, has the right of unlimited access to his client in custody). The prosecution also requested that the court hearings be held behind closed doors. Svetlana Kashubin motivated her request by the fact that the court had to find out the details of the personal life of the victim Andrei Glinkin, whom Sergei Reznik suspected of pedophilia. The judge satisfied the application of the prosecution partially: the episodes with Glinkin will be considered in a closed manner, the hearing on other episodes will be public. Also on the first day of the meeting, the indictment was read out, partly: when the document announced the document, Svetlana Kashubin missed some points. After that, Sergei Reznik filed another petition - he asked the court to explain what he would accuse him of specifically, since he did not understand this from the document announced by the Kashubin document. The judge suggested doing this to the prosecution. In turn, Svetlana Kashubina said that the indictment is in the case and invited the defendant to read it again. In the end, the court determined the procedure for studying evidence: the prosecution will present its evidence first. The next court hearing in the case of Sergey Reznik is scheduled for September 10. Such a big break in the hearings was needed so that the parties could warn the witnesses in a timely manner and sprinkle their appearance in court. ”
Kuban ecologist Evgeny Vitishko was taken out of the colony to a pre -trial detention center and returned back
The “activist of the“ ecological shift in the North Caucasus ”Evgeny Vitishko, who was sentenced to three years in a colony-settlement after the court replaced the conditional punishment for the real one last year, for some reason was taken out to the Tambov pre-trial detention center, and a week later returned back In the colony-settlement. This strange journey alerted Eugene's friends, who could not find him, and calmed down only after they found out: Vitishko was again in a colony-settlement and everything is in order with him. As it became known, on August 15, Vitishko was transferred to the Tambov pre -trial detention center, where he spent a week. The fact that he was returned to the colony is said in the record in his Facebook . "Zhenya was found. On Friday August 15, he was really transferred to the Tambov pre -trial detention center, he spent a week there and today he was returned to the KP -2 P. Sadovy," the ecologist said. Previously, the record appeared there: "KP-2 of the Tambov region informed the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court that Vitishko was laid to video communications on August 18. Today it is not in the Tambov pre-trial detention center, in what roundabout ways he was being taken there if the distances are 140 km to Tambov, and All stages from the colony usually immediately go to Tambov ... "".
The decision on the home arrest of the accused in the case of coloring the star entered into force
“The deadline for appealing the court’s decision on the home arrest of four stars accused of painting on a high-rise on Kotelnicheskaya embankment in Moscow has expired, neither investigators nor lawyers disputed him, the press service of the court told RIA Novosti. According to the interlocutor of the agency, since there were no appeals about the court decision, and the appeal period has expired, the decision is considered to be legal. By the court’s decision, Alexei Shirovokh, Alexander Pogrebov, Evgenia Korotkova and Anna Lepeshkina will remain under house arrest until October 19. The investigation asked to conclude them in a pre -trial detention center, but the court decided on a milder extent. The judge imposed a number of restrictions on them, for example, forbade the use of the phone and other means of communication with the exception of the ambulance, the police, etc. ”.
extrajudicial prosecution
FSB holds conversations with pro -Ukrainian activists in Crimea about their activities on the Internet
“... On the eve of the Independence Day of Ukraine, the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (starting on August 22, 2014) holds“ preventive conversations ”with pro -Ukrainian activists publishing or dividing posts on the Day of Independence of Ukraine on Facebook. The FSB officers come to the activists home, without any documents, summons, preliminary calls and take them to the territorial department, where they begin to accuse the standard for the occupiers of actions: participation in the "right sector"; fascism; support for the unity of Ukraine; Violation of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. After 5-6 hours of conversation, they go back to the apartment (house), where they seize office equipment (laptop, computer, launch vehicles), again, without permits, sanctions of the court, etc. Ask (namely, forced, intimidating criminal liability) Sign a “voluntary” issuance to the FSB of a laptop (computer). Activists are issued a subscription about the ban on departure for a couple of days (until August 26-27), and office equipment is also taken for the same period. The norms of Article 280-1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are applied to the activists, namely, the amendments to it on May 9, 2014, according to Federal Law No. 433-ФЗ dated December 28, 2013: that entered into force.
"Public calls for the implementation of actions aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation
Public calls for the implementation of actions aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation - are punishable by a fine of up to three hundred thousand rubles or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to two years, or by obligatory work for up to three hundred hours, or imprisonment for a term of up to three years.
The same acts committed using the media, including information and telecommunication networks (including the Internet), -
They are punishable by mandatory work for a period of up to four hundred eighty hours or deprivation of liberty for up to five years. ”
Petersburg poet was detained for a cap painted in the colors of the flag of Ukraine
“The city police detained the poet Oleg Ilyin for a cap painted in the state colors of Ukraine. This was reported in the group "Help for detainees in St. Petersburg." Natalya Sivokhina, who posted the news, said that Ilyin walked along the street when the police, who allegedly did not like his headdress, turned to him. Ilyin did not have a passport with him, he was detained and sent to the 20th police department. There they selected a book with poetry, says Sivokhin. Ilyin spent about two hours in the department. After the release, he clarified that he was detained after he stopped at the building of the administration of the Vyborg district, where they celebrated the day of the Russian flag. The administration officials allegedly did not like his yellow-blue cap. The administration confirmed that they had a holiday, but did not recall the detention of passers -by. In the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region, the words of a man did not confirm. “We refute, there was no detention,” said the official representative of the headquarters Vyacheslav Stepchenko. A copy of the protocol about the detention of Ilyin, he said, was not given. ”
“According to Ilyin, he was present at the festival organized by the administration of the Vyborg region. At some point, regional officials drew attention to his cap with the inscription “Ukraine”. Then they turned to the police. According to the man Fontanka, the police asked to present a passport, which he did not refuse with him. After that, law enforcement officers allegedly stated that the organizers of the event consider the appearance of Ilyin in such a cap for a provocation, and asked the headdress to remove. After Ilyin refused to do this, he was sent to the police department. According to the Petersburger, a book with his own verses was seized from him in the police department and the cap itself was taken. After looking at the activist’s lyrics, the police allegedly reported that perhaps she should be shown to the FSB officers. Note, Ilyin is a supporter of Ingermanland separatism and is the author of civil lyrics. ”