He is pursued for hulas

This week in Rostov-on-Don, the verdict was announced to Sergey Reznik. In November 2013, the journalist was sentenced to one and a half years in prison, according to the second sentence, the term increased to three years. In addition, Reznik for two years was banned from engaging in journalism.

We present an overview of the accusations against Reznik, as well as the opinions of lawyers and colleagues in the journalistic workshop. Sergei Reznik, they say, a person is hyperemonic and difficult to communicate, but from this criminal cases do not cease to be absurd.

What were the guilty of Sergei Reznik?

By the first sentence (one and a half years of prison):

• Commercial bribery (paragraph "b" of part 2 of Article 204 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). According to the prosecution, Reznikov handed over to the administrator of the inspection point of cars two thousand rubles for providing a diagnostic card without passing the inspection. The evidence was the testimony of the operator Andrei Glinkin, who said that he had seen the fact of transferring money.

• knowingly false denunciation, combined with the artificial creation of evidence of the prosecution (part 3 of Article 306 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Reznik received calls with threats from the persons who were represented by police officers. After he filed an application for a crime, the criminal case was fabricated against himself. According to investigators, he asked his acquaintances for a reward of 10 thousand rubles to imitate calls with threats - supposedly Reznik did this to raise his journalistic rating.

• insulting a representative of the authorities (Article 319).

By the second sentence (three years of prison):

• knowingly false denunciation, combined with the charge of a person of a serious or particularly serious crime (part 2 of Article 306 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Reznik filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the operative of Glinkin from the materials of his first business. In this petition, he called Glinkin a person suspected of sexual relations with a minor who has not reached 16 years of age. As explained by people familiar with the circumstances of Reznik’s affairs, the statements of Glinkin pedophilia were a kind of parody of Glinkin himself: Reznik wanted to show that he himself could invent any evidence against him. One way or another, the characteristic of Glinkin was given in the alleged, not an affirmative form.

• insulting three representatives of the authorities (Article 319 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

Who was offended and what?

(Almost all controversial publications from the Reznik LJ are deleted, it is necessary to judge their content by retelling.)

By the first sentence:

Chairman of the Arbitration Court of the Rostov Region Olga Solovyova: “City crocodile of arbitration proceedings”, “Aunt-taking Solovyov”, “Kurochka”, “Oslitsa”, “Perennaya donkey”, “The shock-eyed old woman with a rattling voice”, “The keeper of the judicial system”, “these glasses, looking in different directions ... are characteristic of non-tabillers ... Character In the mental sense of individuals. "

By the second sentence:

The operative of the Department of Economic Security and Combating Corruption of the Rostov Region Andrei Glinkin: "Pedophile".

The head of the Center of the "E" of the Rostov Region Dmitry Ishchenko: "Spring Dog". (Reznik was not the author of the record of Ishchenko, he made a repost.)

Deputy Prosecutor of the Rostov Region Roman Klimov: "Tractorist" (the word was mentioned as the nickname of the official), "Scamirist", "Demon", "The Chrystost".

Tumas Misakyan, Reznik's lawyer:

The feeling from the sentence and in general from the case is such that once again neglected not only the law (we are used to it), but also by ordinary common sense, logic. Who will argue that the same person at the same time can be high and low, that is, to put forward two contradictory judgments? Will anyone prove that the same person at the same time will relate to completely different age categories? 12 years, 14, 16. Nevertheless, this happened in our business. The accusation claimed that Reznik announced the commission of crime by Glinkin, and claims that the victim belonged to several age categories at once: from 12 to 14 years old, from 14 to 16, from 16 to 18. Can such a definition be unpretentious? Sud said that it could.

In one part of the sentence, the court said that the indecent form of the statement was necessary to qualify the insult, in another part, the court claimed that this is not a mandatory sign of the corpus delicti. Two conflicting statements in one procedural document.

The main danger is that the court attached decisive importance in the qualification of insult not the form of publication, but the subjective perception of the victim. Such a precedent makes an unpredictable law enforcement practice in cases of insults. Today the prosecutor will be offended by the word "tractor driver", tomorrow they will be offended by something else ...

Nadezhda Azhgikhina, Secretary of the Union of Journalists of Russia:

Reznik is not easy. To communicate with him is not always easy and not always pleasant. I talked with him, I met him on my own initiative when we defended him after beating. I invited him to our meeting, which was held by the local Union of Journalists, he happily came, but said that he did not want to join the local union: his relationship with the leadership of the Union was difficult, as with many leaders and with many people in the region.

But its complex character, its unbalanced and addiction to extreme expressions, as well as a violation of professional ethics, in no way can exclude it from a number of journalists who need protection. This is very difficult for our community. Unfortunately, some of our colleagues believe that if he was incorrectly performed, then there is nothing to protect him when they are unfairly attacked. This is absolutely unacceptable, and we must focus on this.

Leonid Nikitinsky, observer of Novaya Gazeta, member of the Human Rights Council under the President:

The line for which the journalist cannot be released is very thin, it is determined subjectively, an expert assessment. Reznik was engaged in a little ordering, strongly - shocking and swearing, but nevertheless for me he remains a journalist. It must be understood as a phenomenon, because such a phenomenon is in almost every region.

Last year, we tried to conduct a study of newspaper journalism in the regions, to understand what is happening there. And we see such a picture: a gray concrete space, everyone is sitting on information service agreements, everyone is satisfied with everyone, receive money ... And against this background, any exclamation of a person who allows himself something, even from colleagues, causes a reaction: "Yes, you are silent, everyone is silent, and what do you need?"

Our colleague described this phenomenon: a person begins to beat his head into the wall, his hysteria is with him. This hysteria is explained in a zhURNALISTICALITY: he is constantly pushed to the side of the road, they say, you are not a journalist, you are so-and-so-and this makes him, given his character, to fall into hysteria, to use these expressions. If the meadow of newspaper journalism were normal, then he would be a normal newspaper journalist, he would not have done such things. On the one hand, he is provoked and kicked to this roadsides, forced to be a marginal, and when he jumped out, he was score, and grabbed it.

Boris Tymoshenko, Head of the Monitoring Service of the Voorie Protection Fund:

Over the past two years, Reznik appeared in the results of our monitoring more than 27 times. These are not only criminal cases, these are real threats addressed to him, it is the constant pressure of his family, it is finally an attack. But this is not just an attack: a baseball bat and a traumatic weapon were used. You can qualify it as an attempt. Not that it is surprising, but makes you think ... I would like to know at what stage the investigation of the same attempt is located. Yesterday I looked at our base, but nowhere did I find information about the investigation of the attack on it.

Galina Arapova, director and leading lawyer of the Center for the Protection of Media Rights:

The reason for the persecution of Reznik was a large number of critical publications against officials, including in the field of housing and communal services, representatives of law enforcement agencies. They say that he was a consistent critic, including the governor. But in this case, we have all the victims - law enforcement officers. Why not use the tool in your hands against a person who you are tired of regular criticism? I am afraid that this is a temptation that they could not overcome.