Judge-propagandist

Article 11 of the Federal Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" strictly forbids judges to engage in political agitation and propaganda. The Chairman of the Constitutional Court Valery Zorkin in the official "Russian newspaper" made the program " Law - and only the right. On egregious offenses, which stubbornly do not notice " frankly political nature. Apparently, in this way the 27th anniversary of the emergence of the famous Non-Stalinists manifesto in the newspaper Soviet Russia-letters "I can not come to the principles of" a chemistry teacher Nina Andreeva.

A rather temperamental article by Zorkin in form is a polemic with the publication of the article on the right to the left of the famous lawyer-countryist Elena Anatolyevna Lukyanova, in which she questioned the thoroughness of the observance of Russian constitutional legislation when the Federation of Sevastopol and the Crimean Republic included. Zorkin, in turn, took advantage of this publication to blame some “pro -Western” forces, which he also called “new (or“ civilized ”) barbarians” in preparation - in alliance with foreign circles - aggression against Russia. At the same time, he directly compared these forces with the Teutonic Knight's Order and the Napoleonic army at the same time, although it must be taken into account that the latter was three more.

The chairman of the Constitutional Court himself announced his readiness to start with the internal and external "civilized barbarians" an irreconcilable battle, of course, "in defense of the right", apparently, feeling at the same time two princes: both Alexander Nevsky and Field Marshal Kutuzov. At the same time, Zorkin allowed himself personal attacks against Elena Lukyanova, which, I believe, is completely unacceptable and drops the prestige of the title of any judge. These passages are designed in the spirit of the sad memory of Zhdanov’s speech about Akhmatova, exactly with the same rhetorical techniques.

In fact, political accusations against a peaceful democratic opposition that it is associated with the enemies of the country, and in the desire to destroy the state have always been considered the denunciation of the lowest damage. Moreover, according to the current legislation, such behavior that Zorkin attributed to his "pro -Western" opponents is considered as state treason. However, after all, it was his uncontrolled hand in the decision of the Constitutional Court on the complaint of human rights defenders against the label "Foreign Agent" that - unlike Soviet times - this name does not have insulting or frightening connotations. So it is possible: Zorkin actually believes that, having accused the Western democrats (liberal and left) of cooperation with the enemies of the country, he simply used a juicy oratory epithet.

Speaking without irony, then the rather transparent attacks of the chairman of the Constitutional Court look like a real slander for an “indefinite circle of persons”. And this is done literally above the tomb of Boris Nemtsov, whom only a tragic death saved from the already prepared campaign of slander and reproaches, with accusations of "betrayal".

In general, all this is more than enough for Zorkin, as an honest person, to retire the category of retired judges.

However, it is necessary to dwell on the whole moments of the article by the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, since they are fundamental.

We will leave aside Zorkin’s attacks against Roman law, which he considered the savagely cruel (although, strictly, cruelty is the prerogative of law enforcement), as well as preference in favor of other legal systems. Apparently, Zorkin believes that the Court of Sanhedrin or the Ulemov court is more fair? Or maybe he likes medieval Chinese or Japanese justice? Or the so -called "barbaric" justice - "Salic" or, say, "Russian" "Pravda"?

Those wishing people can also pay attention to the "millennia", during which Russia "fastened spiritual scrapers." And refresh the specific action of the “bastard” mechanism-the conquering and punitive campaigns of the kings and the Bolsheviks, the guardsmen, the secret order, the security department, the ChK-GPU-NKVD-KGB ...

But the main thing in the manifesto of Zorkin is a hypertrophied role of the events of the fall of 1993 in the history of the next 20 years of Russian history. According to the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, who fiercely attacks the first president of Russia, and the invasion of the Antihusynovsky coalition for Iraq, and the West Support for the uprising against Gaddafi, and the West recognition of the overthrow of the Egyptian President of Mubarak, and even the overthrow of Yanukovych - all this is a direct consequence of the decree of Boris Yeltsin under No. 1400. It is quite strange that, believing the revolution in the Arab countries, the echo of Moscow tragic days of October 1993, Zorkin does not mention two Chechen wars or the active use of muddy political technologies in the 1996 presidential election, as other critics of Yeltsin politics do. Although here the connection with the acceleration of the congress is greatly more obvious.

Modern lawyers have long come from the fact that revolutions do not destroy the right, but "interrupt it" and then create a new legitimacy. For there is not a single regime in the world, ultimately not created by the revolution

I do not consider it necessary to dwell in detail here on the right of the peoples for an uprising against a tyrannical regime, which is actually denied both modern Russian diplomacy and Zorkin. This is the right, although it is not codified in international law (the Universal Declaration of Human Rights only warns, indicating in the preamble that oppression leads to uprisings as the latest means), the very millennia that Valery Dmitrievich refers to natural rights. And Iranians, and the Czechs, and the Tunisians, the Egyptians, the Libyans, and the Ukrainians, as well as the Russians in March 1917 and August 1991 decided each for themselves.

In the end, justifying the right of the Russian Federation to use its troops to occupy objects in the Crimea, and then the accession of part of a foreign state, the chairman of the Constitutional Court not only referred to the not yet codified international right to protect against the threat of life and security of people from the action of their own state, but even recognized this right higher than the principle of state sovereignty and territorial integrity. In line with such legal logic, people have the right to defend themselves from state terror, not only expecting help from a neighboring country, but also their own revolution. Although the international right to defense was precisely the basis for humanitarian interventions in Kosovo and Iraq, as well as for military assistance to the Libyan and Syrian rebels. But, contrary to the opinion of Zorkin, no interpretation of the right to defense provides for the legalization of the annexation temporarily occupied during the protection of the territory. Even Türkiye and Armenia did not dare to do this.

If Zorkin attaches fateful significance to the 1993 crisis, then justice requires to tell about his role in the escalation of the crisis. In the fall of 1992, it became clear that the congress of people's deputies, fully controlled by Khasbulatov, leads the case to the deprivation of Yeltsin, the opportunity to carry out liberal reforms. As a result, an acute political crisis erupted, for the resolution of which a round table took place in December. A compromise was agreed, within the framework of which the acting prime minister Yegor Gaidar was resigned, but it was decided that a referendum would be held on the basics of the new constitution. The then chairman of the Constitutional Court Zorkin, as a participant in the round table, told himself by the guarantor of the agreement. However, already in January 1993, Khasbulatov refused to comply with the agreement, pronouncing the famous words "demonal." Moreover, the Constitution of Russia “Article 104. The highest body of state power of the Russian Federation was the Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation. Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation is authorized to accept and resolve any issue classified as the Russian Federation”, which completely contradicted the principle of separation of powers. It was Zorkin in March 1993 who ignored the request of the deputies of Lev Ponomarev and Gleb Yakunin about the need to resolve this contradiction.

In history, the conflict of the executive and legislative authorities was often peacefully resolved by the highest court, which is one of its main functions. The “silence” of the Constitutional Court during the growing crisis of 1993, the frankly political statement of Zorkin, Rutskiy and Khasbulatov at the end of March about the violation of the Constitution, which made the impeachment attempted, brought the country to the face of the Civil War. As you know, in April 1993, under the threat of the introduction of presidential rule, Yeltsin forced the congress to declare a referendum. But not constitutional and not on the convening of the Constituent Assembly, as was first stated, but about trust. And then the country at all pairs rushed to a power confrontation. Все понимали, что идет гонка: либо Ельцин настоит на конституционном референдуме, который даст возможность продолжать реформы, поддержанные апрельским плебисцитом, либо Съезд лишит президента практически всех властных полномочий и власть окажется в руках сперва Хасбулатова, а потом уже генерала Макашова, "бешеных" сталинистов и боевиков из РНЕ, которые однажды, 3 октября 1993 года, Already captured Moscow. It was then that they tried to turn the capital of Russia into what the modern Donbass is. Although Zorkin considered it possible to repent his opponents about what they called armed detachments who had already taken the city hall building on New Arbat and besieged television studies in Ostankino, "fascist".

If the chairman of the Constitutional Court wanted just such a resolution of the crisis, then let him say openly about it!

Contrary to the opinion of Valery Dmitrievich, modern lawyers have long come from the fact that revolutions do not destroy the right, but “interrupt it” and then create a new legitimacy. For there is not a single regime in the world, ultimately not created by the revolution. If Zorkin really considers what happened in the fall of 1993 not the next stage of revolutionary events that began with the proclamation of Russian sovereignty, but by a vulgar coup, then professional honesty requires him not only to recognize the illegality of the current Constitution, parliament, all the adopted laws and approved agreements, including, of course, about the accession of the Crimean peninsula and the authorities of the Peninsula and the authorities current president, but also his own post.

Then the resignation in protest against the violation of the Soviet constitution would be a somewhat belated, but, of course, a beautiful gesture.

Evgeny Niolov - expert of the human rights movement, public figure and publicist