Both sides are to blame

In 2011, the Meshchansky District Court of Moscow recognized the girl who announced the rape of the rape, guilty of false denunciation, and sentenced her to a fine. A few months later, the same court gave seven years of colony for the violent acts of a sexual nature to a young man, whom the convicted indicated in his “knowingly false denunciation”. Anna Kozkin tried to figure out an incredible conflict.

The victim

On the evening of November 7, 2010, 28-year-old Veronika Kuznetsova, who came to Moscow from Chuvashia and worked as a saleswoman in one of the stores in the Red Gate, went to visit 50-year-old Evgeny Merkishin, who lived in a communal apartment nearby. The girl knew him as a regular buyer. Shortly before that, she was kicked out of the hostel, and she - not for the first time - decided to ask for the night to Merkishin.

In the testimony that Kuznetsova the next day gave in the police department in the Krasnoselsky district to the investigator of the SK department in the Meshchansky district Vitaly Ovcharuk, it is said that Merkishin, learning that she had nowhere to sleep, invited her to stay.

When Veronica entered his room, she found that four men were drinking there - visitors from Ukraine and from the Russian hinterland Oleg Kim, Igor Filimonov, Evgeny Vinokurov and Omar Farizov. The fifth is the 27-year-old Muscovite Dmitry Khokhlov, who lived in the same entrance, but he was not familiar with the saleswoman-either he joined them later, or participated in the drinking room from the very beginning, but at the time of Kuznetsova appeared in the room, he went out for a walk. According to her testimony, the saleswoman tried to leave, but the drunken guests of Merkishin forced her to drink vodka, and after refusing to continue Filimonov and Khokhlov began to beat in the face, and Filimonov hit the girl with her head on the closet.

Kuznetsova said that she tried to pay off the men and gave Vinokurov four thousand rubles, meanwhile, Farizov pulled a mobile phone from her jacket and another 500 rubles, after which she left.

The remaining threats in the room forced Veronica to have oral sex with each of them, she told the investigator. Then, Kuznetsova, Khokhlov and Filimonov claimed, beating her with her feet and hands, began to force the girl to have oral and anal sex with them at the same time, but the attempt failed, because Filimonov was too drunk. Tearing off the anger, he supposedly “extinguished the smoldering cigarette in the area of ​​the anal opening of Kuznetsova”, and Vinokurov broke a clay flower pot on her head. The guest asked for a drunken company to let her go, in response, Khokhlov began to drive the victim’s face with a knife. When Merkishin warned his friends that Kuznetsova could contact the police, Vinokurov broke another pot on her head.

“And after that in order to conceal his criminal actions, as well as the criminal actions of his accomplices, he grabbed a rag, which was thrown by Kuznetsova V.I. He began to strangle her, verbally threatening her with physical reprisal if she reports to law enforcement agencies about the events that had occurred, after which he hit the victim of a next closet, ”will be said in the verdict that the Meshchansky District Court of Moscow will be issued in the case of an incident in a communal apartment in April 2012.

In the meantime, according to Kuznetsova, Vinokurov took her passport, threatening to rewrite her data and find a girl if she declared what happened to the police, but promised to return the document the next day.

After that, the saleswoman went to the apartment to Khokhlov, scared that she would be abused again if she refused. In his room, Khokhlov again had Kuznetsova sex; However, at the trial, she did not say that it was a rape, because at that moment "it was exhausted and suppressed and indifferently reacted to this."

The next day, November 8, the girl went to work at the store and at first was not going to contact the police, hoping that she would be returned to her passport. However, during the day Vinokurov, Filimonov, Merkishin, Kim, Khokhlov and Farizov came to the store, who told her that she would receive a document when Merkishin would come to the room again, and Vinokurov tried to hit the girl. After that, she still called the police, and soon the staff of the PPS detained young people in the entrance, where Merkishin and Khokhlov lived.

Two days after going to the Kuznetsov police at a court session, to choose a preventive measure, Khokhlova asked the judge not to arrest him and said that she had stipulated a man, because during the interrogation and confrontation she was in a state of shock.

For six months, Veronica came to meetings to extend the arrest and repeated that Khokhlov had not participated in sexual violence. Before one of these meetings, the girl, the head of the investigation department of the UK in the Meshchansky district, Andrei Zorin and the investigator Ovcharuk, tried not to let her into the court building.

On November 23, 2010, Kuznetsova sent Ovchak a petition marked “to join the materials of the criminal case”, in which she admitted that Khokhlova said: “The interrogation protocol, like the confrontation protocol, only pretended to have been reading these two documents without reading <...> Khokhlov of no violent actions of a sexual nature in the CV. No. 31 (where Merkishin - MZ lives) did not use. In square. No. 21, where Khokhlov lives, Khokhlov did not commit any violent sexual intercourse against me. ”

In the same petition, Kuznetsova noted that the investigator took her passport: “The shepherd has my passport, which I have repeatedly seen (a passport) from him, but he answered me to give it to me that he would do it later, and then stated that he had no passport.” Kuznetsova asked the leadership to oblige Ovchak to return her passport, but this never happened.

A month after the detention of the suspects, the girl at an additional interrogation reported that Khokhlov was innocent, and she mentioned him among other participants in sexual violence by mistake, because she had not yet come to her senses when she gave the first testimony. According to her, Khokhlov in the room during the incident was not at all, and not he drove a knife on her face, but Filimonov. She confirmed the rest of her testimony.

In March 2011, Kuznetsova turned to Elena Drapeko, at that time to the State Duma deputy, and said that the investigator dictated her statement, frankly about the reporting and indicators that he needed to earn by the end of the year. “For me, this is a serious sin, but I can’t achieve justice, because, as the investigator said, they have some kind of disclosure there, according to serious crimes, criminal statistics,” Veronica wrote. Now she claimed that the investigator of Ovcharuk had exerted psychological pressure on her, forcing Khokhlov to slander.

In April 2011, Kuznetsova submitted a petition to the prosecutor in the Meshchansky district of Moscow, in which she reported that she wrote a statement about violent acts of a sexual nature under the dictation of a police officer. “Neither the investigator nor other officials when writing an application with me, during interrogations, did not warn me of criminal liability for a knowingly false denunciation and knowingly false testimonies. As for Khokhlov, “thanks to” your subordinates at the first conversation, I was unintentional, being in a painful state, testified what the investigation needed, ”the petition said.

In September 2011, the Meshchansky District Court of Moscow found Veronika Kuznetsov guilty of obviously false denunciation and sentenced her to a fine of eight thousand rubles (part 2 of Article 306 of the Criminal Code, the minimum punishment - a fine of 100 thousand rubles or annual income of the convicted person). Kuznetsova pleaded guilty.

The verdict says that on November 8, 2010, “experiencing hostile relations and wanting to bring Khokhlov to criminal liability, realizing the unlawfulness of her actions, applied to the preliminary investigation bodies with a statement about the crime committed in relation to the above citizen.”

For consideration on the merits of the case against Khokhlov and the rest of the guests Merkishin Veronica came only once. During the interrogation in the Meshchansky District Court in the spring of 2012, she confirmed the initial testimony and said that Khokhlov, along with other defendants, forced her to oral sex. She explained her testimonies about the young man’s innocence in sexual abuse of abuse, his mother, aunt and lawyer Zaitsev, whose services the girl refused a few months in a few months.

The defendants

Khokhlov, Kim, Vinokurov and Filimonov completely denied their guilt and assured that there was no violence against Kuznetsova. All the defendants said that in the evening of November 7, she sat down to drink with them of her own free will and did not refuse vodka; Merkishin in court claimed that three times he pointed to the door to a girl who came to him without demand.

According to Dmitry Khokhlov, that evening he really was with Merkishin, but he decided to take a walk closer to midnight, and returned only to 2:30 in the morning. By this time, the owner of the room and Kim were sleeping, and the rest of the men had already left. The room was Kuznetsov, who said that she would go to sleep at the station; Khokhlov invited the girl to spend the night with him, they went together to the store for cigarettes and beer and went to his apartment (Kuznetsov also confirmed in their petition to the investigator). Khokhlov said that he lay on the floor, and Kuznetsov on the bed; There was no sex between them.

Vinokurov and Filimonov in court said that they left Merkishin around midnight, after Khokhlov, who went for a walk. Vinokurov, in particular, claimed that he had come to his friend Zainullin that night, who confirmed this in court, and then went to his other friend and did not return to the apartment 31. Vinokurov and Filimonov said that only the fellow Kim and Merkishin remained in the room: Kuznetsova left after the loss of the passport and phone.

The court recognized the testimony of Zaynullin as an “attempt to artificial creation by Alibi Filimonov”. At the same time, Vinokurov and Filimonov asked the court to study records from video surveillance cameras in the entrance, but their petition was refused.

Oleg Kim most of the evening on November 7, according to him, overslept. Waking up about 21-22 hours, he saw Merkishin, Filimonov, Vinokurov and their acquaintance Farizov in the room, but he said, he said, there was there. Kim drank with his friends and soon fell asleep again, and woke up at eight in the morning. He learned about the presence of Kuznetsova in the room the next day, when Merkishin and Filimonov said that she stole a passport and phone. Kim noted in his cassation appeal: at the confrontation of Kuznetsov, she also said that she saw him only sleeping.

All the defendants denied that one of them beat or forced Kuznetsov’s sex. Khokhlov claimed that he had not seen abrasions and bruises on the girl’s face when he returned to the apartment after a walk, and she herself did not tell him about the allegedly transferred sexual violence. He already noticed an abrasion on the face of Kuznetsova only in the police department - probably at a full -time rate, which took place on the evening of November 8.

The defendants insisted that Kuznetsova informed them of the disappearance of her passport and mobile phone shortly after the departure of Omar Farizov. The next day, Farizov allegedly admitted to Vinokurov that he stole and sold the phone, but he promised to return his passport to the girl. The judge refused to call Farizov to the meeting for interrogation.

Kuznetsova’s passport follows the testimony of the defendants in the case, then Farizov gave Vinokurov. Filimonov said that Merkishin went to return the document and, returning from a meeting with the girl, assured his friends that she had no complaints. Then Filimonov, Kim and Merkishin again went home to the latter; There they were detained by the police.

Khokhlov was detained in the evening of the same day in his apartment - according to his testimony, he overslept all day and did not go to the store to Kuznetsova. In his complaints, he wrote about pressure from the investigator Obcharuk and his attempts to impose the state -owned service to the defendant.

Vinokurov came to the police himself - when he found out that his friends were detained, he decided to give them the products. As a result, Vinokurov was detained. “The investigator Ovcharuk V.V. and the head of the investigation department Zorin A.N., who said that Filimonov I.N., Merkishin E.V., Kim O.A. and Khokhlov D.V. They were detained for rape, asked him to sign the testimonies against the rest of the guys, but he refused, after which he was placed in the camera, ” - so Vinokurov’s testimony was set forth in the verdict.

After the verdict brought out by Kuznetsova for a deliberately false denunciation, charges were removed from Khokhlov under Article 131 of the Criminal Code (rape), but left the 132nd (violent actions of a sexual nature); Three of his accomplices were originally accused only under the last article.

In April 2012, the Meshchansky District Court sentenced all four defendants in the real time: Khokhlov and Filimonov received seven years of colony, Vinokurov - seven and a half, and Kim - five. The court found three convicts guilty of “violent acts of a sexual nature committed by a group of persons with particular cruelty and connected with the threat of murder” (paragraph “a”, “b”, part 2 of Article 132 of the Criminal Code). In Kim’s actions, the court did not find much cruelty.

Court

The Meshchansky District Court of Moscow found young people guilty on the basis of the testimony of Kuznetsova herself, PPS officers who detained men the day after the drinking, investigators who initiated a criminal case at the girl’s statement, and Evgeny Merkishin, who was diagnosed with oligophrenia (mild degree).

The court also considered the testimony of Merkishin’s neighbors in the communal apartment “that on the night of November 07 to November 08, 2010 in the Merkishin room <...> there was a goulyanka, music was loudly played, male and female voices” also confirming the guilt of the defendants.

Three PPS employees gave the court the same testimony. For example, the policeman Petrov said that on November 8, at about eight in the evening, he and his colleagues arrived on call to the store, where he saw a crying Kuznetsov with bruises and a swollen cheek. The girl, according to Petrov, spoke about the beating and experienced sexual violence. An employee of the PPS during the interrogation in court used notes.

The investigator of Ovcharuk in court claimed that he did not provide pressure on Kuznetsov, Merkishin and other defendants in the case, and did not give them “ready -made protocols for signature”. According to the investigator, the victim changed her testimony against Khokhlov under the pressure of his relatives. Ovcharuku assured the court that Merkishin had no doubt about the mental health of, because he “consistently and clearly set out his thoughts” and did not petition for a psychiatric examination.

The court did not see the contradiction between the verdict issued by Kuznetsova on charges of knowingly false denunciation of Khokhlov, and the indictment of the youngest man. According to the court, at first Khokhlov, along with the rest of the defendants, beat the girl, forcing her to oral sex, and then she herself went to spend the night to her tormentor and already voluntarily entered into an intimate connection with him (Khokhlov denies it).

“At the hearing, the victim explained that after a long physical impact on her from the defendants and the performing of the indicated actions of a sexual nature, the subsequent actions of D. Khokhlova, who entered into sexual intercourse with her, at first she took it as a rape, which she reported to the police, but then she understood that there was no rape, she was simply suppressed and inconsistent I reacted to the indicated actions of Khokhlov D.V., ”the verdict said.

Considering the case against Kuznetsova in 2011, the Meshchansky court did not recognize Khokhlov as victims: in the case of false denunciation, he was held as a witness to the prosecution.

Examination and witnesses

The forensic medical examination did not clarify whether Kuznetsov was subjected to sexual violence on that unfortunate night. There were no damage to the genitals and the anal opening of the victim; They did not find sperm on the genitals and in the oral cavity of Kuznetsova. However, in her testimony, she pointed out that the drunken men who forced her to oral sex did not have ejaculation. The examination states that in the field of the soft palate the girl recorded multiple hemorrhages that could appear and as a result of the pressure of the penis, but in court an expert and a specialist urologist did not agree with this assumption.

“Objective expert data indicating the commission of Ilyinic sexual intercourse in the next few days before the forensic medical examination is not available, which, however, does not exclude the possibility of those, including the time indicated in the resolution,” the text of the examination said.

In Kuznetsova, two burns on the buttocks were found, which could be caused by a smoldering cigarette, but did not find bruises on the head from the blows with clay pots or on the cabinet. The conclusion of experts speaks of bruises on the face, hand and knees of the victim - from strokes with a solid object; Bruzzles were found on the hips and buttocks that could remain after squeezing with their hands. Помимо этого, у Кузнецовой нашли ссадины под челюстью и на кистях рук «от скользящих воздействий тупых твердых предметов».

Все эти повреждения были причинены потерпевшей в течение трех суток до проведения экспертизы. В этот временной промежуток попадает как попойка в комнате Меркишина, так те полтора дня, что девушка, по словам матери Хохлова, провела в отделе полиции, беседуя со следователем. Кроме того, перед тем, как отправиться к Меркишину, Кузнецова вечером 7 ноября заходила и к другому «недавно знакомому пожилому мужчине», у которого планировала переночевать. По словам Валентины Кратенко, работавшей с Вероникой в магазине, та рассказывала ей, что этот знакомый «неправильно повел себя».

Соседи Меркишина по коммунальной квартире показали в суде, что в ночь на 8 ноября не слышали криков. Трое свидетелей утверждали, что дверь в его комнату всегда приоткрыта, и в тот вечер оттуда доносились музыка и голоса нетрезвой компании, но никто из допрошенных соседей не слышал ругани, криков о помощи, треска разбитых горшков или иных звуков, которые могли бы указывать на избиение человека. Соседи по коммуналке отмечали, что в их квартире хорошая слышимость, причем ночью она даже лучше, и звуки борьбы было бы невозможно не услышать. Один из соседей вспомнил, что слышал женский смех, и допустил, что его обладательница была нетрезвой. Помимо этого, никто из обитателей коммуналки в тот вечер не видел в квартире Хохлова. Сосед Меркишина Никита Иванов отмечал, что следователь занес в протокол допроса не все его показания.

Соседи и участковый Мыколенко характеризовали Дмитрия Хохлова «как доброго и отзывчивого человека» и утверждали, что он не мог совершить сексуального насилия над девушкой.

Участковый, который в присутствии Кузнецовой проводил осмотр комнаты Меркишина вечером 8 ноября, говорил в суде, что потерпевшая искала свой паспорт и телефон, а ссадин и синяков на лице у нее не было. Сослуживица Вероники по магазину Кратенко также утверждала, что Кузнецова говорила ей о пропаже паспорта и мобильного, но о сексуальном насилии не упоминала.

Protection

В ходе рассмотрения дела в Мещанском суде и обжалования приговора адвокаты подсудимых отмечали, что проведены не все необходимые биологические экспертизы, и невозможно утверждать, что повреждения на теле Кузнецовой были результатом группового сексуального насилия.

Адвокаты указывали на отсутствие каких-либо вещественных доказательств в деле. Из комнаты Меркишина не изъяли осколки цветочных горшков, якобы разбитых о голову Кузнецовой, тряпку, которой ее душили, и нож, которым ей угрожали. В приговоре судья указал, что это «не свидетельствует о том, что данные предметы не использовались подсудимыми в процессе совершения преступления. Кроме того, осмотр места происшествия производился спустя почти сутки после произошедшего и доказательства могли быть уничтожены».

Защита пыталась добиться исключения из дела первоначальных показаний Кузнецовой как недопустимых: по документам выходит, что уголовное дело было возбуждено спустя 40 минут после того, как девушку признали потерпевшей. Адвокаты указывали на нарушение Уголовно-процессуального кодекса и настаивали, что показания, которые продавщица дала до возбуждения дела, не могут приниматься во внимание. Суд счел это «технической ошибкой» и оставил показания в деле.

Обвинение во многом строится на первоначальных показаниях Меркишина, схожих с показаниями, которые давала на следующий день после инцидента сама Кузнецова. Согласно им, Хохлов, Винокуров и Филимонов совершили сексуальное насилие над девушкой, а сам Меркишин сначала не хотел участвовать в происходящем, но приятели не оставили ему выбора. На заседании суда он не подтвердил этой версии событий, рассказав, что его гости в тот вечер просто выпивали и слушали музыку.

Адвокаты подсудимых и защитник самого Меркишина неоднократно ходатайствовали о назначении ему психолого-психиатрической экспертизы. В военном билете Меркишина указан диагноз «олигофрения»; с 1981-го по 1990 год он состоял на учете в психоневрологическом диспансере. Суд решил, что Меркишин вменяем, поскольку адекватно себя ведет и служил в армии (его признали годным к нестроевой службе); в экспертизе было отказано. При этом соседи рассказывали о разных проявлениях его психического расстройства, а подсудимые говорили, что Меркишин легко внушаем.

Дело о сексуальном насилии в отношении Меркишина выделили в отдельное производство, сославшись на онкологическое заболевание 4-й степени, требовавшее длительных курсов лечения.

Приговор по основному делу обжаловали не только адвокаты подсудимых, но и прокуратура, настаивавшая на его пересмотре. Надзорное ведомство посчитало, что суд нарушил право Хохлова на защиту, не удовлетворив ходатайство об отказе от услуг одного из адвокатов и не выяснив причину отказа. Также прокуратура назвала необъективной оценку действий подсудимых, «в связи с чем подсудимому Киму О.А., роль которого являлась менее активной, назначено чрезмерно суровое наказание».

И жалоба адвокатов, и представление прокуратуры были отклонены.

Mother

Почти пять лет Таисия Хохлова, мать осужденного Дмитрия Хохлова, добивается полного оправдания сына, который, по ее словам, вечером 7 ноября зашел к соседу на 20 минут, а позже предложил Кузнецовой, которой негде было переночевать, остаться у него.

В тот вечер Таисия была дома, в коммуналке, где она жила вместе с сыном, и была резко против появления в квартире незнакомой девушки — Дмитрий тогда был женат, в тот день он отвез жену с маленьким ребенком к ее родителям. Хохлова говорит, что сын лег спать на полу в своей комнате, уступив Кузнецовой кровать.

Мать осужденного рассказывает, что изначально девушка подала в полицию заявление о краже паспорта, 4500 рублей и телефона, — об этом Хохловой сообщил участковый. При встрече с Таисией Хохловой на вопрос, зачем она оговорила ее сына, Кузнецова рассказала, что подверглась психологическому давлению в полиции, следователь забрал ее паспорт, а заявление ей продиктовали.

По словам Хохловой, следователи обещали девушке, что она получит компенсацию — по 100 тысяч рублей с каждого обвиняемого.

Хохлова считает, что следователи Овчарук и Комашко возбудили в отношении Кузнецовой дело о ложном доносе, чтобы оказать на девушку давление. Один из адвокатов Дмитрия Хохлова рассказывал о предложении, которое следователи сделали девушке: «Если ты пойдешь в суд и дашь правдивые показания, которые ты давала на следствии ранее, оправдывая Хохлова, то тебя осудят и посадят по статье 306 УК, а если не пойдешь в суд, и Хохлова осудят по части 2 статьи 132, то дело тебе по статье 306 УК судья Тришкин прекратит». После этого Кузнецова отказалась от адвоката Зайцева, услуги которого, по ее словам, оплачивала семья Хохлова (его мать отрицает это), и под видеокамеру дала показания против молодого человека.

За время рассмотрения дела об инциденте в коммуналке из следственного отдела по Мещанскому району были уволены трое следователей, еще один уволился сам, зато начальник отдела Зорин пошел на повышение, рассказывает Таисия Хохлова. Евгений Меркишин не дожил до приговора и скончался в больнице. По словам Хохловой, когда в суде Меркишина спросили, почему на следствии он давал совсем другие показания, мужчина ответил: «Потому что меня бил по ногам следователь Овчарук и заставлял говорить то, что он хотел».

Хохлова вспоминает, что многие адвокаты, занимавшиеся этим делом, откровенно работали на следствие. Особенно не повезло, по ее словам, Филимонову, Киму и Винокурову — им сразу же назначили государственных защитников, от которых подсудимые пытались отказаться, но их просьбы проигнорировали. «Винокурова государственный адвокат не защищала, а сажала. Когда он написал на нее жалобу, тогда она стала вести себя иначе», — говорит Хохлова, помогавшая другим фигурантам дела с защитой.

По ее информации, троим осужденным так и не выдали на руки копии приговоров, из-за чего они не смогли обжаловать решение суда. Хохлова считает, что фигуранты дела были удобны следователям: за троих приезжих и умирающего с психиатрическим диагнозом бороться никто не будет, посчитали они.

Сейчас Дмитрий Хохлов находится в колонии и все еще ожидает, когда Верховный суд рассмотрит его жалобу на приговор.

Адвокат Вячеслав Гаврилов, представляющий интересы осужденного, отказался давать «Медиазоне» комментарии до решения ВС. Другой юрист, знакомый с материалами дела — Юлия Сычева, которая консультировала Таисию Хохлову — говорит, что не помнит подобной коллизии за всю свою практику.

«Первый раз такое вижу. This is absurd. Получается, вначале в отношении нее вынесли приговор за заведомо ложный донос, а потом все равно вынесли и в отношении него. Когда я услышала, я не поверила, что такое вообще возможно», — сказала Сычева.

Она не понимает, почему дело против Хохлова не было прекращено: «В любом случае, если уходит изнасилование, то каким образом остаются насильственные действия сексуального характера?».

Сычева допускает, что следователи «выполняли план». «Выглядит так, что пытались притянуть изнасилование, не получилось, оставили насильственные сексуальные действия», — поясняет адвокат.