1: 0 in favor of anarchists

It would seem that my story is not particularly interesting and does not even end especially sadly, but there is a certain morality in it, especially if you take into account its indication for local “presumptuous anarchists, human rights activists and other bandits” (as local police and officials usually call us) who began to act recently in Irkutsk. Police arbitrariness is certainly going on on a larger scale and my process looks pretty faded compared to torture or abductions, and article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses does not inspire much horror. Nevertheless, it is in such minor affairs that the true essence of “ordinary political justice” is exposed, this is not high -profile Moscow affairs over political activists - this is a rather ordinary process in the province over a political activist. I, the main participant in this action, do not consider myself a certain random victim of an abstract police arbitrariness, which are quite a lot in our country. What happened is emerging in a completely integral picture of a preventive punishment for “too active”, which has recently become the main organizer of about 15 mass events and filled the sores, both in the police and at various levels.

Prelude

It all started long before April 29, which became the official date of the “offense”, which will be discussed. Apparently, the task was to get rid of me in all possible ways. The first step was my deduction from the University in the winter of 2016 on the diploma course. By non -official wording from the dean "for not doing the wrong thing." Later I learned about the correspondence participation in this epic of the local department of the FSB, which, of course, is clearly not advertised. Further, like any adult citizen, I am subject to annual slavery (appeal) for the good of our homeland. In April of this year, at the very beginning of the spring drafted into the army, at the commission, in agreement of mass events, employees of the local department for the fight against extremism solemnly handed me the agenda, violating several legislative acts. Climbing the connection? But it was not possible to fade into the army, the agenda was unreadable. I myself, as a person with anarchic and antimilitarian views of my duty to the Motherland, do not see point blank and even suspect that this “homeland” owed to me for repeated detentions, and I do not see the point of studying to march the parade ground and carefully refuel the bed.

Start. Detention

It did not work out with the army, they decided to try otherwise. On April 29, at the exit from the human rights training (by the way they talked about the police),a certain subject, similar to a policeman, imposed on me. He did not know the rules of politeness, as well as the Federal Law “On the Police”, as he immediately demanded that my documents do not bother to introduce himself to himself. I answered him with the same courtesy and was awarded an enchanting gesture, a man in the form with the speed of a superhero flash flashed with his crust and apparently decided that this was enough for me to make out something there. To show my requirements to show the certificate, the requests of the Human Rights Envocations and members of the PMC, who shot what was happening on the phone, a person in the form refused. About the same was the case with the reason for the verification of documents. To the question “What are the grounds, to verify documents”, the subject uncertainly and confusedly began to put forward versions that fundamentally differ from each other. At first, he declared a trembling voice about the presence of a certain orientation, but refused to show it, arguing that "I will not show, it is for internal use." Then it came to the search for the military registration and enlistment office, the data of which was also not announced. Confidence in such a subject melted before our eyes, especially after the poor fellow, reddened by a face, began to yell like the victim “You refuse to present your documents!” Passers -by looked disapprovingly at a soarly overwhelming policeman, shied up and released phrases in the style of "completely fucked up cops."

Then, a man in the form made a telephone and a minion appeared, it is difficult to call a mysterious face in sportswear in a different way that looks like a market gopnik. He did not appear to introduce himself, apparently counting such formalities superfluous. The first employee in his presence noticeably dared and fenced off me from human rights activists began to approach menacingly, continuing to shout “Are you refusing?” Then the events developed predictably, the police officer knocked me down, and both fellows were detained. Having famously twisted me in the pose of a swallow, called the “policeman” and gopnik in a tracksuit dragged me into their den. I will say right away, the pose is extremely uncomfortable and the path was not close to squat. The law enforcement station turned out to be the logo (as it turned out after the verification by members of the PMC, it was more likely a point of violation of all possible norms of maintenance of both prisoners and police officers). There, covering my obscenities, they pushed me to the wall and was handcuffed to the hook. Then we had a cute conversation on the subject of my attitude to the army, during which they showed me my photo on the phone’s phone. The subject in the form of detention turned out to be a police sergeant, speaking with someone on the phone, he complained that he was tired of waiting for 2 hours from the Public Chamber. Maybe he hoped that I would hear these words and repent of that he had caused him such inconvenience.

After cute conversations with a bunch of unknown police officers (none of them also began to call his data), a certain deputy head of department No. 5 came to me. Of course, handcuffs previously removed to me. It turned out that the PMC employees have already put on their ears all the tops of the police, available for the call, telling about the offense. Having learned from me the circumstances of the detention, the boss left. The next time I saw him already in the department.

Time passed, the police languidly told how they were sick of me, the offender, to look.

The comrades besieged the department, taking off everything that was happening from the street to the phone, and the migrants detained in the market, whom the policemen were not at all embarrassed in my presence to verbally mix with feces, was clogged at my smiling face. As I said, I understood the real reasons for the detention, and it was not the first at all, since any social activity was directly related to such “inconvenience”. The human rights activists were extremely outraged and actively argued with the police outside the point, because an hour before that we were discussing the importance of the police, I insisted that this was only a repressive body, they tried to prove the opposite. Practice has proven my case, 1: 0 in favor of the anarchists.

After an hour and a half, I was still taken to the fifth department, where for some reason no one could concern about the status in what status I am. They tried to take the explanations that I refused to sign, because if I am not in the status of the offender, then it seems that I have nothing to explain. However, they were in no hurry to let me go, as well as to draw up a protocol. Suddenly, the deputy head of the department, previously known to me, returned to me and led me to the office, where my defender was, who was in vain to find out who was responsible for the detention, why not a single procedural document was drawn up and where those who detained. Employees of the 5th police department were answered by ridiculous silence, if they said, the answer came down to the fact that no one knew, therefore, there were no responsible for the detention. However, they did not allow to leave, saying that they would now make a protocol.

Some woman in uniform sat down at the table, took the paper and, shouting for three minutes, left the office with the words “I lack information” and disappeared along with the planned protocol.

After waiting for 15 minutes, the defender and I left the department, deciding that looking for it no longer makes sense.

Then

The suspicions that this was not the end was very strong, so I decided to refrain from participating in mass events and, as it turned out, not in vain. Police officers began to look for me, having declared an organizational group, calling my friends and showing my photo to those present on the shares. However, after some time the meeting took place. My defender, deciding that the employees would be conducted by an investigation, invited me and a district police officer by the name of Badyak so that I would take testimonies regarding the actions of the police officer. He took the testimony and immediately put the summons to draw up the protocol under Art. 19.3 (resistance to the legal requirements of a police officer). Let me remind you that it has passed almost a month from these events. My defender appeared on drawing up the protocol, since the possibility of preliminary imprisonment of Vital in the air. The defender, in turn, was struck by the erudition of the district police officer, who himself could not figure out what stage the administrative investigation was located, tried to find information about this in the Code of Administrative Offenses, for a long time rustling with pages, and then completely refused to give the protocol to the defender. He will later write that I did not appear to sign the protocol. Details can be found on the website of the Council of Human Rights Environmentalists of the Irkutsk Region "Siberia Uncensored" by reading the story of the defender himself .

The next day, a surprise was waiting for me. In the afternoon, I and my comrades headed for a friend. Where I am going, I did not advertise anywhere, only three of my friends knew about it. But when I went out at the bus stop, I was affably met by two employees of the local Center “E”. Conductively inquiring about how I am, one of them wrapped my hand in my hand. I did not intend to run anywhere and regarded this "prelude" inappropriate, but quite predictable. Having stated that the district police officer was looking for me, they took me to the car. All the action took place under my comrades who shot everything on the phone. The employees who were waiting for me at the bus stop said that they met me “quite by accident”, but they were taken directly to the court, where by that time the prosecution, district police officers and other police officers had already been part of. As I understand it, they were counting on a fast process, but my defender and several comrades with photo and audio designing immediately arrived to the court, which slightly reduced the optimism read on the faces of the police. Employees of the EE center explained this method of transformation with the phrase: “Well, he, if not a man, is running from the court,” at the same time, he did not go about any documents. By the way, no one ran from the court, for neither I nor my defender were notified, oddly enough,.

On that day, the court began with the auditions of the defense petition and ended at that. The judge was thinking for the long time about the request for resolving video photography, but then he decided that the process “and so open” and the extra photo-video is not needed fixation. To be honest, in the courts it does not smell in the spirit of justice, but there is a dope of boredom, which is infected with bailiffs, lazily collapsed on chairs and sometimes starting to snore, to the judges - lazily tumbers. The court is boredom, even though I was the one who was judged. However, I will have to describe some iconic moments and court decisions in order to display all the formality and absurdity of the process about offended police officers, of which there are more and more in our country.

The second day of the trial went a little more interesting and began with the fact that at the door I was met by an employee of the military registration and enlistment office with the agenda and a woman from the GUMVD (from her words) with a video camera, which no one knew. I signed the agenda, and the woman was removed by the bailiffs, as the police officer suddenly forgot that the court’s building was being taken with permission.

This time, testimonies diluted the bureaucratic process. The first were the police officers who detained me. According to the person, in the form that on April 29 approached me to check the documents, the reason for the detention was that I came up on the orientation, which included a “camouflage jacket”. In truth, my jacket really had camouflage, however, according to him, in 5 days, except for me in the central market there was not a single person in camouflage. From his testimony it followed that he fulfilled all the norms: introduced himself, spoke in detail about the orientation, but the witnesses and I, including, somehow missed this moment. I behaved extremely inadequately according to the police officer’s story, rudely offended him and tried to run away, as a result of which he had no choice but to twist me and take me to the department. And of course he did not show any photographs and did not conduct speeches about the army. However, the hitch, in the employee’s report, was the time for the detention of 10:30, and in the protocol 14:30 and he could not figure out which of them the present for a long time. Moreover, the employee honestly admitted that he did not hear about some “human rights” and he was not familiarized with them.

The second policeman, as it turned out, was an interior, was more frank. He did not deny that he used gross power. He also did not deny that he refused to introduce himself. In his opinion, he acted “as a respectable citizen”, helping a police officer to detain the offender. However, the legal act that endowed it could not be called such powers. He also told the court that he did not fall as a trainee, under the Federal Law “On the Police”, but he has no job descriptions. True, he then stated that they are, but he does not know them. When he was asked what he was doing at all, he replied: "I go with the police and help."

Witnesses of the defense, which were three, told the chronology of the events that I described at the beginning, so I will not repeat, the emphasis was only in the photograph that the policeman on his phone showed not only to me. Also, one of the witnesses, who is a member of the PMC (a public observation commission - a public supervision body of compliance with the rules of the detention of prisoners), told about the audit carried out on the same day in the priest in the central market, where a lot of violations of the norms of detention and keeping accounting with a certain “asterisk” painted opposite my name in the book of those who were delivered.

The witnesses, in whom the protocol was compiled, could not interrupt, both of them were drunk, the first could be examined, but the second - no. Could not wake up. The fact that one of them was brought to the corridor, we guessed the smell that was heard throughout the court building. The judge did not dare to interrogate him.

Then a video was watched, which eloquently depicted the opposite of the testimony of police officers. I myself do not believe in honest courts, as well as in the "valiant" police, but after such evidence it even seemed to me that there could not be another decision, except for the acquittal. The court, having heard witnesses, for some reason postponed the meeting the next day.

On the third day near the court, about twenty of my friends gathered to look at the verdict, because they heard about the police’s testimony on the previous day, and everyone wanted to know the level of absurdity, which the process reached. By the beginning of the trial, through the road they were already standing in a single picket with the poster “No Police Light Minor”, which aroused ardent interest among the bailiffs and administrative employees of the court, leaning out in the windows.

The case was small, once again interviewed the police trainee, according to which the employment agreement came, where it was written "is obliged to obey the Federal Law" On the Police "." The trainee himself said that he did not remember this, because he signed a lot of documents. Then he tried to understand for a long time, as whom he detained me, as an interns or as a citizen, but he could not figure it out.

Then, in court, my speech was made in which I designated this process as a political process, noticing about the operatives of the EE center, who brought me to court, the search for shares and photos on the policeman’s phone, the judge pretended not to know what the “center E” was and never heard of this, I had to educate. The defenders voiced their comments on the relatively complete unprofessionalism of the police who did not hear about the “human rights” and do not know about their job descriptions, once again recalling the conclusion of the PMC and video, which clearly visually visible the fact of the detention and illegality of the actions of the policeman. “The court took into account ..." - with these words, the judge retired to be sentenced, as much as 2 hours. The intrigue hung in the hall, the students were obvious to the stupidity of the police, and everyone believed that it was obvious to justify, but at the same time, many understood the essence of Russian justice, therefore they did not build unambiguous illusions.

The verdict confirmed the fears, but it was not as strict as we expected, the administrative arrest was not discussed, but the fine of 1000 rubles was charged. It may seem to someone that this is a trifle, because 1000 rubles today, indeed, the amount is completely small, for 3 days of the court the expenses of the state amounted to much more, even if you do not take into account the payment of judges and administrative workers.

However, this process once again proved one important truth: the court on the police side, even if their fault is obvious. Ведь если бы меня признали невиновным, то по умолчанию оба полицейских оказались бы плохишами, среди белого дня производящими незаконное задержания и даже не ведающими, на каких основаниях и в соответствии с какими инструкциями. А этого наша власть, хоть судебная, хоть исполнительная допустить не может, ведь запятнанную «честь» полиции приходится отмывать пусть и засаленной щеткой. Полицейский всегда прав — вот вывод данного процесса и судебной политики в нашей стране, взявшей курс на взращивание некого образа «Полицейского-защитника», но странными методами.

Мы, конечно же, будем подавать апелляцию, но раньше, чем она дойдет до Европейского суда, я лично не ожидаю каких-либо положительных подвижек в данном деле.