Kirov court against European

A second consideration of the Kirovles case is completed, then only the verdict. Report "Medusa"

In Kirov, a re -consideration of the case of Kirovles, the politician Alexei Navalny and entrepreneur Peter Officerov, ended. The prosecutor's office asked to sentenced the defendants to five and four years conditionally and for a fine of 500 thousand rubles from each. The prosecution ignored the fact that the first sentence was canceled by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation after the verdict of the European Court of Human Rights. The prosecutors said that the decision of the ECHR "does not have a pre -established force." The defendants demanded to justify them. About what was happening at the last meeting, says Sasha Sulim, journalist Medusa.

The last meeting, as part of a repeated consideration of the Kirovles case, began with the interrogation of the entrepreneur Peter Officerov - on the eve of the prosecutors did not manage to ask the defendant their questions, because the judge Alexei Vtyurin had to get an appointment with the doctor. The accusation asked Officer about his trips to Kirov, relations with Navalny, about participation in the meetings at which Kirovles was discussed. The entrepreneur answered patiently, not missing the smallest details, sometimes he even asked for the accusation to clarify or divide the questions into several parts in order to answer the most detail as possible.

- How did you find out about Kirovles? The prosecutor asked.

“With the help of Miracle-search machines, Yandex and Google,” answered officers.

The interrogation lasted about an hour. Officers, as on the eve of Navalny, exclaimed in disappointedly: “And where is the question: where is the money to divide? Your honor, do you really have no questions either? "

But the court had no questions. The defense presented several more petitions, the judge went to think, Navalny tried to stop him: “Your honor, do not leave! We chronometry: yesterday in the deliberative room you spent more time than in court. You still refuse us. ” The judge left the call unattended, and having left the deliberate room, he refused to petitions.

The debate of the parties began. The prosecutor Sergei Bogdanov began by the fact that “the crimes of the defendants are not lying on the surface - they are masked by legal actions, but their goal was theft and enrichment,” which means, in the opinion of the prosecution, their actions pose a public danger.

His speech was different from the one that he uttered in the first process in 2013, only in that he had to comment on the decisions of the European Court on the rights of man and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the abolition of the sentence to Navalny and Officer. The reference to these decisions, according to the prosecutor, “does not have a legal basis, since it undergoes an independent trial,” and the ECHR verdict “does not have a pre -established force”.

In the final of the debate, the prosecutors asked the court to recognize Navalny and Officer guilty and sentenced them to five and four years and a fine of 500 thousand rubles per forces from each.

Navalny’s lawyer Olga Mikhailova warned the court that if he followed the path of the prosecutor, the Kirovles case would be considered for the third or even fourth time.

During Mikhailov’s debate and officer’s lawyer Svetlana Davydova appealed to the fact that the Russian Federation ratified the convention, which obliges to agree with the decision of the ECHR and to fulfill them - and it is strange to defenders that the prosecutor's office of the Kirov region offers all this to ignore. Mikhailova invited state prosecutors to familiarize themselves with the Constitution and other no less important documents. “I don’t understand how a person with a higher legal education could not read article 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - all lawyers read it,” Davydova did not let her in.

Mikhailova also stated that in Kirov, "is considered an artificially created accusation, the purpose of which is to publicly discredit Navalny and prevent him from presidential elections." She said that the only possible verdict in the case is acquittal. The second lawyer of Navalny Vadim Kobzev expressed the hope that the Leninsky District Court of Kirov would not allow the fact that because of his sentence Russia would be “expelled from the Council of Europe”-for non-compliance with the decision of the ECHR.

“No offense! Nothing personal! But this time I did not like it at all! " - Entered the debate of Navalny. The politician noted that since 2013 there was only some “humanization” of the prosecution - he and the officer were requested conditional punishment. “We thought: what kind of cunning will they come up with? Maybe, of course, she is, I just didn’t realize her yet, or you just did the same mistakes as last time, ”Navalny continued to be surprised.

Davydova, defending Officer, reminded the court that one cannot judge a person for entrepreneurial activity.

Alexei Navalny used his seventh last word for previous political purposes. “In modern Russia, the bench of the defendants has become the main tribune for performances,” the oppositionist explained. He stated that he was insulting that Peter the Officers was a victim of a matter of a matter of a matter of a politician.

Navalny reported on the work carried out during the time from the first process, recalled the anti -corruption investigations of the FBK, repeated that he would go to the polls. Judge Vthurin drew the attention of the defendant that he should speak out on the merits of the process. “But this is the essence of the process,” Navalny explained to him.

“I am sure that one of you will give me your voice. You are my voters, and I will lead you to Russia of the future, ”Navalny concluded his speech to the applause of his colleagues from the FBK.

“The heart is thumping,” said Navalny Officer, when he sat in place, and began to study the comments of those who followed his performance in online broadcasting.

Officers devoted his last word to Russian entrepreneurs. He expressed regret that in Russia a biased is a frequent business: “After all, it is he who can make our country the Great,” the officers said. He completed his speech like this: “Regardless of the court decision, I will not be ashamed to tell my children about it, but will other participants in the process be just as frank?”

The judge, despite the subscription about a lower -off wizard, released the defendants to Moscow and appointed the sentence on February 8.

Sasha Sulim, Kirov