"Explanatory flogging before the elections"

What is the sentence to Alexei Ulyukaev from the point of view of justice and from the point of view of politics - The New Times asked lawyers and political scientists

Sergey Pashin, * lawyer: The main thing that we did not have to see and hear in this process is the testimony of the main witness of the prosecution ( Igor Sechin. * - NT). They were not, like the witness himself. And this contradicts both the European Convention and some provisions of the Supreme Court of Russia.

The fact is that the defense has every right to interrogate a witness to the prosecution. And if it could not be interrogated in the process of investigation or in court, then one conclusion follows: its testimony cannot be used at all. Indications from other people's words are bad indications, they require an appeal to the original source. In this case, it turns out that the testimony is a retelling of what someone else that someone was told by someone said. All this makes the lawfulness of the sentenced the legitimacy of great doubt.

“The political weight is too different for Ulyukaev and Sechin so that the first can utter a bribe from the second”

Abbas Galyamov, *political scientist: *

None of those who are versed in Russian political realities believed that Ulyukaev really extorted a bribe from Sechin. Ulyukaev and Sechin is too different, the political weight so that the first can extract a bribe from the second.

At the same time, it is quite possible to “sell” the verdict as a fight against corruption. Because the mass voter is the tougher the verdict, the better.

However, the fact that the sentence to Ulyukaev was sent a day a day with the appointment of a voting date for the new president ( March 18, 2018. - NT) is, in my opinion, a simple coincidence. Those who are engaged in elections, and those who organize criminal cases and judicial sentences are different people. And they are unlikely to coordinate their actions.

“Even in Russia, weak evidence leads to mitigation of punishment. And here - 8 years of strict regime "

Pavel Chikov, *Lawyer, Chairman of the Interregional Human Rights Association "Agora": *

The punishment appointed to the former Minister of Economic Development Alexei Ulyukaev corresponds to the severity of the crime and the prevailing judicial practice.

The brightest analogy that comes to mind is the former director of the FSIN Alexander Reimer: he received the same amount for a crime of the same severity. On the other hand, Reimer's guilt caused less doubt, and therefore the sentence caused him less indignation.

But the fact that Ulyukaev committed a crime is not proven. The consideration of the case in court took place with flaws that in the rule of law would not allow the sentence at all. And in Russia, weak evidence leads to mitigation of punishment. And here - 8 years of strict regime. Therefore, the sentence to Ulyukaev caused such a resonance.

In my opinion, the Ulyukaev case is a consequence of the provocation. This was indicated by the defense and the defendant, but this was not taken into account by the court.

Finally, the fact that the key witness did not appear to the court, despite repeated challenges, does not stand up to criticism. In fact, the defense was deprived of the opportunity to interrogate the main witness, and this could already serve as an obstacle to the conviction.

“The fact that the tough sentence is related to the elections - the president wants to show himself a corruption fighter, there can be no doubt. Moreover, in this case, he clearly does not sorry for the former head of the Ministry of Economic Development, unlike, for example, from Evgenia Vasilyeva and former Minister of Defense Serdyukov ”

Igor Bunin, *President of the Center for Political Technology Foundation: *

Ulyukaev received the minimum term for corruption provided for by law. The court recognized this case corruption. This means that the court is forced to give at least the minimum term.

Considering that the prosecutor demanded 10 years, and in the end they sentenced to 8 years, it becomes clear: the authorities decided to arrange a demonstration flogue before the elections.

I do not think that Ulyukaev will have settled all 8 years. Most likely, they will look for some opportunity to release it. When, after how much time it is, of course, a question.

I am specially scheduled for one day, I am not sure that the sentence and the announcement of the election date were specially scheduled for one day. But the fact that a tough sentence is related to the elections - the president wants to show himself a corruption fighter - there can be no doubt. Moreover, in this case, he clearly does not sorry for the former Minister of Economic Development, unlike, for example, from Evgenia Vasilyeva and former Minister of Defense of Serdyukov.

The survey was conducted by Elena Teslova