"Guilty of extremism and embezzlement" - 2

The verdict in the case of Natalia Sharina, the former director of the library of Ukrainian literature, was left unchanged by the decision of the Moscow City Court of April 24, 2018. The chronicle of events is restored by the writer, a witness to the sensational process Marina Vishnevetskaya .

(Ending. The beginning see in the TRV-HOWN No. 253)

The fact that the last thing, solemnly presented by Judge Elena Gudoshnikova at a meeting on May 4, 2017, will turn out to be tossed - not on the day of the search, but an indefinite time later - in a sealed package with “extremist materials” seized in the library, does not immediately fit in my head. But at the request of lawyers, despite the persistent prosecutor’s protest, we are watching the personnel shot on October 28, 2015 by the REN-TV channel [1]). Among the books laid out for shooting there is a gray, nondescript book by Dmitro Korchinsky “VIINA in NATOPI” (“War in the crowd.” - Ed.) - with the pretext “B” (a book with this name is not included in the list of extremist materials, published by the Ministry of Justice). But the one that the judge presented as the main thing, with the pretext of “U”, “VIINA at NATOVPI” - there are in the list of extremist materials, under number 2089 (“Amadeus”, KIIV, 1999 was recognized as an extremist decision of the Meshchansky District Court of Moscow dated 03/14/2013 ”[2]).

Outwardly, these books differ at each other strikingly: filming a thinner during the search, in a grayish-bearing cover. Presented by the judge - bright and one and a half thicker. Lawyers, and then Natalya Sharina, draw the attention of the judges to this. “The Book of Korchinsky, which we see on the screen, was seized during a search of 2010,” explains Sharina, “therefore we were very surprised when it was discovered during a search of 2015. Your honor, but today another book has appeared! ”

Needless to say, there are no library litters on this “other”? The lawyer says aloud about this ... And I see my own eyes - the hall is small and I sit nearby - as Natalya Sharina leafing through snow -white, without a single page mark. And he still believes that the mosquito will dissipate. Because without this faith it is impossible to repeat from the meeting to the meeting: "Your honor! .."

Therefore, does the “business of the ball” not let me go for so long? For me, it is full not only by the Kafkian absurdity (“Someone apparently slandered Joseph K., because, having made nothing wrong, he was arrested”), but also living people, their passions, their deceived hopes. Their perseverance and indefatigability of defending truth.

On May 18, 2017, the investigator Dmitry Lopaev gives testimony in court, on October 28, 2015 he carried out a search in a bouquet.

Lawyer I. Pavlov . During the search, did you remove anyone? Pay attention, people are sitting for you. Maybe one of them?

D. Lopaev (looks around, looks at the hall for a long time). The employee stood at the entrance. And, as I remember, the girl came and did not want to leave, said: "I will work here."

An employee of the library Tatyana Muntyan rises from his place in the hall.

I. Pavlov. Why did you want to remove it?

D. Lopaev. I explained to her: investigative actions are being taken here.

I. Pavlov. And she didn’t want to draw your attention to anything? (Turning to the employee.) Where was he when you saw the stuffing of books?

Judge E. Gudoshnikova . Book stuffing? What do you mean? (And this is after the meeting of May 4! - M.V.)

I. Pavlov. Book stuffing.

T. Muntean. When I noticed that there was a stack of books and three of them have no identification marks of the library, there was no Lopa-va investigator near. I said that the books were thrown again, and after a few minutes he came up ... I asked to enter it into the protocol. Dmitry Nikolaevich said that he himself would decide what to enter into the protocol.

E. Gudoshnikova (Lopaeva). Do you confirm?

D. Lopaev. Not really. Everyone moved sequentially.

E. Gudoshnikova . Was the situation with the tossing of books?

D. Lopaev (after a pause). I exclude the possibility of their toss.

And during the interrogation of the witness Lopaev, it turns out that the case of extremism was instituted by him on October 28, 2015 at 23 hours 58 minutes. After that, in two minutes that remained before the expiration of the day, the case was sent to the investigation department (Pavlov presents the papers confirming this), from there to the Main Investigation Department (another document), and from the MIS back to Lopaev.

I. Pavlov. Do you admit that this is possible?

D. Lopaev. Dates are indicated correctly.

I. Pavlov. In two minutes, the fifth decision is already. This speed does not affect you?

E. Gudoshnikova . The question is removed.

And then the lawyer reports two more documents dated the same day, one of which indicates the appointment of Lopaev by the head of the investigation group.

I. Pavlov. Seven procedural documents in just two minutes on October 28, 2015.

Speech by L. Balandin . I am against ...

I. Pavlov . These documents indicate falsification of the criminal case.

E. Gudoshnikova (witness). Do you insist that these documents are dated correctly?

D. Lopaev . Yes.

A large embezzlement charged against the ball in April 2016 (part 4 of article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) is dismantled at each of the meetings as carefully as the accusation of extremism. When the first search was conducted in the library in 2010 and the first case was initiated under the 282nd article, the Bulg’s bet appeared in the Bul with the blessing of the direct chiefs of Sharina in the CAO and the City Hall. Two part -time workers were taken at this rate. The money paid by him (the fact that Sharina did not take a penny, recognizes the prosecution), and are called "large embezzlement".

“All my actions,” Sharina explains day after day, “were carried out in the interests of the library, and I did not make any waste.” As soon as this non -standard situation arose (the case, in 2010 - M.V.) at the highest level, at the meeting, which was attended by Lyudmila Ivanovna Shvetsova (deputy mayor of Moscow for social policy. - M.V. ), it was decided that the library was needed by a lawyer ... Therefore, a lawyer bet appeared in the library.

The same, in slightly in other words, is confirmed in his testimony and witness R. Krylov-iodko, head of the cultural department of Cao of Moscow.

I. Pavlov. Is it possible to say that you knew about attracting a lawyer to this case and approved him?

R. Krylov-iodko. Yes. In addition, Lyudmila Shvetsova also knew about this.

When asked by the prosecutor whether Krylov-iodko knew when he signed the payment accounts, what kind of services the lawyer provides for the library and with what case they are connected, the witness answers in the affirmative.

But the position of the prosecutor will remain unchanged: funds (more than 2.2 million rubles) were allocated not to represent the interests of the entire library, but were used by the ball exclusively in their interests and were not compensated by it.

On June 5, 2017, the Judge Gudoshnikov will also share this position in his sentence, finding the ball guilty both in extremism and in large embezzlement. In the stuffy hall overflowing with journalists, the judge will read the sentence within a few hours (as often happens in our courts, almost literally reproducing the arguments of the prosecutor). The accused, suffering from back pain (Natalya Sharina received the compression fracture of the spine on October 29, 2015, when she was handcuffed in a car carrier that came up with a “bed policeman”), will have time to sit down and get up again. It will seem to me for some long minutes that the Sharin will receive the real term, -the voice of the judge is decisive closer to the final. And finally, having heard “four years conditionally,” I will feel relief. But in the eyes of Natalia Grigoryevna - only anger and resentment. When asked by the judge, whether she is understanding the verdict, she is warmly answered that she is not clear that the 282nd article is an incitement of enmity and hatred, these are some specific actions, but during the trial that lasted more than seven months, not one of the witnesses, nor the state prosecutor brought a single fact that it was performed by her.

Pavlov and Pavlov will tell reporters and Pavlov after the announcement of the sentence:-After all, a direct intent to commit a crime under the 282nd article must be proved. The storage of materials, even if included in all terrible lists, does not form the corpus delicti, there is administrative responsibility for this. And add:

- It is good that Natalya Grigoryevna, who was under house arrest for a year and a half, is free today.

What was it?

- There is no doubt that for all the legal proceedings, that is, in my case, there is a huge organization for this arrest and for today's trial. This organization has at its disposal not only for sales guards, stupid inspectors and investigators who show a commendable modesty at best, but it also includes judges of a high and highest rank with a countless, inevitable staff of ministers, scribes, gendarmes and other assistants, and maybe even executioners - I am not afraid of this word. And what is the meaning of this huge organization, gentlemen? - Joseph K. asks in the novel "Process". And he answers himself:

- arrest innocent people ... [3]

- Anti -murder business is not spent on such funds as on the case of the library. So what are all these forces aimed at? - Asks a century later, lawyer Yevgeny Smirnov.

And he will answer:

- To politics!

The state prosecutor will confirm the assumption of a lawyer in his final speech:

- Ukrainian nationalism, handing hand in hand with German Nazism during the Second World War, raised his head again. Uzurpilized power in a neighboring state, who was already appointed to state posts, indulging in the desires of Ukrainian nationalists, openly talk about the need to seize Russian regions, guided by criminal ideas, which are also set out in the so -called literature, and in fact in the nationalist campaigns seized from the library shelves, the director of which was the disputed. Today's leaders of Ukraine in every possible way destroy the Russian population of this country, prohibit the Russian language, traditions, holidays, culture. Thus, I believe that the defendant is actually one of the parts of a complex mechanism, the work of which is aimed at discrediting and discrediting Russian culture in Ukraine.

What now?

The appeal filed by lawyers for the verdict of the Meshchansky court was considered by the Moscow City Court almost a year later. And it would become an ordinary event deprived of intrigue (the prosecutor, looking at the cheat sheet, repeated familiar accusations, lawyers again talked about gross violations at the investigation stage, the incompetence of the examination, when, due to the presence of the expression “Soviet empire”, the book turned out to be an expert to extremist ...), if not for one amazing incident. On April 20, 2018, a high court after a two -hour meeting postponed the hearing for the next week. However, in the middle of the same day, in several media, with reference to the press service of the Moscow City Court, information appeared that Natalya Sharina’s verdict was upheld. I must say that this event made a strong impression on lawyers. At a meeting on April 24, they asked to call as a witness and question the head of the press service of the Moscow City Court “due to its knowledge”. However, the court, having consulted on the spot, decided to refuse to refuse.

Nevertheless, it seemed that there was an intrigue. And with her, the hope that at least one of the articles will be removed with the ball - in order to demonstrate the spontaneity of decisions made in the deliberative room. Alas. The information widespread on April 20, the information after four days was repeated by the chairman of the judicial composition by Julia Komleva almost literally: the verdict of the ball is left unchanged.

This decision inspired Sergei Sokurov into a large “patriotic” article. On April 30, he reported in it to the readers of REGNUM about the work done with like -minded people: “Having lost hope of influencing the ball with good conviction and official appeals, fearing for the spread of an“ orange spot from the center of Moscow ”, I began to turn to the public through the media. My journalistic “SOS” raised to new protests to patriotic youth from one “locals” and “Eurasians” <...> the municipal deputy of the Yakimanka district D. Zakharov declared in the press to liquidate this “Bandera Underground” and, apparently, it was he who turned to the “law enforcement agencies” (in the sovereign of law. the name "End of the Moscow Center of Ukrainian Russophobia") [4].

. . .
By the way, about like -minded people. On May 1, the witnesses of Zhuravlev and Zakharov (miraculously on the day of the search met near the Bul at seven in the morning) are again nearby - this time near the Sakharov Center, along with the Cossacks and activists of the self -proclaimed republics, who tried to disrupt the festival of independent civil art “Muse of the rebellious”.

. . .
The library of Ukrainian literature, which has been the bridge between the two Slavic cultures for many years (so Sharina and other Bul employees determined its role), ceased to exist. In its premises, the GBU "Center for the Development of Tourism of the City of Moscow" is now located.

. . .
Lawyers Pavlov and Smirnov intend to appeal the verdict to the ECHR.

* * *

Clarifications to the first part of the article:

1. Sergei Sokurov, most likely, did not write a statement to the Investigative Committee on the ball, but limited himself to the actions described by him in a quoted article;
2. The first business is Sharina (2010-2011), which was closed, but then newly open, has not yet been stopped.

Marina Vishnevetskaya

1. The library of Ukrainian literature continues to work as usual . Previously, searches were conducted in the library.

2. Federal list of extremist materials. minjust.ru/ru/extremist-materials?field_extremist_content_value= Vorchinsky

3. Chapter 2, translation of Rita Wright Kovaleva.

4. Sokurov S. Russian Library in Lviv and the Ukrainian library in Moscow. Two libraries are two destinies . REGNUM.ru/news/2410413.html