Rallies that are not dangerous to society: why the case against Vyacheslav Egorov was opened illegally

Masked machine gunners and the case of rallies

At the end of January, activists of the “No to the Kolomna landfill” movement were searched in Kolomna. As it turned out, they were carried out in a criminal case about repeated violations of the legislation on rallies in relation to Egorov. The activist himself was detained and held for more than 48 hours without a court decision. According to his wife, on the morning of January 31, about a dozen security forces, including masked machine gunners, came to their house.

Seven activists were taken to the police, interrogated as witnesses in the case and released. Egorov became a suspect, and on February 2, the Kolomensk City Court sent him under house arrest .

The reason for initiating the case was four administrative protocols drawn up against the activist in 2018. In May, the court gave Yegorov 30 hours of compulsory labor, finding him guilty under Part 5 of Article 20.2 of the Administrative Code (violation of the procedure for holding a rally by a participant). In June, the activist ended up in a special detention center for three days, this time under Part 6.1 of Article 20.2 of the Administrative Code (violation of the procedure for holding a rally, resulting in interference with transport). On August 22, the court sentenced Egorov to 25 hours of compulsory labor under Part 2 of Article 20.2 of the Administrative Code (organizing or holding an unapproved rally).

According to the fourth protocol under Part 2 of Article 20.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences, drawn up in December, administrative proceedings were stopped in order to initiate a criminal case. The reason was Egorov’s article on Yandex. Zene" with a call to come to the court, where the administrative cases of Gennady and Dmitry Gudkov were to be considered.

On February 7, Egorov was charged . According to his lawyer Maria Eismont, the case materials have everything to stop the criminal prosecution of her client.

Investigative secrecy and house arrest

In February, the Moscow Regional Court considered Eismont’s complaint against the ruling of the Kolomna City Court behind closed doors. According to Eismont, there were no grounds to close the meeting. The trial in Kolomna on February 2 was also held behind closed doors, but there, as the lawyer says, the prosecution at least referred to “investigative secrecy.”

“Although it’s not clear what kind of investigative secret there might be,” says Eismont. — All the documents that are in the case materials are open documents, court decisions, they can be found in an open database.

On March 21, the court extended Egorov’s house arrest. This time the meeting was not adjourned. Olga Mirzaeva, Yegorov’s wife, spoke in court about how house arrest works: the children do not have access to the Internet, and a family of six lives off the pension of the defendant’s mother - 15 thousand rubles a month. The judge did not take these arguments into account because at the last meeting the relatives agreed to Egorov’s house arrest.

Dangerous rallies and the legality of persecution

The only person convicted under Article 212.1 of the Criminal Code, which Egorov is charged with, is opposition activist Ildar Dadin. In December 2015, he was sentenced to imprisonment, and in February 2017, the Supreme Court overturned the sentence and released Dadin. This happened after the activist’s reports about torture in the colony, which caused widespread public outcry.

About two weeks before the verdict was overturned, the Constitutional Court stated that Article 212.1 of the Criminal Code should be applied only if the “violation” charged to a person was dangerous to society.

The Presidential Council for Human Rights (HRC) recognized that there is no public danger in Yegorov’s actions. The author of the opinion for the HRC, head of judicial practice at the Institute of Law and Public Policy, Grigory Vaipan, explained in a conversation with OVD-Info that Egorov’s latest offense does not pose a “criminal public danger” in accordance with the ruling of the Constitutional Court:

“In Egorov’s case, in the fourth episode, a protocol on an administrative offense was initially drawn up against him under Part 2 of Article 20.2. The Constitutional Court directly writes in its ruling in connection with the Dadin case that this part is not dangerous. However, the resolution does not clearly answer the question of whether previous offenses should constitute a danger. The Constitutional Court only says that criminal liability cannot be brought if the fourth violation is not dangerous. It does not say whether it is possible to attract under 212.1 if the previous three are harmless.”

The HRC statement also states that the decision to initiate a criminal case is illegal and subject to cancellation:

“From the contents of the said publication by Egorova V.V. we can conclude that it was aimed at informing the public about the time and place of open court hearings in the Kolomensky City Court of the Moscow Region. The publication does not mention V.V. Egorov’s intention. hold any public event <…> Consequently, in the actions of Egorov V.V. there is no intent as a mandatory element of the crime provided for in Article 212.1 of the Criminal Code <…>.”

On March 26, the Babushkinsky District Court considered the complaint of Egorov’s lawyer Maria Eismont. Before making a decision, the court attached the expert opinion of the HRC to the case. However, the court recognized the initiation of a case against Vyacheslav Egorov as legal.