About Meduza’s material about the defendants in the Penza “Network” case

The Meduza publication released a material that outlines the version of the involvement of several defendants in the “Penza” case of the “Network” in the murder of two people and drug trafficking. The story, as Meduza itself emphasizes, needs to be carefully checked. Let's leave aside the question of the timeliness and quality of journalistic investigation. In any case, the published information raises a number of complex and important issues for the society.

Recall that the prosecution in the framework of the criminal case on the terrorist community "Network" began in the fall of 2017. According to investigators, members of the community, whose cells existed in Penza, St. Petersburg, Moscow and Belarus, were preparing terrorist attacks throughout the country in order to raise an armed rebellion. In early 2018, some of the defendants (as well as at least one witness in the case) reported being tortured. They also stated that physical evidence - weapons - had been planted on them. Information about torture in the “Penza case” was transmitted by relatives of the defendants, in the “Petersburg case” - by members of the local Public Monitoring Commission, who drew up the corresponding conclusion.

The statements of the defendants about torture during the investigation and trial of the Network case, the presence of a political motive and numerous inconsistencies in the case cast doubt on its results. In the context of a general distrust of official information, knowing about the practice of falsifying cases that has developed in Russia, society tends to proceed from the presumption not only of the innocence of the defendants, but also of the deliberate bias of the court and the investigation - this is a natural reaction to the current practice. In this situation, society demands a fair trial and observance of human rights, no matter who it is - guilty or innocent, because guilt must be proven not through pressure on the defendants and torture, juggling of case materials and propaganda, but by legal methods during the investigation. and adversarial litigation.

Natural and emotional reaction: sincerely supporting certain people, I want to represent them exclusively in the form of heroes and victims. The doubts that arise may extend not only to the attitude towards the verdict in the "Penza case", but also to public interest in the approaching verdict in the "Petersburg" case and in other politically motivated criminal cases. But people who are subjected to political persecution are not always heroes - they may be unsympathetic to us, or they may turn out to be guilty of certain crimes.

It is important for us to resist political repression, and not glorify the victims. By calling into question the information coming from the security forces, drawing attention to socially significant criminal cases, thus forcing the authorities to work more carefully and prove the facts collected, and the court to take into account the information and legal positions of all parties to the process, the society creates the prerequisites for an independent judicial system and accountable to society. law enforcement. Without this, Russia will not only retain the possibility of political repression, but also lack the tools to actually enforce the law, protect society from violence, and ensure both security and freedom.

Establishing the truth both in the Network case and in the new plot about the murders is necessary. Unfortunately, we cannot know for sure what is true in the version described by Meduza and what is not. Both by law and in practice, only law enforcement agencies have the resources and opportunities to verify such facts. A full-fledged analysis of the reliability of the facts collected by the investigation and their legal assessment are possible only in the course of a public and fair trial. The problem is that we can’t count on it yet (the data cited by Meduza that information about the murders was known to the investigation only adds mistrust to law enforcement agencies). The dissemination of unproven versions in such a situation (and rumors appeared in the spring of 2019) can turn into an unmotivated verdict. In these circumstances, further public attention to the Network case, demands for an impartial investigation and open adversarial trial are the only way for society to achieve justice.

The information received by Meduza must be proven or refuted. But we are sure that regardless of the result, society was not mistaken in opposing torture and fabrication of the “Penza case”, and now public attention to this case is becoming even more necessary.

OVD-Info team