
"... refuse to refuse. Thank you all. Goodbye to everyone." This was the last phrase of the judge, after which she quickly disappeared behind the door of her office. As if our meeting ended and everyone hurried home.
I wanted to remind the judge of her duties that the presiding judge at the hearing verbally explains the content of the court decision, the procedure and the deadline for appeal, but the judge had a trace.
Of course, I was slightly discouraged, and not only by the behavior of the judge, but also by the trial itself, in which I and the prisoner appealed the actions of the acting chief IK-16, who denied us in a confidential date. The boss refused because he decided that only lawyers have the right to confidential meetings with the convict. Although the norm of the law speaks the opposite.
So the representative of the defendant, without blinking an eye, also stated that only lawyers have the right to confidential dates.
I showed her and the judge this norm - part 4 of Article 98 of the PEC, in which there is no word only, to which the lawyer of the colony replied: "And I will interpret this norm like this." Here it is - the freedom of expression and actions, but the process continued.
The judge, looking at the norm of the PEC, also did not immediately see that this article applies not only to lawyers, but also to other persons entitled to provide legal assistance. After the judge became understandable, the judge expressed a new bewilderment: how could I get to a meeting with the prisoner if I have no higher legal education? I referred to the position of the Constitutional Court , according to which "these laws do not establish any requirements for the level of education of a person entitled to provide legal assistance to convicts," but the judge’s behavior said that she was not interested in other people's positions.
Maybe I confused it and it was not a trial, but some meeting of a federal judge, a qualified lawyer of the colony and under-consumer.