GOSTain becomes a reality

Why did the FSB investigator actually forbade Ivan Safronov to congratulate his mother on his birthday

Quote from the cult film "Adjutant of his Excellency": "Andreich fell, are you a spy?" - ( After a painful silence ): “What do you think, Yura, Vladimir Zenonych is a good person?” ...

Probably, Ivan Safronov and his mother on her birthday, investigator Mikhail Stepanov, imagined something like that, refusing the investigated in his next request. Only under the influence of spy films can you draw up the following document:

A document of the era

Why the investigator did not allow Ivan Safronov to call mom on her birthday

“It has been established that telephone conversations in the conditions of pre-trial detention center-2 of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia with the indicated person ( mother -ed. ), At the same time, a witness in a criminal case may be used by I.I. Safronov. For a hidden exchange of information, the implementation of intelligence tasks of the foreign special services directed against the security of the Russian Federation ... "

The decision was made up of Safronov’s lawyer Ivan Pavlov-maybe he also revealed some terrible “state secret of the investigation”?

The state secret includes “the information protected by the state in the field of military, foreign policy, intelligence, counterintelligence activity ...” Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 30, 1995 “On approval of the list of information classified as state secrets” with numerous changes and additions is only general, this information is specifically recorded, which is also classified.

It is known that Ivan Safronov as a journalist specializing in military topics, and later as an assistant to the head of Roscosmos, could independently receive information from open sources, which could be entered in the specified list, but, without special admission, he could not relate to protected state secrets. Then this would mean that the secret is poorly protected, and it should not be bear responsibility. The main thing is that the composition of the crime does not form a solidification of secrets protected by its mind, but only the fact of its disclosure, which can “cause damage to the state”. The composition of the crime implies intent, that is, Safronov had to understand that he disclosed precisely such information.

In any case, a modern secret is of a high -tech in nature - this is that Safronov could, according to the investigation, "disclose his mother." We know about the pope of Ivan that he was a racing officer, then, like his son, he became a military journalist-for example, he could have guessed something on his lips, but he only died in 2007 under unclear circumstances. And Ivan’s mother, as she allowed us to inform, is a school teacher with 40 years of experience. But if she was even a nuclear academician,

It is difficult to imagine the technological secrets that the son could have time to “disclose” her in a short telephone congratulation from Lefortovo under close supervision.

Approximately the same question, a witness to what Safronov may be his mother in the case. Maybe the thefts of their jam jars at the age of six? Wasn't this secret going to tell her under investigation under the guise of congratulations? And why, then, just in case, just in case, not to write down all the acquaintances of Ivan and take away their subscriptions about the non -disclosure of two secrets: state and secrets of the investigation?

In the situation where neither his lawyers nor Ivan himself still can understand what he is accused of specifically, it is a large account of the competition of the values ​​of state secrets and the rights of a citizen. In this regard, in article 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation it is written: “Man, his rights and freedoms are the highest value” (emphasized by me - L.N. ). No, even the most secret secret can be protected at the expense of the rights of the accused of a crime. And further in the same article of the Constitution: "The recognition, observance and protection of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen is the obligation of the state."

It turns out that the FSB, the leading investigation in this case, is not represented by the Russian Federation, but some other state?

The state in a state where such fantasies are considered the norm? Or is it a mockery of the constitution and on human morality? If this is the “secret of the investigation”, then it is no longer a secret for anyone, alas.

Ivan Pavlov

Lawyer, Creator of the Association "Team 29"

“A bell from a pre -trial detention center is a call under control”:

- The meaning in those motives that the investigator put forward as a basis for refusal. And this already does not lie in the plane of jurisprudence and legality - this lies in the plane of morality, morality and ethics. It is from these positions that his refusal must be evaluated. The investigator’s motives are due to the value attitudes that he has. Education, as his parents brought up, as, in the end, teachers and those people who now surround him, educate him.

This is the atmosphere that I wanted to demonstrate by placing this fragment of the decision. Who we have to deal with, who is the bright representative of the procedural opponents with whom we work ... That's what they have in their heads! We encounter this very often, but basically it happens in words. And here it is all in writing.

Most often, all the accused of state is prohibited for relatives. This is due to the fact that the investigation in this way exerts psychological pressure on a person, keeping him in full isolation from the environment. In order to make him supple in order to persuade him to admit already - and then there will be concessions. This, of course, is illegal, but they use it.

If we proceed from the presumption of conscientiousness and be guided by common sense, then the mother’s call is not just a call when you left, call, but no one hears what you are talking about. A bell from a pre -trial detention center is a call under control. This is a person who is simply in direct sight and audibility for controlling organs.