We have always known that separate laws apply to [Aleksey] Navalny, which no one, except those who judge him, has seen. An offsite court session must be justified by some legitimate purpose. For example, an inaccessible area from which it is difficult to take the accused out. The practice of visiting court sessions exists, but to say that this is a very rare practice is to say nothing.
Several times [on my criminal cases] I asked to hold offsite hearings. For example, to interrogate a witness who was practically left without legs and could not leave the house. She asked to organize an off-site meeting [on another case] to interrogate the victims, who were very ill and asked to hold the trial in their absence. Naturally, it was refused.
I had a case where there were about three hundred victims, everyone wanted to come, and the meetings were held in the administration of one city near Moscow, about three hundred meters from the court building, but the court there was tiny. And this was indeed done to ensure the accessibility of justice.
The last off-site meeting known to me was in relation to a disabled disabled person, it took place in a pre-trial detention center. In my opinion, his spine was broken, which, of course, did not prevent him from being behind bars. The court went out and condemned. The military district courts have specific jurisdiction, and in some cases their judges travel on business trips. But this is not a judge running to the neighboring police department ...
What legitimate goal is being achieved here? Prevent Navalny from getting acquainted with the case file, talking with lawyers, getting ready. It is clear that many more people can go to court: a crowd of lawyers will come, say: “to the office,” and try not to let them in.
The only goal is to protect this disgrace from objectionable.