Will this change the sentence? Of course not

Evidence of the guilt of the killers of Stanislav Markelov and Anastasia Baburova is undeniable, but the decision of the ECHR must be executed

The European Court of Human Rights decided on a complaint of the killers of lawyer Stanislav Markelov and the journalist of Novaya Anastasia Baburova. The verdict regarding members of the Russian nationalist combat organization (BORN) Tikhonov and Hasis is recognized as unfair in Russia.

Stas and Nastya Nazi Tikhonov killed in January 2009, in the afternoon, in the center of Moscow, with witnesses. His Generian Hasis was nearby and directed his actions.

The jury found Tikhonov and Hasis guilty and not deserving. The Moscow City Court sentenced the direct killer to life imprisonment, and Hasis to the 18 years in the colony.

At the investigation, Tikhonov confessed, gave detailed testimonies under the video and confirmed them at the crime scene. It turned out in court that the apartment in which Tikhonov and Hasis lived was under the audio and video surveillance of the FSB officers- negotiations of the murderers, their exposure, were represented by the jury.

Other reinforced concrete evidence of the guilt of the defendants were announced in the court, and the attempts of their friends to permissive to ensure their alibi failed, as they say, in real time.

Parents of Nastya and Brother Stanislav, having studied the case file and took part in court, have no doubt: they condemned the real killers whose guilt has been proven. We are confident in this in the Novaya Gazeta.

Later, already being convicted, Tikhonov and Hasis acted as witnesses at two other processes of radical nationalists: they exposed the killers, repented of his deed and did not hide their guilt.

Therefore, a revision of the criminal case, the reason to which gives a decision of the ECHR will not change anything. On the basis of such evidence, any jury collection collected in compliance with the norms of the law and working within the framework of these norms will decide the same verdict.

The European Court does not consider the essence of the case, that is, it does not establish whether or not those who wrote a complaint or not. The ECHR analyzes the legality of the procedure from the point of view of compliance with human rights.

When considering the case of Tikhonov and Hasis, the ECHR decided, Article 6 of the European Convention was violated: the right to a fair trial. And, based on this, the ECHR decided that the rest of the arguments of the complaint did not make sense.

These conclusions are based on the fact that, according to the court decision, the jury was not impartial during the consideration of the case. They got acquainted with the publications regarding the crime, put pressure on each other, and some could not be members of the jury under Russian laws (this requirement applies, for example, persons who had previously had any relation to law enforcement or to the justice system).

The only trouble is that the norms of the law relating to the jury is impossible to fulfill in Russia.

Jury cannot be isolated for the time of the process (allegedly there is no money), their selection is treated through the sleeves, and only units from among professional judges are able to preside on processes with jury. And, by and large, based on the naked letter of the law, a rare sentence made according to the results of the jury verdict may be fair in Russia. And there are suspicions that such conditions for the administration of justice, if not initially conceived, are certainly used by law enforcement agencies in case of “wrong” verdicts.

Do I need to review Tikhonov’s business - Hasis? If such a requirement from them goes to the Supreme Court, then, of course, yes.

Will this change the sentence? Of course not.

But in the materials of the case there were the names of the direct and indirect accomplices of the killers who escaped punishment for political reasons. And their actions finally need to give a legal assessment.

Yes - it will be necessary to review, because the rule of strict compliance with the decision of the ECHR must be observed in Russia, in spite of any amendments to the Constitution and despite the hatred of specific criminals.

And the most important conclusion for Russia, which should be made from the solution of the ECHR, is simple: observe your laws. Always.