Fake sentence

What said the chairman of the UK, Alexander Bastrykin in support of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation involved in article 207.3

The first non-conditional sentence, issued by Judge Olesya Mendeleeva, who did not plead guilty to Alexei Gorinov for the dissemination of “false information about the actions of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation”, established the bar of what is known in legal science as the principle of saving criminal repression. In the course of the “special operation”, the courts will not save: 7 years in prison under Part 2 of Art. 207.3 of the Criminal Code - taking into account the use of his official position (the deputy played at a meeting of the municipal council), by prior conspiracy (supposedly with another deputy) and “based on political hatred”.

After all, the state does not save on a “special operation”? Yes, and the Investigative Committee also does not save: Gorinov was led by a brigade of 9 investigators, and 5 linguists and psychologists participated in the conduct of examinations. On the way of another 55 of the same cases, including in relation to Vladimir Kara-Murza (who was also recognized as an “ino-agent” in Russia) and the chairman of the Udmurtia Law Chamber Dmitry Talentov, arithmetic suggests that they will need 495 more investigators.

And Gorinov’s appeal is ahead, and the judges of the Moscow City Court should recall that 9 investigators of the UK and Judge Mendeleev could not know: the position of the head of the IC of the Russian Federation Alexander Bastrykin on the issue of objective truth. The most fully, it is reflected in the work “Objective Truth in the Criminal Procedure”, which the author published in 2015 on the Prose.ru website. This is what the Doctor of Law Bastrykin thought about this at that time:

“The demand for the search for objective truth is a guarantee of the justice of justice. In general, in the criminal procedure proof, these conditions are ensured by principles such as completeness, comprehensiveness and objectivity of the study of all circumstances relevant to the case ... (I was allocated by me- L.N .).

The idea of ​​the impossibility of achieving objective truth refers to an alien modern science by a philosophical course called agnosticism. It is not quite consistent with the traditions of Russian criminal proceedings and the doctrine of legal truth, the roots of which go back to the Anglo-American model of the criminal process ... ”

Indication of prof. Bastrykin to the abomination of agnosticism and the subversive nature of alien doctrines requires investigators and judges to carefully understand the objective picture of what is called a “special operation”.

During the discussion of the proposal for the competition of children's drawings for Victory Day, deputy Gorinov noted that such a happy in the Krasnoselsky municipal district of Moscow is inappropriate when the same children die under shelling in Ukraine.

This statement is not questioned even by the leadership of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation: let no one shoot at them aimed at them, but “in war as in war,” and the children die too. This fact cannot but be taken into account within the framework of the fact that the head of the IC of the Russian Federation characterizes as “the completeness, comprehensiveness and objectivity of the study of all circumstances that are relevant to the case”.

The statement of the deputy Gorinov about the inappropriateness of the holiday is only his private opinion, and even being divided by many, it cannot be considered either true or as false.

Perhaps Professor Bastrykin does not want to remember the discussion, which he persistently led several years ago, including lobbying through deputies to include amendments on “objective truth” in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (though unsuccessfully).

We may not agree with him philosophically, believing, for example, that the truth is generally transcendental, and the judicial investigation, like the preliminary (in the UK), can only evaluate evidence in the case. But if you go down from heaven and talk about the facts, then they are either or not. Both are the objective side of any crime, and all the facts, including the context of the “Acts” and its consequences, should be taken into account in the verdict. It would be nice also in the law, but this is another conversation.

The denial of undoubted facts is also “knowingly false information”, and the logic of the sentence cannot contradict the logic of common sense. The “fake” otherwise the court decision is turned out to be.