Translated material
"Judge for observing the Constitution"
In Moscow, a criminal process began against Oleg Orlov. The defender is Dmitry Muratov
Oleg Orlov at the trial. Photo: Alexander Miridonov / Kommersant
In the Golovinsky District Court of Moscow, a consideration of on the merits of the criminal case against the chairman of the Council of the human rights center Memorial* Oleg Orlov, who is accused of repeated discrediting the Armed Forces, began. Dozens of people came to support the human rights activist. The process is open, the judge Kostryukova presents. The process began with the request of the defendant to admit as a defender of the editor -in -chief of Novaya Gazeta Dmitry Muratov.
In his petition, Orlov referred to the many years of Muratov’s long -term activity to protect freedom of speech and experience in the courts. And he recalled that the constitutional and supreme courts directly prohibit the right to refuse the right to a public defender due to the presence of a defendant of a professional lawyer.
However, it was precisely this that the state prosecutor referred to, demanding to refuse this petition:
“As a public defender, a given person cannot be allowed, since there is a professional lawyer,” she said.
The judge nevertheless satisfied the petition, Muratov was allowed to defend.
Lawyer Katerina Tertukhina requested the suspension of the proceedings before the decision by the Constitutional Court on the appeal of Oleg Orlov and other persons to verify the administrative article on the discrediting of the army for compliance with the basic law of the country.
If one will be established after a possible conviction of the Golovinsky court, legal uncertainty will arise.
The state prosecutor was brief in response and did without arguments at all:
- There is no reason for suspension.
The judge refused.
Muratov filed a volumetric petition - also about the suspension of production, but on other grounds. He demanded that the Golovinsky court appeal to the Constitutional Court for verification of compliance with the basic law of the already criminal article 280.3 - the one by which Orlov was judged. He referred to legal uncertainty in the matter of the constitutionality of its application. The prosecution is based on three administrative protocols against Orlov: for two single pickets and one article on social networks. Muratov sets out the circumstances of these events, the judge interrupts:
“You chose the tribune court.”
“I have the opportunity to perform in various stands,” he retorts. And continues: - the norm established by this law suggests
Criminal liability for any critical statement of the armed forces on the basis of any administrative punishment for previous similar acts. This diverges with the principle of the inadmissibility of repeated punishment for one act.
The Constitution in Article 13 recognizes ideological and political diversity. In the 28th-fixes the right to have and spread beliefs, in the 29th-allows you to hold peaceful meetings in the form of picket. Everyone has the right to think freely and express an opinion, without fear of persecution.
This does not exclude the protest nature of such events, which is expressed in criticism of the authorities and their decisions. The Constitutional Court indicated that there is no ideological framework for freedom. Article 280.3 does not pursue constitutionally approved goals. The authors of the bill, which introduced it, openly declare that it is aimed at suppressing criticism of power. The design of the article is discriminatory - violates the principle of equality of rights regardless of beliefs.
In addition, Article 50 of the Constitution guarantees that no one can be convicted of one act again. The Constitutional Court ruled in 2017 that prosecution for a repeated administrative offense, which did not entail dangerous consequences, is impossible.
Listen
“Throughout the world, negotiations are being negotiated to release hostages. Except Russia. " Guest of the new output of the Podkasta "Advisory Room" - human rights activist Oleg Orlov
The state prosecutor is again concise:
- I object: I do not see any reason.
The court refuses.
The lawyer intercedes the return of the case to the prosecutor due to violations of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the indictment.
- It does not contain information about the essence of the prosecution: the concept of discrediting is not disclosed, it is not explained what the public danger of the perfect. Protection is impossible due to the ambiguity of the prosecution. In addition, the indictment indicates that Orlov is under the supervision of an narcologist and psychiatrist, and there are no documents confirming this. But this is data on the key aspects of the personality of the accused.
The judge shrugs:
- Well, this is easy to install in the process ...
The lawyer objects:
- This is a mistake, and it should be corrected by returning the case to the prosecutor.
Orlov maintains a petition, saying that this false information is defamed by his reputation.
The state prosecutor is again against:
- The petition is far -fetched, aimed at pulling the process. The defendant is not registered - it does not consist ... The investigation considered it like that.
The prosecutor is interrupted to make a remark to Orlov, who is advised with a lawyer:
- There is ethics in the meeting.
The judge refuses the petition. And he asks if the defendant is clear. The answer is negative.
Muratov adds that the Constitution forbids to force to refuse to express opinions. But Orlov is judged for this expression.
“Orlov is accused of compliance with the constitution,” he summarizes.
The meeting is interrupted at this - the prosecutor petitioned for the transfer. The process will continue on July 3, the interrogation of witnesses is expected.