Translated material
Fars without a hero
Oleg Orlov* refused to defend himself when repeated consideration of his criminal case
Oleg Orlov in court. Photo: AP / TASS
Oleg Orlov* reads Kafka, not being distracted by either the judge or the prosecutor. In the Golovinsky Court of Moscow, he abandoned his own defense in the process on charges of him, Orlov, in repeated discrediting the army. The accusation is also repeated: the human rights activist for this already judged the same court - Golovinsky. But “little was given” - all just a fine. The prosecutor's office requested work on the mistakes, and the Moscow City Court allowed her. So now everything is new. It is as if the artists failed and were obstacles, but instead of apology, they would force the audience to listen to them in a new way. And so that the audience would not run away, they would take away her to leave the unsuccessful subscriptions.
The defender of Orlov Dmitry Muratov*refused to participate in this view. Orlov was recognized as an “ino -agent” on the eve of this process, Muratov - before the very debate of the process of the first. What is it if not pressure on the court? Also, the deprivation of the right to defense: after all, now witnesses of protection would not only give evidence, but would help “foreign agents”. So, they would become affiliated or worse - this is at the discretion of the Ministry of Justice. Therefore, there will be no witnesses of protection and specialists in the hall - this is the decision of Orlov.
"A deliberately unwarosphere process"
The first consideration of this case by the same court “New” spoke in detail, as well as the fact that, on the proposal of the prosecutor's office, the Moscow City Court canceled the issued co -founder of the “Memorial” ** a conviction, but not related to the deprivation of liberty.
Then the judge Kupriyanova relied on one argument: the investigation did not establish a motive who forced the 70-year-old Orlov to go on peaceful pickets and write an article about his fears for the future of Russia.
According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, non -equipment of the motive entails the justification of the defendant for the lack of corpus delicti. Judge Kupriyanova was entitled to make such a decision. But instead, she gave the prosecution the opportunity to correct the mistakes. At the same time, both the Constitutional Court and the Plenum of the Supreme prohibit the return of the case to the prosecutor purely to replenish the incompleteness of the investigation. But this is exactly what happened.
The case returned to the investigator SK Savchenko, who last time sent him to the court, providing the Anti -Scabied examination of the work of Kryukova and Tarasov and the protocols of interrogations of two witnesses that match the word word.
There was nothing more in the case - and it actually crumbled.
There are no acquittals for pacifist articles, but the fact that even the state prosecution was only a fine (his judge Kostryukov appointed) is the actual recognition of Orlov’s innocence.
Now Savchenko was fed taking into account the claims of the defense that sounded in court. He appointed a new examination, and also asked the accused what his motive was. And Orlov answered: Love for the Motherland.
Savchenko did not convince this, and in the indictment he indicated that Orlov was enlightenment for the “spiritual and moral values of the Russian Federation” and hatred of the Russian military.
This is the reliability of this and have to evaluate the judge Elena Astakhova. This time the state prosecution is represented by the senior assistant to the Tver inter -district prosecutor of Moscow Vorobyov.
Ekaterina Tertukhina’s lawyer immediately filed a motion to return the case to the prosecutor: Defender Orlov Dmitry Muratov* was not invited to any investigative action, the defense unreasonably limited the time to familiarize themselves with the case materials - thereby her rights were grossly violated. On the basis of which the time was limited is also unknown: the court was sitting in the absence of the party, its decision is prohibited for publication.
The recommendations of the Federal Law Chamber imply at least two days to study each volume of criminal case. There are 7 of them in the case of Orlov, but it was over January 29, and on February 7, it was received by court.
Where the investigator was in a hurry, it remained unknown. And he was in a hurry: on February 7 at the address of the lawyer’s office to Tertukhina, in order to accelerate the acquaintance with the new accusation of her client, even the assistant prosecutor in the company of armed people came ....
Vorobyov’s prosecutor does not agree: she believes that the indictment is entirely legal. Judge Astakhov defended the defense at the request.
And Orlov made a statement:
“I do not plead guilty, and the accusation is not clear to me. It is not clear how to pursue me in criminal order and in general anyone else's statement of opinion. Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees everyone freedom of thought and word.
Shortly before the start of this trial, I was included in the register of “foreign agents”. The risks for those who are in my defense, unfortunately, are already quite real. I cannot and are not going to increase these risks. Therefore, I will not petition for the interrogation of witnesses of defense and specialists who could cite evidence of the insolvency of the prosecution. And I forbid to do this to my protection.
“To experience enmity for values” is, in my opinion, in general some kind of nonsense. But if you seriously speak this language, then let me remind you that, oddly enough, among the traditional values in the decree of the President of the Russian Federation, for example, human rights and freedoms are called. The investigation, therefore, claims that I am enmity with human rights and freedoms? Absurd.
In these conditions, I refuse to interrogate witnesses of the prosecution and the so -called experts. I also refuse to answer questions (this right gives me Article 51 of the Constitution) and refuse to participate in the debate. I reserve the right only to make the last word.
Making such a decision, I rely on the experience of the behavior of some human rights activists of the Soviet era: Tatyana Velikanova, Sergey Kovalev, Alexander Podrabinek, Vyacheslav Bakhmin and others who refused to participate in obviously unjust lawsuits. Thanks to them for their example. ”
Managers rolled up their sleeves
After these words, Katerina Tertukhina handed the judge the written statement of the defender Orlov Dmitry Muratov*, emphasizing that he was not at all notified of the hearing.
“I don’t need this now,” Astakhov pulls squeamishly. And he adds: “A self -proclaimed defender ...” Apparently, she believes that the defenders are also appointed - as judges and prosecutors. Or as witnesses of the prosecution (both of them are by no means familiar with the defendant, but were caused by the investigator who elected these two of 109 million adult Russians).
But the defense is not appointed, the accused selects it. And he chose, and the same Golovinsky court on June 8 admitted to the defense of the co -founder of the "new". The law does not cancel its powers in case of revision of the case or movement of one by the authorities (the Moscow City Court, by the way, took this into account without showing any objections).
But for Judge Astakhova, all this does not matter. She did not announce the statement - we did it for her, on our website it was posted .
Briefly:
Muratov writes in this document that the logic of the investigation is Stalin’s, Encavadeshny, when the verdict is predetermined before the trial. That the defense defeated the charge in the first process. That no law (this is in the case file) can cancel the 29th article of the Constitution, it is direct action. That Orlov saved, putting his lives on the map of 1,500 Beslan hostages and 6 soldiers of the Russian army, who threatened the execution in the Chechen captivity. This text ends like this: “The managers of the middle-level repression allowed to eliminate all the obvious nonsense and again made it possible to plant 70-year-old Orlov. I can only treat with understandable contempt to those who change the rules for their sake and certainly want not only to judge, but “to judge and plant”. I have contempt with contempt for those who do not know how to lose, and the law is called by law: "This is just our work." This is the torment of people, not work. I can easily imagine how they would judge Christ for unauthorized pickets, rallies, and sermons. And Matthew and Mark - for their reposts. I do not want to participate further in the process that turns into a cruel and mocking farce. I cannot afford to participate in this custom process. With the contractual rules, with those “accompanying the investigation” representatives of the special services, who again, as in the song of Shevchuk, “rolled up the sleeves of fussy nights”.
The authorities think that they have an unlimited tariff for sacrifices, repressions, prisons.
Well, no. This is not my tariff. I am in a court cosplay, I will not participate in makeup.
Cruelty is not a synonym for patriotism. Cruelty is a criminally punishable act. ”
This court, I repeat, did not hear and did not read. He began to listen to the prosecutor Vorobyov, who read evidence of the prosecution. So far - everything is from the first process, only in an abbreviated form. From the examination of Kryukova and Tarasov, for example, she read out only conclusions. Where is it in such a hurry now, but the prosecutor?
They seemed to want to consider the case in one approach, but the witnesses were brought. Those very “veterans of Russia” Mironenko and Bokhonko that they were so synchronously testified, suddenly disappeared ... they were called, but in court they were not discovered, no matter how the prosecutor was looking for. By the way, the witness has no right to listen to the process before his interrogation. How can I interrogate Mironenko, who regularly attended every meeting? But in no way - there are no them, they disappeared. I had to break the schedule and postpone. And then it turned out that the judge was in a hurry. At first, she suggested limiting herself to one date - February 21. Then she agreed reluctantly to another meeting-the 26th. And when Tertukhina’s lawyer stated that he would continue to be busy in another process for several days, but free in March, Judge Astakhova suddenly got angry and cut off: “So, we’ll finish February 26!” Apparently, for the first month of spring, she has other plans.
But the plans of the indictment are clear: Orlov wants to be imprisoned until March.