Navalny's lawyer - on the arrest of lawyers and work in Russia

Leonid Solovyov - about the arrest of Navalny's lawyers, the meaning of work and the opportunity to protect people

Briefly

How did the news on the arrest of Navalny's lawyers perceive the lawyer community?

It was a shock, very tangible. The FPA Chamber - the Federal Chamber of Lawyers of the Russian Federation , of course, stated that it would be sorted out and so on, but in general I felt that this hit all over all. Three lawyers per day! Then, when Fedulov left, the video appeared as he was watching him ...

Were you not ready for this either?

This happens for the first time. Something similar was with the “first department” “The First Department” was created at the end of 2021 by lawyer Ivan Pavlov and his colleagues, after the authorities of the Russian Federation connected their previous project “Team 29”, specializing in protecting the defendants about state treason, espionage and extremism, with an undesirable Czech organization Společnost Svobody Informate (Human rights activists denied this connection). Against Pavlov himself, the case was opened on the disclosure of the preliminary investigation data (Article 310 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), he was entered into the media register - “foreign agents” and was forced to leave. But then many thought that the problems affected only the employees of the “first department”, and this would not affect everyone else. But [repressions against some] end in the fact that the rest have to bargain with themselves-to abandon something, in order to maintain a license and exist in normal life a little more.

In general, there are very few red lines in relation to lawyers. I am sure that the go -ahead for the detention of Ivan Pavlov [security forces] had to wait a long time. Now, even ordinary lawyers, who, in general, have not been working with Navalny for a long time, delay and sent to prison.

How can repressions against lawyers affect the defense of detained in other political cases, for example, anti -war?

After 2022, more and more political affairs will be argued. If lawyers do not take such cases to the work, then our colleagues for their intended intended for the state will protect the detainees. I do not want to say anything about them - many of them fulfill their duties very professionally. But there is a feeling that they are also afraid, because of which they may not have a desire to fight so actively for the client and object to the charges or can be completely opposed to them.

What does this situation signal?

I think there will be a systematic stripping of the advocacy as such. There are many lawyers in Russia, but those who are ready to engage in [the protection of accused in political cases], a very small percentage.

Is it possible to say that the last arrests of these people were declared war?

No, no one declares war on us. The war is declared when there is someone to fight with. We are not opponents of the state and never put ourselves like that. And not only because we do not want to fight him, but also because we cannot do anything.

Now we lawyers can physically protect ourselves only if we leave, we will quit and bury everything. But we need to protect what is the essence of our work, because lawyers began to be afraid. I asked my friends: they would protect Navalny. Many people say: "No." I began to clarify: “What's the matter? Maybe the matter is not interesting? ” - "Interesting, a media person." - "Money, is it not enough?" - "No". The point is safe: "I'll take it now, but they will twist something to me."

Participation in an extremist organization?

For example. We refuse to protect someone due to danger, but then the whole meaning of our work is completely lost. The same thing as doctors cease to be doctors if they say: "I will not treat it." Not because there are no tools, or they do not know how, but because they don’t want-it’s dangerous or something else. The essence of the profession is immediately killed. Then we are anyone, but not lawyers.

Sometimes the ward suits general conferences, and you see all the pain in the eyes of more experienced lawyers who do not engage in politics, but simply work in the field with ordinary criminal cases. The situation is very bad. Lawyers feel bad because they do not see the results of their work. Not only in politics.

We have chosen the path of protecting people in criminal cases and are faced with catastrophic difficulties. For example, a person is concluded in custody - the judge makes a verdict. And you fully worked out, everything showed that there is no reason to keep it in custody, according to the law it is supposed to be released, and the judge writes: “There is no reason to change the suppression.” It seems to mean that you somehow managed to convince the judge, since he has nothing more to write, except for such an excuse. But for a person, what is the difference? He was written like that or differently? He is in custody. Criminal lawyers are poorly poor from this: people are not ready to pay normal rates, as in Europe, for example, or the USA, because they do not understand why.

But such a situation with criminal cases was , in general, always - more than 99 percent of sentences are still accusations. What fundamentally changed now?

When I came to the bar, I knew this. But you always expect that you will fall into this percentage. And I got. I have refusals in the measure of suppression when a person was released in the courtroom. This feeling is awesome. Yes, in the total mass of sentences, this is really little, but earlier, at least until 2022 and the last events with Navalny’s lawyers, there was a feeling that, despite these difficulties, lawyers have corporate parties: we have, and we have a certain status, respect.

Now lawyers are refused exclusive status, inviolability. In Chechnya, 20 people attacked and cut the lawyer Alexander Nemov, they still cannot find them. A person who wrote an anonymous comment using VPN is found in two days, and 20 people who cut a person is quite problematic. So they can go even further. Not only in Chechnya. But now, to say: "Lawyers, do not go to the North Caucasus?"

When was there a turning point, and everything changed?

Now we live in the moment and it is too difficult to determine when there was a line - probably in 30 years it will be visible a post -fact. In 2021, for the first time, I used force on the searches in the Doxing case in January 2021 in the Russian Student Political Journal of Doxa covered protests in support of Alexei Navalny, as a result of which, on April 14, 2021, searches were searched in the editorial office of the journal and the house at the editors of Armen Aramman, Vladimir Metalilkin, Natalia Tyshkevich, Alla Gutnikova. They were charged under Part 2 of Article 151.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (declining or other involvement of a minor in the commission of unlawful actions). On April 12, 2022, the Dorogomilovsky District Court appointed them two years of correctional labor, and later took the time that they stayed with a ban on certain actions: so they had to leave six months of work. - They did not let go into the room. Then it was not felt as a turning point and the corporation, and in general, was indignant. They called me from the ward, I went to court, all defended. And now it will not surprise anyone.

But still, maybe there are reference points when a fundamentally attitude to the status of lawyers began to change?

In my experience, this is when the “fortress” plan “fortress” was just beginning to apply the Fortress plan - one of the regimes of a special provision for law enforcement officers, which should be applied to suppress the seizure of objects of internal affairs and internal troops. However, in practice, police officers periodically use it as an excuse, so as not to let lawyers to the client. In this case, both the professional rights of lawyers and the right of principals to receive professional assistance are violated. From 2019 to 2020. Then the systemic obstacle to work began. I remember my first experience: standing in the cold in anticipation of when you are allowed. At the same time, they miss anyone except you, for example, couriers. And you cannot do anything about it. You can write to the ward - they recommend going to court. I went to court. He reached the Supreme Court. Nothing happened: "Everything is legally." At the same time, I had a classic version with the “fortress”, the police did not even deny that they missed other people. But the Supreme Court said that everything was legal.

Is there a solidarity in your environment?

Feel. We all, lawyers, communicate with each other, speak the same language-even if someone does not participate in political affairs, we all understand what is actually happening, and many lawyers sympathize. And to reproach them for not taking over unnecessary risks-such.

But for now, in political cases, lawyers in Russia work, despite everything. Do you inspire someone's examples?

Maria Aismont , Mikhail Biryukov, Dmitry Gravitov. Matra of the advocacy too - for example, Henry Reznik. Inspires the history of lawyer Albert Pliev - he, according to his intended purpose from the state, defended Nurpash Kulaev, the only survivor of the captured school of the Beslan terrorist after the assault. When there was a process over him, he could not find lawyers even for his intended purpose - they came and handed over the certificates: “We will be deprived of the profession, we will not go.” Pliev is the only one who agreed: he said that there are the values ​​of the profession that he should defend.

And what results do their results motivate to stay in the profession and continue?

More or less well-known criminal offenses-this is the case of Yegor Zhukov Politologist from the Higher School of Economics Egor Zhukov was detained and arrested after the action on July 27, 2019 in Moscow. At first he was charged with participation in the riots, but then the prosecution was retrained to calls for extremism due to four videos on his YouTube channel. The Kuntsevsky court of Moscow sentenced him to three years conditionally. . We, however, pulled out a guy. And not only we - his support group worked in the first place. It was really super, I am proud that he is free.

The Daniil fugitive case on July 27, 2019 was detained during protest. The case was retrained from part 2 of Article 212 (participation in the riots) to part 1 of Article 318 of the Criminal Code (the use of violence in relation to a representative of the authorities): for trying to prevent the gross detention of the action participant, pulling the policeman by the hand. He was sentenced to two years in a general regime colony. In 2020, he was released from the penal colony by parole. From Moscow business-yes, we were not able to defend his innocence, but we managed to transfer it to the colony-settlement first, and then release it conventionally. He went out, returned to his family, to the children.

The case of “doxes”: despite the fact that the verdict was a convict, the guys, firstly, are free, and secondly, they were not broken either, but tried in different ways. But we, as lawyers, survived and, in general, judging by the verdict, we won: they had no arguments left - even before we presented our experts, and the judge refused us on the basis that the conclusion of a specialist requested lawyers. There would be an acquittal in another country.

There are current affairs that motivate me very much: this is Pasha Krisevich’s case in June 2021 Pavel Krisevich spent the performance on Red Square in support of political prisoners: he fired twice into the air and once in his head from the hunted pistol. In October 2022, he was sentenced to five years in a colony under an article on hooliganism using objects used as a weapon (part 2 of article 213 of the Criminal Code), however, on June 15, 2023, a second instance court returned the case against an activist for a reconstruction to the prosecutor's office. . I believe that this is also a definite our victory, even if half -hearted, maybe even with a quarter, but the case of this unfortunate clap on Red Square we sent to the second circle, that is, re -forced them to review this matter. And, I think they should achieve a good result.

It is also very important for me that Kamardin’s case is the poet and the organizer of creative gatherings at the monument to Vladimir Mayakovsky in Moscow Artem Kamardin became the first in the country to be a defendant in the “calls for actions against security” of the Russian Federation (Articles 280.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation): the reason was the reason that the verses with a call to dodge mobilization. The poet was detained in September 2022, he declared torture and rape of dumbbells by the operatives who detained him. - According to Mayakovsky readings of poems. He is my friend, we held a lot of events together. I had a very kind feeling to him. We worked for several few days and nights when we were detained because there were torture, and we tried to work out this topic. When it all ended, when we realized that you could already exhale at least a little, I got behind the wheel and burst into tears naturally-it was so emotionally.

It was still a matter of drugs - the guy was accused of storage, and he eventually served three years. Then the Supreme Court abolished the verdict, sent for a review, and we managed to achieve that we had passed an acquittal. He was paid compensation for more than two million rubles. Of course, this is for themselves in three years, but, nevertheless, they do not give more in practice anymore.

That is, you managed to enter the rare less than half a percent.

You can say so. There were different situations related to the refusal to the extent of the suppression when a person was released in the courtroom. Not to convey this feeling that you managed, I could. Now there are a lot of things related to Ukrainian prisoners. There is one Ukrainian human rights activist, who was given 13 years for the fact that he allegedly shot civilians from a grenade launcher. But I know in the case that this is absolutely wrong. There is no evidence. He was forced to give these testimonies. And we work with this.

Such things are motivated, because they rarely take them for them, and you understand that you can help not only procedurally. For a person who is in prison, he is deprived of freedom, it is incredibly important that they are fighting for him. People sit there in four walls, and even if there is no pressure on them, it is still very difficult. The opportunity to come and help, for example, with the conditions in which they are located, is a great support. Most often, the FSINITS are adequate people, and you can agree with them if there are problems. Somewhere faster, somewhere slower.

It is important for a person to feel that he is not one, that he has a connection with the outside world through a lawyer-this is also an opportunity to convey something to relatives. So he will ask you how the health of my wife is there. What will I tell him: "Do you write to her with a fsin, I am only here by the legal part?"

Are you not afraid that you will become the next?

I'm afraid of course. I understand that it could be. But they came to me, and they asked me. The last thing a lawyer can do is refuse to protect someone because it is dangerous. Well, then, probably, you can already hang the sign "I protect only those who are safe to protect." I don't want to work so. I understand that if there is a risk and I will be warned, I will not sit down and leave. But while there is this opportunity, I do not know what else to cling to.

And something can protect?

I don't know, really. Probably not to transmit something, obviously, illegal. For example, a person says: I have drugs at home, pass them somewhere else. But everything else, as we see, would be a desire, and the formality is like.

Previously, publicity could work. There were people-Muratov, Venediktov, who could influence something with their authority with their public speeches. Vershi listened to them. After 2022, the rules changed. There is a feeling that now there are only closed clusters of players who can make decisions. Everyone else goes forest, no one is protected. The clusters of the players are security forces, the highest caste, all the rest are still profitable, exist, it will not be profitable - they will also be destroyed.

And it seems that in order to protect people, you need to work as much as possible from under the floor. In order to successfully protect, publicity is harmful very much. For some very rare exceptions, as I hope, the story of Sasha Skochilenko , Alexander Skochilenko, was arrested in April 2022 under the article on the spread of “fakes about the army” (Article 207.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The artist changed the price tags in the Perekrestok store to stickers with information about the war in Ukraine. .

Have you always wanted to work on political affairs?

No, initially I had seen enough of the "force majeure" type, and I really wanted to become the same, [as the main characters]-buy a suit, a suitcase, pint. It was interesting.

And then the business of Golunov was. I already managed to work as an interns of a lawyer, an investigator in the Investigative Committee and open a law firm with a friend. And then I began to study the human rights market. What is it? What are they doing? I look: Pussy Riot protect, for example, or people detained at a rally. They are engaged in the right things. This is unfair: people go to the rally, and they beat and arrest them there. And in me this thing played. I myself participated a lot in rallies and thought that these people should help.

And in the end, we sit and think about what will happen tomorrow ...

They will arrest or not.

Will they arrest or not? Is it dangerous to protect Navalny or not? It is unfortunate that this happened. This is not a claim. It's just very offensive. I am scared to go to the carpets this unfortunate. It’s scary that it will be there. It is scary, what will be the consequences.

And sooner or later you come to the question: I am generally in the profession or not, or I am already something else. In the Soviet Union, for example, there were also journalists, in the Third Reich there were also journalists who wrote, but could they be called journalists?

Some journalists, for example, choose to write on other, less dangerous topics-also important, for example, to continue to be useful at least somehow.

I would be happy. But the situation develops in such a way that I was asked to enter this matter. It just happened so now. He is the same person as everyone else.

That is, in fact, the entry into the case of Navalny is a demarch against the meaningless of the profession?

An attempt to keep it in yourself. An attempt to save myself: I am a lawyer, and I am going to do my job. All. No options. Either I refuse this identity, and I am anyone, but not quite a lawyer. Not even as written in law. The law says that we cannot refuse a person in defense for no reason. There is just the very moment here.