Цитаты
Человек должен заново открыть в своей душе глубочайший смысл ответственности перед миром, что означает ответственность перед чем-то высшим, чем сам человек. Вацлав Гавел |
|
|
|
|
Statement in connection with court verdicts on V. Boyko and N. Gulevich
|
|
|
|
 Russian courts passed two verdicts within the cases that can be considered to be symbolic for today’s Russia. Both the progress of trials and the passed verdicts reflect the trends of our justice and state of our judicial system like a mirror.
On December 26 in St. Petersburg the court passed a suspended sentence of 3,5-year imprisonment upon the former warrant officer of St. Petersburg militia Vadim Boyko known by his nickname “pearl warrant officer”. Boyko (he owes his nickname to a bracelet on his arm) became known after dispersion of meeting of followers of oppositionist Eduard Limonov in St. Petersburg on July 31. Boyko called the action participants “polecats”, beat one of him with a truncheon upon his head and pulled his hair – the video record placed on the Internet is the evidence of all this. Criminal proceedings were instituted concerning the fact of illegal actions of the warrant officer under clause 286 part 3 of the CC of RF (exceeding the authority using arms or special devices). Boyko was found guilty and the state prosecutor requested the court to sentence Boyko to 4-year imprisonment. During the trial the public prosecutor stated that Boyko’s fault was completely proved and his actions undermined the authority of the state. The prosecutor found the fact that the warrant officer brought up a little child to be the only mitigating factor. Besides, availability of Boyko’s aged disabled mother, positive references from places of residence and job (that was by the way changed by the accused during the trial) served the mitigating factors.
The trial over the “pearl” warrant officer was of especially big significance for public as the behavior of police that is destined for protection of law and order, often exceeds the limits of the law – recent events at Chistiye Prudy and Triumfalnaya square in Moscow showed this visually when during the meetings against falsification of election the police had beaten their participants and casual passers-by, prevented the journalists from doing their job and detained hundreds people. Boyko’s behavior was a bright example of unmotivated, illegal, cruel treatment of meeting participants that was clearly recorded and proved. Being a guardian of law-and-order, the warrant officer had to be strictly punished; thus the authority would demonstrate its adherence to principles and teach a lesson to employees of law-enforcement bodies how they should fulfill their professional duty.
And the suspended imprisonment to which Boyko was sentenced demonstrated an obvious neglect of citizens’ rights. Such a light penalty actually panders to further escalation of impunity of the policemen and causes apprehensions for life and health of citizens who have a right to express their will in public. It is no coincidence that some human rights activists and party leaders perceived this lenient verdict with a big anxiety.
Another noisy trial, against a business woman Natalia Gulevich, caused response too. For several years N. Gulevich was a client of “Nomos-bank” that credited her with very big sums. As a result, “Nomos-bank” accused her of fraud and debt of 30 million dollars. The accused herself, her husband, her lawyer accuse the bank of non-fulfillment of its obligations and capture of their property. The court had to examine who was right in this whole complicated story.
It is quite possible that Natalia Gulevich was really guilty (though for example human rights activist V. Borshchev considers her not guilty accusing the bank of raider capture). But in practice of the civilized countries the suspects of economic crimes usually stay at large till the court decision. Thus, Bernard Medoff was at large till passing of court verdict on him in USA – he was finally accused of fraud in amount of more than 60 billion dollars and got 150-year (!) imprisonment.
As for N. Gulevich, she was gravely ill in addition during her more than yearly staying in investigatory isolation ward. Her defense asserts that urinary bladders and kidneys of the accused failed, catheter was installed upon her and she needed permanent medical aid. Human rights activists apprehended for her life and demanded to change the measure of restraint but in vain.
As a result the court, considering grave state of health of N. Gulevich, gave her a suspended sentence of 3-year imprisonment and sentenced her to payment of about 600 million rubles to the bank though the public prosecutor requested to sentence her to 3-year imprisonment in colony. But alas the lenient verdict would not already compensate the woman’s heath that was finally broken in investigatory isolation ward. And it is possible to recall S. Magnitsky and A. Kudoyarov here who were suspected of economic crimes and died in investigatory isolation ward.
Director of Moscow bureau for human rights Alexander Brod: “It seems that demands of public prosecutors are formally similar in both cases as well as the court decisions. Nevertheless both in St. Petersburg and in Moscow the whole cruelty and absurdity of our judicial-legal system became apparent – when in one case the guardian of order who beats the demonstrator cruelly and without motive was actually gently reproved and in another case when seriously ill woman suspected of economic crime was kept in investigatory isolation ward and the state of her health was made critical. These are most alarming signals”. |
|
