Editor of “Human Rights Defence” newspaper appealed to close the criminal case against him claiming that there are no signs of a crime in the case26.09.2005. Nizhny Novgorod. The chief editor of the “Human Rights Defense” newspaper completed the procedure of getting acquainted with the criminal case commenced under part 1 of Article 282 (“inciting to ethnic hatred”) after he allowed publishing peace statements by Aslan Maskhadov and Akhmed Zakaev in the newspaper. Before signing the report on acquainting with the case, Dmitrievsky submitted two requests to the investigator at the regional prosecutor's office Oleg Kirukov. He asks to leave out inadmissible proofs from the case in the first petition. The second petition refers to the request to close the criminal case as there are no signs of criminal activities in his actions.
According to Dmitirevsky, the conclusions of the linguistic expertise that the investigators consider as the main evidence have been received with gross violations of the Criminal Procedural Code. Thus, they have to be excluded from the case.
Dmitrievsky states in his request, “According to paragraph 11 of part 4 of article 47 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, being an accused I have the right to acquaint myself with the order to carry the expertise, to put questions to the expert and to acquaint myself with the expert's conclusion. According to paragraphs 2-5 of part 1 of article 198 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian federation, I have the right to challenge the expert or to require to conduct an expertise by another expert agency, to ask to get the experts who I name to participate in conducting the expertise or to carry the expertise at a definite expert agency; to require to include additional questions to an expert to the order to conduct the expertise; to be present at the procedure of conducting the expertise if n investigator permits it; to offer my explanations to an expert.
A chief investigator of Nizhny Novgorod region FSB branch lieutenant colonel of Justice R.N. Putanov gave the order to carry the expertise on January 18, 2005 whereas I was officially charged only on September 2, 2005. Thus, I was deprived of any opportunity to defend myself and to realize the rights guaranteed by paragraph 11 of part 4 of article 47 and paragraphs 2-5 of part 1 of article 198 of the Criminal Procedural Code.
At the same time, all that has resulted in the basic principle of the legal procedure. This principal is equality of sides during a trial that is under part 4 of Article 15 of the Criminal Procedural Code. The accusation is based only on expert's conclusions and they were prepared on the basis of the questions asked by the investigator whereas the side of defense couldn't put their questions to the expert. In addition, the expertise was carried by a specialist who had been chosen by the investigator and I wasn't able to require getting specialists who I could name to participate in the expertise. I was not able to challenge the expert or to require conducting the expertise at a different expert agency. Thus, the prosecution side has found itself in a more favorable position than the side for the defence while conducting the expertise of the publications that I have been charged with. Moreover, some time before that you have refused my requests to conduct new linguistic expertise. By making that decision, you have deprived me of opportunity to realize my lawful rights once again. That's why, the expert's conclusions № 697/33 from 18 February, 2005 and № 698/33 from 18 February 2005 have been obtained with serious violations of the Criminal Procedural Law. They remain the main evidence in the case, though.
Paragraphs 1-6 of part 1 of Article 198 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation give the list of the rights which an investigator has to explain to a defendant when a decision to carry an expertise is made. It has not been done either.
According to paragraph 3 part 2 of Article 75 of the Criminal Procedural Code, the evidence obtained with violations of the requirements of the law are inadmissible. Such evidence does not have any legal force in accordance with part 1 of the Article 75. They can not be considered as main evidence to bring an accusation against a person”.
Dmitrievsky requires leaving out the above-mentioned conclusions from the criminal case on the above-stated grounds.
Dmitrievsky and his lawyer Yury Sidorov submitted an appeal to close the criminal case in connection with the fact that there is no other evidence of the crime in the case.
Dmitrievsky thinks that these appeals will be refused too. “The case is politically motivated and the investigation has been carried with infringements of the law”, states the chief editor of the 'Human Rights Defense” newspaper. “They kept me as a witness to the case for seven months although it was clear from the very beginning who would be charged. It was done with the only purpose to restrict my possibilities to realize my Constitutional right to defend myself. I don't think that anything is going to change now as the logic of lawlessness that the FSB and prosecutor's office made the basis of this case is going to dictate the further unlawful acts of the investigation. I'd like to make a mistake but I know that no miracles are possible with the Russian prosecutorship”.
On 2 September, 2005 Dmitrievsky was officially charged with “inciting to ethnic animosity on the basis of nation, nationality, language, confession as well as belonging to some social group” under Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The criminal case was commenced in January this year regarding the fact of publication of open letters by Maskhadov and Zakaev with calls to peaceful reconciliation of the Russian-Chechen conflict. Both letters are full of tough critic of the Russian authorities, Russian armed forces and president Vladimir Putin personally.
RCFS as well as a number of well-known Russian human rights organizations consider persecution of the RCFS by prosecutorship, the Interior Ministry, the tax inspection and the Ministry of Justice as politically motivated and aimed at destruction of the public organization that criticizes the policy of the authorities of the Russian Federation in the North Caucasus. Amnesty International and the International Helsinki Federation have also expressed their concern about the situation with the RCFS.
(The text was not edited by Prague Watchdog).
Source: Russian-Chechen Information Agency (B) |
