citizens accused of involvement in the riots and violence against police officers who were on duty as representatives of the authorities (Part 2 of Art. 212 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Part 1 of Art. 318 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In decisions stated: “... during the agreed and duly performed march and public rally, unidentified participants of the public rally, violating public order and rules for conducting public events, ignoring the legitimate demands of the authorities ... to stop illegal actions, started to call people to move beyond agreed place of the public rally, non-obedience to legal requirements of police officers and use of violence against the latest, which resulted in the riots. After this part of the public rally participants, falling for the heard illegal calls, during the riots occurred, ignoring the legitimate demands of the police, using physical force, began to try to break through the cordon of police officers and military officers of the Interior troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, who performed their duties to prevent unlawful acts and not to allow the participants of the mass event outside the agreed territory for the public rally. A large amount of people involved in the riots through proactive aggressive individuals with a pronounced intent to incite hatred against the authorities, were encroaching on public safety through the use of violence and provide resistance to the authorities – police officers”;
the accused are charged that they “... being in the area located between the house # 2 in Serafimovicha str. and the house # 14 in Bolotnaya str. in Moscow,acting deliberately to take part in the riots occurred, aware of the illegality of their actions and wanting it, violating public order and rules of public events, being aware that police officers wearing uniforms are representatives of the authorities and perform their duties in maintaining public order and public security, ignoring their legitimate demands to stop illegal activities ...”, used against officers of Special Police Force, police officers and Interior Ministry troops physical violence (punches and kicks to the head and body, ripping off masks, taking away rubber truncheons, throwing unidentified solid objects, obstructing police “to detain participants of the riots”). These actions are qualified by the investigation under Part 2 of Art. 212 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, providing criminal liability for participating in the riots, as well as Part 1 of Art. 318 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as violence applied against representatives of the authorities, who performed their official duties.
in the charges these riots are classified as the circumstances “caused” by the actions of unidentified participants of public events, but not as such actions themselves committed with direct intent. It is stated “the defendants acted intentionally in order to participate in the riots”. In this case, the description of the specific actions of any of the organizers and/or participants of the riots, which could be described as riots – riots, destruction of property, use of firearms, explosives or explosive devices, armed resistance to police, is not given in charges. It is not specified who the participants of the riots smashed, whose property and how (by means of arson, destruction, etc.) they destroyed, how and what firearms or knives were used, as well as what kind of explosives and explosive devices were exactly used.
episodes of violence, mentioned directly in the charges, in their entirety do not create massive participation and consistency (they are rare).
charges do not state that the actions incriminated the defendants endanger public safety, and what exactly do they violate (if any).
Thus, the charges do not contain descriptions of one's actions subject to qualification as a riot under Art. 212 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Upon the validity of preventive measures:
for the most of the accused a preventive measure in the form of detention was chosen, while in court decisions under the “reasons” are stated just links to the list of such reasons, existing in the legislation, without confirming them with any analyzed and confirmed facts and arguments (except for the presence of the international passport and this despite the fact that all passports of the accused were withdrawn during stop-and-search; reports of special agents, who claim that an accused would abscond, presence of foreign “friends” in social networks, and the like “arguments”). Courts did not seem concerned about bringing the reasoning why and how the defendants can influence the course of the investigation, abscond or continue to engage in illegal activity.
in the decisions of courts of selection the detention as a preventive measure no circumstances are given, that are stated in paragraph 1–4 of Part 1 of Art. 108 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (1. Suspect or the accused do not have a permanent residence in the territory of the Russian Federation; 2. His identity has not been identified; 3. He violated the earlier preventive measure; 4. He escaped from preliminary investigation or trial).
these decisions do not provide any argumentation of exclusivity of the cases, which does not allow to apply less restrictive preventive measure.
With the repeated extensions of the terms of custody of prisoners, the courts, contrary to direct requirements of the law, in any case, did not respond to changes in certain circumstances. They essentially replicated the previous decisions, changing only dates in them. In particular, the “reasons” for detention in all cases were the ability to influence the witnesses and destroy evidence, despite the fact that investigation was completed long ago, and now the accused and their defense counsels familiarize themselves with the materials of the case.
Yüklə 12.68 Mb.