Case of Alexey Nikiforov at court of appeals. 15 December 2009
It was interesting today. The temperature was -29 degrees. The trial began with a delay of half an hour in 11-30. Lesson to be read in third grade. Suffering from cold, coughing and sneezing Judge Alexander Isakov stupidly read the court records. He read until almost the end.
Then the parties - lawyers and the prosecutor Venera Ferdinandovna Kravchuk - filed their appeal against sentence. Kravchuk complained to the court that the sentence is soft, but the crime is of great public danger.
Lawyer Vladimir Kapustin appealed and he was trying to ask questions of the prosecutor, the judge Isakov did not let him do that. Judge Isakov referred to the fact that it is not stipulated in the law directly. Although if by virtue of the general requirements of the adversarial criminal process, if one party has the right to the questions (eg, prosecutor), the other party should also have this right. Nevertheless, lawyer Kapustin regularly placed rhetorical questions before the public prosecutor Kravchuk - "If Nikiforov participated in the organization, where is the evidence of this organization?". Judge Isakov regularly made the remark to lawyer Kapustin - "You do not have the right to apply to the prosecutor."
Lawyer Roman Kachanov filed an additional appeal complaint on the sentence. In his complaint, he explained that the subject of evidence of such crimes is composed of 6 elements, failure to prove at least 1 item from them will lead to failure to prove a crime.
1. The fact that the organization exists. In the Nikiforov case is not proven.
2. The fact that the decision to liquidate the organization or the decision on the recognition of its extremist exists. In the Nikiforov case - a court decision, which banned the NBP.
3. The fact that Nikiforov knew about this decision. In the Nikiforov case is not proven.
4. The fact that the organization operates. In the Nikiforov case is not proven.
5. The fact that the defendant Nikiforov participated in the activities of this organization.
6. The fact that Nikiforov has voluntarily ceased participation in the activities of this organization. In the Nikiforov case not proven.
A few words about a curious episode in today's court hearing. Before the meeting, the court guards began checking the passports of the audience at the doorstep of the courtroom. Publicist and human rights activist Alexander Livchak was not allowed to enter the courtroom. The court guards did not find in his passport a stamp on the residence registration. Livchak repeatedly asked the guards to introduce themselves, show their official certificate and show the law that would say that an open court hearing required passport. Nevertheless Livchak was not allowed and the court hearing began without him. Laweyer Kachanov in the beginning of the court told the judge Isakov that Livchak was denied to enter the hall. Judge Isakov ruled that decides the issue during a break in court hearings.
After the break, Livchak was admitted to the hall, but court bailiff drew up a report of an administrative offense under p.17.3 Code of Administrative Violations - "Failure to comply with the order of a judge or a bailiff for the established order of the court. " Protocol says - "Livchak failed to comply with lawful orders of police, who demanded Livchak not to distract court guards. "To distract the guard" means that Livchak asked the guards to show documents on which he was not allowed in the hall.
At the end of today's hearings bailiff tried to detain Livchak with the words "You are detained". The bailiff would like a report on violation of the rules of registration of the passport. In the long run bailiff sent Livchak off, as on Sunday in the airport before the arrival delegation of the European Parliament and the European Commission in Ekaterinburg Livchak already was punished with such report due to lack of registration in the passport.
Then the parties - lawyers and the prosecutor Venera Ferdinandovna Kravchuk - filed their appeal against sentence. Kravchuk complained to the court that the sentence is soft, but the crime is of great public danger.
Lawyer Vladimir Kapustin appealed and he was trying to ask questions of the prosecutor, the judge Isakov did not let him do that. Judge Isakov referred to the fact that it is not stipulated in the law directly. Although if by virtue of the general requirements of the adversarial criminal process, if one party has the right to the questions (eg, prosecutor), the other party should also have this right. Nevertheless, lawyer Kapustin regularly placed rhetorical questions before the public prosecutor Kravchuk - "If Nikiforov participated in the organization, where is the evidence of this organization?". Judge Isakov regularly made the remark to lawyer Kapustin - "You do not have the right to apply to the prosecutor."
Lawyer Roman Kachanov filed an additional appeal complaint on the sentence. In his complaint, he explained that the subject of evidence of such crimes is composed of 6 elements, failure to prove at least 1 item from them will lead to failure to prove a crime.
1. The fact that the organization exists. In the Nikiforov case is not proven.
2. The fact that the decision to liquidate the organization or the decision on the recognition of its extremist exists. In the Nikiforov case - a court decision, which banned the NBP.
3. The fact that Nikiforov knew about this decision. In the Nikiforov case is not proven.
4. The fact that the organization operates. In the Nikiforov case is not proven.
5. The fact that the defendant Nikiforov participated in the activities of this organization.
6. The fact that Nikiforov has voluntarily ceased participation in the activities of this organization. In the Nikiforov case not proven.
A few words about a curious episode in today's court hearing. Before the meeting, the court guards began checking the passports of the audience at the doorstep of the courtroom. Publicist and human rights activist Alexander Livchak was not allowed to enter the courtroom. The court guards did not find in his passport a stamp on the residence registration. Livchak repeatedly asked the guards to introduce themselves, show their official certificate and show the law that would say that an open court hearing required passport. Nevertheless Livchak was not allowed and the court hearing began without him. Laweyer Kachanov in the beginning of the court told the judge Isakov that Livchak was denied to enter the hall. Judge Isakov ruled that decides the issue during a break in court hearings.
After the break, Livchak was admitted to the hall, but court bailiff drew up a report of an administrative offense under p.17.3 Code of Administrative Violations - "Failure to comply with the order of a judge or a bailiff for the established order of the court. " Protocol says - "Livchak failed to comply with lawful orders of police, who demanded Livchak not to distract court guards. "To distract the guard" means that Livchak asked the guards to show documents on which he was not allowed in the hall.
At the end of today's hearings bailiff tried to detain Livchak with the words "You are detained". The bailiff would like a report on violation of the rules of registration of the passport. In the long run bailiff sent Livchak off, as on Sunday in the airport before the arrival delegation of the European Parliament and the European Commission in Ekaterinburg Livchak already was punished with such report due to lack of registration in the passport.