Before that in a similar situation was Davydenko Alexander and Andrey Grigoriev – Russian Hunting Newspaper there were several publications, these stories were covered on Central television in the program “Man and law”.
This time the events took place far from the city center – in the Kurgan region. Own version of an event presented convicted, allegedly for a bribe, Yakov Berezin in interview to the edition Znak.com. This publication sparked interest and lively discussions, including, in a professional environment. Colleagues agree that the sentence is illegal, a registered business is quite transparent. The illegal arrest of the suspect and release of liability “briber” – a landmark event that it is impossible not to pay attention.
Three of these high-profile cases have received publicity because these hunters did not succumb to threats and intimidation. And how many inspectors showed weakness, put up with threats and other forms of psychological pressure? No such statistics, but the three resonant cases, it is only for posing problems at all levels.
In fact, it is the continuation of a long history of confrontation “law enforcement officers” and “Rangers”. These groups highlighted in quotes because among and and those other people were and will be different. The first have never considered our customer something serious, because to hunt as many refer to the banal booze in the woods. In the Soviet era at the district and regional level, at times conflictual, but the time was different. Basically, the chiefs of regional inspections to find a common language with the heads of the Department of internal Affairs. Police and prosecutorial officials of lower rank were afraid, as for poaching the straps were removed and fired from positions easily. This time, or rather “concepts,” radically changed the balance of power. Today, each principal employee of goskomrezerva threatens not only the danger to life during the arrest of poachers, but also real terms on trumped-up charges for the direct performance of professional duties.
We, Russians, have a homeland. Our state has a fundamental law – the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Each of us in life has a choice: to current events relate to “concepts” (this is stolen terminology) or by law. PT. 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation:
“The Constitution of the Russian Federation has Supreme legal force, direct effect and are applicable throughout the territory of the Russian Federation”.
Open official rules, any government employee: “In its activity is guided by Constitution of the Russian Federation…” and then everything that he there guided…
What’s going on? State inspectors reveal the facts of criminal offences (article 258 of the Criminal Code) and take measures to identify and apprehend criminals. Criminals here keyword. I have not found in the Constitution article stating that VIPs have advantages before the law and the courts. It says briefly and clearly: “All are equal before the law and court”. Further developments are simple: criminals, by any means exempt from liability, and the wardens of liability extends, but never under your feet is not confused. Any conviction will automatically lead to the dismissal of the inspector from office. This “unnatural” selection set “on concepts”.
Turning to the last example by Yakov Berezin, stop on fatal question of his guilt. Seven years after “the events of” the conscience “of the briber” suddenly wakes up, and he States, including, and about his crime. You don’t see here strange? Have doubts? They disposable? Yes, they are disposable, if in the trial the motif of “the giver” was investigated, but the courts of both instances for some reason was not interested.
During the investigation seized a snowmobile without a motor, similar to the one that says “the giver”. The snowmobile was seized not at home in front of the state inspector, and in the fence of the house of the gamekeeper of the district society of hunters and fishermen, somewhere in the village. Documents in the snowmobile was not, and no. There is evidence that this is a personal inspector snowmobile? Have doubts? They disposable? No, this is a fatal doubt.
The inspector said that the staff of Tyumen hunters was officially granted a snowmobile under the contract. “The giver” confirms that the provision of a snowmobile under a contract. This Treaty has been preserved, and I, as a witness in this case, the authenticity of this Treaty and its own signature also confirmed. Other witnesses confirmed that the snowmobile was used only for work and to protection left other hunters. Was there a bribe? Have doubts? They disposable? According to the materials of the investigation, this is a fatal doubt.
Participation in the court as witnesses for the prosecution of infringers of rules of hunting, which the inspector was attracted to administrative responsibility – the fact is alarming. After the illegal arrest of Yakov Berezin I was called by a citizen and reported that the inspector has already been resolved. He, without hesitating, asked to assist in finding employment for this position “good man”. This fact to me in the court voiced under the Protocol of the court session. So it is obvious that there is a “forum” for this post is “interested” in any cost from uncomfortable get rid of hunter. Here the key phrase: “at any price”. There is a risk of knowingly slander an innocent man? Have doubts? They disposable? The judicial consequence of these doubts also not resolved.
I could go on and on in this same vein, outlining all the details and circumstances, but let this work make qualified lawyers. I will quote only paragraph 3 of article 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation: “of doubt about the guilt of a person are interpreted in favour of the accused”. And here, I, as a citizen of the Russian Federation, the question arises to our judiciary: we live under the Constitution or “by concepts”?
By the way, about the lawyers who participated in the “business hunters”. Protection is one of the parties in the adversarial process of litigation. Recently I read with interest the report of the Commissioner for human rights of the Russian Federation for 2014, which is annually submitted to the President of the Russian Federation, the State Duma, the Government of the Russian Federation in the higher judicial and other authorities. Here’s a quote: “According to the Chairman of the Board of regional public organization “Independent Council of legal expertise”, “criminal procedure we have no right to protection”. Human rights defenders focuses on a limited set of possibilities when attempting to realize the right to protection in criminal proceedings, since, in their view, often ignoring the arguments of the defense and motions of lawyers; the common practice of refusals in the admission of advocates to the criminal process; observed the inequality of the parties, both prosecution and defense in criminal proceedings. Actually human rights defenders noted the lack of real competition in the judicial process”.
The lack of real competition (article 123 of the Constitution) means that the criminal process was only one side – the prosecution. What this court is different from the extraordinary vessels? In accordance with article 118 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation the establishment of extraordinary courts is not allowed, but it turns out that in fact they already exist?!
At the conclusion of the report of the Commissioner for human rights of the Russian Federation E. A. Pamfilova States: “the Analyses in the office of the Commissioner of complaints and appeals suggests that the basis of human rights violations are mainly the problem of mental character:
• low level of legal consciousness, both in public and in the public environment;
• a persisting syndrome of “presumption of guilt” citizens against the state;
• slow release of the judiciary from the legacy of professional attitudes on the guilty verdict;
• the recurrence of repressive consciousness, influencing the character of the whole law-enforcement system”.
Who but ourselves will be to treat the “recurrence of repressive consciousness”? What to do? For starters, this is what I propose:
1. Send all available materials to the editor of the program “Man and law”.
2. To inform about the nature of the “business hunters” of the Commissioner for human rights of the Russian Federation with the direction of the previously published materials in the media.
3. To send the publication to the Council under the President of the Russian Federation on development of civil society and human rights. A member of the Board is P. N. Gusev, who heads two permanent commissions.
4. Apply to the deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation with the requirement for submission parliamentary inquiry on the grounds for refusal to initiate a criminal case on the fact of illegal shooting of elk in eight Samohvalova the hunting economy of the Kurgan region (this was the beginning of the story).
5. To inform readers of the Russian Hunting Newspaper about implementation of these items, the responses received or any other reaction.
I personally, still have a public question to the guarantor of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, but the reasonable sequence of actions, you must first implement the first five items.
