Limonov vs. Putin Page 29
Besides, neither the hindering of State employees from fulfilling their powers of receiving the population, nor the presentation of ultimatums demanding to remove the Russian Federation president from power, nor the destabilization of the normal functioning of a State institution constitute a criminal offense, stipulated by article 212 part 2 and were mentioned by the Prosecutor General in the text about the charges without any relation to the brought accusation.
The text with the mentioned charges contains unfounded affirmations that the NBP members were flagrantly violating public safety and were expressing clear disrespect to society.
According to article 1 of the RF Law from March 5th 1992 Number 2446-I ‘On safety’ (with amendments from December 25th 1992 and June 25th 2002) ‘the main objects of safety are: the person – his rights and freedoms; society – its material and spiritual values; the State – its constitutional order, sovereignty and territorial integrity.’
The defendants did not infringe on any of the objects of public safety established by the Law. Thus, the Prosecutor General’s affirmation is not based on law.
Equally unfounded is the affirmation that the defendants expressed disrespect to society. In the contrary, the defendants’ motives were deeply social, ethical and directed at the defense of socially significant values and interests: such as the social protection of the pensioners and disabled persons, Russia’s territorial integrity and others.
The qualification of the defendants’ actions as participation in mass disorders (on article 212 part 2 of the RF Criminal code) is unfounded. The RF Criminal code does not give a definition of ‘mass disorders’, however the legal doctrine supposes that ‘the intensity of public threat from mass disorders is defined by the sole existence of a large mass of people, unamenable to control, which creates an important psychological tension in a certain region or district of their residence; secondly, by the spontaneous nature of the behavior of the crowd’s participants’ (Course of criminal law. Volume 4. Special part ed. by the law Ph.D. professor G. N. Borzenkov and the law Ph.D. professor V. S. Komissarov M., 2002) Characterizing mass disorders A. N. Traynin pointed out: ‘The masses are a changing crowd with free access and free exit of the participants (Traynin A. N. Criminal law. Special Part. Crimes against the State and the social order. M. 1927. p.110) It is the indefinitely large circle of participants and the element of spontaneity that allow to separate mass disorders from similar crimes and offenses (delinquency, petty delinquency, premeditated destruction and damage of property, etc.) committed by two individuals or more.
In the decision text the Prosecutor General points out the organized nature of the defendants’ actions and the fact that the circle of participants of the unsanctioned meeting was defined beforehand. Thus, the event of mass disorders was absent in this case.
As mass disorders signs stipulated by article 212 of the RF CC, the Prosecutor General says the defendants made a ‘pogrom’ and destroyed property, which, however, does not correspond to the objective circumstances of the case.
The RF CC does not give a legal definition of the notion of ‘pogrom’. D. N. Ushakov’s explanatory dictionary defines ‘pogrom’ as ‘a reactionary and chauvinist protest, mass beating of some group of population by the crowd, accompanied by murders, destruction and theft of property, organized by the government or the ruling classes. The Jewish pogroms in tsarist Russia, in the Poland of the pans, in the Rumania of the boyars and in fascist Germany. The Armenian pogroms in the Turkey of the sultans. And S. I. Ozhegov’s Russian Dictionary – as ‘a reactionary and chauvinist protest against some national or other group of population, accompanied by destruction and theft of property and mass murders.’ Obviously the defendants’ actions were not accompanied by anything of the sort and cannot be qualified as ‘pogrom’.
The property enumerated in the charges was not destroyed, but only damaged, which also does not give the grounds for qualifying the defendants’ actions by article 212 of the RF CC.
Proceeding from the above-stated, the participants of the unsanctioned meeting in the Public reception room of the RF President’s Administration are not subject to amenability on articles 212 part 2 of the RF CC but can only be subjected to administrative charges stipulated by article 20.2 part 1 and 2 (Violation of the established order of organizing and holding meetings, demonstrations, marches or pickets), 20.17 (unauthorized entry in a guarded unit) and 20.1 (petty delinquency – other actions demonstratively violating public order) of the RF AC.”
But great is the anger of those in power against the young people who dared to protest against the president. Therefore from June 30th Russia’s young intelligentsia is being tried like wild beasts in three iron cages in Moscow’s Nikulinsky court (they did not find a suitable room and cage in the Tverskoy court). Nobody pleaded guilty. I will cite here one of the open letters addressed by the parents of the 39 nazbols to president Putin: “Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich! What a peculiar situation! We keep writing to you and your only answer is silence. … What’s the matter with you, mister President? Aren’t you worried by the fate of your forty young co-citizens? Do you seriously think that they are guilty of something or did you come to the conclusion that the country can do without them, patriots, protectors and humanists? What are you counting on? To leave a desert after you leave? Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich! In our previous addresses to you we asked you (and now we do) to approach the situation with the position of State wisdom. You did not listen to this request; we asked you (and now we do) to show understanding and mercy – ‘But the blissful are deaf to kindness…’ and, finally, we asked you (and now we do) to look in our eyes and history’s eyes – did you do it? … We’re sorry, Vladimir Vladimirovich, but sometimes one gets the impression that it is from your highest assent that our children are being left to rot in prison cells.”
The National-Bolsheviks’ parents have less negative experience of interacting with Putin’s government, with the State created by Putin; therefore they have more broken hopes. As for me I firmly believe that the president is not wise, not merciful, not kind, and that it is not only with his assent that forty-nine members of the National-Bolshevik Party are left to rot in prison cells and in camps, but most probably, on his initiative. Under Putin the practice of pardon has practically disappeared and only decrepit old persons – veterans of the Great Patriotic War, were amnestied, two hundred people in total. While even under Yeltsin, who was not known for its sensibility either, thousands of people were pardoned and amnestied. I will return to the president’s hard-heartedness in the last, third bloc of my book. But now a few words about Putin’s prisons, since we already touched upon that subject. I will again cite my open letter to the President from Lefortovo prison. 2001. On prisons:
“The situation in Russian prisons is desperate. Tuberculosis, AIDS and drug addiction are raging. … The country’s prison population keeps rising. This is not explained by the particularly criminal tendencies of RF citizens but by the merciless severity of the laws and the bodies, which execute these laws: the police, the FSB, the Prosecutor General, the Court and the Justice Ministry. These bodies were never seriously reformed and in their nature remained totalitarian predators hunting citizens. A reform of the legal system in the country was developed and has been adopted for fifteen years now, but it is obvious that it is of little help. Because the judges will stay the same, the corporative spirit of the Soviet totalitarian justice will kill the results of the legal reform. The citizen will continue to be doomed in advance face to face with the State. Moreover, a part of the convicted, even for short terms, will inevitably die in prison from tuberculosis, a drug overdose and AIDS. Did you ever see your convicts, mister President? These are people with a sallow complexion, covered with sores and scabs.”
This is how I wrote in 2001. In reality things are far scarier. I will give here only one example of how things are inside the prisons. Even I was shaken by the letter sent on freedom by a convict who was killed in prison a few days aft
er he wrote the letter. By an order of the investigator. Here is that letter:
“On October 14th 2003 I was arrested by police officers, savagely beaten etc. etc. During the arrest, while I was laying face down on the cold ground, SOBR officers were kicking me on the head, on my body, my legs and arms; they were stepping on my handcuffs with their feet with their whole weight, stretching them so that after some time I ceased to feel my hands, they became numb and I couldn’t even move a finger. When they brought me to the station (RUBOP), after some time I realized that what they were doing during my arrest was nothing compared to that. The RUBOP officers were abusing me for about one day and a half; they totally undressed me and after handcuffing me to the radiator, they beat me on the arms and legs, with a stick on the head, body, arms and legs, on my crutch, they electrocuted me, demanding that I confess crimes that I have never committed. After some time, police officers, who didn’t take part in the tortures were appearing; they let me dress up and gave me tea and coffee and were, so to speak, nicely talking with me, but when they didn’t get what they wanted they left, the familiar individuals appeared and it was started all over again. This lasted until the evening of the following day, I think; I can’t say for sure because I, kind of, lost all sense of time, I was not fully aware of what was going on, my head hurt and I was losing consciousness.
After that I was brought to SIZO-1 in city N. I thought that the abuse was over, but in fact if has only started. I was constantly transferred from cell to cell, where I was detained with individuals who were tried earlier and already convicted. They didn’t let me sleep, eat and drink; in the morning I was taken to the UBOP when the officers continued their abuse. This lasted for about 10 days. All this time I didn’t have the possibility to meet my lawyer. On 11.15.03 I wrote a plaint about the illegality of the investigation, about the physical and psychological pressure I was subjected to by UBOP officers. N, the chief of the investigation group N came to see me about the plaint and made me write an explanation, where I described everything in detail and mentioned that I can identify the people who abuse me. Her answer to that was a refusal with the words that all my accusations were made up. After that UBOP officers headed by the police major S. started to act differently. I was sent to SIZO-1 of city K, where again I was constantly transferred from cell to cell and everywhere my cellmates were pressuring me physically and psychologically in order to obtain information about my criminal case from me and showing perfect knowledge about the case’s materials and not hiding that the chief of the department that is working on my case from city N gave an unofficial order to break, to destroy me physically and morally. On 12.11.03 I was sent to city N, my conviction term was extended and I was put again in SI-1 of city N. After some time I met major S. and he told me that he will do everything he can to convict defendant R., that this is an order from above, a question of honor and he won’t stop before anything for this. That he will go over heads in order to receive stars on his should-straps. What he needed from me were testimonies against defendant R. After this they started to work on me (so to speak) with particular zeal in SI-1 of city N. I didn’t have the possibility to send plaints or letters, to see the doctor; I couldn’t take a shower, take a walk, I was denied the possibility to receive parcels with food products, personal belongings, medicine, products of hygiene and first necessity. They beat and abused me trying to get one thing – that I did as major S. has said. Major S. made periodical visits to the prison and with an insidious smile asked me: ‘so, how are you doing, P.?’ He threatened me that I will be raped and my life in prison will become unbearable on his order. He affirmed that I wasn’t the first like this and that it’s a whole system, developed during years. A few days later a few people entered the cell where I was, they attacked me, tied me up and raped me, filming all of this on camera. Soon major S. appeared again and holding the videotape in his hands he asked if that was enough for me and if I was ready to cooperate. After receiving a negative answer S. said that my relatives would suffer then – my wife and my parents. That he will fabricate a case against them. He specifically spoke about my wife B., supposedly after nine years of living together she could have been the involuntary witness of the preparation of some crime, she could have heard something, simply he could just plant her some drugs. S. gave me time to think about this. These days I didn’t have the possibility to see my lawyers and my cellmates were vividly describing what awaits my wife in a prison for women. Later, when they brought me to the UBOP on N Street, the following happened in S.’s office: after he learned that I still have nothing to say, S. composed my wife’s telephone number and after he asked if she’s alone and if someone else is listening to the conversation, he told her that if she wants to see her husband she has to get ready, not tell anything to anyone, and to come to the UBOP after she will be called. While it was concerning me alone I was ready to suffer anything, but when it touched upon my family I had nothing left to do than what S. demanded from me. I personally wrote everything major S. dictated to me and agreed to testify. I was offered a lawyer, but I managed to obtain that they invite my lawyer G. I testified and explained the reason to my lawyer. Two days later I learned from my lawyer that my wife has left town and that some measures were taken in city N in order to protect my parents. A few days later I was led out of my cell by a prison employee, in his office he showed me a message that he said was confiscated during a search in one of the cells. It said that defendant R. is giving the order to kill P. (i.e. the author of this letter) by any available means as fast as possible. The employee did not present himself to me and did not give me the message; he said that he simply wanted to warn me about the danger. On the same evening major S. came to the prison and holding this same message in his hand, tried to explain me that now only he can protect me from the inevitable reprisal. But for this I have to help him convict R., testify against him and confess the many murders that, in major S.’s opinion, I committed. After he received my categorical refusal S. said that even then he will charge R. with responsibility for organizing my murder thanks to this little message. I take S.’s threats seriously and I fear for my life very much. During my acquaintance with him I had the time to realize that this man will not stop before anything. Major S. told me that I will be either hung or injected a large doze of a heavy drug. I really want to live because I’m still young and I love my mother and father, my little brother V. and my wife B.
I want to explain why I didn’t tell my lawyers about this and why I didn’t mention it in my plaints. I have realized that nobody is able to help a person in prison to avoid police abuse. And with each plaint I wrote my conditions were increasingly unbearable. I learned a truth, that however hard it is at a certain moment, something worse can always happen. In case S. commits what he’s planning I ask to charge him with that.”
The dictatorship of the law, Mr. President. Nothing else. Satanic. Do I have to remind you the articles of the Universal declaration of human rights of 1948? Article 5: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Article 7: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.” And finally, article 3: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
It has been five years now that you are in power, Mr. Putin, and your prisons are Hell and there are murderers among your investigators. We don’t need such a president!
THIRD BLOCK
Alien and wicked
I wrote this portrait of Putin soon after he was first elected president – in 2000.
ALIEN
Ideally a leader is not only the head of State, but also an exemplary first man of the nation. Joseph Stalin, with his pipe, moustache, boots, in a semi-military service jacket, insinuating, unhurried, speaking with an accent (with an accent sentences have often a rev
ersed mysterious implication), set the order to USSR countries – disciplined and scared them, keeping them in fear. Everything in a leader, from the form of his nails to his button, is in fact important; nothing is aleatory. Although history does not mention the image makers of Mussolini, Stalin or Hitler, these big characters have worked out their style, or as they say today, “image”, themselves. In reality they were simply natural eccentrics.
Although History will forever ascribe Yeltsin to negative peoples’ leaders, he had a personal character, clearly of popular origin. His crazy drunkenness, petty tyranny and the roughness of a Central Committee dignitary even had a certain charm, as it turned out now. Once in a while the lack of his bad presence is felt in the space of Putin’s clean government. After his last act of petty tyranny, after imposing us God know who, i.e. Putin, Yeltsin left the scene and is groaning somewhere on the dachas, spits and drinks. But we do not know about that.
What concerns Putin, he is very untypical of Russia. It is as though he was created in a laboratory. One gets the impression that he came to this world from artificial insemination, from an unknown father and a surrogate mother. So little he has of his own and at the same time, strange thing, he is not at all a popular type. In other words he does not represent any of the popular archetypes we know. He is clearly not a petty tyrant – Central Committee dignitary, he is clearly not a worker and not a peasant either. A lieutenant colonel, he is not an officer type. Lebedev and Rokhlin, Shamanov or Troshev were officers. Putin is closer to an intellectual, a teacher, not even a university teacher but from a technical school, of chemistry, for example. But as he is, kind of distinct, alien, he would have been a renegade and an exile among the teachers. He would have surly been called “the man in a case”, “ a blotter”, and nobody would have talked with him.