ONE DAY OF LIFE ACCUSED April 20 in the Meshchansky Court of Moscow held a regular meeting on the case of director of the Ukrainian Library Natalia Sharina. The meeting began an hour later, and that hour later came exactly ten minutes after the conviction of the previous case. I think that even the tea judge did not have time to drink properly between the hearings.
Natalia Sharina has been under house arrest for a year and a half. Until October 2016, that is a whole year, she was forbidden even to go for a walk (and rightly, after all, not Evgenia Vasilyeva after all, in fact), now she is allowed to walk in the yard. Some time ago, the judge was dissatisfied even with the fact that Sharina went to the polyclinic - it was supposed to her was only a doctor at home. Natalia Grigorievna Sharina can not receive guests, except the closest relatives, use the Internet and telephone, talk to anyone else who is outside - neither on the street, nor in the elevator, nor in court. I, seeing her in the corridor today, blundered, came up to say something in support, but the brilliant lawyer Sharina, Ivan Pavlov, immediately stopped our conversation.
The director of the library was brought to court by a car FSIN, an ordinary car, without bars and fanaticism. The husband asked permission to bring himself on a family car - refused.
This life has been going on for her for a year and a half. I understand that this is a paradise compared to being in jail, but I'm trying to try on this homemade lack of freedom - and I understand how hard it is to exist.
In July, at Sharina's jubilee, she will turn sixty.
The hall was empty today, except for me as an audience there was only one more person.
Judge - Deputy Chairman of the Meshchansky Court Elena Gudoshnikova - known. It was she who recognized Pyotr Pavlensky as guilty of setting fire to the FSB door and ordered a fine of almost half a million rubles, freeing Pavlensky from custody right in the courtroom.
Lawyers - Ivan Pavlov and Yevgeny Smirnov - declare two petitions: to add screenshots from the pages in LiveJournal and screenshots from the social network VKontakte Dmitry Zakharov, a deputy of the municipal district Yakimanka, who played in this case two different roles - informer and witness.
The prosecutor, a young beautiful woman with a pony tail, gets acquainted with fairly thick petitions very quickly and, of course, objects, considering that the documents bear no evidence base.
I've met with these prosecutor's objections many times in the proceedings, and almost always I had the impression that the prosecutor objected not because the documents did not help to establish the truth, but simply to incite the lawyer and the accused and put some sticks in the wheel. But is this the task of the prosecutor? Yes, no, of course, it's just that we were so excited ... - Why do you want to join? - suddenly the judge asks.
Lawyer Smirnov:.
- These documents confirm interest in the case of Zakharov, and besides, it can be seen from them that the seized Korchinsky's book (Dmitry Korchinsky's book "War in the Crowd" is recognized in Russia as extremist) is not the one that was added as material evidence, Is about forgery.
Dreams come true - the judge adds two motions to the case.
The interrogation of the witness Natalia Viktorovna Bazhukova, the employee of the library. The defense inquires in detail what was included in her official duties, Natalia Viktorovna answers in a very low voice, it is clear that she is worried.
Speech again comes about Zakharov. And from the testimony of Bazhukova, an unexpected thing emerges: on September 8, 2015, Mr. MP, it turns out, came to the library, signed up with Bazhukova, took books on Kievan Rus, and for a time studied them in the hall. She well remembered him, Zakharov was without a passport, but with a deputy's certificate, and Bazhukova specifically asked Sharina permission to write the reader to the library on the certificate. Bazhukova identifies Zakharov's form, recognizes him and on the photo from the page in the social network.
She speaks so quietly that I close the window, which I sit so that noise from the street does not reach the hall. The judge, looking straight at me, immediately asks the secretary, obviously in my opinion. Thank God, he decides not to do any remarks, but why should he do it?.
Prosecutor, unexpectedly: but you also gave the same testimony in October 15, when you interrogated the investigator?.
Bazhukova: I do not remember.
JUDGE: Did the interrogator interrogate you?.
Bazhukova: yes.
Prosecutor: What did you say?.
Bazhukova: I do not remember.
Prosecutor: And what did you say about the magazine "Barvinok" (Ukrainian children's magazine)?.
Bazhukova: I do not remember.
Prosecutor: Was there a "Barvinok" magazine?.
Bazhukova: I do not remember.
The judge gives the witness an opportunity to get acquainted with her interrogation in October 2015. Prosecutor: Why do you have such contradictions in the testimony? You are not saying anything about the Barvinok magazine now, but talking about Zakharov, and then, during the interrogation, you did not inform the investigator About Zakharov. What do you say about such contradictions?.
Pavlov jumps up:.
-Your honor, protest. What are these contradictions? The investigator, judging by the interrogation, did not ask the witness about Zakharov, did not ask a single question. This, after all, speaks about the quality of the interrogation. How can data contradict what was not asked about? Or what the witness does not remember? The investigation deliberately asked nothing about Zakharov, he deliberately concealed it!.
Prosecutor: Witness, did you sign the protocol?.
Witness: I do not remember.
Prosecutor: Look at the protocol, is it your personal data and your signature?.
Witness: Yes.
The public prosecutor: here and on the last page it is written: I have no objections. And now you do not remember about "Barvinok", but remember about Zakharov! Do you, to date, remember better than you remember then, in October 15 during interrogation?.
Witness: I do not really understand what is going on ... Prosecutor: So you remember the circumstances?.
Pavlov's lawyer: what are the circumstances?.
Prosecutor: About the magazine "Barvinok".
Pavlov: Well, the witness already said that she does not remember.
Finally the judge intervenes:.
-You witness, when did you remember events better?.
The witness is silent, because she does not remember Barvinok, this Barvinok is not important to her, but she remembers Zakharova, then quietly says:.
- Something, maybe, then, and something - now.
- And why did you remember Zakharova?.
- And on this day, September 8, there were Natalina's name-days, - Natalia Bazhukova answers..
And for some reason after that questions about "Barvinok" and Zakharov cease.
Then the prosecutor suddenly begins to ask whether Natalia Sharin did not represent a lawyer by the name of Alexander Ekim, and whether this same Ekim went to the witness for interrogation.
The witness responds negatively.
Prosecutor: Did any of the staff of the library tell you that you can go to the interrogation with a lawyer from the library?.
Pavlov already jumps up: Your honor, the accuser confuses the events of 2010 and 2015, and himself introduces himself into confusion ... Here it must be explained that Sharina, in addition to extremism, is also charged with embezzlement - allegedly she recruited lawyers that no one saw, And inflicted more damage on these libraries than a million rubles. The investigation relates the story to lawyers by 2010, (she herself considers this accusation to be completely contrived and extremely humiliating for herself), witness Bajukov was interrogated in the case of extremism of 2015, but the prosecutor does not care.
And again I do not understand - do they want to establish the truth here or to fit facts and events to some kind of invented truth?.
Finally the exhausted witness is released.
The defense solicits the inclusion of video from the surveillance cameras, which shows the actual time of the beginning of the search in the library, the number of employees of the SC and OMON, it is clear how they come in with incomprehensible bags, and then they come out empty. This document was signed by a person who at the time was and. Director, and the video is provided by a security firm with which the library had a service contract.
The prosecutor objects, arguing that it will not be possible to understand if the video is mounted or not.
The judge takes the prosecutor's side. In the application refuses, believing that to verify the reliability of the video there is no possibility.
"Your Honor," Smirnov's lawyer is trying to save the situation.. - We tried to attach this video earlier, but we were always denied just with the motivation that we can do this perfectly in the court session ... The judge is adamant.
She refuses and in the defense's petition on the examination of Zakharov's handwriting - he, it turns out, completely forgot that he was in the library and signed the form, here are the lawyers and wanted to remind him.
The prosecutor is also against, because, in her opinion, Zakharov does not have any grounds for Sharina's conspiracy! Ah, she would read Zakharova in social. Networks ... The last defense petition - examination of the books seized by the investigation in the presence of an interpreter - is partially satisfied. Books will be claimed from the repository of material evidence, but without an interpreter. Apparently, the judge believes that all interested persons speak excellent Ukrainian, but they hide it.
The meeting is over.
Sharina walks out of the courthouse, sits in the Fissan car, which will take her back under house arrest, the lawyers go together to the metro.
The feeling that I visited the theater on some bad, stupid play does not leave me.
Why does my country need all this?.
And how can the children's magazine "Barvinok" undermine the might of Russia?.
I do not understand.
Next meeting on May 4.
Editorial site is not responsible for the content of blogs. The editorial opinion may differ from the author's.
Join the groups "Browser Blogs" on Facebook and VKontakte, stay tuned!.