Yesterday the Moscow City Court sentenced journalist Ivan Safronov to 22 years in a strict regime colony plus two years of freedom restriction. More than a handshake Pavel Chikov called the verdict savage, demonstratively cruel and corresponding to the "current realities of Russia". I don’t know, what kind of realities does it correspond to, but it's obvious to me, that from the very beginning they are trying to turn a criminal case into a political.
According to our Russian tradition, not familiar with the matter, but a very active public mercilessly put pressure on the investigation and the court from the moment Ivan Safronov was detained. More 140 journalists and politicians signed personal guarantees for the adviser to the head of Roskosmos, former special correspondent of Kommersant and Vedomosti Ivan Safronov, accused of treason, his lawyer told RBC two years ago. "We will use them", he promised., who followed the high-profile processes, surely noticed a feature: with the rarest exception, the prosecutor's office, and even more so the judge, does not comment on the progress of the investigation, about the process. But lawyers willingly give interviews, comment on any episodes and collect press conferences. This kind of privilege side protection, despite, what is a full participant in the litigation, around the world and, of course, we, has no coincidence. Furthermore, the state obliges lawyers to use any means to protect their clients, including public involvement. For, as opposed to investigation or accusation, defenders have no opportunity to use the state machine - the police, wiretapping, surveillance, etc. Our public is not aware of these nuances and, due to the simplicity of their soul, considers lawyers almost human rights activists, who fight against injustice. true, when corrupt officials or embezzlers are tried, the harmonious picture of the world is slightly destroyed, but it's not for long and not always. For a clever lawyer can turn even a terry bribe-taker into a victim of the regime, what happened. And somehow it comes out, that the sympathetic public is again on the side of good. Therefore, the lawyers, collecting guarantees and characteristics for the court, I have no complaints - it's their job. But there are questions for guarantors or just for caring citizens: do they realize, that thus put pressure on the court, on whose independence and impartiality they seem to be counting? I at all, need to say, I don't understand very well, what does the court do with all these characteristics from the place of work. If, eg, judge the killer, then evidence is important - fingerprints, witness statements, alibi, shooting surveillance cameras and so on. And if everything points to the accused, what difference, whether he is a production leader or not?But it is so, by the way. Is the sentence harsh, what a lot of people have been talking about since yesterday? “Terms for treason cases have always been long. But in recent years, a noticeable upward trend. Ten years ago it was usually a fork from 6 to 9 years, in the last five years, sentences of 12-15 years are not uncommon. Ivan Safronov, the court appointed more, because he was charged with two episodes, punishment for each of which is assigned separately. Then the final term was determined by the court by partial or complete addition., - explained more than shaking hands Pavel Chikov. For each of the two episodes, Ivan Safronov was sentenced to 16 years (state prosecutors asked 17 years for cooperation with Czech intelligence representative Martin Larisch and 19 years - for working for the German spy Demuri Voronin). That is, it turns out, that the court, conversely, threw ten years. However, interesting, What will the higher court decide?. However, in the case of Ivan Safronov there are a couple of points that I do not understand. One side, his refusal to deal with the investigation speaks in favor of the version of his innocence. Or about, that knows, that is guilty, but he cares about his reputation. On the other hand, lawyers consider the sentence too harsh and intend to appeal. They hoped, what twenty years will give, not more. And this already speaks of the proven guilt of the journalist, which was obvious to them during the process and from the materials of the criminal case. Highly, of course, curious, what exactly is the journalist accused of. But in cases with closed processes, we can only guess - we will never know the truth.. The version about, that he was imprisoned for disclosing state secrets about a deal with Egypt, does not stand up to criticism. Egypt's Defense Attache Asked Moscow to 'Take Measures to Deny' the News, and as a result, Safronov was put under surveillance under the article on treason”, - writes Baza with reference to the BBC. If you appease the obligatory emotions in high-profile cases, it looks very similar, what exactly during surveillance (and, apparently, wiretaps) FSB investigators came to the crime. And they proved the guilt of Ivan Safronov in court, according to his lawyers.
