Ilya Novikov explained the details of the case against Memorial

The liquidation process entered the judicial phase

The administrative and legal execution process of Memorial entered the judicial phase. On Monday, preliminary hearings were held in the Moscow City Court – on the claim of the Moscow Prosecutor's Office on the liquidation of the human rights center Memorial, an organization related to Memorial International (both are recognized by the Russian authorities as foreign agents).

Lawyers of the Human Rights Center and the press at the doors of the Moscow City Court. Photo:

And on Thursday, a session of the Supreme Court will be held on the case of the liquidation of the “main”, “parent” structure – “International Memorial”. The corresponding application was submitted by the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia.

The different jurisdiction is explained by the difference in the status of “mother” and “daughter”. “International Memorial”, as the name implies, is an international organization, and only the Supreme Court is competent to decide on the liquidation of such organizations. Memorial Human Rights Center is an interregional Russian organization, and the question of its life and death falls within the competence of the court of a constituent entity of the Federation.

It is noteworthy, by the way, that both “liquidation” claims were filed almost simultaneously, on the same day. According to the lawyer Ilya Novikov, who represents the interests of Memorial Human Rights Center in the Moscow City Court, this fact already suggests that the Memorial case is not an ordinary thing.

“Formally, both prosecutors, the general and the Moscow one, must independently make such decisions,” the lawyer said in an interview with MK. “In a normal case, there should not be a situation when they get out of bed on the same day and suddenly decide that they need to file lawsuits to liquidate two organizations.” that “there was some kind of communication.” Moreover, since there is no evidence of written instructions from the Prosecutor General's Office to the regional prosecutor's office, it remains to be believed that the communication was informal. “And this, generally speaking, is prohibited,” Novikov is categorical. “The case did not arise in a normal way, and we will talk about this too.”

The only result of the first day of preliminary hearings, according to the lawyer, is that “the prosecutor’s office received an order from the court to do, let's call it that, homework – to submit the documents that they should have submitted from the very beginning and in complete form, but not did it. ”

This is, in particular, about one of the texts of the court decisions, which the prosecutor's office refers to and which are attached to the statement of claim: it lacked the last page. When the judge, Novikov says, asked about the reasons for this, the answer was: “And we will bring it later.” Which, according to the lawyer, clearly characterizes the attitude of prosecutors to the quality of their work.

The claims of the supervisory agency against Memorial Human Rights Center are divided into two parts. The first one practically coincides with those of the International Memorial: the absence on some information materials of the human rights center of an indication of the organization's belonging to foreign agents. “Moreover, the ratio is as follows: for several thousand messages – several units where the marking is missing,” Novikov clarifies.

“But in order to strengthen its position, the prosecutor’s office brought a document from which it follows that“ Memorial ”encouraged extremist activities and terrorists,” the lawyer continues. – This document, “Research Note”, appeared a year ago. And for some reason, all this time I was in the prosecutor's office. One of the points that we asked to find out, and the court agreed with us, is how, in fact, within the framework of what did this document appear? If experts who deserve your trust say that extremism is being encouraged, why have you been silent about this for a whole year? ”

Another issue that, in the opinion of the defense, needs to be clarified is the quality of expertise and qualifications of the experts themselves. “Their personalities are extremely toxic,” the lawyer insists. – She is a math teacher, he is a translator. And, despite this, they conduct research for every taste of the customer … We want to hear these people in the courtroom.

Maybe there are situations when an expert has so convincingly and in detail stated his point of view that his interrogation is unlikely to add anything. But this is clearly not the case. A very specific question was raised about these two people: are they not impostors? And the most logical way to find out is to let them speak in the courtroom. ”

The next meeting of the Moscow City Court on the Memorial Human Rights Center case will take place on Monday. “We will continue the conversation where we left off,” Ilya Novikov clarifies. And this will also be preliminary hearings. The final decision, the lawyer predicts, will be made in December.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *