The sentence and judgment of the Kuybyshev district court in Saint Petersburg, convicting human rights activist, Mr Filipp Kostenko, for 15 days imprisonment, once again proves the fact that despite the changes that have swept across the Russian political landscape, the country’s justice system is yet to assimilate this change into practice. Police arrested Kostenko when he was holding a peaceful one-person sit-in protest on 25 November in front of the Embassy of the Republic of Belarus in St Petersburg. Kostenko’s lawyer argued in court that his client had complied with all legal requirements for the picket, and that there is no adequate evidence to prove that Kostenko is guilty of any offense. (Photo courtesy: chtodelat news)
Kostenko is reportedly appealing against the sentence and is holding a fast whilst in custody. The court delivered the judgment on 7 December.
The 15-day imprisonment for holding a simple protest has been held far too disproportionate and is been widely highlighted as an example of the ghost from the communist past, which does not tolerate any form of public protest, unless orchestrated by the government. The trial, that failed to summon and examine the police officers who arrested Kostenko, despite an allegation that the arrest notes contain contradictory information from which Kostenko would have benefited, is proof to the fact that criminal trials in Russia is still much of a formality than a process of rendering justice.
The trial judge held that there is no reason to summon the arresting police officers in court, but did act upon their reports to sentence the accused. The court by refusing to examine the police officers who executed the arrest and thereby charged Kostenko with the offence, has in effect denied for itself the opportunity to decide whether the charge is true or not. The denial to examine the witnesses also is a serious act of circumcision of the defence’s right to cross-examine the witnesses in court and thereby verify the veracity of their evidence, based on which a person has been held guilty. Without any of these, the court’s reliance of mere documents prepared by the police to convict a person shows that the judicial mindset in Russia is yet to change from that of the Troikas of Stalinist Russia to one that fits a modern state, which today is a member of the Council of Europe. In this context the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is concerned about actual practice of fair trial guarantees in Russia that at the moment requires drastic changes, thereby to assimilate in letter and spirit, the European Convention of Human Rights, which legally Russia is mandated to practice within its territory.
In essence, the sentencing of Kostenko is an act of suppression of the freedom of assembly and expression. The extraordinary severity of punishment, for an offence termed by the court as “insubordination to the authority of the police”, has to be viewed with suspicion given the ongoing protests against the recently concluded elections in Russia. The sentence underscores that the fundamental human right to assemble and express opinions, is heavily restricted in Russia and by Kostenko’s sentencing, the court has reiterated that the two rights are still left to the discretion of the police – read executive organs of the state – whether to be allowed or disallowed. The sentencing of Kostenko is an example to the fact that in Russia, often rights are subjugated to executive writ, as opposed to the executive’s mandate to protect them.
The AHRC expects that the appeals’ court will review the sentence and judgment of the trial court, and in doing so will decide the appeal upon its merits; the real value of the evidence so far produced in trial; and will decide the upon the proportionality of the punishment concerning the ‘offense’.
