Tweet
Small Victories, Big Hopes
By Georgy Bovt
Moscow Times
June 16 2005
Can the defenders of human rights actually score a victory in Russia
today? Can a single individual's rights be protected in the face of
overbearing and uncontrolled bureaucrats and utterly partial judges?
Unfortunately, too many people feel that the answer to these questions
is no. They have lost faith in their own ability to insist on others'
rights. This only makes the small, isolated victory last week all
the more inspiring.
The victory came when a Moscow court overturned an earlier ruling
against a young Moscow woman by the name of Alexandra Ivannikova. She
had initially been given a two-year suspended sentence for murder.
Then, the Moscow prosecutor's office recommended the verdict be
reviewed, thereby contradicting the position of the official prosecutor
on the case.
About two years ago, Ivannikova accidentally killed a man who was
trying to rape her. It has been established beyond the shadow of a
doubt that she was the victim of an attempted rape. Yet, according to
official statistics, Russian courts today are far less likely to acquit
a defendant than they were during the darkest days of Stalinism. They
seem to have forgotten the words "not guilty." Moreover, they are
staffed primarily by former prosecutors and detectives who out of
habit tend to side with the prosecution. It is very difficult for
former defense lawyers to reach the judge's bench.
Thus, the judge in the first trial of the case simply declared
Ivannikova guilty and exhibited some leniency in the sentence -- not
because she was defending herself out of desperation but because she
had a small child. And perhaps the judge was also influenced by the
nationality of the assailant, who was Armenian, one of the "persons
of Caucasus nationality" little loved by law enforcement officials.
But here's the most interesting aspect of the case: The verdict was
disgraceful in its denial of a person's right to defend herself. This
right is guaranteed by the new version of the law on self-defense,
which does away with the old stipulation that the means of defense
must match the means of attack. In any other normal country, the
ruling would have upset public opinion. More likely than not, this
sort of disturbing verdict would have caused a minor political crisis
in Europe or the United States. It would have been discussed in the
press, and opponents and supporters of the verdict would have held
protests. The scandal would have resonated in the corridors of power.
Heads would have rolled.
This is not exactly how things work in Russia, of course. This is
especially true in terms of resignations. Officials rarely leave
their posts willingly, even for far more serious infractions.
However, something else is worth noting: Even an extremely limited
outburst of public discontent appears to have a powerful effect.
Actually, this discontent was not really public per se. It came from
a small group among the media and the political elite.
The reaction to the Ivannikova verdict evolved gradually. First,
a Moscow FM radio station picked up on the case. Then, after the
sentencing, human rights ombudsman Vladimir Lukin spoke critically
about it. The case became the topic for a political talk show on
television. Soon, Rodina took the issue to the streets and used it
to remind the public once again of the party's existence. But you
have to give Rodina its due: The nationalist and racist party found
the perfect case to wake Russia's public opinion from its slumber.
It turned out that these public discussions and protests were enough
to push the prosecutors to do something practically unprecedented in
post-Soviet Russia. They called for a review of an existing ruling
despite the loss of face.
Public opinion works, it seems. Even in this elite and watered-down
form. Apparently, protests can actually accomplish something in
Russia today. At least in one little case, public opinion was able
to score a minor victory. The authorities fear public opinion. They
listen to it. Perhaps they could be scared into listening to more
serious complaints.
This case seems to touch on a very sore subject that forced the wheels
of democracy and civic consciousness to start rolling. It's one thing
to come out in support of abstract principles and slogans, even great
ones. This is precisely what Russia's now politically marginalized
liberal and democratic parties have been doing for years. But it is
another thing altogether to fight for the rights and the life of a
particular person in a particular case.
And if people can be convinced that they can make a small change,
they might just believe they can make a big difference.
Georgy Bovt is editor of Profil.
By Georgy Bovt
Moscow Times
June 16 2005
Can the defenders of human rights actually score a victory in Russia
today? Can a single individual's rights be protected in the face of
overbearing and uncontrolled bureaucrats and utterly partial judges?
Unfortunately, too many people feel that the answer to these questions
is no. They have lost faith in their own ability to insist on others'
rights. This only makes the small, isolated victory last week all
the more inspiring.
The victory came when a Moscow court overturned an earlier ruling
against a young Moscow woman by the name of Alexandra Ivannikova. She
had initially been given a two-year suspended sentence for murder.
Then, the Moscow prosecutor's office recommended the verdict be
reviewed, thereby contradicting the position of the official prosecutor
on the case.
About two years ago, Ivannikova accidentally killed a man who was
trying to rape her. It has been established beyond the shadow of a
doubt that she was the victim of an attempted rape. Yet, according to
official statistics, Russian courts today are far less likely to acquit
a defendant than they were during the darkest days of Stalinism. They
seem to have forgotten the words "not guilty." Moreover, they are
staffed primarily by former prosecutors and detectives who out of
habit tend to side with the prosecution. It is very difficult for
former defense lawyers to reach the judge's bench.
Thus, the judge in the first trial of the case simply declared
Ivannikova guilty and exhibited some leniency in the sentence -- not
because she was defending herself out of desperation but because she
had a small child. And perhaps the judge was also influenced by the
nationality of the assailant, who was Armenian, one of the "persons
of Caucasus nationality" little loved by law enforcement officials.
But here's the most interesting aspect of the case: The verdict was
disgraceful in its denial of a person's right to defend herself. This
right is guaranteed by the new version of the law on self-defense,
which does away with the old stipulation that the means of defense
must match the means of attack. In any other normal country, the
ruling would have upset public opinion. More likely than not, this
sort of disturbing verdict would have caused a minor political crisis
in Europe or the United States. It would have been discussed in the
press, and opponents and supporters of the verdict would have held
protests. The scandal would have resonated in the corridors of power.
Heads would have rolled.
This is not exactly how things work in Russia, of course. This is
especially true in terms of resignations. Officials rarely leave
their posts willingly, even for far more serious infractions.
However, something else is worth noting: Even an extremely limited
outburst of public discontent appears to have a powerful effect.
Actually, this discontent was not really public per se. It came from
a small group among the media and the political elite.
The reaction to the Ivannikova verdict evolved gradually. First,
a Moscow FM radio station picked up on the case. Then, after the
sentencing, human rights ombudsman Vladimir Lukin spoke critically
about it. The case became the topic for a political talk show on
television. Soon, Rodina took the issue to the streets and used it
to remind the public once again of the party's existence. But you
have to give Rodina its due: The nationalist and racist party found
the perfect case to wake Russia's public opinion from its slumber.
It turned out that these public discussions and protests were enough
to push the prosecutors to do something practically unprecedented in
post-Soviet Russia. They called for a review of an existing ruling
despite the loss of face.
Public opinion works, it seems. Even in this elite and watered-down
form. Apparently, protests can actually accomplish something in
Russia today. At least in one little case, public opinion was able
to score a minor victory. The authorities fear public opinion. They
listen to it. Perhaps they could be scared into listening to more
serious complaints.
This case seems to touch on a very sore subject that forced the wheels
of democracy and civic consciousness to start rolling. It's one thing
to come out in support of abstract principles and slogans, even great
ones. This is precisely what Russia's now politically marginalized
liberal and democratic parties have been doing for years. But it is
another thing altogether to fight for the rights and the life of a
particular person in a particular case.
And if people can be convinced that they can make a small change,
they might just believe they can make a big difference.
Georgy Bovt is editor of Profil.