#10
Russia's "spymania" highlights lack of legal reform
by Jacqueline Kozin, Digital Freedom Network

(December 11, 2001) With Vladimir Putin's rise to power, a new trend has evolved that highlights Russia's continuing struggle to become a full-fledged democracy.

In the past three years, there has been a noticeable increase in the arrests and harassment of people accused of being spies by Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB). Some speculate President Putin is allowing his former colleagues too much freedom in their pursuits of keeping the state secure as those they target are not engaged in clandestine or illegal activity.

The pattern of arrests and harassment seems to focus on those who are scientists, environmentalists, nuclear activists, or people who have contact with foreigners or are foreigners. When arrested, they are often imprisoned without fully knowing the charges against them. There has been a pattern of planting drugs on individuals who will not fully cooperate with the FSB or finding other substantial "evidence" against them which does not exist. The FSB is then able to bring them to trial on drug charges.

In the past three years, there has been a noticeable increase in the arrests of people accused of being "spies."

Not only does the arbitrary arresting of individuals highlight the stagnation in Russia's democratization efforts, but so does the legal process after detention.

Although some are assigned an FSB attorney as legal representation when first imprisoned, the interests of the accused are not properly represented and do not make them any better off than those refused any representation.

When independent attorneys take up one of these cases, full access to evidence against their clients is denied. They have to wait until the trial to find out what exactly implicates their clients. This requires the attorneys to request a recess to become familiar with the materials, which thus prolongs the trial. Trials are often further extended by the prosecutors who request additional time to "prepare" some materials.

When the evidence is submitted before the court by the prosecutor, it is usually created, such as drugs "found" on the accused or documents found in the defendant's possession. Sometimes, individuals are accused of possessing "secret" material. Of course, many times these documents were not classified and publicly available, but nevertheless were presented as proof of the defendant's intent to divulge state secrets because of their subject matter. In a few cases, like that of Valentin Moiseyev, a court rules that there is not sufficient evidence to prove the individual guilty. However, the prosecutor files an appeal, and gets another trial with different judges and a likely conviction.

Trapped by the judicial system

The trial is brought before a panel of judges without a jury, and all information about what occurs in court is kept secret. Judges will some times illegally cease the trial and order a new one to begin, which also significantly lengthens the defendant's imprisonment.

Judges often accept the distorted evidence submitted by the prosecution and rule against the defense when they object to this or other judicial discrepancies. There is a prevalent sentiment among judges that whoever stands before them accused of a crime must pay for it simply because someone needs to.

In a June presentation at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, former Moscow Court Judge Sergey A. Pashin recounted a recent story of a judge who was distressed with having to acquit someone for murder because the public prosecutor refused to try the person. The judge had never acquitted anybody and felt someone had to be punished for the crime.

Recently, President Putin submitted an adjustment to the criminal code that would allow those accused of serious crimes, like espionage, the right to jury trials. However, many feel that given the state of the judicial system, the code would be ignored if passed. Why should one think otherwise? If the Russian judicial system did adhere to the existing law, according to Article 7 of the Federal Law on State Secrets, four environmentalists should never have been charged and imprisoned for espionage or treason.

BACK TO THE TOP    #184 CONTENTS    NEXT SECTION