Natalya Kholmogorova's Remarks

NATALIA KHOLMOGOROVA: I am happy that such a gathering took place and I hope it will not be the last. Of course we are very different and we have different positions. That is natural. But to be able to reach a compromise, to be able to persuade and change another’s mind, it is necessary to speak to each other. That is what we are doing now. I think this is very good. I would like to reply to two basic objections which stood out for me.

Alexander Cherkasov said a human rights defender must not substitute for a lawyer. The human rights defender must study the full range of evidence, both that of the prosecution and defence, and make a decision for himself as to whether the person is guilty or not. There are lawyers and they have their own work; of course it is unnecessary to substitute their work. But likewise, the human rights defender must not be a substitute for the investigator or the judge. It is not the human right defender’s responsibility to conduct a second investigation, nor his responsibility to make a verdict. A human rights defender has entirely different tasks. Of course, through his work on a specific criminal case he has some inner beliefs concerning the guilt or innocence of the defendant. But his tasks are entirely different. The human rights defender must above all work for the good of society. And the good of society lies in a fair and impartial trial.

That is why if a human rights defender notices serious violations during the investigation and trial, if a human rights defender notices political pressure, that is his responsibility. And as for conversations along the lines of “But how can we, such and such person says horrible things, that means we have to somehow punish him!” - no. You know, if someone says horrible things one can argue with him, judge him, in every way possible express their opposition to him. Even leading to a social boycott. Civil society may adopt some other measures in regards to him. But calling on a policeman to grab him by the scruff of his neck and drag him to prison, that is not a case. We cannot allow the government to decide which words are horrible and which are not. If the government allows itself to decide, it then violates...Just as we can see for ourselves now.

Meanwhile, even those who disagree with the full abolition of the anti-extremist legislation and consider that it needs to be preserved in some form or another, agree that in its current shape it doesn’t suit anyone. Articles 282, 280 and 282.2 have indeed been formulated very vaguely, very loosely. Just about anyone can be charged under them and for anything. Whether it is good or possible to somehow replace them, this can be further discussed. In their current form they are a means of political repression. I think nearly everyone agrees with this. We should proceed from here. Thank you.

Continue to Alexander Cherkasov’s Remarks ›

Back to Overview of Part III ›