Ol’ga Trusevich

OL’GA TRUSEVICH: Hello. The idea to speak here arose upon reading the caption under one of the articles on Grani.ru web-site: “Sergey Davidis—politician and human rights activist.” Many of those present here whom I hugely respect, are also able to sign off as such. However in my view, the issue of political prisoners it that touchstone on which the positions of a politician and a human rights defender must diverge. And I am not speaking here as a member of “Memorial,” or say a member of the “Solidarity” movement but as a person who has for two months taken part in the social movement “For Fair Elections.” This new movement speaks for responsible government, against lies in politics, against the leader of the swindlers and thieves, for a civic nation where human rights are the same for all.

From my point of view, a human rights defender is concerned at the violation of a right. This is the most important thing for him. And the lists of “defendants” can be as long as they like in the most diverse of human rights organisations. It is clear that an experienced human rights activist cannot completely protect all those who refer to him, but first tackle the so-called “model case.” I can show this on such an example: [Taisi’ya] Osipova is defended not only on the grounds of evident violations in the examination of her case and falsification of evidence. But also because this is an example of how easy it is to institute proceedings against any public figure, drawing them into a case on drugs. A human rights activist decides to defend Arakcheev because it is a very dangerous precedent, given the contempt of an acquittal twice pronounced by a jury.

Perhaps it may be interesting to a politician to see how Osipova is similar to him, acting as a politician for the observance of civil and political rights, in both a personal capacity and with her husband. Arakcheev would be less interesting to a politician because he probably did not defend anyone's rights. Perhaps he violated them himself, as an official of the special forces. It’s possible that Arakcheev may be used as a propaganda milk cow to exaggerate a fictitious story of the “persecution of Russian officers.”

What does it mean to speak out for civil rights and honest government? It means that the reputation of a person also holds an important meaning. That is my personal opinion. It seems to me that we elect a president for ourselves, just like any other politician, largely on the basis of the position to which he adheres. If the name of an imprisoned person begins to circulate in politics with the demand for his immediate release, one cannot but consider his social reputation. I am not talking about a fair review of judicial decisions. This issue must be postponed due to the impossibility of immediate action. At the very least we must force the removal of O’lga Yegorova (Moscow City Court Chairwoman) whose dreadful reputation is known to all of us.

We touched upon the reputations of Tikhonov and Khasis. If there was a need to describe why the majority of human rights defenders and many in “Solidarity” consider them to be guilty, I can say more on that as I was at the trial and read the materials of the case. Although I do know that Zoya Svetova and several other people may have doubts about their guilt. It seems to me that those who are trying to drag the names of Tikhonov and Khasis into the list of political prisoners are on the one hand doing this for selfish reasons, so as to attract sympathy among Neo-Nazis, or on the other hand, would not be overly upset if these names completely discredit the new movement. Such people are not notable for their honesty. Because even if the lawyer of those accused of murder may hush up some obvious facts against his clients, an honest politician should not behave this way.

Next ›

Back to Overview of Part II ›