Sentence Valentina VarennikovBy consideration varennikovskogo has put a court sentence could not have practical value as even in case of an accusatory verdict already amnestied general did not risk anything. Relieved of necessity to solve a question on punishment, the court had purely moralizing function. In so non-standard situation judicial two opposite tactics could select. They could indulge serious sudogovoreniju, working on posterity and compensating itself for frankly farcical character of trial on business GKCHP. In this case it should meet serious legal difficulties with which, certainly, protection would use - disintegration of the USSR has generated the very poorly worked problems legal preemstva between the USSR and the Russian Federation. The court should develop in long sessions the important case decision, meanwhile legally virgin public for certain would find court buffoonery: on what to argue, when all the same amnesty.
the second tactics Therefore has prevailed. Time all the same amnesty it is not meaningful to proceed in debate, and and not solved legal problems let solves somebody another. Court without looking has accepted absolutely comical from the legal point of view arguments of an accuser and all the same remained buffoonery - only from the point of view of not so wide broad masses, and the persons who have kept residual respect for the state and the right.