Rus News Journal

Valery Vyzhutovich: Legal assistance as a sort of political activity in Russia descends from a stage

In the end of last week the Representative under human rights Vladimir Lukin has transferred to president Dmitry Medvedev the annual report. In it the general estimation of a state of affairs with human rights in Russia is given. The report has turned out quiet and weighed. From the politized estimations it too is free. It only Sergey Kovalev, the first Russian ombudsman, kept as the public politician and quite often was with the power in the conflict. And its successors already understood what to clash - not end in itself. Also understood that there are two extreme measures. Or the state legal expert heroically throws down a power challenge, or in all to it assents. Both that and another is inefficient. In the first case between it and to whom he with superfluous passion appeals, there is a bureaucratic pillow, and how many in it bang, to sense you will not achieve. In the second it simply ceases to correspond to the official and public mission.

Lukin adheres “ golden mean “. He has put the basic articles of the Constitution having a direct bearing on the rights and freedom of the person In a basis of the report, and has analysed, as these articles are embodied in practice. We will tell, the right to work. How much it is guaranteed now, in the conditions of crisis and the unemployment caused by it? Lukin addresses to statistics. At first to the official: under the forecast of Minzdravsotsrazvitija of Russia, in 2009 the quantity of the unemployed can reach 2,2 million person. Such statistics at first sight inspires optimism: in the majority of the developed countries a rate of unemployment considerably above. But, as it is found out, in a category “ economically active population “ citizens at the age from 15 till 72 years are included. “ Having increased in such a way number of economically active population to 76,1 million person, - Lukin notices, - it is possible to receive statistically safe indicator of a rate of unemployment. But what for? “

the statistics of so-called noncombat losses in army (suicides, to  destruction from accidents and not authorised relations) is represented to Lukinu too insufficiently reliable. Nearby 700 persons in a year - these are the official data. But, in - the first, there are also other, even more gloomy figures. In - the second, relative density of suicides grows in lump of noncombat losses, and not only among military men of involuntary service, but already and among contract employees. Here just right to remember that two years ago Vladimir Lukin suggested to create military police in the country. In its opinion, it is necessary, that - well if is short - to struggle with dedovshchinoj. Besides, such service “ Would take on itself operatively - razysknye and investigatory functions, execution patrol - sentry duty, a convoy of arrested persons, protection and examination of military cargoes “. Thus essentially important, Lukin that military police bodies were not in submission at military command believed. The offer to remove from military justice epaulets, to subordinate her obshchegrazhdanskomu to the schedule of life has not found the response...

the Representative under human rights has estimated also a condition of the Russian penitentiary system: “ Conditions of holding in custody suspected and accused are quite often interfaced to humiliation of their human advantage... “ delights “ many pre-trial detention centres represent the obvious infringements of human rights confirmed during consideration with the European court “. It too an eternal theme. The Russian officials all time razdrazheny that our citizens complain in the European courts, the stream of complaints there grows. The position of Lukina into this account is known: there is nothing to be irritated, improve judicial system, make so that the quantity of sentences in favour of citizens was at least approximately same as sentences in favour of the state, and the number of sentences in favour of poor was in relative balance with sentences in favour of the rich; the best way not to bring matters to the European court under human rights - to accept here, to Russia, such decisions which discourage to search justice outside of our country; the Strasbourg court it will not be simple to accept complaints from the Russian citizens if will see that these complaints are unreasonable.

Vladimir Lukin in the report has concerned also freedom of speech. In particular, named excessive the restrictions imposed on a press in election campaigns when it is forbidden to estimate participants of race critically. A situation really the absurd: All genres - the reporting, interview, the comment, analytical article, - without which illumination of elections is simply impossible (well - ka try to compare advantages of separate candidates or parties, abstaining from comments), are actually withdrawn from circulation, and to a press, as a matter of fact, separate from selective process. This ridiculous order, Lukin considers, it is necessary to change.

so definitely Lukin has expressed both free interpretation and without that dim concept “ extremism “ when “ law enforcement bodies are inclined to see at times extremism signs hardly probable not in any text containing to the critic of the state, its officials and a policy “. And about assignment by administrative bodies of the right to forbid or resolve peace pickets and demonstrations whereas the law provides only notifying order of the organisation of carrying out of public actions.

Political radicals, left and right, the report of the ombudsman for certain will disappoint. Lukin, apparently, it expected and has considered it necessary to tell in the end: “ In the long term concept “ the rights and freedom of the person “ should be released from political konnotatsy. All people have the equal rights and freedom without dependence from the political views. For this reason struggle for human rights should not be struggle against these or those authorities in power “.

It is possible to show any claims to Lukinu, but it is necessary to recognise: within the limits of the role taken away to it it does not too a little. I speak about a role, instead of about powers, there is enough extensive. This role has changed. For its execution any more it is not required ardent tribunes. The effective official mediating between a society and the power is necessary. And the intermediary flexible, able to agree with bureaucracy of the most different rank. The ruthless and furious exposer of a mode will burn down now in no time. Such defender will protect nobody - he will need continually protection.

Yes, Vladimir Lukina in any way you will not enlist in successors of those noble madmen for whom in Russia the destiny from time immemorial prepared “ a way nice, a name loud the national defender, a consumption and Siberia “. But if someone unintentionally intends to repeat today a way - from active dissidentstva to a post of the state legal expert, - it is waited by a shattering failure. Legal assistance the further, the becomes more inevitable destiny of outcasts. The paradox that citizens, without having ceased to need protection of the rights, even, can, needing it even more, than before, have ceased to listen to in whom when - that searched for a support. Who has money, escapes from an arbitrariness of the authorities in the immemorial Russian way. At whom money is not present, hopes for favour of the heads, on God, on “ perhaps as - nibud it is formed “. Legal assistance as a sort of political activity in Russia descends from a stage. That in an ideal fairly. This employment not political. In the countries with its developed democracy consider routine and in general - that boring. Demanding not civil valour, and specific knowledge and skills. For acquisition of glory, an ascension on a public pedestal it is suitable only at totalitarian modes.