A Good Judge
By Anton Orekh
November 27, 2012
Yezhednevny Zhurnal

“…We have many more of them – remember them” – these are lyrics from a song about good people. And it seems these days there actually is reason to remember such good people.

It was Natalia Pereverzeva who unexpectedly uttered these words about our home country at a recent and utterly banal beauty pageant. As it turned out, the words were her own; composed without the advice of any talent agent. And indeed, what young talent agent would advise a beautiful pageant hopeful to write about poor, pillaged Russia? You do not build a career with lyrics like that. But while Natalia did not win the competition, she instead left with something much more valuable than a prop-room tiara.

In St. Petersburg, we find among our ranks another such good person – local Judge Vitaly Barkovsky, who was chosen to preside over a truly idiotic, comical and by all accounts shameful lawsuit. I am, of course, referring to the suit brought by the “gentlemen” of the so-called Union of Russian Citizens against pop-music star Madonna. While one might accuse the union representatives of “intellectual deficiencies,” they nonetheless filed quite a brazen lawsuit, all the more relevant since it dealt with the so-called “struggle against homosexuals.” In St. Petersburg, this struggle is indeed mainstream; it is the official ideology in the house of the “governor-goon.”

The hearing was scheduled and rescheduled numerous times, due to the explainable truancy of the “defendant.” In the pop-star’s absence, the plaintiffs maintained their arrogance and smugness as best they could, and though only one of the ten present had actually attended the concert in question, they priced their incomprehensible moral outrage and collective suffering at 333 million rubles ($10.7 million). After the investigation began, the union even expanded their charges of “propagandizing homosexual love” to also include “undermining the Russian demographic” and “compromising Russia’s defense capacity.”

Judge Barkovsky could easily have encouraged this kind of nonsense. He could have requested a whole new set of hearings or further examinations. He could have called witnesses, giving the stage and a circus spotlight to a whole new group of contemptible idiots. In this way, Judge Barkovsky could have easily shown the powers that be what a helpful and diligent defender he was of the rubbish passing for Petersburg law.

But Barkovsky unexpectedly turned out to be a different kind of judge. Oddly enough, he turned out to be a judge of the levelheaded variety. He turned out to be the type of judge who would dare make the only truly logical ruling, even within the confines of illogical laws. The court was adjourned after only a single hearing, but due process was not constrained by the rigid truism that “rubbish is always rubbish.” Barkovsky’s well-developed sense of humor shined through and he did not deny himself the pleasure of mocking the “citizens” from the Union filing the lawsuit.

Thanks to Judge Barkovsky, the case hearing turned out to be a thrilling, captivating, and brilliantly hilarious affair. Highlighting that many see phallic symbols even in everyday kielbasa, that the embrace and passionate kiss shared by sailors in Petersburg on Navy Day each year did not seem to bother any of the plaintiffs, and that none among the union representatives could produce any chart that defined moral suffering by level of intensity, Barkovsky not only denied the plaintiffs the satisfaction of a victory, he actually fined them! And what a fantastic sum – 22 thousand, 22 rubbles and 22 kopeks ($710.39), and 16 thousand rubbles and 16 kopeks ($51.62)! A great judge! Well done!

Of course, this was not some heroic deed. And the case in question is not equal in scope to, say, the Yukos affair. But it would have been so much easier for Judge Barkovsky to rule in the style of thousands of his peers across the country, handing down a ridiculous sentence that contradicted all common sense, logic, factual evidence, and legal norms. These judges, Barkovsky’s peers, are not afraid to be spat upon and cursed. They do not fear mockery. In order to please their superiors, they are prepared to do almost anything. Barkovsky, however, was not prepared to follow suit. What is more, and I must reiterate this, Barkovsky did not simply quietly throw out the case. He took pleasure in making the hearing a spectacle to the greatest degree possible, and for Petersburg, this is an especially notable demonstration.

Translation by theotherrussia.org.

While the history of corruption in Russia is a long one, what’s begun to change is the status of those speaking out against it. Starting with police officer Aleksei Dymovsky in November 2009, who was promptly fired and discredited by the establishment he tried to criticize, more and more whistleblowers with prominent posts have begun to step into public view.

One such figure, whose story has been lost in the flurry of events since Vladimir Putin announced his presidential run in late September, is Sochi Federal Judge Dmitri Novikov. After attempting to bring several of his colleagues to justice for appropriating public land and selling it back to the government for more than $100 million, Novikov found himself the victim of a system that he already knew was overrun by corrupt officials – but never had to face as a defendant.

As Novikov explained during a press conference last November, he was retroactively stripped of his right to immunity as a judge, “which was absurd,” and held in prison for eight months. He was then freed, all charges against him were dropped, and he was reinstated as a judge – not, however, unscathed.

“I am probably the only judge who went from being a judge to being in jail and then becoming a judge again. And what I saw there and understand – if I, a person with a decent amount of experience and a degree, don’t have the strength to fight this machine, then any of you would simply rather die than have this situation happen to you,” Novikov said.

The judge then described the months of dehumanizing torture he sustained while in jail. Among other measures taken, Novikov was made to strip naked during each interrogation, forced into a concrete box to sit under a stream of ice water for up to two hours, confined to small spaces once the doctors learned that he had claustrophobia, and deprived of air conditioning in 130 F temperatures, to the point that blood began to run from his ears. The torture went on despite the hours of testimony that Novikov voluntarily gave, but which investigators ignored and insisted never happened. “Sometimes the interrogations were held altogether without me,” he said in an interview with Express Gazeta.

Novikov’s account of the torture he endured under politically-motivated charges that were eventually thrown out would be frightening enough on its own. What he had to say about the systemic corruption that that all federal judges participate in to obtain their posts was just icing on the cake.

“The position of a judge in Sochi costs up to half a million dollars,” Novikov explained. “And who has the capacity to sell it? What makes up this sum? This sum is the sum that you give to representatives of the qualification college of judges, which ensures that you get elected; it’s the money that you give to the representatives of the president’s regional plenipotentiary, to federal inspectors, all so that your candidacy is passed by the plenipotentiary. You give a little money to the FSB, you give a little money to the procurator, you even give a little money to the presidential administration.”

He went on to explain how most judges in Sochi abuse their positions to make money off of construction ventures.

“Who in the justice system carries this out?” Novikov asked. “It’s clans. It’s clans where the dad is a judge, the mom is a judge, the son is a judge. Our procurator is another son of an investigator. Not long ago, the president passed an incredible measure to make it so that one family can’t have the mom be a judge, the dad be a lawyer, and the son be an investigator. What began to happen? All the families began to get legal divorces. All of them.”

According to Express Gazeta, numerous television executives have been filming Novikov’s story, questioning his friends and acquaintances in the process. Whether or not they help him escape another eight months of torture following a new set of charges brought against him remains to be seen.

As a group of Russian oppositionists continue to sit out jail sentences received in connection with an unsanctioned rally in defense of free assembly, opposition leader Garry Kasparov warns that the state officials involved in such corrupt and unlawful arrests and convictions will, at some point, have to answer for their crimes.

A Criminal Government
Civil servants will answer to the law for their crimes
By Garry Kasparov
January 3, 2011
Kasparov.ru

Nemtsov – 15 days of administrative arrest. Limonov – 15 days. Kosyakin – 10 days. Yashin – 5 days.

On New Year’s Eve, so-called law enforcement representatives committed criminal offenses against these four citizens of Russia, who were publically expressing their deeply negative attitude towards Putin’s regime. The unlawful arrests on the street, the falsification of charges in the police station, the rubber-stamped court decisions – it’s the entire standard arsenal used by the stooges in the police and the courts, who were installed by the Don and his accomplices to keep order in the “zone.” In this most primitive fashion, these punks, who bust their way into the government, settled scores with their political enemies.

Terrible-looking OMON commanders dutifully fulfill the role of the regime’s cur, ordering their subordinates first to beat defenseless people and then to give false testimony in court. Petty hooliganism, obscene expressions, resistance to police officers, violations of public order – for sure, not one opposition event calling for the observance of the constitution could be held without that. The police know very well that they have nothing to worry about – all the “Judge Danilkins” always guarantee a conviction. To that end, any piece of nonsense from men in uniform is accepted as proof, while any evidence from the defense, including photo and video materials, is rejected.

By the way, judging by the police reaction, everything that happened during the unsanctioned march of football fanatics down Leningradka on December 8 was just peachy. That is to say, there were no hooliganistic antics, violations of public order, or, God forbid, obscene expressions. Yes, and the events of December 11 on Manezhnaya, proceeding from the police’s same logic, did not pose a serious threat to law-abiding citizens – as opposed to the opposition’s provocative gatherings on the 31st.

The criminalization of the state apparatus has reached the highest levels of centralization, in which the thieving government distorts the law and strives to hold onto their loot. Only the “loot,” in this case, is the Russian budget and the natural resources of our country.

And one more thing. On his blog, Ilya Yashin colorfully describes how Officer Dima falsified a police report under pressure from his superiors – that is to say, committed a serious act of professional misconduct without a moment’s thought. It’s interesting to ponder whether all of these Officer “Dimas,” Judge “Danilkins,” and Prosecutor “Lakhtins” think that, one wonderful day, the government of tyrants will ever come to an end in Russia, and a normal judicial system will begin to work, so that they will all have to answer to the law for their crimes. Or are they certain that, even if that time comes, nobody will remember them anyway? Like in 1991…

On Wednesday, the Tverskoy District Court in Moscow handed down the sentence to 56-year-old Sergei Mokhnatkin, finding him guilty of assaulting a police officer during a December 31, 2009, rally that was part of the opposition’s Strategy 31 campaign in defense of free assembly. In the yearlong history of the rallies, he is the first person to receive an notable term of confinement.

Mokhnatkin’s supporters insist that he had nothing to do with the protest. According to United Civil Front representative Aleksandr Khatov, the now-convicted man was detained when the rally was broken up by police. “He was just a passerby on his way to Red Square in order to meet the New Year there,” said Khatov. “But then he saw that police had seized a woman and were dragging her towards a bus.”

Mokhnatkin came to the defense of the elderly woman and, as a result, was detained and put in a police bus with nine other rally participants. There, Khatov went on, the man was handcuffed to his seat and beaten in front of all those present.

70-year-old Raisa Vavilova, the woman who Mokhnatkin tried to help, testified as a witness for the defense during the trial. She told the Interfax news agency that Mokhnatkin had never previously appeared at any demonstrations by the extra-systemic [those denied the right to operate in the political system – ed.] opposition. “He was an accidental passerby who stood up for me when I was detained on Triumfalnaya Square. They thought he was one of us,” confirmed the elderly woman.

According to Khatov, Mokhnatkin testified that the incident with the police officer took place in the police bus where he was put after being detained. There, said the defendant, a policeman attempted to choke him. The court ruled, however, that the officer did not use any violence against Mokhnatkin, as an examination had found no signs of trauma on his body, and the officer, meanwhile, had a broken nose.

“He couldn’t have hit anyone, because he was handcuffed to the seat,” said Khatov. “Maybe he turned clumsily while he was being beaten.”

Mokhnatkin turned out to be the only one of the 60 people detained at the rally who met the New Year in police confinement; all others had been let out before midnight. After being released, the man filed a complaint with the police department demanding that the officers who beat him be punished.

On June 1, Mokhnatkin was summoned to a police station where, he was told, he would have a chance to identify his assailants. Instead, said Khatov, police wanted to fingerprint the Tver resident. When Mokhnatkin refused, he was arrested and sent to a pretrial detention facility.

In response, Mokhnatkin declared a dry hunger strike – no food, no water – which Khatov says the man has now sustained for eight days. While dry hunger strikes are known to sometimes last as long as a week, most people cannot survive more than three days without water. When the trial began on June 8, his supporters found that he looked quite ill and feared for his health.

The verdict handed down today noted that the court considered only the police officers to be credible witnesses, dismissing all those on the side of the defense as persons of interest.

“It’s notable that the testimony from defense witnesses was not accepted for consideration,” Anastasia Rybachenko, an activist with the opposition movement Solidarity, wrote on her blog. “The judge felt that she couldn’t trust them, since they entirely refute the testimony by the prosecution’s witnesses – police officers.”

While prosecutors asked Mokhnatkin to be sentenced to the full five years allowed by Russian law, the court, according to Gazeta.ru, took “all circumstances of the case” into consideration and ruled that it was possible to hand down a lighter sentence.

Mokhnatkin’s lawyers do not plan to appeal.

“He was given a state lawyer who didn’t even show up at the verdict reading,” said Rybachenko.

Renowned rights activist and Strategy 31 co-organizer Lyudmila Alexeyeva said that the defendant had turned down legal aid that rights advocates had offered him.

“We sent Makhnatkin a lawyer. For some reason, he turned him down; it’s possible that he didn’t understand that it was free aid,” Alexeyeva said on Ekho Moskvy radio. “He’s something of a strange man, this Makhnatkin.”

“Not only does he not deserve two and a half years, but those police officers who fabricated this case deserve punishment,” she added.

Alexeyeva explained that police at the rally had taken Makhnatkin “for one of [National Bolshevik Party leader and Strategy 31 co-organizer Eduard] Limonov’s guards and was very glad that a guard of Limonov allowed himself to hit a police officer,” she went on. However, “when it became clear that he had nothing to do with Limonov, it was already too late.”

Alexeyeva said she would work to ensure Makhnatkin’s release.

“The man is innocent and we are going to get him released,” she said.

Solidarity bureau member Sergei Davidis said that his movement is looking into getting Makhnatkin a lawyer to appeal the court’s verdict.

Speaking to Ekho Moskvy, former Deputy Prime Minister and Solidarity bureau member Boris Nemtsov denounced the case as a show trial.

“This is an act of intimidation; it is aimed at making it so that the people who more and more gather on the 31st date become afraid of winding up in prison,” he said. “It is a show trial, done so that all the rest who plan to come out on July 31 in Moscow and St. Petersburg, stop.”

Khodorkovsky, known as an oligarch who was once Russia’s richest man, is currently facing new charges in a second criminal case against Yukos. He and co-defendant Platon Lebedev are accused by the Russian government of embezzling oil products in the sum of $27.5 billion, a charge the defense says is absurd and refuted by obvious, undisputed facts. Khodorkovsky’s lawyers are now planning to call on the prime minister, who is widely believed to have personally ordered Khodorkovsky’s arrest, as a witness in the case.

“Your prosecutors claim I ran Yukos not as an official chairman, but as the leader of an organized criminal group,” Khodorkovsky asks Putin. “When you discussed Yukos’s problems with me, with whom did you think you were talking?”

“Your prosecutors accuse me of stealing Yukos’ production from 1998 to 2003. When you, in 2003, personally congratulated Yukos for its successes in commercial and social activities, is this what you were referring to?” he goes on.

Responding through his lawyers, Khodorkovsky told the Independent that he believes Russian President Dmitri Medvedev to be sincere in his stated desire to fight corruption, as well as to reform the country’s law enforcement agencies and judicial system. “But reasonably soon, the president’s actions will bring him to a boundary, after which specific changes will not be possible without modernizing the political system as a whole,” he stipulated. Khodorkovsky added that whether or not Medvedev can successfully implement such modernization remains unclear.

During the interview, the imprisoned oligarch categorically denied rumors that he had been offered release under condition of leaving the country or staying out of politics.

Despite all talk of corruption, Khodorkovsky said that he does not believe the outcome of the current case against him to have been predetermined. “But whatever happens, I am going to defend my position and my innocence,” he said. Asked whether he was prepared to spend another twenty years behind bars in the case that he is found guilty and handed a maximum sentence, Khodorkovsky asserted that he doesn’t plan to despair.

Putin’s press secretary, Dmitri Peskov, told the newspaper Vedomosti that the prime minister would be informed about the letter but was unlikely to read it, let alone answer it. He added that Putin usually does not enter into dialogue with convicts.

For the Independent article in its entirety, click here.

Ibragim Yevloyev, of no relation to his victim, was the former police officer sentenced late last year to two years in a penal colony for what was ruled to be the “accidental” killing of Magomed Yevloyev.

Relatives of the slain opposition leader had filed a complaint on December 11, 2009, demanding that the court give Yevloyev a harsher sentence. They maintain that Yevloyev was murdered intentionally, and his father, Yakhya Yevloyev, has been particularly outspoken. In a December interview with Gazeta.ru, Yakhya asserted that the light sentence had been a result of pressure on the judge from former Internal Minister Musa Medov, an uncle of the accused officer.

“Judge Tumgoyev admitted to me that Medov called and asked him not to punish his nephew,” Yakhya said at the time.

Instead, the Ingush High Court decided on Tuesday to swap the part of the Russian criminal article that Yevloyev was found guilty of for another part of the same article. Now, instead of being officially guilty of “negligent homicide owing to the improper discharge by a person of his professional duties,” he is only guilty of “negligent homicide.” The change results in a much lighter sentence – two years of house arrest.

Human rights groups have stood with Magomed Yevloyev’s relatives since the murder in mid-2008 in maintaining that the killing was intentional and the criminal investigation a sham. The family’s lawyer, Musa Pliyev, has been attempting to initiate proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. In light of a chain of murders of Ingush oppositionists that followed Yevloyev’s killing, Pliyev said he is convinced that authorities have issued “a license to shoot down other human rights advocates.”

Magomed Yevloyev was the founder and owner of Ingushetia.ru, an opposition website based in Russia’s volatile Caucasian republic of the same name. On August 31, 2008, Yevloyev wound up by coincidence on the same airplane as Murat Zyazikov, Ingushetia’s notoriously corrupt then-president. A quarrel allegedly broke out, and, upon landing, Yevloyev was detained and dragged into a car. His personal guards attempted to chase the motorcade, but Magomed had already been shot in the temple inside the police vehicle.

The website was then taken over by Ingush oppositionist Maksharip Aushev, who was murdered by unknown assailants last October.

In response to a question concerning disputed regional elections that took place throughout Russia in October, the president stated that the elections were indeed “not sterile.” Medvedev had previously admitted that the elections were flawed, with numerous cases of blatant fraud having been documented after Putin’s leading United Russia party was given overwhelming wins.

At the same time, Medvedev said that he was hindered from admitting that the problems were of any real seriousness by the low number of court complaints contesting the results. “Altogether throughout Russia on the whole there are 450 to 460. In Moscow, where there were also many claims, there are altogether a few more than twenty demands in the courts,” he said.

Communist Party (KPRF) deputy Vadim Solovyov refuted Medvedev’s information. “I don’t know where the president got these figures. I believe he has been misinformed. The KPRF itself filed 47 suits in the courts, and that’s only the beginning,” he told Gazeta.ru. Those who wish to contest the elections have a year to file suit.

Konstantin Ernst, manager of Russia’s Channel One, asked the president if he was acquainted with the phrase “basmanny justice,” a term used mostly by the political opposition to describe a corrupt judicial system. “Yes, I’ve heard this term,” said the president. “I’m not sure that it’s exact and correct.”

He added, however, that if a judicial system exists in Russia that allows “unjust decisions,” then “it is evil, and we must fight it.”

“Such decisions or sentences should be annulled, and if they are taken under the influence of this or that circumstance – whether it’s money, political pressure, or other factures – those who make such sentences and decisions should be subjected to responsibility,” Medvedev asserted.

Ernst later posed a question about political opposition groups that have repeatedly tried and failed to gain official recognition by the Kremlin, referred to here as the “extrasystemic” opposition. “What place in the political life of Russia do you see for representatives of the extrasystemic opposition, for such people as [former Prime Minister Mikhail] Kasyanov and [oppositionist leader Garry] Kasparov?” Ernst asked.

“You know, the so-called extrasystemic opposition, it is extrasystemic because it does not see itself inside the political system. They chose such a place for themselves. It’s their right,” the president responded. “I treat them with respect, if by doing so our legislature is not violated – electoral [legislation], legislation about social unions, about rallies and so on.”

“They too, probably, reflect somebody’s preferences; it’s true that I sometimes have a hard time saying whose. But that’s already a question of inner value; I wouldn’t want to offend anybody,” Medvedev added.

Kasyanov was scathing in his response. Speaking to Gazeta.ru, he asserted that “Medvedev and Putin are to blame for the fact that today in Russia no electoral institution exists from which they and all the rest of the citizens could learn what number of people share the value of a democratic state and wish to live in a free, civilized country.”

Concerning Medvedev’s thesis that he and Kasparov “chose themselves” to exist outside of the political system, Kasyanov stressed that “there is no place for free people in the political system intentionally created by Putin and Medvedev.” Likewise, Solovyov added that the radicalization of the opposition in Russia is a consequence of the actions of authorities.

The concluding questions addressed various aspects of Medvedev’s personal life, including his late bedtime (2:00 am) and his son’s taste in music.

“You know, like many young people – he is now 14 – he’s a fan of so-called alternative rock,” Medvedev said. “I know little about it, but I know some of the groups and even sometimes listen to them, including this group Linkin Park.”

A source in the Kremlin told Gazeta.ru that while the interviewers had previously discussed with the president what topics would come up during the program, the exact questions had not been specified.

However, political analyst Dmitri Oreshkin asserted that “nothing is accidental in these things.” In his opinion, Medvedev’s responses indicated that he was preparing to run for a second term as president – a competition that Prime Minister Putin has publicly stated that he is considering entering as well. If a direct competition between the acting president and current prime minister comes to be, Oreshkin said, then Medvedev needs to be able to have confidence in the integrity of the electoral, judicial, and law enforcement systems – which is why, said Oreshkin, all of those topics were raised during the interview.

Political analyst Stanislav Belkovsky said that overall, the program is a sign of the Kremlin’s continued policy of spreading bogus signals to the public. By speaking in the spirit of a “conservative modernizer,” Belkovsky said, Medvedev is allowed “to talk plenty, but not do anything.”

Judges in Russia are requesting the right to initiate criminal proceedings against those attempting to pressure them and impede the due process of law, RIA Novosti reports.

Supreme Court of Arbitration representative Anton Ivanov said that the law would require investigative agencies to respond to accusations of pressure on judges, an urgent problem faced by the Russian judicial system.

Ivanov noted that regardless of judges’ appeals to law enforcement agencies with complaints of outside pressure, nothing has been made clear about criminal proceedings should have been be initiated in result.

As a countermeasure against such interference, Ivanov proposed that judges keep a log of all non-procedural appeals to them in regard to pending court cases.

Evgeny Arkhipov of the Russian lawyers association For Human Rights told Kasparov.ru that, in his opinion, “this initiative comes not from the Supreme Court of Arbitration, but from structures within the Kremlin.”

“It is an attempt,” he said, “to pressure social organizations and independent media, which will be blamed for pressure” on the judges.

If the proposal is made in to law, Arkhipov said, it would allow judges to conduct high-profile proceedings without the participation of the public or media, bringing about massive judicial violations.

Arkhipov, a member of the Solidarity opposition movement, was himself threatened with dismissal in November on the basis of his public activism. The charges were later dropped.

Ivanov’s announcement is reminiscent of the case of a Russian judge dismissed in 2004. Olga Kudeshkina was stripped of her status as a judge after accusing government officials of pressuring her, and for saying that the Moscow City Duma had devolved into a place for “the settling of political, commercial, and other scores.” After being fired, the former judge appealed to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which ordered Russia to pay her 10,000 euro in moral damages.

Prokhorov said that the court has ordered Nemtsov, a former Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the opposition Solidarity movement, to retract his statement that “For many Muscovites, it has long been no secret that all levels of the Moscow authorities are penetrated with corruption.”

Kommersant has been ordered to print a redaction of another statement by Nemtsov, saying “I consider Luzhkov to be a corrupt official and a thief.”

Additionally, Nemtsov and Kommersant must pay the mayor 500 thousand rubles (approximately $17,000) in damages.

Prokhorov says that they plan to issue several appeals to annul the decision.

A second court case brought by Luzhkov’s billionaire wife and founder of the Inteko construction firm, Elena Baturina, also charges Nemtsov with libel. The case has been postponed until December 22.

The source of discontent that instigated Baturina, Luzhkov, and the Moscow government to turn to the courts was a brochure written and published by Nemtsov entitled “Luzhkov. Results.” In the brochure, Nemtsov blames Luzhkov for the deterioration of life in Moscow during his tenure as mayor, and also for unfairly awarding construction contracts to Inteko, which is said to have once controlled 20 percent of Moscow construction.

“We have irrefutable proof,” Nemtsov wrote, “that Luzhkov favored Inteko while signing permits for commercial development, making Baturina the richest woman in Russia.”

This is not the first such lawsuit filed by Luzhkov. Just weeks ago on November 12, the mayor sued controversial politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky for calling him corrupt. A Moscow court found Eduard Limonov, a leader of the Other Russia coalition and the banned National Bolshevik part, guilty of slandering Luzhkov in a 2007 case. Limonov was ordered to pay the mayor 500 thousand rubles for his statement on Radio Svoboda that “The Moscow courts are under Luzhkov’s control.”

Luzhkov, who has held the post of mayor in Moscow for 17 years and enjoys a 36% approval rating, has come under a recent wave of criticism for corruption, largely involving his wife’s business. Some politicians, however, are worried that the end of Luzhkov’s reign could result in a mayor more directly controlled by the Kremlin.

“The campaign against Luzhkov is being waged by pro-Kremlin forces. There is an order to hound him, but we won’t take part in this,” said Sergei Mitrokhin, leader of the liberal Yabloko party. “We don’t want to see him removed because then they could appoint somebody who was unelected and who would do to Moscow anything the Kremlin happens to want.”

The Kremlin meeting with the council was the second this year, and participants discussed a variety of issues for more than three and a half hours in hopes of achieving concrete results.

In his opening remarks, President Medvedev noted that the law had been amended to reflect the discussion held during the first meeting on April 15 and that he was in favor of extending financial, material, and consultation support to non-profit organizations. He stressed, however, that much more needed to be done. “I am not a supporter of dramatizing anything,” Medvedev said.

Ella Pamfilova, head of the council, assured Medvedev that her group was ready to put forth effort to fight corruption but had strong reservations about the process. “There is one serious problem – who will realize this and how it will be realized,” she said.

Participants told Gazeta.ru that significant time was spent discussing problems of the effectiveness with the war on corruption. Complaints filed by citizens concerning the behavior of public servants are often answered by those same public servants, which Kirill Kabanov, Leader of the National Anti-Corruption Committee, insisted must be prohibited.

Kabanov said that the president was presented with detailed documentation of violations in law enforcement agencies, and that Medvedev understands very well that taking authority away from public servants would not be an easy task. Since many have become accustomed to cashing in on their positions of authority instead of fulfilling their actual duties, says Kabanov, the government must give “a signal to bureaucrats that we’re speaking seriously.”

Pamfilova addressed the scandalous death of 37-year old Hermitage Capital Management lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who died on November 16 after being denied medical treatment in a Russian jail, where he had been held for a year without charge. “It’s a frightening tragedy when a 37-year old lawyer perishes and the perpetrators aren’t known, but only under investigation,” she said. Bill Browder of Hermitage Capital Management, which has campaigned against numerous corrupt Russian politicians and bureaucrats, directly blamed the prison for the death. “He was their hostage and they killed their hostage by denying him medical attention,” he told the BBC.

The discussion between the president and the council did not include the fraudulent regional elections on October 11, which the president has admitted were flawed but refused to annul, saying that any issues should be resolved in court. He dismissed Pamfilova’s concern that Russians have a very skeptical view of their judicial system, and that recommendations to resolve controversial problems in the court were largely seen as mockery. “What can be an alternative to an appeal to the court?” Medvedev asked in response. “Either lynching, which we, as you understand, have undertaken at more than once point in the history of our government at various times, or an appeal to the party committee. And both of those are located far from the main path of the development of civilization.”

The presidential council is set to meet again in spring 2010, which Pamfilova has proposed be dedicated to a discussion of the volatile situation in the North Caucuses.

President Medvedev has stated on numerous occasions that the war on corruption was a high priority for his administration. A number of recent scandals, however, have garnered skim responses from the Kremlin. An internal memo was obtained on November 16 by activists that indicted police chiefs of conspiring to illegally disrupt a series of lawful protests. A police officer in Novorossiysk came forward earlier in the month with 150 hours of audio backing up claims he first posted on YouTube detailing corruption in law enforcement agencies. Blatant fraud in the October regional elections has been statistically documented, but was at once acknowledged and dismissed by the president.