On August 13th lawyer Mark Feygin
was interviewed by Irena Taranyuk for BBC Ukrainian service.
BBC: When was the last time you met Nadiya and how was she doing
physically and emotionally?
MF: We met about a week ago. She has been detained at the Novocherkassk jail
(Rostov), at the so called Detention facility no.3. We met straight after the
court hearing of 30 July. Sometime later we managed to see her, and my
colleague Nikolai Polozov is supposed to be visiting her today.
She’s well overall. She has done
well through the jail transfer. Can you imagine what it’s like in Russia - 1000
km in two weeks on the road? She had been staying in Voronezh for some time
(before transfer to Rostov). She was having problems with her legs, they were
swelling up due to the heat. But she tries to see the best in everything, so
she said she liked the South of Russia. She finds Novocherkassk better than
Moscow because, as she put it, she could see many more Ukrainians in there.
BBC: But wouldn’t it have been better for you, her lawyers, and the
international campaign for setting Savchenko free, that the trial is held in
Moscow?
MF: Yes, absolutely, we would like the trial to be held in Moscow, and due
to political reasons as well. You see, this case has politics all over it and
it catches global attention. So surely, we would benefit from the hearings in
Moscow, we are Moscow lawyers after all. We could visit her daily in Moscow.
And when she is detained in Rostov region we are naturally limited in options,
and we are able to meet with her only once or twice a week, and we must fly
there to see her every time. This constitutes an obstacle in communication with
our client from one point. And this problem is not artificially created by
someone, but obviously, everyone understands that you are to get through this
1000km somehow - by plane, and then take a car ride to Novocherkassk.
And then, Moscow’s big advantage
is that many foreign Consular posts are located there, and not only that of
Ukraine’s, but of many European states, as well as the USA, who are all
watching closely how the Savchenko’s case is being handled and take an active
role in defining her destiny. And it would have been so very much easier for
them to follow the process in Moscow, and not from a 1000-km distance.
BBC: The West and Ukraine calls the Savchenko’s case political, and you call
it political, but Russia insists it’s a criminal background and that it is only
for the court to decide whether the Ukrainian is guilty or not guilty of
performing acts of the fire correction which has allegedly led to the deaths of
two Russian reporters in June 2014. You, as her lawyer, have repeatedly stated
that you don’t believe in the just court decision and that Nadiya Savchenko
will be found guilty regardless of the presented evidence. What verdict are you
preparing Nadiya for.
MF: My opinion on the Russian court is that it is not the independent
arbiter between the state and the citizen, or between private individuals, this
is not based on my critical attitude towards the Russian autocratic
authorities, but on my legal practice and my experience as regards political
cases. There’s been quite a number of those in the Russian criminal and
political practice recently. We have watched the indictment of Pussy Riot,
participants of the Bolotnaya Square case and many more. None of those
cases ended in the court, which would have acted as an independent judicial
authority towards those accused.
How can one call a court
independent, when it doesn’t take into consideration numerous evidence
detailing Savchenko’s innocence, and the fabrication of the case which the
defence had been submitting regularly during the year Savchenko’s been facing
charges. The prosecution allegations that Savchenko voluntarily crossed the
Russian border and went into the Russian territory after she had been released
from captivity on 23 June 2014; this is absurd. No other Aydar combatant has
been released by then, they have all been either shot or exchanged. But in
spite of these absurd charges, the court has always been siding with the
prosecution. This has led us to believe that the court was politically corrupt,
a long time ago.
That’s why we are telling Nadiya
at this stage to be prepared for the verdict and that she will most likely be
sentenced for 25 years. Moreover, the verdict has nothing to do with what will
be happening during the hearing. We will prove she is innocent during the
trial. But she will nevertheless be found guilty because it is not the court
who decides her case - the verdict is being drawn up in Kremlin.
BBC: However, unlike the political and criminal cases you previously
mentioned, Pussy Riot and the organizers of protests on Bolotnaya Square,
Nadiya Savchenko’s case isn’t an entirely Russian internal matter. Do you think
that the international community pressure and world’s attention will not be
enough to stop overtly political verdict in the case of the Ukrainian?
MF: You know, they act regardless of anyone. Despite the fact that
Savchenko is a citizen of Ukraine, she has been kidnapped, illegally
transferred to Russia and indicted, and all that merely for propaganda
purposes. There are no other reasons. This was done to show: look, there’s the
junta, there’re punitive units, and Savchenko as a Ukrainian Armed Forces
officer is a part of the punitive operation, and Russian journalists are its
casualties. And all this is happening at the backdrop of war.
The threshold of how far the
society can take has shifted. Something like a kidnapping of a citizen of a
neighbour state, an officer, would be unthinkable in 2012, but it became
possible in 2014 because of the war, which Russia is a party to, undoubtedly,
and this is no longer a question. But the emphasis clearly shifted. The
international community pressure, which you are talking about, will eventually
lead to the release of Savchenko, but not to her acquittal. There are no
acquittals in Russia, and in political cases - even more so. It is impossible.
BBC: For you and for Nadiya’s defence team the verdict will be a
starting point for the next phase of the fight for her release. What’s your
scenario for the forthcoming events? Can you give an approximate date when
Savchenko will be set free?
MF: I predict that there will be a guilty verdict. It will lead to an
incredible outrage. Playing in prediction of when Russian authorities will let
Savchenko go free is a very ungrateful thing. But it is my belief that
Savchenko will be released as a result of political dialogue, some bilateral
exchange or similar actions - and this would happen upon an agreement.
But if the international
community pressure is not strong enough, nothing will make this government
negotiate Savchenko’s destiny and Russian authorities would not feel the danger
of these excesses. An innocent woman has been indicted, with an undeclared
Russian aggression against Ukraine as the background. Negotiations will be on
the table only if the international community keeps up the pressure and sends a
tangible, direct and clear message to release Savchenko.
Kyiv has been investigating two
Russian military officers, Yerofyeyev and Aleksandrov, who can theoretically be
exchanged for Savchenko. The procedure for this exists: Ukraine and Russia,
despite the war and all those twists and turns in the bilateral relations, are
parties to an agreement on legal assistance signed in 1993, which allows
prisoners in both countries to serve their sentences in countries of their
citizenship.
Savchenko may be allowed to serve
the sentence in Ukraine, upon an official request from Ukrainian authorities,
formally - in Ukrainian prison, but everyone realizes that this is a
conventionality only and no one would be serving anything. But this is an
opportunity, completely legal in terms of procedural rules.
BBC: Is this the most realistic scenario?
MF: Indeed it is realistic, as it allows Russia ‘to keep its face’ - to
state that they allegedly convicted her, they allegedly punished those guilty
of killings of Russian journalists, and then they could legally send her back
to Ukraine to serve the sentence. Afterwards they will claim that everything
'Junta’ does with Nadiya - making her a hero, MP or the PACE delegate, etc. -
is not their responsibility, not their issue.
In this case, it is important for
the Russian leadership, for the Kremlin: a) to get dividends for Savchenko -
direct political dividends; b) 'to keep its face’ for purely propagandistic
reasons. To show that they didn’t cave in, didn’t go back, were firm, but kept
up to the agreement in not yielding to the principles and consistence in the
fight with Kyiv authorities. To my mind this is the most realistic way, but
this will be impossible without persistent international pressure from
Western states, who are not just observers, but efficient players of political
dialogue between Russia and Ukraine. International appeals to free Savchenko
are extremely important.
BBC: So, you are saying, relatively speaking, that the pessimistic scenario
is the one where Savchenko is, without substantial international community
pressure on Russia, convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison, and the
optimistic one is that she’s convicted, but serves a year or two, and upon the
request of Ukraine, is allowed to “serve the rest of her sentence” in her
homeland, and in fact gets her freedom?
MF: I don’t think it will last longer than a year. Because according
to the procedural terms the case might go through yet another judicial
authority, before the verdict comes into force, the court of appeal will hear
the case. Once the higher judicial authority has heard the case, and this might
be at the Moscow District Court, or Donetsk/Rostov, the verdict comes into
force.
And from that moment Savchenko
can be sent to serve her sentence either in Russia, or, should Ukraine file an
official request, back to her homeland. Thus, the matter might be decided in no
more than 5 to 6 months provided that the Russian leadership has a political
will to negotiate and come to an agreement on Nadiya’s exchange on
Yerofyeyev-Aleksandrov, or whatever else. This is not me who should define the
terms, it is up to the political leadership to decide. But ultimately, the
period we are talking about is 5-6 months.
BBC: Could you share your own personal impressions on Nadiya Savchenko? Is
she the first Ukrainian woman your have been defending? How have you been
getting along?
MF: This is absolutely another story. Do you know why? This all
is happening at the backdrop of the war. This is a real drama, not invented. It
differs radically from the Pussy Riot case. Despite all the courage and even
riskiness of their 40 seconds dancing performance on the Ambon, it was all
about rather tiny situation. It had a huge surge of interest, but it is nothing
compared to the Savchenko case.
In the Savchenko case we see real
drama, the real deaths; the post-mortem examinations with the relatives
observing the case. We have the war in Ukraine, which resulted in the Savchenko
case. If there were no war, there wouldn’t be the Savchenko case. Besides, she
is an officer, pilot, which is not that typical even for Britain, not to
mention Ukraine, which hasn’t left aside its post-Soviet mentality yet, but is
working hard on it more actively.
Savchenko shared the barracks
with men, because “the army is one for all”. She is a bright and strong
personality. If you ask about Savchenko herself, she is rather
straightforward person, which is not a compliment. We argue all the time,
as she wants to see results as soon as possible. She is a kind of person who
wants to get results - positive or negative. She used to tell me that
death is also a result. For me as a lawyer, it is unacceptable as the
main aim of Nadiya’s defence, to release her at any price, but not at the
price of her reputation. To confess is not an option for Nadiya: she will
never concede to it.
BBC: And how will Savchenko’s case affect the society?
MF: Oh! It will become a great milestone, because the extent of publicity in
this case is immense and Savchenko faces quite a sentence - 25 years, it’s not
the two years the Pussy Riot were charged with. 25 years for an innocent man
might be compared to the Dreyfus affair, or something similar. No Russian
courts, or authorities would ever be the same in the eyes of international
community.
You know how it is: you do not become “ISIS” that buries people alive just
because you are not the person to do the job. But this does not mean that you
do not condemn them. Being seen as “ISIS” is very sad. You cannot forget
something like that the next day. It’ll take decades to get your hands clean
again. We won’t be able to prove the world that we live in a civilized state
and our courts are real, not simply decoration. And we will have to walk a long
road to get over that past, even after there will be a new post-Putin Russia. I
understand this perfectly as a lawyer.
Original
No comments:
Post a Comment