Magnitsky’s Mother Identifies Gross Negligence in the Investigation of Her Son’s Death, Following the Acquittal of one of the Doctors

April 19, 2012

Following the recent acquittal of one of the two prison doctors charged in the death of Russian whistle-blowing lawyer Sergei Magnitsky in state custody, his mother has filed a 39-page complaint outlining over 50 points of investigative negligence and irregularities in the case materials pointing to the state cover-up of the actual circumstances of Mr Magnitsky’s arrest, ill-treatment and murder in custody, as well the motives to kill him as an “inconvenient” witness.

“Investigators have covered up the cruel repression of my son for his stance against corrupt officials whom he had exposed acting as part of a criminal conspiracy through which they for many years have been stealing billions of rubles from the Russian budget,” said Magnitsky’s mother in her complaint filed with the Russian Investigative Committee.

“The investigation has been used to deflect attention from my son’s politically motivated persecution. The officials exposed by him in massive budget thefts, and who persecuted, and killed him, remain free and live in luxury created with illicit proceeds,” says Ms Natalia Magnitskaya.

On the basis of new evidence described in her complaint, Ms Magnitskaya is requesting the Russian Investigative Committee to open a criminal case against law enforcement and other officials, including two medical prison staff, Larisa Litvinova and Dmitry Kratov, for the crime of torture instead of negligence, and to open an investigation into those officials who committed perjury and falsified the case documents.

Ms Magnitskaya has also appealed to have the Investigative Committee appoint Physicians for Human Rights, a US NGO that specializes in postmortem examinations in international human rights cases, to carry out an independent medical study and allow them access to Magnitsky’s medical archive, something that the Russian authorities have repeatedly refused the family for the last two years.

Finally, she asks Deputy General Prosecutor Viktor Grin to recuse himself from overseeing the case because of his conflict of interest from his previous actions of detaining and prosecuting Magnitsky on false grounds and ignoring Magnitsky’s complaints about his health and prison conditions.

Among the most important areas of negligence outlined in the complaint Ms Magnitskaya filed were the following points:

• The crime scene at Butyrka detention center was visited for the first time by investigators only 15 months after the crime was committed, on 24 February 2011,
• Investigators did not seize the critical CCTV footage from the crime scene at Matrosskaya Tishina detention center which now appears to be missing;
• Investigators failed to identify all eye witnesses who had seen Magnitsky in the last four days of his life when his lawyers were precluded from seeing him by prison guards;
• Investigators failed to investigate the violence against Magnitsky by prison guards in the last hour of his life when rubber batons were used, and when doctors were not allowed to see him;
• Investigators did not determine the reasons why Magnitsky was placed in “the worst cells in Butyrka”, according to case files, and transferred 6 times between detention centers and 21 times between cells, often at night;
• The autopsy and the official forensic medical study were carried out in breach of the protocols, with no doctor present and with all medical records absent; family requests for an independent medical study have been rejected;
• Investigators did not require to conduct any of the basic medical studies, including blood tests and organ tests, which would be necessary to confirm any medical conclusion into his death;
• Investigators did not cross-examine the officials in light of contradictions in their testimonies;
• Investigators refused to interrogate any of the high-ranking suspects from the General Prosecutor’s Office, Interior Ministry and Prison service, who authorised Magnitsky’s arrest, detention and who refused his complaints about inhumane treatment in custody;
• Investigators failed to collect and analyse complaints filed by Magnitsky with state bodies about his inhumane treatment and denials of his complaints;
• Investigators did not investigate who authorized the jobs and promotions for two prison doctors, Kratov and Litvinova, after Mr Magnitsky’s death;
• Investigators did not probe the involvement of the Russian Federal Security Service in Magnitsky’s persecution in spite of the evidence of their involvement in the case file;
• Investigators did not investigate the allegation of corruption and conflict of interest of officials accused by Magnitsky.

The complaint by Ms Magnitskaya and her lawyer Nikolai Gorokhov points to the breach by the Russian Investigative Committee of Articles 7 and 12 of the UN Anti-torture Convention and P. 9 of the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, which call for “thorough, prompt and impartial” investigation, “adequate autopsy”, and “collection and analysis of all physical and documentary evidence and statements from witnesses.”

The Russian authorities have exonerated 58 out of 60 officials on the U.S. Helsinki Commission list of those involved in the torture and death of Magnitsky and corruption he had uncovered. For two years, there have been no suspects in the case of Mr Magnitsky’ death. When in light of this impunity, the Western governments started to introduce visa and economic sanctions, the Russian government charged two doctors for inadvertent negligence, instead of wilful torture, and then exonerated one of the doctors due to the expiry of the statute of limitations for that offence.

Ms Magnitskaya points out that the investigation into her son’s death cannot be viewed as impartial as it is controlled by the same Deputy General Prosecutor of Russia Viktor Grin and his subordinates who have covered up the perpetrators of the $230 million theft exposed by her son and who were responsible for his torture in custody, and who have failed to protect his rights as required by Article 51 of the Russian Law on Detention.

Comments

• Link