Sergei Magnitsky’s Mother Calls for a Public Hearing on the Role that Moscow Judges Played in Her Son’s Death

June 13, 2013

The moth­er of Sergei Mag­nit­sky wrote an open let­ter to the Fed­er­al Coun­cil of Russ­ian Judges call­ing for a pub­lic hear­ing on the role that the Moscow judges played in her son’s death and an exam­i­na­tion of the facts behind their inclu­sion in the US Mag­nit­sky List. 

“I ask you to con­duct an open hear­ing on the rea­sons for the inclu­sion of Moscow city judges in the Mag­nit­sky list at the ses­sion of the Coun­cil of Judges of the Russ­ian Fed­er­a­tion with my par­tic­i­pa­tion,” said Mrs Mag­nit­skaya in an open let­ter pub­lished by Novaya Gaze­ta in Rus­sia (see in Russ­ian: http://www.novayagazeta.ru/columns/58555.html).
The appeal from Mrs Mag­nit­skaya comes after the 22 April 2012 decree issued by the pre­sid­i­um of the Moscow Coun­cil of Judges “con­demn­ing” the adop­tion of the Mag­nit­sky law in the Unit­ed States and the inclu­sion of four Moscow judges on the Mag­nit­sky sanc­tions list (link to the decree of the Moscow Coun­cil of Judges in Russ­ian: http://www.mos-gorsud.ru/files/pdf/sovet_sudei.pdf) The decree was adopt­ed secret­ly from the Mag­nit­sky fam­i­ly, but then broad­cast on all Russ­ian state TV chan­nels on 27 April 2013 by the head of the Moscow City Judges Coun­cil Gali­na Aga­fono­va (see a report on Rossiya 24 Vesti pro­gram in Russ­ian: http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1079711).

“In spite of the fact that the con­tent of the decree direct­ly con­cerns the inter­ests of my son, and due to his death – my inter­ests, the rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the Moscow Coun­cil of Judges who pre­pared that doc­u­ment, did not find it nec­es­sary to ask my opin­ion and take into account facts and evi­dence I pos­sess,” said Mrs Mag­nit­skaya in her appeal for a pub­lic review of the role of judges in her son’s case.

In the let­ter, Mrs Mag­nit­skaya request­ed that in accor­dance with the pro­fes­sion­al oblig­a­tions of the Fed­er­al Coun­cil of Judges, it review her son’s case in a pub­lic forum with the par­tic­i­pa­tion of the Mag­nit­sky fam­i­ly and the mass media.

Mrs Mag­nit­skaya also insist­ed that the Coun­cil invite to the hear­ing rep­re­sen­ta­tives and experts of the President’s Human Rights Coun­cil and of the Moscow Pub­lic Over­sight Com­mis­sion, who car­ried out two inde­pen­dent reviews of the cir­cum­stances of her son’s deten­tion and the role of the judges in autho­ris­ing his rights violations.
In accor­dance with the pro­vi­sions of the Sergei Mag­nit­sky Rule of Law Account­abil­i­ty Act, the four Moscow judges in the Mag­nit­sky case: Ele­na Stashina, Svet­lana Ukhna­lye­va, Sergei Podoprig­orov, and Alek­sei Krivoruchko were added by the U.S. Gov­ern­ment to the list of Spe­cial­ly Des­ig­nat­ed Nation­als (“SDN” list) pub­lished on 12 April 2013 (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20130412.aspx). Any US assets belong­ing to them will be frozen and their entry to the USA will be banned.
Ten days after the U.S. list was made pub­lic, the Moscow Coun­cil of Judges “con­demned” this action, ignor­ing evi­dence of the role that the judges played in Sergei Magnitsky’s ill-treat­ment and death in custody.

“The Moscow Coun­cil of Judges refer­ring to the exam­i­na­tion of “per­son­al files” of judges Stashina, Ukhna­lye­va, Podoprig­orov, and Krivoruchko did not find grounds to “doubt in any way the law­ful­ness and fair­ness of actions” of their col­leagues, in spite of the glar­ing vio­la­tions of the law in the mak­ing of their deci­sions, which relied on fal­si­fied evi­dence from the mem­bers of the inves­tiga­tive group…Contrary to the require­ments of the Crim­i­nal Pro­ce­dur­al Law and in vio­la­tion of the func­tions imposed on them by the Con­sti­tu­tion of the Russ­ian Fed­er­a­tion to con­duct judi­cial con­trol, these judges nev­er raised ques­tions about the false evi­dence sub­mit­ted by inves­ti­ga­tors with con­flict of inter­est,” said Magnitsky’s moth­er in her open letter.
“Judges Stashina, Ukhna­lye­va, Podoprig­orov and Krivoruchko refused 40 com­plaints from my son while he was alive. He chal­lenged their deci­sions, includ­ing by appeal­ing to the Con­sti­tu­tion­al Court of Rus­sia and the Euro­pean Court of Human Rights, but he did not get to live long enough to see his com­plaints heard,” said Natalia Magnitskaya.

There is no infor­ma­tion on the response from the Fed­er­al Coun­cil of Judges to Mrs Magnitskaya’s letter.

Comments

• Link