When “Everything Is Clear to Everyone” — an article by Alexei Navalny

A significant public campaign in defense of servicemen Arakcheev and Khudyakov, who are accused of murder, twice acquitted by a court, yet still sitting in cells, has failed to materialize. Not least because the liberal-minded part of the public has either kept silent or openly declared that defending these men is "improper." I would like to say a few words about this selective approach to human rights advocacy, which in my view looks far more improper than rallies in support of possible murderers. 1. Most articles and opinions criticizing Arakcheev’s defenders are built around arguments like: "What if they weren’t Chechens? What if Chechens were judging them? What if Russians had been killed? What if he had been transporting ammunition? What if he had been transporting macaroni?" There are no "what ifs." I, like probably most readers, do not know this case in every detail. But several facts are common knowledge: - Arakcheev and Khudyakov are accused of murdering civilians in Chechnya; - they have not admitted guilt; - they were acquitted TWICE by a jury; - despite this, they are now, for some reason, sitting in a cell awaiting a third trial; - each time, the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation overturned the acquittal after public outrage from Chechen leaders Kadyrov and Alkhanov. My position on this case is very simple: questions of guilt are decided by the court. Arguments of the type "anyone who spent even three minutes looking at the case understands that they are guilty" simply have no right to exist in relation to this case. Perhaps journalist Ilya Barabanov and everyone who agrees with him also find it absolutely obvious that: Chubais is a crook; Veshnyakov rigs elections; Gazprom siphons off the people’s money; a huge number of journalists are liars; Berezovsky is a thief; Khodorkovsky is a crook; oligarch Prokhorov sleeps with underage prostitutes; all political parties (including liberal ones) have slush funds and commit tax crimes, and so on. SO WHAT? All of us living in Russia understand a great many things in three minutes. But personally, when the question is whether or not to lock someone up for twenty years, I would like justice to come into play. Personally, I do not like Berezovsky. But I am against him being quietly bumped off in London. I would like to see him in the dock. And I am also against the subhuman creatures who cut off our soldiers’ heads simply being blown up somewhere in the mountains. I want them to be hunted down and tried in public. Our judicial system is disgusting, corrupt, and works "on command." But even there, there is one bright spot. Already badly defiled by the authorities, but still. It is the jury trial. It is the ONLY institution in our judicial system where the adversarial principle actually functions. That is why the acquittal rate there is so high. That is why our authorities so often lose in jury trials, or can win only through direct manipulation. In an ordinary professional court, a verdict is most often an arrangement between the judge and the prosecutor. In a jury trial, however, the defendant has at least some chance of justice. And if incompetent investigators could not "find evidence," and the prosecutor could not convince the jury of Arakcheev and Khudyakov’s guilt, and they were acquitted, then that is the fault of the prosecutor’s office and the Interior Ministry’s investigative bodies. It is impossible to agree that the jury system must now be violated and completely discredited in order to calm those for whom "it is obvious enough that they are murderers." 2. Especially for liberals who turned out not to be liberals at all. My friends, then why do you defend Pichugin? And Khodorkovsky? And the physicist Danilov? Personally, I am inclined to think that Pichugin really may have organized a double murder. But there were so many violations in his trial process (including the dissolution of the jury panel) that this allows him to be recognized as a political prisoner. Perhaps Pichugin is a murderer. But that is not why he is in prison. The same applies to Khodorkovsky, the National Bolsheviks, and most of those convicted in "espionage" trials. But Arakcheev and Khudyakov may also be murderers, and yet they are now in prison solely because "Hero of Russia" A. Kadyrov arranged it with the right people. That is why shouting that Pichugin, Trepashkin, and Khodorkovsky are political prisoners, while Arakcheev and Khudyakov are monsters who must be kept in a cage, is nothing other than POLITICAL PROSTITUTION. Arakcheev has exactly the same right to a fair trial as Khodorkovsky, despite the fact that he did not provide significant financial support to "civil society and human rights organizations." Fortunately,** **among representatives of the liberal movement there were still people capable of remaining principled liberals on this issue too, and not afraid of condemnation from various "well-known human rights activists." And at the last rally in defense of Arakcheev and Khudyakov, one could spot individual representatives of SPS (Union of Right Forces), Yabloko, the UCF (United Civil Front), and the NDA (People’s Democratic Union). In fairness, the reverse must also be noted. Many figures in the "patriotic movement" are ready to tear someone’s throat out for Arakcheev or Ulman, but at the mention of Khodorkovsky they shyly avert their eyes and say: "It’s obvious he’s a crook—where else would all those billions come from?" Of course he’s a crook. But crooks too should be tried by a fair court, not by a circus with clowns in blue suits. 3. On whether one can attend a rally where there are so many "people with dubious reputations." Well, if you want to achieve something, you have to deal with different people. And if you stand in a square with someone, that does not mean you share all of their views on every issue. Many observers quite rightly note that a considerable share of Arakcheev’s defenders are not defending jury trials, but defending the right of Russian officers to gun down Chechens without trial or investigation. But whose fault is that? The problem of the "bad defenders" outnumbering the "good" ones lies, as usual, in the fact that the "good" ones sit at home, drink tea, and complain that there is something wrong with the Russian people and that the voters are no good. I think that among the thousands who defended Shcherbinsky, there were quite a few fascists, communists, Putin supporters, and advocates of union with China. So what are we supposed to do in that situation? Not defend Shcherbinsky? Wait until only "honest drivers unstained by ties to..." remain in the support group? For me, the rally in defense of Arakcheev and Khudyakov is my own rally. It does not matter much to me who else came to it or in what numbers. By coming, I expressed my own position on this issue. Let an initiative group made up of Surkov, Kasparov, Sechin, and Kasyanov organize a march tomorrow in defense of the institution of jury trials. I would go to that too. January 15, 2007