Home page MAYDAY - Andrei Babitsky Russian

February 7, 2000

COMPLAINED

I demand to conduct an investigation of facts of illegal imprisonment of A.Babitsky and impending his professional activities according to the Art. 109 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as well as of facts of improper performing of their duties and concealing felonies by officials, and to pass a decision on its results..

I possess confidential information, according to which on the videotape, that is presented as a confirmation of the fact of handing over Andrei Babitsky to representatives of Chechen separatists in reality is taken handing over the journalist by representatives of one Russian special service to agents of another one.

Besides, the same source informed me that the statement made by general A.A.Zdanevich, according to which FSB has nothing to do with the Babitsky case is not in compliance with the reality.
In reports on the second confiscation of photographs from the wife of A. Babitsky (I guess this took place on January 21) it was said that photographs had been confiscated by FSB agents (the first one had been carried out by militia on January 8). This confirms my information about involvement of FSB to the Babitsky case. Another proof of trustworthiness of the information I have obtained is the previous information from the same source.
The person who provided me the above-mentioned information contacted me for the first time in summer 1998 when members of the Public Committee and I were defending journalist Pasko.
He introduced himself as a FSB agent, and a few facts he communicated proved later to be truth.
Taken this into account, there are reasons to suppose that activities of unstated persons, who ordered concrete actions against Babitsky as well as of those who carried out the orders have indications of actions stipulated by articles 127 and 144 of the Criminal Code the Russian Federation.

To investigate circumstances of the events mentioned, I demand to ascertain identity of all the persons on the video presenting handing over of journalist Babitsky by some armed people to other armed people (as well as identities of their superiors and subordinates) and interrogate them.

Besides, there are reasons to suppose in actions (or in lack of actions) of the head of the government of the Russian Federation (acting President of the R.F.) V.Putin there are indications of actions stipulated by articles 293 and 144 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Such assumption is based on Putin's personal statement that the Babitsky case will be under his personal control. This means that V. Putin took responsibility for complete law abidance in regard to the journalist.
Nevertheless there are momentous ground to suppose that in the Babitsky case the Russian and the international legislation were severely violated. (see Appendix)
In view of the above mentioned, I demand to interrogate Putin and determine, which of the actions regarding the journalist were sanctioned by him personally during the period he controlled the case, and which he approved after they had been carried out.

Meanwhile, there are reasons to suppose, there are indications of actions stipulated by articles 293 and 316 of the Russian Federation Criminal Code in actions of S. Yasterzhembsky and V. Manilov.
According to the Yasterzhembsky's statement information issued from him and V. Manilov is not their personal opinion but is to be considered as the official information of the Russian government.
Therefore there is direct evidence of improper performing of duties by top officials, that on behalf of the Russian government concealed all the violations connected with actions regarding A. Babitsky which entailed major damage to rights and lawful interests, and, in particular, provoked direct participants of actions regarding A. Babitsky to further violation of Babitsky's lawful rights.
In case major crimes against the journalist are ascertained (there are serious reasons to believe so), activities of S. Yasterzhembsky and V. Manilov shell be considered .not only as a malfeasance but also as a concealment of these crimes.
For that reason i demand investigation of all the speeches and statements regarding Babitsky made by S. Yasterzhembsky and V. Manilov as well as interrogation of the above mentioned persons to make it clear, in particular, which of the actions regarding the journalist they were informed about, which of them they justified in spite of lack of concrete information.

I also demand to conduct examination of activities of the Persecutor Office officials, who carried out a special ascertainment of all the circumstances of the Babitsky case as well of those who were supervising compliance of the case with the law. Numerous statements about absence of any violations in this case rise grounded doubts concerning honesty (or professional qualification) of those officials. (see Appendix)

Efremov N.A. (Naum Nim)

APPENDIX

SHORT LEGAL VALUATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ARREST OF ANDREI BABITSKY
Prepared by law service of the Glasnost Foundation

1.On January 18 (according to other data on January 16) Andrei Babitsky, correspondent of the Liberty broadcasting station, was detained and with sanction of the prosecutor of the Naursky region of the Chechen Republic based on the Decree of the President of Russian Federation #1815 dated November 2, 1993 "On preventive measures against vagrancy and begging" was confined in the reception camp Chernokozovo as a person without permanent residence' "for identification".
(The source - words of the aide of acting president S. Yasterzhembsky quoted by the ITAR-TASS news agency.)

COMMENT

The decree given allows such a detention for a term up to 10 days. The detained has no rights because this point is not regulated by the decree.

The decree contradicts the Article 55, part 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation that states: "rights and freedom of human being and citizen may be restricted by the federal law only to an extent it is deemed necessary to protect the basis of the constitutional order, morality, health and rights and lawful interests of other persons, to secure the defense of the country and security of the state".

It seems that Andrei was not detained according the procedure stipulated by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (detention record was not drawn up, he was not granted appointment with neither defender nor relatives, nor other persons as it is stipulated by part 3, article 122 and part 3, article 52 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. 2. January 27 hi was exposed to a preventive punishment in form of custody as an exception as stipulated by the article 90 of the Criminal Code: "as an exception preventive punishment can be applied to a person suspected of committing a crime before the charge is filled. In this case the charge is to be filled not later then within ten days counting from the date of the application of the preventive punishment. If the charge is not filled within this term the preventive punishment is abrogated".
(The source - acting general persecutor of the Russian Federation V. Ustinov. INTERFAX news agency)

COMMENT

Violated is the requirement of the part 6, art 96 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that states:

"A person or an agency conducting criminal execution is obliged to notify one of the close relatives of the suspect about the place where he is kept under arrest without delay".

Information concerning the date of the arrest differs. It is known for certain that the correspondent contacted the Liberty office for the last time on January 15.

Or S. Yasterzhembsky was mistaken, or he had no choice but to state that the journalist was taken into custody on January 18 - the preventive punishment was applied to Andrei Babitsky on January 18, and according to the above mentioned decree the term of keeping in the reception camp cannot exceed 10 days.

If the last supposition is true, the desire of the state officials to bring circumstances of the arrest into line with requirements of the acting legislation. set by the same state.

3. According to news agencies on February 2 the preventive punishment was substituted by a written undertaking not to leave a place.
According to acting General Persecutor of the Russian Federation V. Ustinov the substitution was made by the Prosecution office (ITAR-TASS).
On February 3 during the briefing in Rosinformcenter S. Yasterzhembsky reported that there were certain letters from Chechen field commanders who propose to exchange Andrei for three captive Russian soldiers (later on the number was reduced to two soldiers). Besides S. Yasterzhembsky showed a copy of the Babitsky's letter where he consented to such an exchange.
In the letter of a field commander named Abguireev the exchange offer was motivated by the desire "to bring him back to his brothers in arms".
According to Vaha Arsanov, one of Chechen rebels leaders (Liberty radio station, direct broadcasting 0:30, February 4).there is no field commander with such a name in Chechen.
February 3 late in the night Russian media obtained a videotape with the recording of the exchange. Earlier this day the deputy of the head of the airborn troops staff of the Russian Federation Nikolaj Staskov stated that prisoners of war who extremists offered to exchange for Babitsky - sergeants Alexander Sherstnev and Nikolaj Zavarzin had been liberated in the course of a special operation conducted by counterintelligence servicemen on February 3. Staskov stressed that the liberation of paratroopers had nothing to do with the exchange of Babitsky (Federal News Agency).
On February 4 snippets of the exchange recording were broadcasted by All-Federal channels. Standing between armed security guards Andrei said that he had spent the last night in a car for prisoners (although officially he had been released). He was escorted to the place where the exchange had to take place. In the end of the exchange procedure a masked man embraced Andrei and dispatched in the camera: "we never leave comrades in trouble!"
AT a press-conference on February 4 general-colonel Valery Manilov, the first aid of the head of the staff of the armed forces of the Russian Federation stated that "the army has nothing to do with this confinement. It has no right to deal with it".

In his comment upon the fact of the journalist's willingness to be exchanged for Russian servicemen Manilov said: "This would be all right ( ) if there was no dark side of the issue that was expressed in Andrei's willingness to stay with rebels. (). This is why we do not speak of gratitude". (INTERFAX)

COMMENT

Exchange of a free citizen for two prisoners of war cannot be qualified from the legal point of view because the given operation cannot be qualified as an exchange because of lack of equivalence of statuses of persons involved . We rather deal with transmitting by representatives of the state of a Russian citizen in hands of those who the given state outlawed .

And in the end one more Manilov's musing at the press conference: "I guess that we have to examine frames of the exchange. We have to examine (the operation) and ascertain the truth".

Glasnost Foundation Lawyer
Dmitry Shishkin