|
At this point the prosecutors began to realise that the FSB men could have acted on their own initiative by secretly interrogating Pichugin but had nothing to show for their efforts. While working on this book I learned, from sources well-qualified to comment, that strict orders had come from above: get something, anything, to make the charges stick. That was why the FSB opted for the truth drug.
Burtovoy might have known about this. On 24 July, Pichugin's hands were subjected to an external examination. But the needle tracks had already healed up, and it was decided not to test his blood even though a fair amount of time had passed since he had been illegally drugged. Subsequent inquiries showed that Ananyev and Tambovtsev's entry to the prison had been recorded by prosecutors and that they could only gain access with the consent of Burtovoy himself - those were the rules. Remember, they had been officially on the investigation team only since 7 July. It all adds up.
What lies behind the mind-altering assault on Pichugin? No matter if it was an independent escapade by the FSB or a coordinated act, a failure of which the Procuracy General was hastily washing its hands.
What does matter is this. A truth drug is not a lie detector, but something far more serious. Had Pichugin had any information at all about his own or others' wrongdoing, he would have served it up in full. The fact that the prosecution still had not a shred of evidence against him proves that he was innocent.
The road to Strasbourg
Aleksey's lawyers did what they could in the circumstances. But what could they do if the courts had been turned into an offshoot of the Kremlin? A complaint about the events of 14 July, when the mind-bending substance was administered to Pichugin, was lodged at the Basmannyy Court. It threw the complaint out, ruling that everything was in order and nothing untoward had been proved. A challenge to that against that was launched. This was the last available option for the defence within the country. The same was true of the defence's protests against the illegality of Pichugin's continued detention.
Only the European Court of Human Rights remained. Defence lawyer Kseniya Kostromina compiled an application to Strasbourg in November 2003, on the basis of articles 3 and 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From then on, each time Pichugin was remanded further in custody, she sent updates to Strasbourg to put it on record for a future hearing.
Petitions to the European Court of Human Rights have to be submitted on a special form. In April 2004 Kostromina familiarised Pichugin with this piece of paper, so that he could sign it for sending to Strasbourg. Immediately, an investigator from the Procuracy General on a routine visit to summoned her to his office and said he had been instructed to question her.
What does to question a defence lawyer mean? The investigator understood the absurdity of the situation, but he was duty-bound to follow orders. Ustinov's people wanted to know if she had collected Pichugin's signed form for sending abroad to the European Court of Human Rights. Naturally, Kostromina refused to say. But this is a revealing episode.
Начало | << | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | >>
| 
