The court began to consider the case on the liquidation of the Memorial Human Rights Center. The prosecutor insisted that his materials could cause depression and proved violations by an examination containing fragments of ready-made abstracts for students
The Moscow City Court on Thursday, December 23, began to consider the claim of the Moscow prosecutor's office to liquidate the Memorial human rights center. (entered in the register of foreign agents).
The prosecutor explained the demand to close the human rights organization that had been operating since 1993 by numerous fines for the lack of foreign agent labeling of materials, as well as by “ repeated gross violations of the Constitution and federal laws. '' Memorial activities “ is aimed at forming an opinion among an indefinite circle of people about the admissibility of terrorist and extremist activities '', as well as 'forming a negative opinion about the state structure and state power,' said a representative of the Moscow Prosecutor's Office.
Management, lawyers and advocates of Memorial insisted that the state's requirements for labeling materials are constantly changing and contradicting each other, which greatly complicates their implementation; and the main evidence of the plaintiff & mdash; an examination ordered by the prosecutor's office, the authors of which saw to the materials of Memorial the idea of the admissibility of terrorism and extremism, & mdash; Low quality. “ According to the mind, the prosecutor's office should not shut us down, but use our findings in its work, '' & mdash; said in court the chairman of the council of the human rights center, Alexander Cherkasov.
Depression, extremism and the sentence to Kovalev
The written materials attached to the lawsuit totaled a dozen volumes. Among them were, for example, copies of sentences passed in the 1970s-1980s to the first ombudsman for human rights in Russia, Sergei Kovalev, writer Malva Landa, mathematician Yuri Shikhanovich and other Soviet dissidents & mdash; they were mentioned by the judge Mikhail Kazakov while examining the documents. For what purpose the prosecutors attached them to their claim, they did not explain.
The position of the prosecutors boiled down to the fact that “ Memorial '' constantly distributes materials without foreign agent marking, and these materials can be dangerous.
“A large group of people cannot evaluate the information that you provide for the formation of public opinion … [There may be] consequences in the form of the formation of a negative opinion about the state, state power”, & mdash; said the prosecutor, commenting on the claim. When asked by the defendants to give real examples of such consequences, the prosecutor replied: “ There are no such facts for someone to read and go to commit an extremist or terrorist crime, but this can happen. ''
As an example of Memorial's materials that “ form a negative opinion about state power, '' the prosecutor cited the announcement of a vote on amendments to the Constitution. And the thesis that the organization promotes the admissibility of extremism and terrorism, he substantiated by the fact that the “ Memorial '' considers the arrested adherents of the Islamic organization Hizb ut-Tahrir as political prisoners (recognized as terrorist in Russia and prohibited).