Russia’s constitutional court (CC) refused to consider the complaint of the convicted in the “case on July 27,” Ivan Podkopayeva, which challenged the constitutionality of the 318-th article of the criminal code about the use of violence against a representative of authorities.
Recall John Podkopaev was one of the first convicts after about uncoordinated action on July 27 in support of the independent candidates in Moscow. 3 Sep Tver court of Moscow sentenced him to three years in prison under article 318 of the criminal code. The investigation and the court decided that he sprayed tear gas in the direction of law enforcement officers and two men received burns to the eyes. Then the Moscow city court reduced his term by a year.
Podkopaev in the complaint indicated that the criminal code establishes increased responsibility of peacefully protesting citizens for self-defense of their civil rights from violent acts of law enforcement and is not consistent with the Constitution, reports “Interfax”.
To which the COP replied that since the implementation of the right to freedom of peaceful Assembly may be associated with serious risks, and the citizens themselves, and the state must use all legal means to prevent any manifestations that do not meet the essence of the right to peaceful Assembly.
In the exemption determination States that the use of violence against representatives of the authorities in connection with the performance of their official duties on protection of a public order cannot be considered as a valid expression of peaceful Assembly.
Also failure is noted that under the criminal code public law measures not only assume greater responsibility for violence to life, health, honor and dignity of the authorities, but the responsibility for committing their own crimes against the government, interests gosluzhby and service in local self-government.
in addition, says the COP, the provision of article 318 of the criminal code cannot be regarded as a violation of the rights Podkopayeva in the specified aspect. So his complaint may not be p> answered for consideration, because not responding is enshrined in the law the criterion of validity.
Stories about how you tried to get help from the Russian state in terms of coronaries and what came of it, email it to COVIDemail@example.com