Russian “Justice”

The Russian justice system is not what Americans understand a justice system to be. It is a system that is corrupted, not independent, and meant to serve the objectives of the Executive Leadership, not Russia’s people.

EXCERPTS FROM THE U.S. Department of State’s Human Rights Report on Russia 2023:

Due Process:

“The law provided for an independent judiciary, but judges remained subject to influence from the executive branch, the armed forces, and other security forces, particularly in high-profile or politically sensitive cases, as well as to corruption. The outcomes of some trials appeared predetermined. Acquittal rates remained extremely low. In 2022, courts acquitted 0.33 percent of all defendants.” (Page 17)

“The law provided for the right to a fair and public trial, but executive interference with the judiciary and judicial corruption undermined this right. The defendant had a legal presumption of innocence and the right to a fair, timely, and public trial, but these rights were not always respected.” (Page 18)

Arbitrary arrests and detentions are prevalent. Arrests and prosecutions for political reasons, including against opposition candidates and opposition to the Ukraine war, are a norm:

While the law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention, authorities engaged in these practices with impunity. The law provided for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention, but successful challenges were rare. (Page 13)

There were reports of political prisoners in the country and that authorities detained and prosecuted individuals for political reasons. (Page 20)

Security officers use torture, abuse, and violence are regularly used with impunity, including to coerce confessions:

Although the constitution prohibited such practices, numerous credible reports indicated law enforcement officers and security forces engaged in torture, abuse, and violence to coerce confessions from suspects, and authorities only occasionally held officials accountable for such actions. (Page 8)

There were reports security services sometimes held detainees in incommunicado detention before officially registering the detention. This practice usually coincided with allegations of the use of torture to coerce confessions before detainees were permitted access to a lawyer. (Page 15)

Physical abuse of suspects by police officers reportedly was systemic and usually occurred within the first few days of arrest in pretrial detention facilities. Reports from human rights groups and former police officers indicated police most often used electric shocks, suffocation, and stretching or applying pressure to joints and ligaments because those methods were considered less likely to leave visible marks. (Page 8)

Impunity was a significant problem in the security forces. In most cases where law enforcement officers or other government officials were publicly implicated in human rights abuses, authorities denied internal and external requests for independent investigation and engaged in disinformation campaigns or other efforts to obfuscate such allegations (Page 10)

Interpretation and translation capabilities systemically are very poor:

Non-Russian defendants had the right to free interpretation as necessary from the moment charged through all appeals, although the quality of interpretation was typically poor. (Page 19)

Defense attorneys who are good can get removed by the judges, and others simply do not defend their clients from incompetence,  fear, or being in the pocket of the prosecution:

According to the Agora International Human Rights Group, it was common practice for judges to remove defense attorneys from court hearings without a legitimate basis in retaliation for their providing clients with an effective defense. (Page 17)

Detainees had trouble obtaining adequate defense counsel. While the law provided defendants the right to choose their own lawyers, investigators sometimes did not respect this provision, instead designating lawyers friendly to the prosecution. These “pocket” defense attorneys agreed to the interrogation of their clients in their presence while making no effort to defend their clients’ legal rights. (Page 15)

The law provided for the appointment of an attorney free of charge if a defendant could not afford one, although the high cost of legal service meant that lower-income defendants often lacked competent representation. A Yekaterinburg-based legal and human rights NGO indicated that many defense attorneys did not vigorously defend their clients and that there were few qualified defense attorneys in remote areas of the country. Defense attorneys could visit their clients in detention, although defense lawyers claimed authorities electronically monitored their conversations and did not always provide them access to their clients. (Page 18)