Denunciations did not help: the new court dismissed the case of eco-activist Tatyana Pavlova

Ivan Petrovsky

It's worth reminding that Novye Izvestia wrote twice about this, to put it mildly, absurd persecution of Tatyana Pavlova. In October 2021, she was punished with a large fine only because she came to a small meeting of residents of the village of Selyatino, where people discussed the possible cutting down of the Selyatinsky Forest, the only green area around the settlement.

The court session, which was led by federal judge Travkin, was held behind closed doors.

According to lawyer Veronika Polyakova, her client was fined 20,000 rubles, although they could have been imprisoned for ten days. At the same time, the judge refused to listen to defense witnesses and take into account the fact that the organizers of the meeting (and not the rally!) of the inhabitants of the village of Selyatino on October 9 were completely different people who were not going to hide this fact. And these citizens were ready to testify in court! But they, too, were not listened to and were not even allowed into the courthouse.

So the only reason for the cynical and absolutely unlawful decision was Tatyana Pavlova's many years of human rights work.

- I am very glad that justice has triumphed. - Tatyana Pavlova said today in an interview with NI. - Separately, I would like to note some interesting points.

The case was based on the testimony of four witnesses for the prosecution. And the judge wanted to question them. Therefore, the bailiffs tried to find them, but three of them could not be found. Addresses "left", phones too. They found only one Svetlana Derman from the village of Kalininets, who does not know me, in which social network she read about the event, she also does not remember, but she “remembers” well that after reading that the residents of Selyatino are holding a meeting and, “taking an active civic position”, immediately ran to write a statement to the police about the illegality of the event.

That is, a denunciation.

The most remarkable thing is that Madame Derman did not recognize her signature on one of the sheets of her testimony. That is, in one place, an unidentified person also signed for her.

In general, Svetlana Derman would like to say that participating in such things is an extremely thankless task. I will even omit the moral side of the issue, but I will note purely practically that it is not known what you can sign under in such cases or under what you will be signed!

The next witness is the police officer who drew up a protocol against me. The judge asked why he decided that I was the organizer of the event? To which she received an answer that only Pavlova can organize a protest event in the district in a quality manner. I should probably take that as a compliment, but as an insult to the people of the county.

In the case file there are testimonies of a bunch of people who recognized themselves as the organizers of the event , but the police did not care much about all this. It was just necessary to punish Pavlova. The details don't matter.

I liked the judge this time. She understands that environmental activists are people who defend the interests of the whole society. That is, by our actions we do not harm society, but help it. We started a small discussion about the observance of laws, and I noted that most often the authorities themselves push activists into the gray zone, ignoring their opinion.

And it seems to me important to say that if under the laws eco-activists who defend the right to a favorable environment are offenders, then this is not something wrong with eco-activists, but something is wrong with the laws.

However, Art. 20.2 purely political. This must be understood. Police officers have 10 days to appeal the decision, but let's hope that they understand that this case smells so bad that it is better to bury it in the archives.

I think that justice has triumphed, including thanks to those who helped make the case public and opposed my persecution. Thank you all for your support!