This case struck me by the way that someone had got completely entangled in a situation which was basically very simple. And all because the people who should have explained him what he needed to do, where to apply, how to fill out the forms etc., didn’t give him the proper attention. Despite the fact that he had obviously had a tragic experience and was in need of help.
In late May, in my capacity as State Duma deputy, I held one of my regular surgeries for voters in the town of Nizhnekamsk (Tatarstan). I was visited by a young man who had been wrongly convicted and had ended up in prison. He had suffered moral and financial loss, and now that he was out of prison had applied to the Nizhnekamsk city court for compensation (Article 111 Part 4 of the Russian Criminal Code). The court had refused to accept his claim on the grounds that he hadn't produced documentary evidence of the damages caused by his wrongful conviction (lawyer’s fees, food, money paid into his prison account by parents and relatives so that he could buy food etc.).
All these documents were with the lawyer who had handled the man’s original trial. By law, the lawyer should have kept the papers for 3 years, but he didn’t have them (?!). With great difficulty, the man managed to recover some of the documents and went back to the court. But the court refused him once more, this time on the grounds that the case was not within the jurisdiction of Nizhnekamsk city court. The young man was at a loss, and didn’t know what to do. And the lawyer was no help either.
He should, of course, have gone to the judge who had refused the case and asked him for an explanation - the judge is obliged to explain his decisions to anybody involved in a trial who doesn’t understand. So anyway, having lost all hope of getting any answers himself, the man made an appointment with the State Duma deputy for Nizhnekamsk – yours truly.
In response to my request the Chairman of the Nizhnekamsk city court explained to the young man that the defendant in his case was the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Tatarstan and that the action needed to be lodged in the district where the Ministry is based.
On 30 July the Supreme Court of Tatarstan vindicated the young man and ordered the Ministry of Finance to pay him 1.4 million roubles in material and moral damages. The decision was not accepted by the other party, however, and it went to appeal. In late September, there was another hearing, at which the Supreme Court upheld its earlier decision.