May it please the court, may it please the participants of the trial:
My colleagues have probably said it all. Let me add a few things. First of all, our defendants stand accused—I’m not talking about the formal charges, but speaking in general—of disorderly conduct and violating the rules observed in church. They are accused of perpetrating blasphemy and sacrilege, and although these words only partly come across in the indictment, everyone understands that the accusation pertains exclusively to them.
I would like to mention the so-called butterfly effect. Unfortunately, there are moments, when a point of no return is reached. Once the prosecution pursued a criminal procedure for an offense the defendants did not commit, we reached a point of no return, a butterfly effect.
Let’s go back a little. As our defendants have said, literally less than a year ago the group Pussy Riot was formed. The goal of this group was to bring across artistic forms of political protest to the broadest stratum of the public. They did this successfully. At first their fame was—let’s be honest—insignificant, with the exception of a narrow circle of sympathizers and followers of actionism in contemporary art who admired their creative work. But, thanks to television, thanks to the aid of mass media, thanks to the efforts of the government above all else, their activities became known to the entire world. There’s probably not a corner of the world that doesn’t know what the group Pussy Riot is.
The point of no return occurred at the moment when the decision was made to prosecute our defendants for the act, which, as my colleagues have rightfully discussed, was just a minor administrative offense. It’s true, the devout have been insulted. I, as a religious person, am insulted, although my opinion at this trial is not decisive. The performance at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior was probably a bit too much, even from an artistic point of view. But it is not a criminal offense and it cannot be considered one in principle, because we have a constitution. And here I would like to turn to the Constitution.
My colleagues, the opposing side, have already brought this up. Unfortunately, for some, the Constitution has become nothing more than letters written in a book. Unfortunately, our government, which is obliged to uphold the Constitution and to monitor that it is upheld by all of the citizens and people who reside in the territories of the Russian Federation, does not always observe it. There’s a growing sense that the Constitution has been forgotten. But this Constitution was adopted by our nation, which withstood tremendous suffering. It was adopted after more than seventy years of the Soviet system, the camps of the Gulag, the Patriotic War, the Great Patriotic War, and at the cost of the lives of millions of people, people who endeavored so that we, and our descendents, would live justly and with dignity.
The second half of Article 4 of the Constitution says that the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal law is supreme throughout the entire territory of the Russian Federation. The Constitution makes no exception. Its jurisdiction is absolutely the same in the home as it is in the street, the railway station, the mosque, and the cathedral. There are no exceptions. This means that even in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, the Constitution of the Russian Federation holds the same jurisdiction that it does in any other place, in the entire territory of the Russian Federation, from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok.
In addition, there is Article 13. What does it address? It says that the Russian Federation recognizes ideological diversity, and that means that a person may profess any ideological views as long as they do not contradict the Constitution. Even if it’s feminism, which is what our defendants spoke of. Feminism is not a blasphemous curse, as some people seem to think. Feminism is an ideology, and its believers have absolutely the same rights as believers of Russian Orthodoxy or Judaism or Communism. Absolutely the same rights, as long as they do not violate the Constitution. In this case, as we can see, the ideology of our defendants does not violate the Constitution.
Let’s continue. Article 14 of the Constitution says that the Russian Federation is a secular government and that no religion may be established as federal or compulsory. I fully support the outlook of those people who wrote this Constitution—our people. We live in a multinational, interfaith country. A very big country—the biggest country in this entire world. We know that in order for us to all get along, people must be able to have their own beliefs. People try to defend their beliefs. But in order for us to all to live together, we must have some core common value. And this core is precisely the principle of the secular, the principle that government remains equidistant from any and every religion and ideology.
Unfortunately, in recent times, the government has moved toward violating the Constitution. Preference is granted to certain religious figures. What might this lead to? It can have very bad consequences. It can lead to civil war. It can lead to the destruction of our government. I’m certain that not one reasonable person who lives in the Russian Federation wants this scenario.
Part 2 of Article 14 talks about how religious organizations are separate from the government and equal under the law. Not one religious organization can hold itself above the law or above any other religious organizations. But here too, unfortunately, very unpleasant exceptions do occur. I will once again return to the Constitution. We have repeatedly heard references made to various regulations—religious and church regulations. The Council of Trullo, the Council of Laodicea, and other decrees have been accepted as public organizations from a judicial point of view.
Part 3 of Article 15 says that laws are subject to official publication, that unpublished laws do not apply. Regulatory acts that affect the rights and freedoms of a citizen cannot be applied if the laws are not published officially for public knowledge.
Where can we see the published laws of the Council of Trullo? Why is it being referenced? Why isn’t the Constitution being referred to, while totally ancient regulations are? No doubt, these councils—these judicial, religious monuments—have a right to exist, and they belong with the research of specialists. The Code of Hammurabi, for example, in no way indicates how we should live now. According to this code, your hands should be cut off for theft. This does not correspond to our contemporary understanding of humanism, to our values.
We are on a serious course leading to the Code of Hammurabi. Why do we need the Constitution? In Article 19, the government guarantees equal rights and freedom to a person regardless of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, ownership of property and vocation, place of residence, religious orientation, or beliefs. Any form of restriction to the rights of the citizen on the basis of social, race, national, language, and religious association are forbidden.
We were told that every monastery has its own charter here. But we know that the Constitution should be applied to every territory in all of Russia. Undoubtedly, it’s necessary to respect those ceremonies, those traditions that exist in any religion. But, if you’ll allow me, why is there such a drastic differentiation between men and women, who are kept separate? Why are some allowed to walk in and practice certain observances in a specified place, but others are not? Yes, I understand, this matter touches on the inner workings of a religion. An agreement is reached within that society, which makes such customs possible. They agree, for example, that women don’t belong in certain places and men do. But what we have here isn’t a church trial; what we have here is secular. Our trial is being conducted according to secular laws . . .
Judge Syrova interrupts
. . . our trial is being conducted according to the Criminal Procedure Code, according to the Criminal Code. Let’s continue. We don’t have to go far. Everything’s written in the Constitution.
An individual’s human dignity is protected by the government. No one should be exposed to torture. We have already discussed torture. Torture is covered in the [Geneva] Convention under the protection of human rights but, unfortunately, torture was used here. Our defendants did not eat or drink; they were not allowed to sleep. What else can we call this but torture? Yes, it’s true that they weren’t strung up on a rack. Those days are over. But something tells me that it’s fully possible for time to turn back and soon racks will appear in the courtyards of quiet police detention centers. Why not?
Let’s talk about Article 28. Everyone is guaranteed the freedom of conscience, freedom of religious affiliation including the right to worship, either individually or together with other people, any religion, or to worship none, to choose freely, to possess and disseminate different religious beliefs and to act in accordance with them.
But what do we see here? A process is occurring whereby religious views are being imposed on a broad strata of society. Why is this being done? People should go to church only of their own volition. They shouldn’t be dragged there. Look at the circumstances in this case—not everyone wants to go there. People are starting to think: Why are we told one thing, but in reality something quite different is happening? People are told to forgive, to love, but in reality a prison sentence is demanded of those who have their own convictions. Why is this happening?
Article 44 is a good part of the Constitution. Everyone is guaranteed the freedom of literary, artistic, scientific, technical, and other forms of creative pursuits and their teachings. But what do we see? We have a punk band. Yes, these young ladies make music, they make art, they make action art. But at some point the government decided that they make it badly, and that it’s not permitted. That people like them should not be allowed out on the street. After all, we understand that the controversy does not pertain only to the situation in which the public order was violated in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. It’s very important to understand a principle of proportion here. Unfortunately, this principle of proportion in terms of crime and punishment is totally lacking. We see that for a minor offense, for violating the public order, the prosecution is demanding years, years of prison time. How is this possible? All of the victims, in one way or another, as they’ve said in their testimonies, were fulfilling what can be considered their duties or utilitarian responsibilities. No one was praying; there was no religious service at that moment. No one violated the order of prayer. Who are our victims? The candle seller, the alter boys, the guards. Well, there’s one citizen who came to buy icons, as he’s testified. But at that moment no one was praying. There is not one citizen among the witnesses who testified saying, I was praying, and Pussy Riot came along and disturbed my prayer. No, everyone was at work. Everyone was fulfilling their vocational obligations. Citizen Istomin came in to buy some icons, but he wasn’t praying either. He didn’t mention that fact. For this reason, how can it be said that their order was violated? Everyone was busy doing their jobs. Yes, someone couldn’t count money after it all happened. Yes, someone had intimations of difficulty with their moral compass, but no one testified to that. Everyone said, yes, there we were . . . No one even said that they felt sick afterward. They said, we’re morally insulted. Please forgive me, but an insult to the feelings of believers? That’s part of the administrative articles. It’s not a criminal offense. It’s not punishable by three years, which the prosecution is asking for. That’s impossible!
Let’s continue. The Constitution’s not finished yet.
Consider Article 48 of the Constitution. Everyone is guaranteed the right to receive qualified legal assistance. Our defendants and my colleagues have spoken of the fact that during this trial they were not permitted to confer in private. How can attorneys talk with their clients in the presence of guards, bailiffs, and that dog? How is it possible? We were told, please, come on Friday during the second half of the day, when the police detention center is closed. Yes, one our colleagues, Mark Zakharovich, managed to get in there, but that does not mean that our clients’ rights, as stipulated in the Constitution, were observed. It means that they threw us a bone: Well, go on, confer. So to say that the defense and our clients prepared for this trial is false. We neither slept nor ate. We prepared for this trial exceeding our resources because the government, the state, did everything to make sure that we were not prepared; they did everything to keep us from presenting our point of view. They did everything so that we could not present decisive arguments, ones that are admissible and accurate. But we’re here, and we are arguing.
Take Article 49 of the Constitution: irremediable uncertainty about the guilt of a person is determined in favor of the accused. In this case, the defendants.
This case is one big irremediable uncertainty. Nothing’s been proven. Nothing more than something theological. Nothing in actuality; no regulations have been cited. What did they violate? The rules of the Council of Trullo? But we’ve already determined that in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior just as in every territory of the Russian Federation, the rules of Council of Trullo do not apply. The Constitution of the Russian Federation holds jurisdiction, and these rules of the Council Trullo are a monument to jurisprudence and religion.
Article 55: the main rights and freedoms listed in the Constitution of the Russian Federation shall not be interpreted as the negation or detract from other generally recognized rights and freedoms of the person and the citizen. But this criminal case shows that there is a total negation of any and all human and civil rights when it comes to upholding the rights of our defendants. No rights are being observed. The fact that they are in the police detention center should in no way permit the state the right to mistreat, torture, demand a confession or repentance. They’ve apologized, and many of the victims have forgiven them. The majority of the victims, I would say, have forgiven them. Unfortunately, no one has asked my opinion, but as a religious person, I also forgive them, because our Lord Jesus Christ commanded precisely that we forgive and love, not pursue and prosecute.
The first Cathedral of Christ the Savior, the one that was demolished, existed as a monument to the Russian people who were victims of the Patriotic War of 1812. On the walls of that cathedral were the names of those who laid down their lives for our Motherland on the battlefield—at the Battle of Borodino, at Smolensk, and so on. The name of my own forefather was there—Prince Mikhail Vasilyevich Trutsky, General of the Russian Army. In contrast, the things that go on in this building now insult my feelings as a believer. Why are banquets and corporate parties held at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior? And how does that relate to the case of three women who stepped onto the ambo, who did not set foot in the altar because it would be a violation of church statute, punishable by three years? Why hasn’t the group Boney M., who wiggled around diabolically and sang obscene songs ten meters from the altar, been punished with three years? Why isn’t that happening? Why such discrimination? Because the former are foreigners, they can’t be prosecuted. They don’t speak out against Putin.
Our defendants have said that all their performances were developed within the framework of political protest. Those actions on trolleys, in the metro, at Lobnoye Mesto—all of that was within the framework of political protest. Yes, it goes without saying that the prosecution, that the court, don’t want to see the underlying political causes. This trial of ours has veered to the side of clerical interests, but why didn’t the investigation examine the history of the band? Why is the whole of its oeuvre being judged according to just one episode? Why did the investigation not study their performance at Lobnoye Mesto, or other places, their writings, what they sing about? They consistently bring across their position that no politics and no bureaucratic functionary may refute the interests of government. That they act in their own interests and that many people in this country do not like these turn of events. But denying the general, the investigation chooses the most particular, only that which fits in with the prosecution’s storyline. This selective argument cannot prevail. There must be objectivity in any case, but the investigation has no use for that. It is better to get on every television channel and talk about what blasphemers the defendants are than to realistically address the problems that our nation has amassed.
Well, what else can I say about the Constitution? Two more Articles—I won’t take much more of your time, respected court.
In Article 120 of the Constitution, judges shall be independent and are subordinated only to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal law. And in Article 123, the trial shall be conducted on an adversarial and impartial basis. Unfortunately, the way that our trial has been conducted has made me question whether that conduct was properly exercised. Blatant violations were allowed. My colleague Violetta Volkova already spoke in detail about the violations of the court in reviewing this case. A judge must remain objective, impartial, and independent. Every decision delivered by the judge is either a bargain made with conscience or the observance of the law. That’s why I ask the respected court to render a verdict governed exclusively by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal law.
I ask for full acquittal. Thank you.
— Nikolay Polozov