Mark Feygin, Attorney
President of the Russian Federation
I am addressing you due to the exceptional nature of the situation in which my defendant, Ukrainian officer and pilot Nadezhda [Nadiya] Savchenko, has found herself. She is accused of being involved in the deaths of the Russian journalists Voloshin and Kornelyuk, which occurred last summer  in eastern Ukraine.
Being her attorney, I held rational expectations for an unbiased and legitimate investigation. In my opinion, even a dimwitted law student can figure this case out – let alone the professional investigative group of the Russian Federation Investigative Committee. The case contains an overabundance of procedural material that would allow for making a substantiated conclusion about the role played by Ms Savchenko in the aforementioned events.
The defense provided the proof of innocence of Ms Savchenko who, at the time of death of the Russian journalists, had already spent an hour as prisoner of the Zarya battalion, which is engaged in combat operations against the government forces of Ukraine in Luhansk. Based on that, it would be feasible to conclude that Ms Savchenko is not involved in the deaths of the journalists.
Seven months is more than long enough to check the billing information of the defendant’s phone, verify the statements made by eyewitnesses, and conduct appropriate procedural measures. However, Ms Savchenko is still imprisoned.
Is it any wonder that such gross injustice resulted in Ms Savchenko’s election as a member of the Ukrainian Parliament, her delegation to PACE, and demands for her freedom made by governments, foreign services, and prominent politicians of a number of states? The latter view the persecution of Ms Savchenko as the punishment of a defiant Ukraine, personified. In the meantime, Russian investigators and courts regard freeing the innocent Ms Savchenko to be an unacceptable concession to the “punitive forces” [a pro-Russian collective moniker for Ukrainian forces]. When did valor and a sense of duty become deplorable qualities? Why does a soldier acting with dignity in the face of inevitable death deserve punishment? That was exactly the way she conducted herself when captured in Luhansk.
The above circumstances have forced Ms Savchenko to resort to a hunger strike, as a last-ditch measure to demand a fair and just investigation.
As I write this to you, she has been refusing food for 45 days. That is a long, a drastically long time. The frightening part is, that during my last conversation with her in prison, I clearly heard about her readiness to die. I am not exaggerating; you can easily find proof of my words if you inquire about the whole situation of the Service for Defense of Constitutional Order [and the Fight against Terrorism] of the FSB [Security Service] of the Russian Federation, the agency conducting operative support of the case.
What happens now? The words you said at the December 18, 2104 press-conference, answering a question about the fate of the defendant Ms Savchenko, brought about some hope for the “judicial resolution” of this case, done according to law. The very next trial held to appeal the arrest flushed those hopes down the toilet with a resounding noise.
We can, of course, keep listening to the standard “the court will clear this up,” but we are running out of time, at a catastrophic rate.
The court did not clear anything up about Ms Savchenko’s kidnapping; the court did not clear up the legitimacy of her arrest; the court did not clear up the charges. This creates an impression that in every resolution issued by various judicial authorities, instead of the reasoning and operative parts, only thunderous laughter sounds translating to “why are you even trying, you idiots?”
Let us imagine the impossible: you are my client, I am defending you, and you are looking at life in prison (for example). Imagine me, in powerless attempts to defend your right, appealing to the norms of law, shouting through the press – while your hated accuser indifferently repeats, “take it to court, take it to court.” But there is no court, only a Troika…
I appeal to you for the same things as before – for law and justice. It is a public case, extremely public, in fact, and there is no longer a secret way to “clean things up.” You, as a lawyer, are well aware of the old and trivial rule (one that was driven forever into my own head when I studied law): “When you don’t know what to do, do what the law says.”
You know perfectly well what to do…
Source: Mark Feygin FB