The Yoshkar-Ola Procuracy refuses to protect schoolboy's rights

Событие | Пресс центр

25 February 2013

The Yoshkar-Ola Procuracy refused to use its right to appeal to court for defense of rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of a 12-year old Aleksandr Kuznetsov, who as an under-age couldn’t go to the court himself. The deputy Prosecutor of Yoshkar-Ola Mr. Pavlov told the human rights defenders from the Committee against torture, that defending children’s rights and interests is entrusted to their parents.

(Mr. Pavlov, source)

It is recalled, that on July 20, 2012 Sasha Kuznetsov’s mother appealed for help to the office of IRPO “Committee against torture” in Mary El Republic. She informed the human rights defenders that about 1p.m. on March 12, 2012 in the building of Yoshkar-Ola secondary school №30 an officer of the Department of Federal Penal Service had illegally used violence against her son. Sasha Kuznetsov said that when he had come to school on March 12, 2012 he had seen his classmate’s father in uniform near the checkroom. There was nobody in the hall of the third floor as the lesson had already started. Sasha realized, that he came to “have it out” over his conflict with the classmate, that had happened several days before. In the talk the officer offended the boy with obscenities. Then he passed from words to deeds – twisted teenager’s ear and then hit him three times against the wall with the back of his head. And that was the end of the “rumble”. Sasha told his parents what had happened only when he came home in the evening, they went to the first-aid center right away. A doctor examined the victim there. As appears from the medical report Sasha Kuznetsov had: traumatic edema of the soft tissues of the occipital region and bruises on the left ear.

In April 2012 a criminal case was started on the fact of beating a schoolboy  based on the signs of a crime provided for by article 116 CC RF(“Beating”). On November 26, 2012 the Magistrate court of the magistracy №8 of Yoshkar-Ola delivered the guilty verdict for the Federal Penal Service officer; he was prescribed a 20 000 rubles fine as a punishment. The judgment didn’t come into force as the convict filed an appeal. The Yoshkar-Ola city court will start the proceedings on it on February 26.

In the course of a public inquiry the workers of IRPO “Committee against torture” found out that the Procuracy of Yoshkar-Ola had conducted a check based on the fact of improper carrying out of their functions by the staff of the secondary school; on its results the director received an admonition.

In the interests of the Kuznetsov family the lawyers of the Committee against torture filed an application for familiarizing with the check’s materials, but the Procuracy refused to give them. Then the human rights defenders appealed to the regulatory body again, this time they demanded bringing action against the school. The application emphasized the necessity of compensation of moral harm, inflicted to Sasha Kuznetsov due to improper functioning of the school staff – proper control over the people entering the educational institution wasn’t executed, personal safety of the pupils wasn’t secured.

But the deputy prosecutor of Yoshkar-Ola A.Y. Pavlov refused to stand up for the rights of an under-age. His explanation was that Sasha had parents and human rights defenders, he advised to let them go to the court. And the Procuracy shouldn’t react as it appears. The position looks at least quite strange, because the Procuracy puts obstacles in the way of the claimants protecting the violated rights of a minor, refusing access to the information on the check, that is essential for a statement of a claim.

Indeed the prosecutor according to the law(part1 article 45 Civil Procedure Code RF) doesn’t have to, but has a right to appeal to the court in defense of citizen’s interests, if the citizen can’t go to the court himself because of his age, or when protection of childhood or health is demanded.

We wanted to point out another thing. The realization of the prosecutor’s powers undoubtedly serves as a guarantee of protection of minors’ rights, shows that the state doesn’t pretend to, but really cares for children. We are convinced that the Procuracy should protect the rights of children on its own initiative. In this case the Procuracy preferred to dissociate itself from the case even after a public organization drew their attention to the necessity of such protection.

At present the lawyers of the Committee against torture are preparing a complaint to the answer of the deputy prosecutor of Yoshkar-Ola.