Secrecy and Impunity: A Case Study

The actions remained in the shadows of secrecy. Consequently, residents of Ryazan who suffered during the "operational measures" were unable to sue or seek fair compensation for the damage caused. No officials were named as personally responsible; instead, the public was confronted only with the abstract essence of the entire state apparatus.

Legal Proceedings in the Tverskoy Court

In the Tverskoy Court, Deputy Kovalev demanded two documents from the General Prosecutor's Office:
1. The prosecutorial decision refusing to initiate a criminal case against FSB officials involved in the exercises.
2. The decision of the UFSB for the Ryazan region regarding the initiation of a criminal case concerning the events in Ryazan.

The Tverskoy Court stated in its decision (dated February 4, 2003):

"In response to the specified appeals, the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, signed by deputy general prosecutors of the Russian Federation, provided written responses refusing to provide copies of the requested documents."

The court noted that these circumstances formed the basis for filing a complaint. In light of the entry into force of the GPC RF (Code of Civil Procedure), this complaint was framed as an application to recognize the actions of the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation as illegal.

Judicial Findings and Critique

The outcome of such complaints was predictable. Tverskoy Court judge A. Sevalkina decided:

"Since the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation found no grounds for providing copies of the requested documents, the refusal to provide these documents is lawful."

The general implication of this verdict is that if an official wishes to avoid accountability to society's representatives, they can choose to do so, limiting themselves to empty formal replies.

This decision was made despite the judge quoting verbatim the Federal Law "On the Status of a Member of the Federation Council and the Status of a Deputy of the State Duma...". Specifically, Part 2 of Article 17 of this law mandates:

"Upon the appeal of a member of the Federation Council or a deputy of the State Duma on issues related to their activities, officials of state authorities, local self-government bodies, public associations, and organizations shall immediately (and if additional materials are needed, no later than 30 days from the date of receipt of the appeal) provide a response to this appeal and provide the requested documents or information. At the same time, information constituting a state secret is provided in the manner established by the federal law on state secrets."

The court identified a seemingly invisible loophole in the law: the requirement to provide "documents or information." Exploiting this, the court observed:

"Based on the meaning of the law, it follows that the decision on whether to provide copies of documents or information in connection with the received appeal falls within the exclusive competence of the person possessing this information (documents) by virtue of their official duties."

This loophole allows any civil servant to effectively ignore deputy inquiries. The term "Information" is excessively broad. One can provide two or three words that convey nothing in response to specific questions, yet still qualify as "information." Furthermore, no one can prove that this situation is not a mockery of common sense.

Parallel Case in the Meshchansky Court

A similar situation unfolded in the Meshchansky Court, which reviewed a complaint against the FSB leadership—Director N. P. Patrushev and his first deputy V. E. Pronichev. The only difference was that the court session was closed to the public.