December 1 another court trial of the former state security lieutenant colonel, who excited a personal rebellion against FSB began in the town of Dmitrov. It seems, his rebellion has remained his personal affair. Only three people were present in the court room. Three journalists – representing the Grani.Ru Internet-newspaper, Prima-News Agency and Russia’s daily Kommersant. No one else.

The name of Mikhail Trepashkin became widely known in 1998 when he took part in a sensational press conference of the FSB officers who told about an order from above to kill Boris Berezovsky. One of the participants – Alexander Litvinenko shortly fled to the West, and Mikhail Trepashkin – by that time a member of taxation police – was fired. He became a defense lawyer, participated in the work of the Public Commission investigating the 1999 terrorist acts in Moscow and Volgodonsk (which is known as “Kovalev’s commission”), defended interests of the blasts victims. Applying his rich experience of operative work, he achieved interesting results in his investigation of the terrorist acts and found proofs that FSB was behind the blasts. Of course, he must have paid for it – a criminal case was opened against him on allegations of state secret disclosure. However, the charges were groundless and strained, and he wasn’t even taken into custody.

In October 2003 he was to act as a lawyer for the sisters of Morozovs, who lost mother in the terrorist act in Guryanova street in Moscow and decided to sue the authorities. Presenting their interests in court, Trepashkin intended to present his proofs of FSB being behind the organization of the terrorist act.

On October 22, road police stopped his car not far from a small town of Dmitrov near Moscow. Police searched his car and planted a gun on him. The gun was seized right away and Trepashkin sent to prison. The hearings of Morozovs’ case took place without their lawyer.

May 19, 2004, the Moscow district military court sentenced him for “disclosure of state secret” to 4 years in a colony-settlement. Those who are aware of the Russian court system understand: such light punishment under such serious charges can be given only if nothing proves the defendant’s guilt. However, Trepashkin wasn’t sent to a colony-settlement, where inmates are not kept in custody, they can meet their family members daily and can live a relatively free life. Instead, he was sent back to prison. Until a new sentence about the gun planted on him.

And the trial began on December 1. The witnesses interrogated on the first day ruined a weak structure of the prosecution. A road police officer who organized the search of Trepashkin’s car told the court with confusion that an anonymous “colleague” called him and warned about a gun. The eyewitnesses, who were presented there at that time and signed a proper protocol, said they hadn’t witnessed the moment of seizure. One of them stood behind Trepashkin’s car and saw the gun for the first time only in the hands of a policeman; another eyewitness – hadn’t left her car and a policeman demonstrated the gun to her through the windshield. An aide to the local prosecutor supporting the prosecution tried to keep cool and tried to make an impression that he had nothing to do with all the revealed flaws of the preliminary investigation.

Regardless of Trepashkin’s lawyer Yelena Liptzer appeal, he was left in custody. One could have hardly hoped for such a decision of today’s Russian “limp justice.” Nonetheless, Trepashkin looked cheerful, full of energy, he even tried to joke in his statements what caused the judge and the dullish state prosecutor – showing his severity – to smile. From time to time Trepashkin sadly looked at the court room where he saw only three journalists, a bailiff, a court employee and three of his guards.

The court trial was open. Anyone might have come. Including human rights activists who made up angry statements in support of political prisoner Mikhal Trepashkin; Russian and foreign correspondents; even Dmitrov’s residents feeling sympathy with the person persecuted for the truth; haunter’s of meetings, politicians, liberals and democrats might have arrived from Moscow. 90 minutes in a commuter train, 70 kilometers away from Moscow. No one came. Only three journalists who covered the trial for their publications.

What kind of society do we live in? Why did in Soviet times tens or even hundreds of people come to court buildings where political processes took place, and now no one has come? People used to support the-then defendants when it rained, sever colds, they faced a police cordon protecting the closed doors. Everyone understood how important it was for a defendant to know that behind police and Chekist lines there were his friends, suffering for him, thinking about possible court decisions – prepared and written down long ago. Everyone understood how important it was for a defendant to see familiar faces while walking from the court building to a police vehicle; to hear his name called out; to see flowers thrown over the police cordon. I know it from my personal experience. I know it from many other political prisoners. At that time all of us understood it.

What has happened to our society? What abyss has appeared between yesterday’s dissidents and today’s human rights activists? Today human rights activists organize numerous rallies where the right slogans are called out. They organize meetings at the Solovetsky stone where – among others – officials and former organizers of political processes speak out. They stage rallies together with today’s Komsomol members and activists of leftist organizations. The human rights activity has turned into a job. A routine job lacking inspiration and solidarity. Lacking the motion of soul, compassion and mutual understanding which would have never left a political prisoner in a court trial face to face with his judges and prosecutors.

Alexander Podrabinek/Prima News Agency