Complaints of International "Memorial" and HRC "Memorial" against Moscow Prosecutor's Office to be considered by court on May 24

Today, the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow has appointed on May 24 the consideration of the applications lodged by the International Society "Memorial" and the Human Rights Centre (HRC) "Memorial" and challenging the actions of the Moscow Prosecutor's Office when inspecting the above organizations.

On March 21, the Prosecutor's Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Tax Service inspected the office of the International Society "Memorial"; and an off-the-schedule inspection of the HRC "Memorial" was launched by the Moscow Prosecutor's Office with attraction of experts of the Ministry of Justice and the Tax Service on March 26. On March 29, the Prosecutor's Office was provided with the requested documents. The HRC "Memorial" has treated the decision of the Prosecutor's Office decision to hold the inspection and inspectors' actions as illegal, and on April 8, it turned to the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court with an application challenging the actions of the Moscow Prosecutor's Office.

Today, the officials of the Prosecutor's Office failed to appear at the court. By the outcomes of the preliminary hearing, Judge Yulia Varankina has appointed the consideration of the above complaints on May 24.

"On May 24, the court will consider not the results of the prosecutor's inspection, but the legality of the inspection as such," Alexander Cherkasov, Chair of the Board of the HRC "Memorial", has explained to the "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

"The Prosecutor's Office has no right to come at any time of the day or night and demand anything. Certain rules should be observed," Furqat Tishaev, the lawyer for the HRC "Memorial", has explained in his comment to the "Caucasian Knot" the reason for appealing at the court against the actions of the Prosecutor's Office.

It is also unknown, what the source of information about violations was, the lawyer said. According to his story, the Prosecutor's Office should have - in order to make inspection of a non-profit organization (NPO) - some information that the NPO is breaking the law. "We need to know what information had been received, and what the source thereof had been," said Furqat Tishaev.

"The HRC 'Memorial' was forced to divert its staff from their main job. In total, the inspection demanded involvement of the executive director and secretary for four days' and the Chairman of the Board, the chief accountant and two lawyers - for two days. The Centre was forced to change the programme of the workshop on the psychological aid to human rights defenders, which was also attended by foreign experts. Besides, at its own expense the 'Memorial' organized copying of documents, which entailed expenses on paper and toner. Thus, the rights of the HRC 'Memorial' were violated even before the prosecutor's intervention on the outcomes of the inspection," says the application sent to the court.

Besides, the application states the absence with the Prosecutor's Office of legal grounds for carrying out the inspection; the illegal composition of the staff of inspectors; and the uncertainty and disproportionality of the limits of the inspection.

According to the HRC "Memorial", the Prosecutor's Office had requested the documents that were available at other state bodies or were in the public domain; and this is contrary to the instructions of the General Prosecutor's Office (GPO) of the Russian Federation of August 8, 2011, No. 236/7 "On exclusion from the practice of prosecutors' supervision of facts of unjustified interference in the activities of bodies of state power, local self-government, other bodies and organizations".

The HRC "Memorial" is asking the court to recognize the decision of the Moscow Prosecutor's Office to conduct the inspection of the Centre and inspectors' actions at carrying out thereof unlawful, oblige the Prosecutor's Office to eliminate the violations and stop inspecting the HRC "Memorial".

The officials of the Prosecutor's Office not only failed to appear at the preliminary hearing, but also failed to submit the documents justifying the inspection, which were requested by the applicants, said Furqat Tishaev.