The case of Sergei Magnitsky. Reference. Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky

The Investigative Committee of Russia said that it would consider the statement of former Interior Ministry investigator Pavel Karpov, who, after showing a spy epic fake about Solomon and Freedom agents - Bill Browder and Alexei Navalny, respectively, on TV - filed a crime report. The bottom line is that the head of the Hermitage Foundation Browder ordered his lawyer Sergei Magnitsky himself. And the Investigative Committee, which had already investigated the circumstances of the painful death of Sergei Magnitsky in a pre-trial detention center and did it so successfully that, in fact, it did not identify the culprits, began to conduct the inspection again. And there is little doubt that a criminal case will be initiated. After all, even Magnitsky has already been tried - posthumously, in an infernal trial with an empty dock.

One can argue for a long time whether Sergei Magnitsky was a lawyer or an auditor, whether Browder is a shark of capitalism or a fighter for justice, who stole money from the budget, and whether the actions of the Hermitage Foundation constituted a tax crime.

But the circumstances that led to Magnitsky’s death are indisputable. He recorded them himself, in the neat handwriting of an excellent student.

We have already published excerpts from his prison diary and the complaints he filed.

Let us remind you today.

This document is irrefutable.

Reference

37-year-old lawyer Sergei Magnitsky was arrested in November 2008. Before his arrest, he was absolutely healthy; on November 16, 2009, he died. Diagnosis by prison doctors: “heart failure.”

In letters to lawyers and numerous petitions, he described in detail what was happening to him. In mid-summer 2009, Magnitsky was transferred to Butyrka. A month earlier, doctors at Matrosskaya Tishina discovered he had kidney stones. A diagnosis was made - “calculous cholecystitis”, although initially they talked about pancreatic necrosis. Doctors advised “surgery” and continuous treatment. In the absence of the necessary treatment conditions, such a diagnosis can be characterized by “severe cutting pain, turning into unbearable” and lead to necrosis of the pancreas (this is the diagnosis that Magnitsky’s lawyers were told in the pre-trial detention center).

Upon arrival in Butyrka, Magnitsky was denied a medical examination. In response to repeated written and oral appeals to the head of the Butyrka medical unit and the administration about the deterioration of his health, he was answered: “You will be released, get treatment there, no one here is obliged to provide you with anything.”

In August, his health deteriorated so much that he “couldn’t even lie down.” Nevertheless, he was still denied a routine medical examination, citing “problems with transport and convoy.” And the investigator, Major of Justice Silchenko, notified of the refusal to conduct an ultrasound, citing the fact that “the current legislation does not impose on the investigator the obligation to monitor the health status of suspects under investigation.”

He was denied all visits. He could not see his relatives and was practically left without contact with them: “letters were often lost,” meetings with lawyers were difficult. “Because of the huge queues, the lawyers never managed to get a meeting with me before 15.00, and usually I manage to meet with them at 16.00 or 16.30. At the same time, at 17.30, the pre-trial detention center employees begin to demand that the visits be stopped.”

Sergei Magnitsky has repeatedly written complaints and petitions to the Butyrka administration. From July to September alone, according to the report, there were fifty-three. Most of the complaints “were ignored.” Moreover, the more petitions there were, the more unbearable the conditions of detention became.

“On September 1, I filed a complaint about the lack of hot water,” writes Magnitsky, “on the same day I was transferred to cell No. 59, where the living conditions turned out to be much worse.”

For five months, according to his friends, Magnitsky was not given rest in any of the cells. “He didn’t even have time to unpack his things; he was immediately transferred to another cell with new criminals,” says one of his acquaintances.

On November 16, in extremely serious condition, Magnitsky was taken from Butyrka to the prison hospital of the Matrosskaya Tishina pre-trial detention center, where he died under still completely unclear circumstances. It is only known that he was not provided with adequate medical care, but a reinforced convoy of 8 people was called to the man dying in pain, who stayed with Magnitsky until his death, the doctors were absent, and the ambulance crew was not allowed into the pre-trial detention center for so long that in the end the arriving doctors could only confirm death.

The death certificate stated that Magnitsky died of toxic shock and acute heart failure. The “diagnosis” column indicates acute pancreatitis and closed craniocerebral injury. However, later, when the case was heard in the Tverskoy court, a representative of Matrosskaya Tishina presented an act in which there was no information about the injury.

According to lawyers, the main reason for the death of Sergei Magnitsky was the failure to provide necessary medical care and the monstrous conditions of detention.

Magnitsky's Diary

“During my stay at Matrosskaya Tishina, around June 2009, my health deteriorated. A medical examination carried out at the end of June - beginning of July 2009 revealed gallstones and inflammation of the pancreas, diagnosed me with the disease calculous cholecystitis, scheduled a repeat medical examination for the first days of August 2009 and planned surgical treatment. Before my detention, I did not have these diseases or their symptoms. The MT doctors provided me with medical care, gave me the necessary medications every day and gave me advice on how to obtain other medications that were not available in the MT medical unit and which I could get from relatives.

Upon arrival at BT ( Butyrka prison. — Ed.) I immediately, on July 26, 2009, turned to the administration with a written application to see me as a doctor, since on the day of admission to the BT the doctor did not examine me, although this is mandatory in accordance with the internal regulations (hereinafter: PVR), which regulate the activities of pre-trial detention centers.

Neither that day nor the following days the doctor saw me. On 08/09/09, I applied to be admitted by the head of the prison, indicating that my health was in danger. I received no response to this statement.

On 08/11/09, I again applied to be seen by a doctor, indicating that the deadline for the medical examination prescribed for me had long passed, but they never took me to the doctor and did not give me an answer to my application.

In addition to the above written statements, I have repeatedly orally addressed the paramedics during morning checks, who attend these checks once or twice a week, with questions about when I will be taken to see a doctor. The paramedics answered: “Write a statement. Already written? Then wait."

On 08/14/09 I submitted a written application with a request to transfer to me from my relatives the medications prescribed to me by the MT doctors. I did not receive a response to this application, so for a long time I did not know whether permission had been given to transfer the medicines and how my relatives could transfer them to me. I asked the paramedics twice if my application had been processed. The first time, the paramedic said he didn’t know. The second time he said that the head of the medical unit reviewed the application, but did not remember whether he authorized the transfer of medicines or not. As a result, I was able to receive the medicine only on 04/09/09.

On 08/24/09 my pain worsened so much that I could not even lie down. Then my cellmate started knocking on the door, demanding that I be taken to the doctor. It was approximately 16.00. The warden promised to invite a doctor, but he still did not appear, despite the repeated repeated demands of my cellmate. I was taken to the doctor only after 5 hours.

I informed the doctor about my illness and complained that during the whole month of my stay at the BT, I had never been examined by a doctor. The doctor was very unhappy, she leafed through my medical record and said: “What examination do you need? What treatment? Look, it says here that you have already been treated. What should I treat you with every month?” I asked if I needed diet food and what I needed to do to get it prescribed to me. The doctor said that she did not know that I should make an appointment with the surgeon and he would resolve this issue.

On 08/25/09 I wrote an application to see a surgeon to resolve the issue of my treatment and prescribe me dietary nutrition if necessary. Like all previous ones, this statement remained without any response.

On 08/26/09, the deputy head of the BT, including, as I understand it, the head of the medical unit, conducted a tour of the cells. I complained that I was not receiving medical care and that the prescribed medical examination was not being carried out. I was told that medical examinations are not carried out at BT, that there is no equipment. I tried to show the copy of the MT letter that I had, which indicated the disease identified in me and ordered an examination, but they didn’t even let me get this letter, saying: “You are delaying us.”

On 08/31/09, during a similar round, I was able to hand over the said letter, because some other boss, who was not there the previous time, agreed to listen to me on this issue. The head of the medical unit who was present was indignant: “Why is this paper in your hands? This information should not be with you, but in the medical record, but it is not there, how will we know that you are scheduled for a medical examination?”

I objected that, firstly, this information is in the medical record, it was read to me from the medical record itself by the doctor to whom I had an appointment on 08/24/09, and that, obviously, no one had read my medical record before , as I myself asked for this, but after reading it, I did not take any measures, and, secondly, I myself repeatedly over the course of a month submitted written applications for a doctor to see me, pointing out the prescribed medical examination, which has not yet been carried out, but, despite all my appeals, no measures were taken by the administration. The head of the medical unit promised to look into it, took the above-mentioned copy of the letter, said that the planned surgical treatment it refers to “is when you are released, no one here is obliged to provide you with it,” and left.

The next time I saw him was on 09/04/09, when he brought me medicines given by my relatives. He said that he wrote a report about transferring me to MT for the medical examination that was prescribed for me, and if the issue is resolved positively, I will be transferred there, but not earlier than in 3 weeks. I asked if it was possible to take me there for 1 day, because the examination only takes a few minutes (ultrasound). He replied that this was impossible due to problems with transport and convoy. However, when it becomes necessary to take me to court to extend the period of detention, such a problem usually does not arise.

Until now, I have not been provided with any medical assistance (except for permission to transfer medicines purchased by my relatives to me) in connection with the diseases identified in me at BT, despite the fact that I have already spent 8 weeks here and literally the next day after arriving here I applied for medical help.

“Yesterday, exactly a month after I was taken to Butyrka prison, I finally saw a doctor. This happened under the following circumstances.

On Sunday, August 23, 2009, while walking at approximately 16.30, I felt pain in the solar plexus, which usually accompanies attacks of intercostal neuralgia. The walk that day lasted up to an hour and a half instead of the usual hour, but there was a bench in the exercise yard, so I could lie down on it and endure the pain. After returning to the cell, I immediately took my medicine and went to bed. Despite this, the attack intensified, severe pain began in the region of the ribs on the back, so that at times it was only possible to bear it while squatting and bending over. The attack was accompanied by pain in the heart and the inability to breathe air deeply, as this intensified the already sharp pain in the solar plexus. About an hour later I took the medications again, but they didn't seem to give me any relief. By 20.00 my pain had gone away, I began to feel better, and my cellmate Eric and I even did a thorough cleaning of the cell. I felt fine that night and most of the next day.

On Monday, August 24, 2009, at approximately 16:00, Eric was taken to the investigator. Left alone in the cell, I lay down and tried to sleep, but then a new attack began with the same symptoms, so that I could not even lie down, but walked around the cell or squatted, bent over. I took the medicine again, but I didn’t feel any relief.

At 17.00 or 17.30 Eric returned and, seeing me in this state, called the warden and asked to call a doctor. The warden said that she called the doctor and he would come soon.

Half an hour later, Eric began knocking on the cell door again, but no one came. He repeated this attempt another half hour later; someone’s voices were heard outside the door; a male voice asked, “Which camera?” “267,” Eric answered. “I’ll be right there,” we heard, but after a while the voices died down and no one came to us.

My condition did not improve, and at about 9.00 pm Eric began knocking on the cell door again... After another half an hour, I was taken to the collection department, where, as it turned out, there was a doctor’s office. Only in five hours.

When I went there, there was a doctor sitting behind bars and a policeman standing... They told me to stand aside. It was hard for me to stand, and I squatted down... This lasted about a quarter of an hour. Finally, the doctor asked what happened to me. I described my pains, she said that it was probably me who had caught a cold in my back, but I explained that these pains were of a spasmodic nature, that I had had similar attacks before once every three to four months, how I treated them and that now They have been repeating for four days in a row, and the medications are not helping. The doctor said she would give me a stronger medicine and gave me three melocan tablets.

I also complained that I was not examined by a doctor upon arrival at the pre-trial detention center, that I repeatedly applied for an appointment with a doctor, but no one accepted me. He said that a medical examination was scheduled for me, but it was not being carried out. The doctor began to be indignant, took the medical card and said:

- How come they didn’t inspect this?! You were examined where you were brought from.

I said that in “Matrosskaya Tishina” they examined me, identified a disease, prescribed an examination, but here I have been for a whole month, and no one conducts this examination or prescribes treatment. The doctor leafed through my card and was indignant:

— When were you brought? Just a month ago? Do you want to be treated every month? I see that you have already been treated, it is written that you were seen by a surgeon, that you were given Baralgin and Mezim. But we have no opportunities, no equipment, no doctors, you should have been treated in freedom.

“When I was free, I didn’t have any pain; I was diagnosed with inflammation of the pancreas and gallstones in Matrosskaya Tishina; I got these diseases while already in prison.

- Don't tell stories. Here it is written: “in the anamnesis” the surgeon writes, which means it happened before.

“I don’t know what a “history” means; the doctor who examined me at Matrosskaya Tishina actually asked me whether I had had these diseases before, whether I had been examined for them, and whether I had received treatment. I then answered these questions to him in the negative. Okay, what treatment do I need now for these diseases and what should I do to get it?

- I don’t know, write a statement so that the surgeon can see you. There are no doctors in the building, but the surgeon is still left...

- Ok, I will write. Give me a sleeping pill, diphenhydramine, or give me an injection, otherwise I’m afraid that I won’t be able to sleep from this pain.

“We don’t have such drugs, it’s only in psychiatry.”

After that I was returned to my cell. I took the pill the doctor gave me. The pain not only did not subside, but even intensified, perhaps due to the fact that I had to walk back and forth and even stand there in front of this doctor. Half an hour later I was vomiting, accompanied by severe pain in my chest and back, but immediately after that I seemed to feel better. I lay down on the bed, the pain was still there, but not so acute.

I talked with Eric, it distracted me, and after an hour and a half I managed to fall asleep.

When I woke up in the morning, I felt fine. I wrote a statement to the surgeon and now I’m writing this letter, hoping that I won’t have a new attack this evening or at night.”

Like all previous ones, this statement remained without any response.

From the complaint prepared to the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Investigative Committee, dated September 20, 2009:

Until now, I have not been provided with any medical assistance (except for permission to transfer medications purchased by my relatives to me) in connection with the diseases identified in me at BT, despite the fact that I have already spent 8 weeks here and literally the next day after arriving here I applied for medical help.

I was not given the prescribed medical examination, I did not receive any consultations about my illness, I was not seen by a surgeon, not only was I not prescribed dietary nutrition, but the question of whether I needed it or not was not even considered.

About the conditions of detention

On July 25, 2009, I was transferred from FBU Pre-trial Detention Center-1 of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia (hereinafter: “Matrosskaya Tishina” or MT) to FBU IZ-77/2 of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in Moscow (hereinafter: “Butyrskaya Prison” or BT).

No. 267 - from 07/25/09 to 09/01/09 - a cell with an area of ​​​​about 10.8 m 2, at the same time 2 more people were kept with me for 1 day, then I spent one day alone, after which the rest of the time There was another person kept with me, in a cell with 4 beds.

No. 59 - from 01/09/09 to 08/09/09, a cell with an area of ​​about 8.2 m2, 3 other people were kept with me at the same time, there were 4 beds in the cell.

No. 35 - from 08/09/09 to 10/09/09, a cell with an area of ​​​​about 10.1 m2, 2 more people were kept with me at the same time, there were 6 beds in the cell.

No. 61 - from 10/09/09 to the present, a cell with an area of ​​​​about 8.2 m2, two more people are kept with me at the same time (one day there were 3 more people), there are 4 beds in the cell.

The toilet in all the BT cells where I was kept is simply a hole in the floor in the corner of the cell, above which there is a brick raised platform with the so-called built into it. floor bowl. These floor bowls are so dirty that they are terrible to look at (a brush for cleaning them is not provided, it is not sold in the BT store, you can receive it as a gift from relatives only with special permission from the head of BT or his deputy). And if in cell No. 267 we managed to clean this floor bowl, then in all other cells it was not possible.

In cell No. 267, water was gushing from the floor bowl so strongly that after using the toilet you had to wash your feet, but, in any case, the toilet was fenced off from the rest of the cell by a brick partition 1.5-1.7 m high. In other cells, such a partition did not have. In order to use the toilet out of sight of everyone, we have to cover it with the sheets we were given, which are then, of course, impossible to use as bed linen.

To prevent the toilet from stinking, we once made a stopper from a plastic cup of porridge and plugged the hole with it. The next morning it turned out that a hole the size of a medium-sized apple had been gnawed in the glass, and the porridge from the glass had been eaten by rats, which, apparently, were running freely through the sewer. It is surprising that they do not crawl out of it into the cell, but I have seen these rats repeatedly running along the corridor and at night their squeaks can often be heard.

The distance between the toilet and all beds of prisoners in cells No. 59 and 61 is no more than 1 meter. In other cells, some of the beds were further away.

In cells 59 and 61, the only sockets are located directly above the toilet. Therefore, you have to boil water by holding the kettle in your hands over the floor bowl, and in order to heat water for washing in a bucket, you have to place it directly on the raised platform in which the floor bowl is located, since putting the bucket in another place does not allow the insufficiently long cord of the boiler.

In cell No. 59 on the evening of 09/08/09, sewage water began to rise in the floor bowl. It didn’t pour onto the floor, but, as I know, the neighboring cell No. 60 was flooded. That same evening we were transferred to cell No. 35. In cell No. 35 there was no glass in the windows, the walls were damp. We didn't pay attention to it at first, but the next day the reason for the dampness became clear. At about noon, sewer water began flowing into the cell from a drain under the sink, which quickly flooded half the floor of the cell. We asked to call a plumber, but he only arrived at 10:00 p.m. and was unable to fix the problem. We asked to be transferred to another cell, but we were told to remain where we were until the morning. The next morning the plumber did not come, so by evening the entire floor of the cell was flooded with sewer water in a layer of several centimeters. It was no longer possible to walk on the floor, so we moved around the cell, climbing on the beds like monkeys. The plumber arrived only at 22.00, he fiddled for a long time, but could not fix anything. Both the plumber and the supervisor who brought him were indignant at the conditions in which we had to be. We asked to be transferred to another cell, but the guard could not do this without the permission of some superior. Permission was received only at 23.00, after which we were transferred to cell No. 61, that is, 35 hours after cell No. 35 was flooded with sewer water.

In cell No. 35 there was no glass in the window frames. We filed a complaint about this on 09/09/09, but did not receive a response. Cell No. 61 didn't even have window frames. On 09/11/09 I submitted an application in which I asked to install frames with glass. Because of the cold in the cell, I had to sleep in my clothes, covered with a blanket and jacket, but the frames were not installed. On 09/18/09 we filed a complaint that due to the lack of window frames and the resulting cold, we all caught a cold, and it was only on 09/19/09 that the window frames were finally inserted. But, as it turned out, the frames were not double-glazed, but single-glazed. For September weather this is acceptable, but with the onset of cold weather such windows will not save you from frost.

Participation in court hearings

During my stay in BT, I was taken to court four times to participate in court hearings, and each time such a departure was accompanied by the fact that I was subjected to cruel treatment bordering on torture.

You are notified of going to court late in the evening or even at night on the day before the hearing. They are not notified at all about the subject of the meeting, what issue will be considered, what case will be decided, so I usually found out about this only after I was taken to court. It is, of course, impossible to effectively prepare for a court hearing in such conditions.

They are taken out of the cells at 7.00-7.30, that is, before breakfast. Then they are kept in the cells of the prison’s assembly section until 9.00–10.00, after which they are sent to court. To transport prisoners, vehicles with compartments approximately 3.2 m long, 1.2 m wide and about 1.5 m high are used. In such a compartment, which, as the guards say, is designed to transport 15 people, up to 17-18 people are placed, so that some have to ride standing, bent in an uncomfortable position. The journey from prison to court usually takes about an hour, but one day I had to spend 1 hour in such a car in the morning and about 4.5 hours in the evening, because the car from the court did not go directly to the prison, but stopped at other courts, to pick up prisoners from there.

On the days when prisoners are taken to court, they are given dry rations, but it is impossible to use them, since in court prisoners are not given boiling water necessary for brewing dry soups or cereals included in the ration. The court guards claim that they do not have a kettle, but I saw a kettle in the court guard room. On 08/13/09 I sent a complaint to the chairman of the Tverskoy Court of Moscow that they did not provide boiling water. I have not received a response to this complaint. On 09/14/09 at the court I was not given boiling water again.

A car with prisoners usually arrives at the prison in the evening at 19.00-19.30, but usually they don’t let them out of the car until 20.00, they say that they are preparing documents.

Arriving prisoners are not immediately taken to their cells, but are kept in the cells of the assembly section for 3-3.5 hours, so I never got into a cell before 11 p.m.

A prefabricated cell with an area of ​​20-22 m2 without windows and forced ventilation can accommodate 70 people, so there is not only nowhere to sit, but also nowhere to stand. Many of the prisoners in the holding cell smoke, making it very difficult to breathe without ventilation. These cells have toilets, but in most of them they are not separated from the main room of the cell, so rarely anyone uses them. Some cells have taps with running water, but it is impossible to drink it without boiling it.

Since prisoners get to their cells after the trial only at night, they, of course, do not receive a hot dinner that day. As a result, it turns out that the time that passes between meals of hot food can be 38 hours (from 11.00 the previous court day, when the prisoner receives dinner, until 8.00 the next day, when breakfast is given). And if court hearings last for several days in a row, then this interval between hot meals may increase even more.

On September 14, 2009, during the court hearing, I pointed this out to Judge Krivoruchko and asked to be given the opportunity to receive hot food before the start of the court hearing, but the judge refused me this, citing the fact that this was not the responsibility of the court.

Taking into account the above circumstances, it turns out that people are being tried hungry, sleep-deprived, exhausted from being kept in cells in the prefabricated section of the prison and being transported in prisoner cars, which especially affects those who have to participate in court hearings for several days in a row. It is, of course, impossible to effectively defend yourself in court under such circumstances. I heard from many prisoners that they would rather agree to a trial without their participation than to suffer so much on the days when they are taken to court.

From a letter dated August 10:“One prisoner was placed in a solitary compartment (there were two of them in the car). He was asked why he was imprisoned separately, whether it was because he was a former police officer. He replied that no, but they put him in prison separately because he had tuberculosis. However, then they brought in another person, who was probably a former employee, then the patient with tuberculosis was transferred to the general ward, and the former employee took his place.”

From a letter to a lawyer dated 08/08/09:“I inform you of the circumstances related to my delivery to the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow on August 6, 2009.

... On August 6, I was taken to court and immediately asked the court escort service employee to hand over to the judge a written request I had prepared in advance to familiarize myself with the case materials at least an hour and a half before the start of the court hearing. The officer refused to submit the petition to the judge and said that I could only make such a petition directly at the court hearing and that in the guard room where I was kept there was no opportunity to familiarize myself with the case materials provided by the Investigative Committee at the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Nevertheless, after some time they brought me the case materials. I got acquainted with them while sitting on a bench in the corridor of the guard room. At the same time, I was not provided with a table, which made it very difficult to make the necessary extracts from the materials... It should be noted that the notice from Judge Podoprigorov mentioned above does not indicate either the date of my complaint or what actions I appealed. Taking into account this, there are currently three complaints filed by me and still not considered by the court against the actions of officials of the Investigative Committee at the Ministry of Internal Affairs (dated 18.06, 04.07 and 23.07.09), I still do not know exactly which of my complaints will be considered was appointed... However, the case materials were never provided to me in full. I spent the whole day in the guard room of the court. During all this time, I and other prisoners were not given the opportunity to receive hot meals. At approximately 18.30, an escort service officer appeared in the guard cell and told everyone to get ready to be taken back to the pre-trial detention center. He said that there would be no meeting that day, and the hearing was postponed to 08/10/09. I was not given any document confirming that I was taken to court or that the hearing was postponed.

After that, we were taken to the Presnensky court building, where we were asked to move to another car. In the compartment of the second car there were already so many prisoners that there was not even room to stand... Then I was placed in another compartment of the same car, where it was freer, but still very cramped...

We were brought to the pre-trial detention center at approximately eight o'clock in the evening. I, like many who were with me, hoped that we would soon be taken to our cells, so that we could finally get hot food and tea and go to the toilet, but all of us, about 20 people, were placed in a cell in the assembly section, where We stayed for an hour at first. This cell is about 22 meters in area, without windows, without forced ventilation... There was a floor vase in the cell, but it was not separated by a floor partition, so no one dared to go to the toilet there. There is no water tap in this cell. Since many people started smoking, it soon filled with clouds of smoke, so that my head began to hurt and my eyes began to water. We knocked on the cell door, but no one came for a long time. Finally, some prison officer came and said that we would soon be taken to our cells. After another half hour, the locks rattled, and I heard the cell door opening, but instead of taking us out of the cell, at least 20 people were brought into it. Almost all of them immediately began to smoke, so that they could hardly breathe. In total, there were at least 40 people in the cell by that time, most of them had to stand. We spent about another hour and a half like this until we were finally taken to our cells...

In general, it can be worse: 70 or 80 people on 21 square meters for about an hour and a half. Here, apparently, this is considered the norm... I got into my cell only at half past eleven.

I can’t imagine how, under such conditions, it’s possible to go to court every day, participate in hearings, defend oneself, without receiving, for many days while the trial is going on, adequate food, hot drinks, or the opportunity to sleep enough time to recuperate.

Justice in such conditions turns into a process of grinding human meat into mince for prisons and camps. A process in which a person can neither effectively defend himself nor even realize what is happening to him, thinking only about when it will all finally end, when he can get rid of this physical and emotional torture and end up in a camp ( no one hopes to be acquitted by the court, they say that in our courts there are no more than 2% of acquittals), where the degree of suffering to which a person is exposed while serving a sentence, as many here say, turns out to be less than you, who have not yet been found guilty a person is subjected here while being pulled through this meat grinder.”

The Investigative Committee of Russia said that it would consider the statement of former Interior Ministry investigator Pavel Karpov, who, after showing a spy epic fake about Solomon and Freedom agents - Bill Browder and Alexei Navalny, respectively, on TV - filed a crime report. The bottom line is that the head of the Hermitage Foundation Browder ordered his lawyer Sergei Magnitsky himself. And the Investigative Committee, which had already investigated the circumstances of the painful death of Sergei Magnitsky in a pre-trial detention center and did it so successfully that, in fact, it did not identify the culprits, began to conduct the inspection again. And there is little doubt that a criminal case will be initiated. After all, even Magnitsky has already been tried - posthumously, in an infernal trial with an empty dock.

One can argue for a long time whether Sergei Magnitsky was a lawyer or an auditor, whether Browder is a shark of capitalism or a fighter for justice, who stole money from the budget, and whether the actions of the Hermitage Foundation constituted a tax crime.

But the circumstances that led to Magnitsky’s death are indisputable. He recorded them himself, in the neat handwriting of an excellent student.

We have already published excerpts from his prison diary and the complaints he filed.

Let us remind you today.

This document is irrefutable.

Reference

37-year-old lawyer Sergei Magnitsky was arrested in November 2008. Before his arrest, he was absolutely healthy; on November 16, 2009, he died. Diagnosis by prison doctors: “heart failure.”

In letters to lawyers and numerous petitions, he described in detail what was happening to him. In mid-summer 2009, Magnitsky was transferred to Butyrka. A month earlier, doctors at Matrosskaya Tishina discovered he had kidney stones. A diagnosis was made - “calculous cholecystitis”, although initially they talked about pancreatic necrosis. Doctors advised “surgery” and continuous treatment. In the absence of the necessary treatment conditions, such a diagnosis can be characterized by “severe cutting pain, turning into unbearable” and lead to necrosis of the pancreas (this is the diagnosis that Magnitsky’s lawyers were told in the pre-trial detention center).

Upon arrival in Butyrka, Magnitsky was denied a medical examination. In response to repeated written and oral appeals to the head of the Butyrka medical unit and the administration about the deterioration of his health, he was answered: “You will be released, get treatment there, no one here is obliged to provide you with anything.”

In August, his health deteriorated so much that he “couldn’t even lie down.” Nevertheless, he was still denied a routine medical examination, citing “problems with transport and convoy.” And the investigator, Major of Justice Silchenko, notified of the refusal to conduct an ultrasound, citing the fact that “the current legislation does not impose on the investigator the obligation to monitor the health status of suspects under investigation.”

He was denied all visits. He could not see his relatives and was practically left without contact with them: “letters were often lost,” meetings with lawyers were difficult. “Because of the huge queues, the lawyers never managed to get a meeting with me before 15.00, and usually I manage to meet with them at 16.00 or 16.30. At the same time, at 17.30, the pre-trial detention center employees begin to demand that the visits be stopped.”

Sergei Magnitsky has repeatedly written complaints and petitions to the Butyrka administration. From July to September alone, according to the report, there were fifty-three. Most of the complaints “were ignored.” Moreover, the more petitions there were, the more unbearable the conditions of detention became.

“On September 1, I filed a complaint about the lack of hot water,” writes Magnitsky, “on the same day I was transferred to cell No. 59, where the living conditions turned out to be much worse.”

For five months, according to his friends, Magnitsky was not given rest in any of the cells. “He didn’t even have time to unpack his things; he was immediately transferred to another cell with new criminals,” says one of his acquaintances.

On November 16, in extremely serious condition, Magnitsky was taken from Butyrka to the prison hospital of the Matrosskaya Tishina pre-trial detention center, where he died under still completely unclear circumstances. It is only known that he was not provided with adequate medical care, but a reinforced convoy of 8 people was called to the man dying in pain, who stayed with Magnitsky until his death, the doctors were absent, and the ambulance crew was not allowed into the pre-trial detention center for so long that in the end the arriving doctors could only confirm death.

The death certificate stated that Magnitsky died of toxic shock and acute heart failure. The “diagnosis” column indicates acute pancreatitis and closed craniocerebral injury. However, later, when the case was heard in the Tverskoy court, a representative of Matrosskaya Tishina presented an act in which there was no information about the injury.

According to lawyers, the main reason for the death of Sergei Magnitsky was the failure to provide necessary medical care and the monstrous conditions of detention.

Magnitsky's Diary

“During my stay at Matrosskaya Tishina, around June 2009, my health deteriorated. A medical examination carried out at the end of June - beginning of July 2009 revealed gallstones and inflammation of the pancreas, diagnosed me with the disease calculous cholecystitis, scheduled a repeat medical examination for the first days of August 2009 and planned surgical treatment. Before my detention, I did not have these diseases or their symptoms. The MT doctors provided me with medical care, gave me the necessary medications every day and gave me advice on how to obtain other medications that were not available in the MT medical unit and which I could get from relatives.

Upon arrival at BT ( Butyrka prison. — Ed.) I immediately, on July 26, 2009, turned to the administration with a written application to see me as a doctor, since on the day of admission to the BT the doctor did not examine me, although this is mandatory in accordance with the internal regulations (hereinafter: PVR), which regulate the activities of pre-trial detention centers.

Neither that day nor the following days the doctor saw me. On 08/09/09, I applied to be admitted by the head of the prison, indicating that my health was in danger. I received no response to this statement.

On 08/11/09, I again applied to be seen by a doctor, indicating that the deadline for the medical examination prescribed for me had long passed, but they never took me to the doctor and did not give me an answer to my application.

In addition to the above written statements, I have repeatedly orally addressed the paramedics during morning checks, who attend these checks once or twice a week, with questions about when I will be taken to see a doctor. The paramedics answered: “Write a statement. Already written? Then wait."

On 08/14/09 I submitted a written application with a request to transfer to me from my relatives the medications prescribed to me by the MT doctors. I did not receive a response to this application, so for a long time I did not know whether permission had been given to transfer the medicines and how my relatives could transfer them to me. I asked the paramedics twice if my application had been processed. The first time, the paramedic said he didn’t know. The second time he said that the head of the medical unit reviewed the application, but did not remember whether he authorized the transfer of medicines or not. As a result, I was able to receive the medicine only on 04/09/09.

On 08/24/09 my pain worsened so much that I could not even lie down. Then my cellmate started knocking on the door, demanding that I be taken to the doctor. It was approximately 16.00. The warden promised to invite a doctor, but he still did not appear, despite the repeated repeated demands of my cellmate. I was taken to the doctor only after 5 hours.

I informed the doctor about my illness and complained that during the whole month of my stay at the BT, I had never been examined by a doctor. The doctor was very unhappy, she leafed through my medical record and said: “What examination do you need? What treatment? Look, it says here that you have already been treated. What should I treat you with every month?” I asked if I needed diet food and what I needed to do to get it prescribed to me. The doctor said that she did not know that I should make an appointment with the surgeon and he would resolve this issue.

On 08/25/09 I wrote an application to see a surgeon to resolve the issue of my treatment and prescribe me dietary nutrition if necessary. Like all previous ones, this statement remained without any response.

On 08/26/09, the deputy head of the BT, including, as I understand it, the head of the medical unit, conducted a tour of the cells. I complained that I was not receiving medical care and that the prescribed medical examination was not being carried out. I was told that medical examinations are not carried out at BT, that there is no equipment. I tried to show the copy of the MT letter that I had, which indicated the disease identified in me and ordered an examination, but they didn’t even let me get this letter, saying: “You are delaying us.”

On 08/31/09, during a similar round, I was able to hand over the said letter, because some other boss, who was not there the previous time, agreed to listen to me on this issue. The head of the medical unit who was present was indignant: “Why is this paper in your hands? This information should not be with you, but in the medical record, but it is not there, how will we know that you are scheduled for a medical examination?”

I objected that, firstly, this information is in the medical record, it was read to me from the medical record itself by the doctor to whom I had an appointment on 08/24/09, and that, obviously, no one had read my medical record before , as I myself asked for this, but after reading it, I did not take any measures, and, secondly, I myself repeatedly over the course of a month submitted written applications for a doctor to see me, pointing out the prescribed medical examination, which has not yet been carried out, but, despite all my appeals, no measures were taken by the administration. The head of the medical unit promised to look into it, took the above-mentioned copy of the letter, said that the planned surgical treatment it refers to “is when you are released, no one here is obliged to provide you with it,” and left.

The next time I saw him was on 09/04/09, when he brought me medicines given by my relatives. He said that he wrote a report about transferring me to MT for the medical examination that was prescribed for me, and if the issue is resolved positively, I will be transferred there, but not earlier than in 3 weeks. I asked if it was possible to take me there for 1 day, because the examination only takes a few minutes (ultrasound). He replied that this was impossible due to problems with transport and convoy. However, when it becomes necessary to take me to court to extend the period of detention, such a problem usually does not arise.

Until now, I have not been provided with any medical assistance (except for permission to transfer medicines purchased by my relatives to me) in connection with the diseases identified in me at BT, despite the fact that I have already spent 8 weeks here and literally the next day after arriving here I applied for medical help.

“Yesterday, exactly a month after I was taken to Butyrka prison, I finally saw a doctor. This happened under the following circumstances.

On Sunday, August 23, 2009, while walking at approximately 16.30, I felt pain in the solar plexus, which usually accompanies attacks of intercostal neuralgia. The walk that day lasted up to an hour and a half instead of the usual hour, but there was a bench in the exercise yard, so I could lie down on it and endure the pain. After returning to the cell, I immediately took my medicine and went to bed. Despite this, the attack intensified, severe pain began in the region of the ribs on the back, so that at times it was only possible to bear it while squatting and bending over. The attack was accompanied by pain in the heart and the inability to breathe air deeply, as this intensified the already sharp pain in the solar plexus. About an hour later I took the medications again, but they didn't seem to give me any relief. By 20.00 my pain had gone away, I began to feel better, and my cellmate Eric and I even did a thorough cleaning of the cell. I felt fine that night and most of the next day.

On Monday, August 24, 2009, at approximately 16:00, Eric was taken to the investigator. Left alone in the cell, I lay down and tried to sleep, but then a new attack began with the same symptoms, so that I could not even lie down, but walked around the cell or squatted, bent over. I took the medicine again, but I didn’t feel any relief.

At 17.00 or 17.30 Eric returned and, seeing me in this state, called the warden and asked to call a doctor. The warden said that she called the doctor and he would come soon.

Half an hour later, Eric began knocking on the cell door again, but no one came. He repeated this attempt another half hour later; someone’s voices were heard outside the door; a male voice asked, “Which camera?” “267,” Eric answered. “I’ll be right there,” we heard, but after a while the voices died down and no one came to us.

My condition did not improve, and at about 9.00 pm Eric began knocking on the cell door again... After another half an hour, I was taken to the collection department, where, as it turned out, there was a doctor’s office. Only in five hours.

When I went there, there was a doctor sitting behind bars and a policeman standing... They told me to stand aside. It was hard for me to stand, and I squatted down... This lasted about a quarter of an hour. Finally, the doctor asked what happened to me. I described my pains, she said that it was probably me who had caught a cold in my back, but I explained that these pains were of a spasmodic nature, that I had had similar attacks before once every three to four months, how I treated them and that now They have been repeating for four days in a row, and the medications are not helping. The doctor said she would give me a stronger medicine and gave me three melocan tablets.

I also complained that I was not examined by a doctor upon arrival at the pre-trial detention center, that I repeatedly applied for an appointment with a doctor, but no one accepted me. He said that a medical examination was scheduled for me, but it was not being carried out. The doctor began to be indignant, took the medical card and said:

- How come they didn’t inspect this?! You were examined where you were brought from.

I said that in “Matrosskaya Tishina” they examined me, identified a disease, prescribed an examination, but here I have been for a whole month, and no one conducts this examination or prescribes treatment. The doctor leafed through my card and was indignant:

— When were you brought? Just a month ago? Do you want to be treated every month? I see that you have already been treated, it is written that you were seen by a surgeon, that you were given Baralgin and Mezim. But we have no opportunities, no equipment, no doctors, you should have been treated in freedom.

“When I was free, I didn’t have any pain; I was diagnosed with inflammation of the pancreas and gallstones in Matrosskaya Tishina; I got these diseases while already in prison.

- Don't tell stories. Here it is written: “in the anamnesis” the surgeon writes, which means it happened before.

“I don’t know what a “history” means; the doctor who examined me at Matrosskaya Tishina actually asked me whether I had had these diseases before, whether I had been examined for them, and whether I had received treatment. I then answered these questions to him in the negative. Okay, what treatment do I need now for these diseases and what should I do to get it?

- I don’t know, write a statement so that the surgeon can see you. There are no doctors in the building, but the surgeon is still left...

- Ok, I will write. Give me a sleeping pill, diphenhydramine, or give me an injection, otherwise I’m afraid that I won’t be able to sleep from this pain.

“We don’t have such drugs, it’s only in psychiatry.”

After that I was returned to my cell. I took the pill the doctor gave me. The pain not only did not subside, but even intensified, perhaps due to the fact that I had to walk back and forth and even stand there in front of this doctor. Half an hour later I was vomiting, accompanied by severe pain in my chest and back, but immediately after that I seemed to feel better. I lay down on the bed, the pain was still there, but not so acute.

I talked with Eric, it distracted me, and after an hour and a half I managed to fall asleep.

When I woke up in the morning, I felt fine. I wrote a statement to the surgeon and now I’m writing this letter, hoping that I won’t have a new attack this evening or at night.”

Like all previous ones, this statement remained without any response.

From the complaint prepared to the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Investigative Committee, dated September 20, 2009:

Until now, I have not been provided with any medical assistance (except for permission to transfer medications purchased by my relatives to me) in connection with the diseases identified in me at BT, despite the fact that I have already spent 8 weeks here and literally the next day after arriving here I applied for medical help.

I was not given the prescribed medical examination, I did not receive any consultations about my illness, I was not seen by a surgeon, not only was I not prescribed dietary nutrition, but the question of whether I needed it or not was not even considered.

About the conditions of detention

On July 25, 2009, I was transferred from FBU Pre-trial Detention Center-1 of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia (hereinafter: “Matrosskaya Tishina” or MT) to FBU IZ-77/2 of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in Moscow (hereinafter: “Butyrskaya Prison” or BT).

No. 267 - from 07/25/09 to 09/01/09 - a cell with an area of ​​​​about 10.8 m 2, at the same time 2 more people were kept with me for 1 day, then I spent one day alone, after which the rest of the time There was another person kept with me, in a cell with 4 beds.

No. 59 - from 01/09/09 to 08/09/09, a cell with an area of ​​about 8.2 m2, 3 other people were kept with me at the same time, there were 4 beds in the cell.

No. 35 - from 08/09/09 to 10/09/09, a cell with an area of ​​​​about 10.1 m2, 2 more people were kept with me at the same time, there were 6 beds in the cell.

No. 61 - from 10/09/09 to the present, a cell with an area of ​​​​about 8.2 m2, two more people are kept with me at the same time (one day there were 3 more people), there are 4 beds in the cell.

The toilet in all the BT cells where I was kept is simply a hole in the floor in the corner of the cell, above which there is a brick raised platform with the so-called built into it. floor bowl. These floor bowls are so dirty that they are terrible to look at (a brush for cleaning them is not provided, it is not sold in the BT store, you can receive it as a gift from relatives only with special permission from the head of BT or his deputy). And if in cell No. 267 we managed to clean this floor bowl, then in all other cells it was not possible.

In cell No. 267, water was gushing from the floor bowl so strongly that after using the toilet you had to wash your feet, but, in any case, the toilet was fenced off from the rest of the cell by a brick partition 1.5-1.7 m high. In other cells, such a partition did not have. In order to use the toilet out of sight of everyone, we have to cover it with the sheets we were given, which are then, of course, impossible to use as bed linen.

To prevent the toilet from stinking, we once made a stopper from a plastic cup of porridge and plugged the hole with it. The next morning it turned out that a hole the size of a medium-sized apple had been gnawed in the glass, and the porridge from the glass had been eaten by rats, which, apparently, were running freely through the sewer. It is surprising that they do not crawl out of it into the cell, but I have seen these rats repeatedly running along the corridor and at night their squeaks can often be heard.

The distance between the toilet and all beds of prisoners in cells No. 59 and 61 is no more than 1 meter. In other cells, some of the beds were further away.

In cells 59 and 61, the only sockets are located directly above the toilet. Therefore, you have to boil water by holding the kettle in your hands over the floor bowl, and in order to heat water for washing in a bucket, you have to place it directly on the raised platform in which the floor bowl is located, since putting the bucket in another place does not allow the insufficiently long cord of the boiler.

In cell No. 59 on the evening of 09/08/09, sewage water began to rise in the floor bowl. It didn’t pour onto the floor, but, as I know, the neighboring cell No. 60 was flooded. That same evening we were transferred to cell No. 35. In cell No. 35 there was no glass in the windows, the walls were damp. We didn't pay attention to it at first, but the next day the reason for the dampness became clear. At about noon, sewer water began flowing into the cell from a drain under the sink, which quickly flooded half the floor of the cell. We asked to call a plumber, but he only arrived at 10:00 p.m. and was unable to fix the problem. We asked to be transferred to another cell, but we were told to remain where we were until the morning. The next morning the plumber did not come, so by evening the entire floor of the cell was flooded with sewer water in a layer of several centimeters. It was no longer possible to walk on the floor, so we moved around the cell, climbing on the beds like monkeys. The plumber arrived only at 22.00, he fiddled for a long time, but could not fix anything. Both the plumber and the supervisor who brought him were indignant at the conditions in which we had to be. We asked to be transferred to another cell, but the guard could not do this without the permission of some superior. Permission was received only at 23.00, after which we were transferred to cell No. 61, that is, 35 hours after cell No. 35 was flooded with sewer water.

In cell No. 35 there was no glass in the window frames. We filed a complaint about this on 09/09/09, but did not receive a response. Cell No. 61 didn't even have window frames. On 09/11/09 I submitted an application in which I asked to install frames with glass. Because of the cold in the cell, I had to sleep in my clothes, covered with a blanket and jacket, but the frames were not installed. On 09/18/09 we filed a complaint that due to the lack of window frames and the resulting cold, we all caught a cold, and it was only on 09/19/09 that the window frames were finally inserted. But, as it turned out, the frames were not double-glazed, but single-glazed. For September weather this is acceptable, but with the onset of cold weather such windows will not save you from frost.

Participation in court hearings

During my stay in BT, I was taken to court four times to participate in court hearings, and each time such a departure was accompanied by the fact that I was subjected to cruel treatment bordering on torture.

You are notified of going to court late in the evening or even at night on the day before the hearing. They are not notified at all about the subject of the meeting, what issue will be considered, what case will be decided, so I usually found out about this only after I was taken to court. It is, of course, impossible to effectively prepare for a court hearing in such conditions.

They are taken out of the cells at 7.00-7.30, that is, before breakfast. Then they are kept in the cells of the prison’s assembly section until 9.00–10.00, after which they are sent to court. To transport prisoners, vehicles with compartments approximately 3.2 m long, 1.2 m wide and about 1.5 m high are used. In such a compartment, which, as the guards say, is designed to transport 15 people, up to 17-18 people are placed, so that some have to ride standing, bent in an uncomfortable position. The journey from prison to court usually takes about an hour, but one day I had to spend 1 hour in such a car in the morning and about 4.5 hours in the evening, because the car from the court did not go directly to the prison, but stopped at other courts, to pick up prisoners from there.

On the days when prisoners are taken to court, they are given dry rations, but it is impossible to use them, since in court prisoners are not given boiling water necessary for brewing dry soups or cereals included in the ration. The court guards claim that they do not have a kettle, but I saw a kettle in the court guard room. On 08/13/09 I sent a complaint to the chairman of the Tverskoy Court of Moscow that they did not provide boiling water. I have not received a response to this complaint. On 09/14/09 at the court I was not given boiling water again.

A car with prisoners usually arrives at the prison in the evening at 19.00-19.30, but usually they don’t let them out of the car until 20.00, they say that they are preparing documents.

Arriving prisoners are not immediately taken to their cells, but are kept in the cells of the assembly section for 3-3.5 hours, so I never got into a cell before 11 p.m.

A prefabricated cell with an area of ​​20-22 m2 without windows and forced ventilation can accommodate 70 people, so there is not only nowhere to sit, but also nowhere to stand. Many of the prisoners in the holding cell smoke, making it very difficult to breathe without ventilation. These cells have toilets, but in most of them they are not separated from the main room of the cell, so rarely anyone uses them. Some cells have taps with running water, but it is impossible to drink it without boiling it.

Since prisoners get to their cells after the trial only at night, they, of course, do not receive a hot dinner that day. As a result, it turns out that the time that passes between meals of hot food can be 38 hours (from 11.00 the previous court day, when the prisoner receives dinner, until 8.00 the next day, when breakfast is given). And if court hearings last for several days in a row, then this interval between hot meals may increase even more.

On September 14, 2009, during the court hearing, I pointed this out to Judge Krivoruchko and asked to be given the opportunity to receive hot food before the start of the court hearing, but the judge refused me this, citing the fact that this was not the responsibility of the court.

Taking into account the above circumstances, it turns out that people are being tried hungry, sleep-deprived, exhausted from being kept in cells in the prefabricated section of the prison and being transported in prisoner cars, which especially affects those who have to participate in court hearings for several days in a row. It is, of course, impossible to effectively defend yourself in court under such circumstances. I heard from many prisoners that they would rather agree to a trial without their participation than to suffer so much on the days when they are taken to court.

From a letter dated August 10:“One prisoner was placed in a solitary compartment (there were two of them in the car). He was asked why he was imprisoned separately, whether it was because he was a former police officer. He replied that no, but they put him in prison separately because he had tuberculosis. However, then they brought in another person, who was probably a former employee, then the patient with tuberculosis was transferred to the general ward, and the former employee took his place.”

From a letter to a lawyer dated 08/08/09:“I inform you of the circumstances related to my delivery to the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow on August 6, 2009.

... On August 6, I was taken to court and immediately asked the court escort service employee to hand over to the judge a written request I had prepared in advance to familiarize myself with the case materials at least an hour and a half before the start of the court hearing. The officer refused to submit the petition to the judge and said that I could only make such a petition directly at the court hearing and that in the guard room where I was kept there was no opportunity to familiarize myself with the case materials provided by the Investigative Committee at the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Nevertheless, after some time they brought me the case materials. I got acquainted with them while sitting on a bench in the corridor of the guard room. At the same time, I was not provided with a table, which made it very difficult to make the necessary extracts from the materials... It should be noted that the notice from Judge Podoprigorov mentioned above does not indicate either the date of my complaint or what actions I appealed. Taking into account this, there are currently three complaints filed by me and still not considered by the court against the actions of officials of the Investigative Committee at the Ministry of Internal Affairs (dated 18.06, 04.07 and 23.07.09), I still do not know exactly which of my complaints will be considered was appointed... However, the case materials were never provided to me in full. I spent the whole day in the guard room of the court. During all this time, I and other prisoners were not given the opportunity to receive hot meals. At approximately 18.30, an escort service officer appeared in the guard cell and told everyone to get ready to be taken back to the pre-trial detention center. He said that there would be no meeting that day, and the hearing was postponed to 08/10/09. I was not given any document confirming that I was taken to court or that the hearing was postponed.

After that, we were taken to the Presnensky court building, where we were asked to move to another car. In the compartment of the second car there were already so many prisoners that there was not even room to stand... Then I was placed in another compartment of the same car, where it was freer, but still very cramped...

We were brought to the pre-trial detention center at approximately eight o'clock in the evening. I, like many who were with me, hoped that we would soon be taken to our cells, so that we could finally get hot food and tea and go to the toilet, but all of us, about 20 people, were placed in a cell in the assembly section, where We stayed for an hour at first. This cell is about 22 meters in area, without windows, without forced ventilation... There was a floor vase in the cell, but it was not separated by a floor partition, so no one dared to go to the toilet there. There is no water tap in this cell. Since many people started smoking, it soon filled with clouds of smoke, so that my head began to hurt and my eyes began to water. We knocked on the cell door, but no one came for a long time. Finally, some prison officer came and said that we would soon be taken to our cells. After another half hour, the locks rattled, and I heard the cell door opening, but instead of taking us out of the cell, at least 20 people were brought into it. Almost all of them immediately began to smoke, so that they could hardly breathe. In total, there were at least 40 people in the cell by that time, most of them had to stand. We spent about another hour and a half like this until we were finally taken to our cells...

In general, it can be worse: 70 or 80 people on 21 square meters for about an hour and a half. Here, apparently, this is considered the norm... I got into my cell only at half past eleven.

I can’t imagine how, under such conditions, it’s possible to go to court every day, participate in hearings, defend oneself, without receiving, for many days while the trial is going on, adequate food, hot drinks, or the opportunity to sleep enough time to recuperate.

Justice in such conditions turns into a process of grinding human meat into mince for prisons and camps. A process in which a person can neither effectively defend himself nor even realize what is happening to him, thinking only about when it will all finally end, when he can get rid of this physical and emotional torture and end up in a camp ( no one hopes to be acquitted by the court, they say that in our courts there are no more than 2% of acquittals), where the degree of suffering to which a person is exposed while serving a sentence, as many here say, turns out to be less than you, who have not yet been found guilty a person is subjected here while being pulled through this meat grinder.”

Managing partner of the auditing company Firestone Duncan, tax and legal consultant of the investment fund Hermitage Capital Management, Sergei Magnitsky was an operative of the tax crimes department of the Moscow Central Internal Affairs Directorate on November 24, 2008. Soon, the Investigative Committee (IC) under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation (now the Investigative Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation) accused Magnitsky of complicity in tax evasion with Hermitage Capital as part of a criminal case against this company, which was one of the largest foreign investment funds on the Russian market.

On November 26, by the decision of the Tverskoy Court of Moscow, Sergei Magnitsky was. He was accused of committing crimes under parts 3 and 5 of Article 33, part 2 of Article 199 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (organization and assistance in evading taxes from an organization by a group of persons by prior conspiracy on an especially large scale).

According to the Investigative Committee, during the investigation it was established that Magnitsky created an illegal tax evasion scheme using Far Steppe LLC and Saturn Investments, registered in the Republic of Kalmykia and managed by the Hermitage Capital fund. These companies allegedly employed people with disabilities, which allowed them to receive a 50 percent tax break. As a result of such actions, the budget of the Russian Federation did not receive more than 500 million rubles. The executor of this criminal scheme, the head of the Hermitage Capital fund, William Browder, was charged in absentia - he has not been to Russia since 2005.

Magnitsky for 11 months. On November 17, 2009, the mother of Sergei Magnitsky was informed that her son had been transferred to the Matrosskaya Tishina pre-trial detention center the day before. Later in “Matrosskaya Tishina” she was told that Sergei Magnitsky died on November 16, 2009. According to the lawyer's lawyers, Magnitsky died due to problems with the pancreas. However, the Prosecutor General's Office said that, according to preliminary data, his death was due to cardiovascular failure.

Magnitsky’s lawyer stated that during his lifetime his client was given a preliminary diagnosis of “toxicological shock and pancreatic necrosis,” and repeated requests for a medical examination to establish whether the lawyer could be in a pre-trial detention center for health reasons remained unanswered. The Investigative Committee claimed that Magnitsky never complained about his health.

In a press release from the Hermitage Capital Management fund, distributed after the death of the lawyer, that since 2007, Sergei Magnitsky has defended the interests of the Hermitage fund and HSBC bank in connection with the commission of fraudulent actions against them, in which a number of corrupt officials were involved. The message also noted that “during the investigation of fraud, Sergei Magnitsky gave incriminating testimony about the involvement of a number of law enforcement officers in the implementation of fraud related to the theft of fund companies, which subsequently led to the theft of budget funds in the amount of 5.4 billion rubles” and that soon After that, he “was arrested by a group of the same Ministry of Internal Affairs officers.”

In August 2011, the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation terminated the criminal case against Magnitsky in connection with the decision of the Constitutional Court of July 14, 2011, according to which the investigation and courts can no longer terminate criminal cases due to the death of suspects and accused without the consent of their relatives . Magnitsky's relatives began to object to the resumption of the investigation, but at the same time did not agree to its termination.

At the beginning of November 2012, it became known that the criminal case of Sergei Magnitsky was being investigated, and it was sent to the prosecutor's office for approval of the indictment.

On July 11, 2013, the Tverskoy Court of Moscow, the auditor of the British fund Hermitage Capital, Sergei Magnitsky, was found guilty of tax evasion and dismissed the case due to his death. The court also sentenced the head of the British fund Hermitage Capital, William Browder, in absentia in the same case to nine years in prison in a general regime penal colony. The judge noted that Magnitsky acted in Browder's interests.

Relatives of Sergei Magnitsky, that the resumption of the criminal case against him after his death violates the presumption of innocence and the constitutional right to defense, therefore filed a cassation appeal for consideration first in the Tverskoy Court of the capital, and then in the Moscow City Court. Both authorities recognized the investigator's actions as legal. After this, a lawyer on behalf of Magnitsky’s mother filed a complaint against the posthumous criminal prosecution of her son to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which rejected it, recognizing the posthumous criminal prosecution of Sergei Magnitsky as legal.

Death in the Magnitsky pre-trial detention center. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev instructed the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation and the Minister of Justice to conduct an investigation into the circumstances of his death, and also ordered an inspection of the quality of medical care provided in the institutions of the Federal Penitentiary Service (FSIN).

On November 24, 2009, the Investigative Committee under the Prosecutor's Office (now the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation) that the investigative bodies of the Investigative Committee of the Investigative Committee in Moscow opened a criminal case into the death in the pre-trial detention center of Sergei Magnitsky on grounds of crimes provided for in Part 2 of Article 124 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (failure to provide assistance to a patient) and Article 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (negligence).

Due to the public outcry, on behalf of the President of Russia, the Prosecutor General's Office was assigned to supervise the investigation of criminal cases being processed by the Investigative Committee of Russia and the Investigative Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. In particular, she began to provide oversight of the investigation into the death of Magnitsky.

At the beginning of July 2011, a representative of the Investigative Committee that, according to the results of a forensic medical study conducted by a commission of experts formed by the Russian Federal Center for Forensic Medical Expertise of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of Russia (now the Federal State Budgetary Institution "Russian Center for Forensic Medical Expertise" of the Ministry of Health of Russia), Magnitsky's death associated with the failure to provide him with timely medical care. Experts say that the lawyer died from acute heart failure, cerebral and pulmonary edema, which arose due to complications of two of his chronic diseases: cardiomyopathy (changes in the heart muscle) due to diabetes and hepatitis.

In the interim report of the Presidential Council for Human Rights, which conducted its own investigation into this case on behalf of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Sergei Magnitsky was not provided with medical care in the pre-trial detention center, and his death may have resulted from a beating. At the same time, according to human rights activists, the lawyer’s case was illegally composed of the investigative team - the investigation involved people whom Magnitsky accused of involvement in the crime. In addition, the Presidential Council found procedural violations when Magnitsky was taken into custody.

On March 19, 2013, it became known that the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation was conducting a criminal investigation into the death of Sergei Magnitsky, since during its investigation no objective data were established about the commission of crimes against the lawyer. After an investigation, investigators came to the conclusion that Magnitsky’s death was not preceded by torture in a pre-trial detention center.

The lawyer for Magnitsky’s mother, who disagreed with the court’s decision, several times on her behalf insisted on resuming the investigation in order to “interrogate important witnesses, introduce hitherto hidden evidence, and also allow Magnitsky’s family to conduct an independent medical study of the archive of organs and tissues.” The Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation rejected it each time, finding no grounds for canceling the decision to terminate the criminal case.

The wife and mother of Magnitsky to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (France), in which they asked the court to indicate to the authorities specific measures to implement the decision paragraph 291 (it was about the creation of an independent commission to investigate the circumstances of Magnitsky’s death; a public apology for the denial of justice; making changes to the Russian Criminal Procedure Code to ensure effective access to independent medical examinations and the preservation of evidence; and legislative reform to prevent post-mortem proceedings against the will of relatives of the accused). On August 27, 2019, the Strasbourg court issued a ruling on the complaint “Magnitsky and others against Russia” filed by relatives (wife and mother) 10 and seven years ago, in which to pay the auditor’s relatives 34 thousand euros as moral compensation. The judges concluded that Magnitsky's conditions of detention fell under the convention's article prohibiting torture. At the same time, the court ruling does not require the Russian authorities to reconsider the decision in the Magnitsky case.

Magnitsky's death was followed by the resignations of many high-ranking prison officials. In particular, in December 2009, the heads of the FSIN department for Moscow, Vladimir Davydov, the service department for the Moscow region, Pyotr Posmakov, and the department for operational, technical and search activities of the FSIN, Major General Igor Bachurin, were relieved of their positions. In addition, another 15 senior leaders of the Federal Penitentiary Service were relieved of their duties.

The deputy heads of the FSIN department for Moscow were also subject to disciplinary action, and the head of the second pre-trial detention center (Butyrskaya Prison) was relieved of his position.

As part of the investigation into the criminal case into the death of Sergei Magnitsky, the main investigative department of the Russian Investigative Committee opened a criminal case against former employees of pre-trial detention center No. 2 (Butyrka) Larisa Litvinova and Dmitry Kratov. The actions of Litvinova, who was Magnitsky’s attending physician, showed signs of a crime under Part 2 of Article 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (causing death by negligence due to improper performance by a person of his professional duties). Former deputy head of the pre-trial detention center and immediate superior of Litvinova Dmitry Kratov

Russia Date of death: Mother:

Natalia Magnitskaya

Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky(April 8, Odessa - November 16, Matrosskaya Tishina, Moscow) - accountant and auditor, partner of a British law firm Firestone Duncan. The death of Magnitsky in the Matrosskaya Tishina detention center in 2009 caused a significant resonance in society.

Biography

Citizen of the Russian Federation, lived in Moscow. He was married and had two children.

"Magnitsky case"

Magnitsky investigation into embezzlement from the budget

S. L. Magnitsky was the head of the tax and audit department at Firestone Duncan, which provided legal services, including to the Hermitage Capital Management fund. In the summer of 2007, the Russian branch of the Hermitage Capital fund was suspected of tax evasion. During the searches, the fund's documentation was seized, and from the auditing firm Firestone, the seals of the companies with which the fund operated in Russia were seized. The fund's lawyers, including Magnitsky, revealed the fact of re-registration of companies. In October 2008, he testified to an investigator in connection with the case of lawyer Eduard Khairetdinov, indicating that seized documents and seals of a number of Hermitage companies were used to re-register them to new owners and subsequent illegal tax refunds in the amount of 5.4 billion rubles. According to Novaya Gazeta in its issue dated April 28, 2010, the criminal scheme that Magnitsky tried to expose was directed not only against his company:

“For several years, tens of billions of rubles were diverted from the budget in this way, businesses were taken away from Russian entrepreneurs, and they themselves were sent to prison on false charges. Many officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, employees of the prosecutor’s office, tax authorities, judges, and lawyers were involved in this scheme.”

According to Hermitage experts, the former head of Moscow tax office No. 28, Olga Stepanova, used money stolen from the budget to buy a luxurious mansion in the Moscow region and real estate in Dubai. In Dubai there is a luxurious villa registered in the name of her ex-husband Vladlen Stepanov, as well as four apartments registered in his name and in the names of two more deputies of Olga Stepanova at Moscow Tax Inspectorate No. 28. Payment for the purchase of real estate was made from accounts in the Swiss bank Credit Suisse, which in 2011 they were arrested by Swiss investigative authorities.

Using the same schemes that Sergei Magnitsky exposed, the same people withdrew more than 11 billion rubles from the budget from 2009 to 2010.

Arrest

Colleagues of S. L. Magnitsky say that during the investigation he accused a number of employees of Russian law enforcement agencies of corruption, and they tried to force him to retract this testimony.

Since his arrest, Magnitsky has been interrogated a total of four or five times. No other investigative actions were carried out with him. Sergei called himself a hostage. In court, he said: “Your honor, I was actually taken hostage. Few people are interested in my person; everyone is interested in the person of the head of Hermitage.”

The investigator repeatedly asked whether Magnitsky was ready to enter into a special trial procedure, when the suspect voluntarily pleads guilty. Magnitsky was twice introduced to the new chapter of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation about the plea deal, immediately after it came into force in August 2009.

Despite the orders of the pre-trial detention center doctors, on September 2, 2009, the investigator of the Investigative Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Silchenko, refused the lawyers’ request to provide medical assistance to Sergei Magnitsky:

I would like to bring to your attention that your petition dated August 19, 2009 ... in defense of the interests of the accused Magnitsky S.L., in which you ask the investigator to contact the head of FBU IZ-77/2 of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in Moscow with a statement to ensure the control ultrasound examination (ultrasound) of the abdominal cavity of the accused Magnitsky S.L. in custody... considered and on August 31, 2009 a decision was made to completely refuse to satisfy it... The current legislation does not impose on the investigator the obligation to monitor the health status of detained suspects and accused , and the defense’s reference to in this case is unlawful.

Death

The death certificate, signed on November 16 by doctors at the Matrosskaya Tishina hospital, states that Magnitsky died of toxic shock and acute heart failure. The “diagnosis” column indicates acute pancreatitis and closed craniocerebral injury. In 2011, when a representative of the Matrosskaya Tishina pre-trial detention center provided a report to the Tverskoy court, there was no information about a closed craniocerebral injury.

Law Society of England and Wales [ which?] sent a letter to the Russian President calling for a full investigation into Sergei Magnitsky's allegations of misconduct by Russian law enforcement agencies.

According to lawyers, Magnitsky’s death was the result of the refusal of the pre-trial detention center administration to provide the defendant with the necessary medical care.

Further investigation showed that Magnitsky’s death was preceded by his convoy to a separate cell by 8 guards to diagnose “psychological inadequacy” due to his periodic complaints about poor living conditions, failure to provide medical care and threat to life (about 100 complaints in total). The arriving ambulance team did not immediately confirm death.

Russian authorities are deliberately engaged in covering up the causes of Sergei Magnitsky's death, continuing to sabotage any attempts to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of his death.

According to the organization, the actions of Russian investigators contradict generally accepted international standards of legal proceedings. The director of the international forensic programs of the organization, Stefan Schmit, said

This case reveals growing evidence of torture and intentional professional medical negligence. Two and a half years have passed since the death of Magnitsky, however, those responsible for his arrest, which led to his death, have not been brought to justice.

Reaction to death

See also: Magnitsky List

year 2009

2010

Mr. Bastrykin's inability or unwillingness to read the statements and complaints of Sergei Magnitsky, which caused a human response throughout the world, is deeply regrettable. One gets the impression that the officials tasked with investigating the Magnitsky murder are morally blind and deaf

2011

“Despite widely known evidence of criminal behavior in the Magnitsky case, Russian authorities have failed to bring those responsible to justice. […] However, we will continue to call for all those responsible for Magnitsky’s unjust imprisonment and criminal death to be brought to justice. We will continue to support the efforts of those in Russia who are trying to bring them all to justice."

2012

“The law will not end impunity. However, he will express Britain's determination not to turn a blind eye to huge violations of the most fundamental human rights. Those who resort to torture and murder to silence the voice of freedom should not be able to buy property in Chelsea or fly into the King's Road Christmas sales as if nothing had happened."

Resignations of Russian officials

Libel case against investigator Kuznetsov

In addition to the entry ban, the European Parliament proposes that law enforcement agencies of EU countries freeze the assets of Russian officials involved in the Magnitsky case on their territory. The Chairperson of the European Parliament's Subcommittee on Human Rights, Heidi Hautala, commented on the voting result:

With this vote, the European Parliament calls for justice to be brought to justice for an innocent man who died in prison. His death transcends all boundaries. There comes a moment when there is no option left to remain silent.

Heidi Hautala also reported that Russian State Duma deputies lobbied hard against the adoption of the European Parliament resolution, but noted that this measure received support among many opposition politicians in Russia.

Awards

Chairman of the “For Honor and Dignity” Award Committee Zion Assidon said:

Sergei believed in law and justice and died selflessly defending them in an unequal battle with large-scale corruption in Russian law enforcement agencies. Mr. Magnitsky's commitment to the principles of openness and transparency of state power was fully demonstrated in his decisive struggle against the arbitrariness of the authorities.
His extraordinary courage and unflagging will in the face of difficult trials give strength to us all, and it will serve as an example for other fighters for justice.

Memory

Death anniversary

The anniversary of Magnitsky's death on November 16, 2010 was marked by the Russian and world community:

We need an arbitrator in this situation. You can also conduct an independent investigation, as is customary all over the world, which works great in the case of high-profile cases

• The British weekly The Economist, in an article dedicated to the anniversary of the death of S. L. Magnitsky, wrote:

A year later, his death has become a symbol of the mind-boggling corruption and lawlessness that reigns in the Russian system and the Kremlin's inability or unwillingness to change it.

Original text(English)

A year later, his death has become a symbol of the mind-boggling corruption and injustice perpetrated by the Russian system, and the inability (or unwillingness) of the Kremlin to change it

In works of art

A year after his death, a documentary film “Justice for Sergei” was shot about Sergei Magnitsky. Directors: Hans Hermanns and Martin Maat. Studio: ICU Documentaries, Netherlands. The film was shown on March 30, 2012 in St. Petersburg at the Open Your Eyes! film festival. .

A documentary play “Hour Eighteen” was written about Magnitsky; its author, Elena Gremina, used Magnitsky’s diaries and letters to create the play. Director Mikhail Ugarov (Teatr.doc) created a play based on the play about the last minutes of Magnitsky’s life; The premiere took place in November 2010 in Moscow. .

Notes

1. Magnitsky was not a lawyer for Hermitage Capital Management - Investigative Committee under the Ministry of Internal Affairs. RIA Novosti (November 15, 2010). Archived from the original on April 11, 2012. Retrieved February 13, 2011.
2. Radio ECHO Moscow:: Report of the Public Monitoring Commission on the Magnitsky case
3. The director of Hermitage Capital was threatened with death for exposing Lieutenant Colonel Kuznetsov
4. Gazeta.Ru - 06.25.10 “You can’t take money from a policeman”
5. Forbes: “Magnitsky was offered a plea deal.”
6. Punishment for Magnitsky - Novaya Gazeta, April 28, 2010
7. Vladlen Stepanov, involved in the “case of Sergei Magnitsky”: “The mansions in Dubai and the Moscow region are mine. I bought them with my own money, not with stolen money" - Komsomolskaya Pravda, June 28, 2011
8. Russia says attorney died from lack of medical aid in jail, activist blames beating by guards - The Associated Press, David Nowak - July 4, 2011
9. Russian Accounts Frozen at Credit Suisse - BARRON’S, Bill Alpert - May 5, 2011
10. Hermitage Capital: accounts of Russian officials involved in the Magnitsky case have been frozen in Switzerland - Gazeta. Ru - May 6, 2011
11. The answer to Stepanov is Kasparov. Ru, Oleg Volgin - June 6, 2011
12. “Swallowtail”, “Parfenion” and him - “Novaya Gazeta”, Roman Anin - September 28, 2011

November 16, 2009

Memory of Sergei Magnitsky

In works of art

19.11.2018

Magnitsky Sergei Leonidovich

Russian Auditor

News & Events

Sergei Magnitsky died in a pre-trial detention center from a heart attack

Russian economist Sergei Magnitsky died on November 16, 2009 in the Butyrsky detention center as a result of failure to provide assistance for a heart attack. His death led to a loud international scandal and became the reason for the adoption in the United States and later in Canada of the “Magnitsky Act,” which introduced personal sanctions against those responsible for human rights violations. Initially, the law was directed against persons who were involved in the death of the economist. Magnitsky was arrested in 2008 on charges of aiding and abetting tax evasion. While working for the consulting company Firestone Duncan, he announced the existence of schemes for large-scale theft of budget funds through illegal tax refunds, organized by Russian officials and security forces. As a preventive measure, Magnitsky was taken into custody and placed in a pre-trial detention center, where he was diagnosed with “pancreatitis.” Subsequently, he died of a heart attack. The Investigative Committee of Russia opened criminal cases against doctors under articles of “failure to provide assistance to a patient” and “negligence.”

Russian auditor who worked for the consulting company Firestone Duncan.
Consultant of the investment fund Hermitage Capital Management.

Sergei Magnitsky was born on April 8, 1972 in Odessa, Ukraine. The boy grew up in the family of Leonid Maksimovich and Natalya Nikolaevna Magnitsky. As a child, he moved to Moscow with his parents. He was a citizen of the Russian Federation. In 1993 he graduated from the Plekhanov University of Economics with a degree in finance and credit.

Since 1995, he worked as an auditor in the consulting company Firestone Duncan, JSC Firestone Duncan, which was founded two years earlier by American lawyers Jameson Firestone and Terry Duncan and was engaged in tax consulting and auditing.

In 2007, searches began in Hermitage and the Firestone Duncan that served it, prompted by suspicions of creating a tax evasion scheme using an extensive network of subsidiaries. During the searches, documents, computer data and seals of three Russian organizations of the Browder Foundation were seized. Immediately after this, the fund sold all its Russian assets. According to investigators, the fund's subsidiaries illegally purchased shares of strategic Russian enterprises, including Gazprom, Surgutneftegaz and Rosneft.

Then representatives of Hermitage announced that the Ministry of Internal Affairs carried out a raider seizure of three of its subsidiaries, using seals and documentation seized during the search. Immediately after the searches in 2007, Magnitsky began an independent investigation to protect the interests of the investment fund and found that 5.4 billion rubles in taxes paid by the seized subsidiaries of the investment fund in 2006 were seized from the Russian treasury by criminals as “overpaid.”

Magnitsky also testified that law enforcement officers illegally took possession of Hermitage’s movable property. However, in 2008, Browder and the manager of the Russian branch of the investment fund, Ivan Cherkasov, were charged in absentia with tax evasion and put on the international wanted list, since Cherkasov left Russia in the summer of 2007, and Browder has been banned from entering the country since 2005.

Sergei Leonidovich was arrested on November 27, 2008 in connection with the Hermitage case. He was charged with assisting an organization in evading taxes on an especially large scale: according to investigative authorities, in 2000 he participated in the creation of a scheme for the illegal purchase of two percent of Gazprom shares.

To do this, Magnitsky arrived in Kalmykia in 1999, where he agreed with the head of the local Afghanistan War Veterans Foundation to employ several disabled people as financial analysts at Dalnyaya Step LLC and Saturn Investments LLC, founded by Browder, thanks to which the companies received tax benefit and carried out the purchase and then sale of Gazprom shares to Hermitage, while paying income tax at a rate of 5.5 percent instead of 35 percent. In total, as a result of these actions, according to investigators, the budget lost 522 million rubles.

Magnitsky was taken into custody as a preventive measure. As stated in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, this measure was chosen because investigators feared that the accused might go abroad: according to the investigation, shortly before this he applied for a visa to the British Embassy. Meanwhile, Magnitsky’s file contained a letter from the embassy stating that he was not issued a visa.

The suspect was placed in pre-trial detention center No. 5, where over the course of five months he was transferred several times from one cell to another. In April 2009, he was transferred to the Matrosskaya Tishina detention center. In July of the same year, he had health problems and was diagnosed with calculous cholecystitis; later doctors discovered stones in the accused’s gall bladder. At the end of July, Magnitsky was transferred to the Butyrsky detention center, where his health condition worsened further, in particular, due to the lack of a hospital at the detention center.

There, a surgeon diagnosed him with pancreatitis, but then the doctors, citing Magnitsky’s inappropriate behavior, called psychiatrists, who chained the lawyer to a chair. Magnitsky did not undergo urgent surgery, and has already November 16, 2009 at 21:50, doctors certified death from a rupture of the pancreas as a result of pancreatic necrosis, but then the investigation stated that Magnitsky died of a heart attack.

The death of the lawyer led to a loud international scandal. On November 24, 2009, at a meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Ella Pamfilova, Chairman of the Council for Promoting the Development of Civil Society Institutions and Human Rights, asked to look into the circumstances of the lawyer’s death.

After this, the Investigative Committee under the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation initiated criminal cases under Articles 124, “failure to provide assistance to a patient” and 293, “negligence.” Based on the results of an internal investigation, the head of the Federal Penitentiary Service, Alexander Reimer, dismissed on December 11, 2009 the head of the Moscow department of the FSIN, Vladimir Davydov, and the head of the Butyrsky detention center, Vadim Magomedov.

In 2010, a re-examination of the causes of Magnitsky’s death was completed, which confirmed that he died from acute heart failure. At the same time, the examination showed that in the pre-trial detention center he received insufficient and inadequate medical care.

The Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Central Federal District separated the case of Magnitsky and Browder into separate proceedings, because, according to the investigation, the crime was committed “in complicity with other persons.”

In April 2010, the US Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, headed by Senator Benjamin Cardin, sent a letter to the US State Department requesting that 60 Russian judges and security officials involved in the death of Magnitsky be banned from entering the country. In May 2010, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee supported Cardin's initiative and approved the proposal of the Commission he headed.

In the same month, the European Parliament's subcommittee on human rights also called for bringing to justice the Russian judges and investigators involved in Magnitsky's death. In September 2010, a bill was introduced into the US Congress that would have prohibited all individuals on the Magnitsky List from entering the United States and conducting financial transactions in this country.

In December of the same year, the European Parliament approved a resolution recommending that European governments impose visa and financial sanctions against Russian officials mentioned in the list. In July 2012, the resolution was adopted by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.

Magnitsky was posthumously awarded the Transparency International Prize for his outstanding contribution to the fight against corruption.

Married. He left behind two small children.

Memory of Sergei Magnitsky

The anniversary of Magnitsky's death on November 16, 2010 was marked by the Russian and world community:

The BBC Russian service gave a detailed report on the progress of the investigation into the Hermitage Capital case.

A documentary about the Magnitsky case was shown in the parliaments of the European Union, Great Britain, the USA, Canada, Estonia and Germany.

In works of art

A year after his death, a documentary film “Justice for Sergei” was shot about Sergei Magnitsky. Directors: Hans Hermanns and Martin Maat. Studio: ICU Documentaries, Netherlands. The film was shown on March 30, 2012 in St. Petersburg at the Open Your Eyes! film festival.

In 2016, at the request of the German-French TV channel Arte, director Andrei Nekrasov shot a documentary film “The Magnitsky Act”. William Browder harshly criticized the film and opposed its screening in the European Parliament.

A documentary play “Hour Eighteen” was written about Magnitsky; its author, Elena Gremina, used Magnitsky’s diaries and letters to create the play. Director Mikhail Ugarov based the play on a performance about the last minutes of Magnitsky's life; The premiere took place in November 2010 in Moscow.

The Magnitsky list is mentioned in the musical composition of the Leningrad group.