Suspected Bronze Soldier riot organizers acquitted

  • 2009-01-07
  • Staff and wire reports

The removal of the Bronze Soldier sparked widespread riots.

TALLINN - An Estonian Court has acquitted four men over their suspected role in organizing the Bronze Soldier riots that tore through Tallinn last year. The controversial ruling drew harsh criticism from opposition parties and praise from Moscow.

The court found that the guilt of the four defendants -- Dmitri Linter, Dimitri Klenski, Maksim Reva and Mark Siryk -- was not sufficiently proved. The three defendants that were held in custody during the pretrial investigation can seek compensation from the state for groundless arrest.
The lower-level Harju Country Court released a full transcript of the ruling on Jan. 6.

The collected evidence fully proves only the fact that mass disturbances occurred in Tallinn on April 26-28, 2007, but not that the defendants organized the unrest involving many people, judge Violetta Kovask found.
"The actions of Night Vigil and the defendants prior to the mass disturbances were, in the opinion of the law enforcement agencies, not unlawful until April 27, 2007, as the police did not intervene in their activities or demand that such activities be ended," the court said.

"It remained unclear to the court what in the prosecutors' opinion changed in the evaluation of this evidence after the events of April 27, 2007," the judge said.
The court took the position that the conversations between the defendants in no way prove even their indirect intent to organize mass disturbances.

Massive protests erupted in the Estonian capital at the end of April 2007 following the government's decision to move the remains of Red Army soldiers and the Soviet-era monument known as the Bronze Soldier from the center of Tallinn to a military cemetery on the outskirts of the capital city. The protests degenerated into looting, damaging of property, arson and disobedience to representatives of state authority.
The police detained nearly 1,200 people during the two nights, but released most of them within hours. One person was killed during the rioting.

CONTROVERSIAL RULING
The ruling sparked harsh criticism from the People's Union, which released a statement calling the probe into the April 2007 riots a failure and saying the interior and justice ministers must take responsibility.
"In the opinion of the People's Union, the security police failed to fulfill its main duty of uncovering anti-state activities and ensuring Estonia's security. Instead, the security police has applied disproportionate strength and resource in politically motivated investigation of self-government leaders, businesspeople and parties," the statement said.

The party called the work of the prosecution unprofessional.
"The prosecution failed to adequately prepare the criminal case and because of that inadequate criminal files were handed to the court," People's Union chairman Karel Ruutli said.

The board observed in the statement that the prime minister vowed back in 2007 that organizers of the mass disturbances would not escape justice but now they have been acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
The Estonian Attorney General defended the probe, however, saying that a failure to convict does not mean that the public prosecutor's office or the security police did a sloppy job of the pretrial investigation.
According to Norman Aas, as much evidence as possible under the criminal proceeding was collected during the pretrial investigation and it was submitted to court.

"Charges were brought against persons who according to the evidence repeatedly called people to unauthorized meetings which evolved into mass disturbances in April 2007," the attorney general said.
The attorney general said the question in this case is not the quality of the probe but rather the legal opinion on whether the activity of the defendants caused the mass disturbances or not.
The prosecutor in the case, Triin Bergmann, told the Baltic News Service that it is highly likely that she will take the case to a court of appeals.

The ruling was hailed by Moscow, however, whose relations with Estonia have been icy since the riots took place.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said the ruling served as an "indictment of those who are trying to rewrite history."
"The court ruling once again confirmed the justice of public indignation over the provocative idea of the Estonian authorities to insult the burial of Soviet soldiers and relocate the monument to the Liberator in Tallinn," the ministry said in a comment.

"The acquittal of the leaders of Night Vigil is in fact an indictment of those who tried to insult the memory of the dead and rewrite history," the Russian news agency Interfax quoted the ministry as saying.

THE CHARGES
Last month public prosecutor Triin Bergmann demanded suspended four-year jail sentences for the organization of mass disturbances for Linter, Klenski and Reva, leaders of the pro-Kremlin Night Vigil group, and a suspended three-year sentence for Siryk, leader of the Estonian arm of the Russian youth movement Nashi.

The prosecutor asked the court for all four to be put on probation for a three-year period and the period of pretrial custody to be counted as part of the time already served.
According to the indictment Night Vigil leaders Linter, 34, Reva, 32, and Klenski, 63, together with Siryk, 19, organized mass disturbances in Tallinn, which led to rioting, damage to property, arson and disobedience to representatives of state authority.

The Security Police detained Reva, Linter and Siryk on the night before April 27 and on the next day the men were taken into custody. Siryk was released from custody on June 13 and Reva and Linter on November 16.
Klenski has not been under arrest in connection with the charges.

Linter's defense lawyer Leonid Olovyanishnikov, Reva's and Siryk's defense lawyer Vladmir Sadekov, and the attorney for Klenski, Aleksandr Kustov, sought acquittal of their clients.
Olovyanishnikov told BNS at the end of last year that the necessary elements of a criminal offense were lacking in the actions of the accused and the unlawful activities they were accused of were not proven.