The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has once again carried out a quiet coup d’état, marking another milestone in Valery Zorkin’s political career. This is not the first time Zorkin has orchestrated such a move, with the most notable being in 2014 when the court agreed to the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol, despite it being against Russian legislation.
The recent coup by the Constitutional Court has raised concerns about the state of democracy in Russia. The court has declared Putin’s “special operation” in Crimea as constitutional, effectively outlawing any criticism of it. However, the court did allow negative statements about the operation and the Russian army as long as they are not connected to an arbitrary denial of the constitutionally predetermined nature, goals, and tasks of the operation.
This decision by the court has drawn comparisons to the norms of Nazi Germany, where anti-war stances were met with execution. It seems that Putin’s Russia is heading towards similar legal norms, with opponents of the war potentially facing 25 years in prison. The Constitutional Court, in this case, is seen as the prison chiefs, trampling on the Constitution and prioritizing the right to occupy, kill, rob, and rape over the rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Critics argue that the Constitutional Court is not a court at all but rather a gang of war criminals. They believe that Zorkin and other members of the court should be held accountable for their actions and sit alongside Putin, Patrushev, and Shoigu in the future trial of war criminals. No age should exempt Zorkin from facing the consequences of his actions, and he deserves to spend the rest of his life in a prison cell.
The recent actions of the Constitutional Court have raised concerns about the erosion of democracy in Russia and the disregard for the rule of law. It remains to be seen how these developments will impact the country’s political landscape and the rights of its citizens.
Source: Vitaly Portnikov specially for GraniruThe Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has once again carried out a quiet coup d’état, marking another chapter in Valery Zorkin’s political career. This is not the first time Zorkin has orchestrated such a move, with the most notable being in 2014 when the court agreed to the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol.
Despite Russian legislation explicitly prohibiting the accession of territories from other countries, the Constitutional Court disregarded this and approved the annexation. The status of Crimea as an “independent state” lacks legal validity, as there was no referendum in Crimea supporting its independence. However, Zorkin simply followed Putin’s “Wish List” without hesitation, further eroding the constitution in Russia.
In the face of these actions, turning to the judges for justice seems futile. The recent ruling on the article about “discrediting” the Russian military only solidifies the court’s alignment with Putin’s agenda. The court declared Putin’s “special operation” constitutional and outlawed any criticism against it.
However, there are exceptions. The Constitutional Court of Russia allows negative statements about the special operation and the Russian army as long as they do not deny the constitutionally predetermined nature, goals, and tasks of the operation. This means that individuals like Yevgeny Prigozhin or Igor Strelkov can criticize the Ministry of Defense and even Putin himself, as long as they call for the continuation of the war and the slaughter of Ukrainians. Criticism against the war and condemnation of the state that initiated it are considered outside the constitution.
These norms resemble those of Nazi Germany, where anti-war stances were met with execution. Putin’s Russia is rapidly adopting similar legal norms, with the Constitutional Court acting as prison chiefs rather than a court. They have trampled on the Constitution and embraced the right to occupy, kill, rob, and rape, even though such rights are not enshrined in the Constitution.
In the future trial of war criminals, Zorkin and other members of the Constitutional Court should be held accountable alongside Putin, Patrushev, and Shoigu. Age should not exempt Zorkin from facing the consequences of his actions. The Chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation deserves to spend his remaining years in a prison cell.
Source: Vitaly Portnikov specially for Graniru
What legal basis does the Constitutional Court rely on to justify its decision regarding the annexation of Crimea?
Any legal basis under Russian law. This move by the court has sparked concerns regarding the state of democracy in Russia and the erosion of the rule of law.
The recent coup by the Constitutional Court has been seen as a way to legitimize Putin’s actions and stifle any criticism or opposition. By declaring the annexation of Crimea as constitutional, the court effectively silences any dissenting voices and prevents any challenge to Putin’s decision. Furthermore, while negative statements about the operation and the Russian army are allowed, they must not deny the predetermined nature, goals, and tasks of the operation, thus limiting the freedom of expression.
Critics have drawn parallels between the court’s decision and the norms of Nazi Germany, where anti-war stances were met with severe consequences. The potential imprisonment of war opponents for up to 25 years is seen as a dangerous step towards suppressing opposition in Russia. The Constitutional Court, once respected for upholding the Constitution, is now seen by many as prioritizing the interests of the government and disregarding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Many argue that the Constitutional Court itself has become a tool for war criminals, with Zorkin and other members of the court being held accountable for their actions. These critics believe that Zorkin, alongside Putin and other key figures, should face trial for their involvement in war crimes. They argue that age should not exempt Zorkin from facing justice, and he should spend the rest of his life in prison.
These recent actions by the Constitutional Court have raised concerns about the erosion of democracy in Russia and the disregard for the rule of law. The impact of these developments on the country’s political landscape and the rights of its citizens remains uncertain. The actions of the court continue to spark debate and criticism, highlighting the need for a robust and independent judicial system that upholds the principles of democracy and the rule of law.
