Yury Rubtsou: You can rot me, but you cannot make me kneel

A new Belarusian prisoner made his final statement in a court.

Charter97.org received a record of Yury Rubtsou's final statement. Below is the full transcript:

– I remember an experiment in the Soviet Union in the mid 1960s. Six men ran into a lecture room with 200 students and kidnapped the teacher. Later, 200 students were questioned by investigators, and all of them gave different evidence. All of them. There cannot be the same evidence.

Two hundred people saw how their teacher was kidnapped and didn't give the same evidence.

Why am I telling it to you?

This case contains the evidence given by all witnesses that you didn't read it though I asked. I turned attention that five persons said absolutely the same words.

It means that the criminal case was falsified.

There was another experiment in the USSR. Sixteen people were told to call a white thing “red” and call a ball a “parallelepiped”. The seventeenth person didn't know it. Sixteen people said “this is red” and the seventeenth agreed with them.

Only one of a thousand (who is the 17th in the group) won't say a white thing is red, he will say “I don't see it.”

One of a thousand...

I already met situations when court minutes were falsified when I sued Homel-based Gomelvodokanal company. I was shocked with the answer of the Supreme Court to my claim. I was deprived all all bonuses, because I was not a member of the trade union.

I received the answer of the Supreme Court and thought: “Either I am an idiot, or Supreme Court employees are idiots.” I demanded to show me the minutes of the trial, but I was surprised to learn that they didn't contain my statements. None of them.

After that, I began to make notes at trials.

Photocopying was not so widespread in those times.

I was the first person in the Homel region who, not being a member of the trade union, gained equal rights with trade union members.

I know perfectly how minutes are made.

I know perfectly how a judge can psychologically influence people at the trial.

The judges who deliver unfair verdicts are rascals. I still think so.

It was enough for the judge to say “Did you hear that he said 'rascal'? Give me your name, we'll mention you as a witness.” It was an unofficial command to the secretary to write down what the judge said.

It was on purpose that I asked to read the minutes of the trial about the questioning of the secretary, who was a witness of the incident. I knew that it wouldn't contain the words “You don't remember it”. Your words were not included in the minutes. You decide later what will be included and what won't.

That is the reason why secretaries write minutes by hand instead of making audio records.

What is the main question there? Was this phrase pronounced or not? It would enough to make an audio recording and listen to it to make sure. That's all! No witnesses are needed! Excuse me, how is it possible to call people, who are working under employment contracts, to be witnesses? If the boss says “Do it!” they will do it, otherwise they can lose their job. You are in the same situation. You were told to convict me and you will do it, otherwise you won't be able to work. You work under an employment contract. This is our system. All witnesses here work under employment contracts. If you don't fulfill orders, your boss won't rebuke you, he won't prolong your contract and you will lose your job.

I am fighting against this system.

This system needs the minutes typed or written by hand so that it will later be possible to edit them.

That's why 20, 30 and 40 people are regularly found guilty of swearing in public, though they didn't do it. Illia Dabratvor was detained in the court building for “swearing in public”, but no one heard him swearing. Two journalists, who were near him, were detained. They were not allowed to be witnesses. Only police officers gave their evidence.

Am I accused of swearing or political activity? Am I accused of insulting a judge or political activity?

I never stood up when the judge came in. I won't stand up before the dependent judge. I won't stand up before a criminal even if he is a judge or a prosecutor.

Our system, our judicial system is criminal! The entire judicial system is criminal.

Yes, I understand that only the court has the right to call someone a criminal. But if a woman is raped by her boss, she cannot prove it, because the boss can call his employees to be witnesses and threaten them, and they will say: “No, it didn't happen.” But the woman knows her boss is a criminal. And she has the right to call him a criminal.

It's the same with me. I know that the judge is a criminal. So, I have the right to call him a criminal.

Yes, I said the word “rascals”. Excuse me, but it is a literary word. I don't have a degree, let alone a degree in philology to know all niceties and know which word is an insult and which is the truth.

Anyway, the words “rascal” and “criminal” mean the same. In this case, it is not an insult.

I won't ask for mercy. I will never kneel before a criminal whatever post he may occupy.

When I came to the regional prosecutor, his secretary asked me: “Will you open the door to Lukashenka's office with your leg, too?” I answered: “Yes, if I know he has violated the law, I will open his office door with my leg.” I will never bow to a criminal.

You can rot me, but you cannot make me kneel.

On October 6, Homel-based activist Yury Rubtsou was found guilty of insulting a judge (article 391 of the Criminal Code). He was sentenced to 2.5 years in an open-type correctional facility. The term was reduced by one year due to the amnesty. The case was heard by judge Natallia Vaitsekhovich from Minsk's Tsentralny district court. Rubtsou also has travel restrictions.