Hello!

I'm Maxim Polyakov, a correspondent for the online magazine '7x7'.

Have you heard of the "stick system"? Almost all Russians are familiar with this term. It's an informal quota for crimes solved by police officers and investigators. For example, in July, an investigator must close at least 20 cases. When real criminals can't be found, innocent people are often framed and wrongfully convicted. Each case within this quota is called a "stick," hence the name of this phenomenon.

In recent years, the Crew Against Torture, one of the country's most respected human rights organizations, has been studying the “stick system” and the overall decline of the legal system in Russia. They recently published a book titled "Anatomy of Decay." Through interviews with police officers, judges, investigators, human rights defenders, and sociologists, they discovered that the Russian legal system has been steadily deteriorating since 2007. In this newsletter, I will share the findings of the Crew Against Torture and quote excerpts from their book.

Estimated reading time: 9 minutes

Investigators and Courts

In 2007, one of the most significant legal reforms in Russia took place when the Prosecutor's Office was separated from the Investigative Committee, creating an independent agency. Since then, investigation and oversight have been divided, and prosecutors can no longer initiate criminal cases independently; they must request approval from the head of an investigative division.

This reform was intended to resolve some bureaucratic issues and give investigators more decision-making freedom, as they bear the ultimate responsibility for the outcome of cases. However, the system began to malfunction. Here's what a former investigator said on condition of anonymity:

• "I lasted three years [in the Investigative Committee]. At first, like everyone else, it seemed romantic—I wanted to solve cases and fight crime. But then, reality set in, and I became disillusioned. You work in constant coordination. Go see the boss, respond to the prosecutor’s comments, then back to the boss, and so on in circles. For one complicated case, you might need to get someone's signature 200 times. I spent nights at work. Sometimes the boss’s orders were complete nonsense. He and I often fought and insulted each other, and I was left without bonuses. Once, he told me to 'go search all the places where the perp used to be,' like his school, garage, or his girlfriend’s room in a remote communal apartment. 'Conduct searches, do whatever you want,' he said. It made no sense because the guy was charged with inflicting serious bodily harm. I had no idea what he hoped to find at the girlfriend’s place. We had plenty of such pointless tasks. If a perp was a known drug addict, I had to drop everything and search for drugs. The supervisor’s intuition told him we could find more evidence against the criminal, as if the bodily harm charge wasn't enough. I resisted too much [...] and was eventually suspended [from the investigation]. The next [investigator] was more agreeable."

Investigators and judges fall into the same trap. The law not only provides them with principles, guarantees, and opportunities but also significantly limits their work. These limitations can be expanded by legislators at any moment, as many procedures and functions in the criminal process are poorly developed or deliberately disorganized.

In addition to federal laws limiting the autonomy and independence of judges, there is a vast array of other instruments to exert pressure on them within the legal system. Judges depend on the authorities hierarchically, professionally, and financially. Over time, this issue becomes increasingly significant.

Good relationships with high-ranking judges can help one climb the career ladder. The law essentially guides court leadership on how to motivate their subordinates' work. They always have the tools to both reward and punish judges. If your views differ from the leadership’s, you may be deprived of promotions and bonuses. "Financial punishments are rare, but they happen," shared one of the interviewed judges. "Everyone understands how not to mess up," he added after a long pause.

The Paradox of Unchecked Control

The existence of quotas and the multi-stage reporting system is justified both in theory and practice by claiming that employees cannot be controlled or motivated otherwise. They are held accountable for maintaining order and high performance. Poor statistics on closed cases can lead to negative consequences for the employees themselves, as they lose bonuses and opportunities for promotion. This serves as a powerful motivation to work efficiently. Rule violations result in sanctions; management and supervisory bodies decide which actions deserve punishment and to what extent.

Each member of the law enforcement system is trapped in a dilemma, forced to choose whether to break the law or the institution’s rules. This choice largely depends on the supervisor’s attitude towards certain violations. In one department, the leader may strictly adhere to the law, while in another, they may encourage breaking it. The management’s stance inevitably influences the actions of its subordinates and fosters a sense of impunity if the violator is confident they will not be reprimanded.

This confidence can be conditional or absolute. Conditional confidence arises when the violator knows exactly which breaches the supervisor has decided to overlook. This gives the employee a certain degree of freedom. They will not be punished because their leadership has once hinted, "You can do this, but you cannot do that," and this guidance predetermines their choices.

• Anonymous Investigator: "Our boss suddenly began closely monitoring any signs of 'misbehavior.' I mean, if there was even a single complaint about shouting, swinging a hand, or simply giving a disapproving look, we were in trouble. He would publicly reprimand you at the next staff meeting. [...] Whether it was a written complaint or reported orally, he couldn't care less. This happened after [a major case of police brutality in 2018], when our city's image was scrutinized under a microscope. Meanwhile, he disregarded the case files entirely. You could write it in Chinese or smear mayonnaise on every page, and it wouldn't matter. Normally, we were disciplined for [low performance] and [missing procedural deadlines], so we were quite surprised when he started collecting feedback out of nowhere.
• Anonymous human rights defender: "The situation is straightforward. If a law enforcement officer knows they won't face consequences for violence, they won't hesitate to commit it. In half of the cases we deal with, I mean, if we ever have a chance to talk to cops informally, they talk about it as if it's perfectly normal: 'Everyone does it, as what’s wrong if the bosses don't mind?'"

Absolute confidence in impunity arises from the employee's sense of invulnerability. In such cases, the leadership's signal that determines the officer's choices is, "We might want to punish you, but we can't." Consequently, any attempt to enforce control becomes futile, even with material incentives to maintain high statistics. An employee who is absolutely certain of their impunity becomes fearless or lacks sufficient fear to adhere to the rules.

This phenomenon is particularly evident in situations of staff shortages. Here, even the least competent officer becomes a valuable asset immune to influence. This situation was a major contributor to the high levels of lawlessness in the 1990s. While almost anyone could join the security forces, the low entrance threshold failed to fill all vacancies, thereby reducing risks for wrongdoers who largely evaded consequences. This issue persists today in remote areas where influencing the quality of employees' work remains challenging.

• Former police department head: "I had one blockhead [as an investigator], and I tolerated him for a long time. He was as dumb as a doorknob—my apologies for the comparison, but it's hard to describe otherwise. Utterly dumb and irresponsible. Nevertheless, we had to put up with him. [...] There was nothing we could do because there were no candidates to replace him. Who else would work? Young recruits came after their military or police academy service, but they typically left the village within a year or two. This individual, however, was simply intolerable. Everyone complained about him: operational officers because he couldn't write a coherent order in Russian, experts because he couldn't frame questions correctly; people pointed out that he couldn't submit documents on time. If I had even one day without complaints about him, it meant he was sick. And he didn't care at all. We endured this for nearly ten years until his retirement, and we even had to persuade him to stay until the end."

The deterioration of Russia's legal and criminal justice frameworks persists. Memorial's list of political prisoners includes over 760 names, and tens of thousands of people have been convicted solely due to the current state of the system.

© Copyright, online journal "7х7"