On April 26, 2021, the Russian media went around the news that the demolition of the monument to the famous politician was recognized as illegal in 1991. We checked whether this is so.

Information with such a heading was the first to publish an information agency TASS, and after it many leading federal publications, among which "News" Lenta.ru, "Independent newspaper", Russian "Forbes"And others. At the same time, the media referred to press conference public organization "Officers of Russia", which was sent at one time request On the legality of the demolition of the monument. That's what, in particular, said the chairman of the presidium of the organization, Major General Sergei Lipova: “In accordance with the answer received from the Moscow prosecutor’s office, which conducted the audit on behalf of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, it is absolutely obvious that we are completely right and there were no legal grounds for dismantling the monument to Dzerzhinsky on Lubyanskaya Square.”

The struggle for the restoration of the monument to Dzerzhinsky on the Lubyanskaya Square of Moscow has been underway for a long time. His dismantling occurred in 1991, after failure August putsch, when the heated crowd tried to demolish the monument to the contradictory revolutionary figure. Then the Moscow City Council initiative His deputy chairman Sergei Stankevich decided to remove the sculpture from the pedestal and take it to the wasteland near the new building of the Tretyakov Gallery. In December 1998, the State Duma adopted Resolution, in which the Moscow House urged the monument in the same place. Then the municipal authorities did not respond, but in 2002 the capital's mayor Yuri Luzhkov himself Offered Return the monument. After negative reaction Kremlin mayor spoke about the possible referendum, however, I have already met a rebuff social activists. As a result, the idea was long removed from the official agenda.

In 2013, the media Reported On the allocation of 50 million rubles. From the city budget for the restoration of the monument and its planned return to its former place with reference to the former vice speaker of the Moscow City Duma Andrei Metelsky. But then this information was refuted. Two years later the Communist Party She saidthat I collected more than 150,000 signatures for holding a referendum on the return of the monument, but soon Refused From this idea.

The latest round of history around the monument to the chairman of the Cheka occurred in December 2020, after the aforementioned appeal of “Russian officers”. In February 2021, return the monument He called Already a group of journalists, writers and bloggers, among whom were such famous people as Zakhar Prilepin, Igor Molotov, Alexander Prokhanov, Dmitry Puchkov (Goblin), Lesya Ryabtseva and others. Figures recognize the controversy of the figure of Dzerzhinsky, but insist on the historical and cultural value of the monument.

But let's not get acquainted with the retelling of the linden, but with the very text of the response of the prosecutor's office. This is what the ending of the document given in press release “Moskvy officers”: “According to the information of the Central State Archive of Moscow, the Moscow City Council of People's Deputies, the Moskovsky Council of People's Councils, including the protocols, transcripts and decisions of the fifth session of the XXI convocation of 08.22.1991, as well as in the documents of the Archival Fund, the Moscow Office of the Mayor and the Moscow Office. There is no administrative legal act on dismantling the monument. There are currently no grounds for taking prosecutorial response to the prosecutor’s office of the city of Moscow. ”

In other words, the prosecutor's office talks about the absence of a right -wing act in the archives that authorized the dismantling of the monument. But is it synonymous with “illegality of demolition”? Experts claim not. This is what, for example, declared lawyer Alexei Golubev: “In the response of the prosecutor's office, judging by Complete text, published on the website of the "Officers of Russia", is not the word "illegal". More precisely, the only wording that contains this word sounds like this: "The statute of limitations for prosecution, including criminal, due to the possible illegal actions to dismantle and move the monument, have currently expired." This means that the prosecutor's office does not see the prospects for punishing any of the involved in the dismantling of Dzerzhinsky. ”

According to the lawyer, the prosecutor’s response does not contain anything that would give hope for the restoration of the monument in the same place: on the contrary, the text of the letter (more precisely, the first of the two answers of the prosecutor’s office. - Approx. Ed.) It was directly said that “the status and location of the monument are determined in full accordance with the current federal and regional legislation.”

In the same spirit Specked And his colleague, a former employee of the prosecutor’s office, junior adviser to justice Denis Markov: “Here there is not recognition illegal, but a statement that there was no legal basis for the demolition of the monument. And nothing more. This does not entail the restoration of the monument in the same place, since this issue is exclusively in the jurisdiction of the authorities of Moscow, and it is impossible to introduce an order to them, since they are not demolished. ”

The reaction of Sergei Stankevich, the head of the dismantling of the monument in 1991, was not long in coming. He declaredthat the decision on the legality of the demolition of the monument to Dzerzhinsky on Lubyanskaya Square can only be made by the court, and not the prosecutor’s office, which at the moment did not make any decisions, since it was not competent to do this. In addition, he called the dismantling of the monument quite legal: “There were several solutions, the result of which was the movement of the monument by 4 km from one place to another. All decisions that were made in this regard were absolutely legal, adopted by the current government within their powers. The decision was made by the Presidium of the Moscow City Council, and in parallel the order of the mayor of Moscow was issued. And if someone considers it differently, then let him prove in court. ”

And if Stankevich here can be considered a person interested, then the opinions of independent lawyers cannot but take into account. Thus, the thesis commonly widespread by many media outlets about recognizing the demolition of the monument illegal is not true. The next heading that was used, for example, “” would be correct.Vedomosti":" The prosecutor's office did not find documents on the legality of the demolition of the monument to Dzerzhinsky on Lubyanka. "