On April 26, 2021, the Russian media circulated the news that the demolition of a monument to a famous political figure in 1991 was declared illegal. We checked if this is true.

Information with a similar headline was first published by the news agency TASS, followed by many leading federal publications, including “News", Lenta.ru, "Nezavisimaya newspaper", Russian "Forbes"and others. At the same time, the media referred to press conference public organization "Officers of Russia", which at one time sent request on the legality of the demolition of the monument. Here is what, in particular, the chairman of the organization’s presidium, Major General Sergei Lipovoy, said: “In accordance with the response received from the Moscow prosecutor’s office, which carried out an investigation on behalf of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation, it is absolutely clear that we are completely right and there were no legal grounds for dismantling the monument to Dzerzhinsky on Lubyanka Square.”

The struggle for the restoration of the monument to Dzerzhinsky on Lubyanka Square in Moscow has been going on for a long time. Its dismantling took place in 1991, after the failure August putsch, when an angry crowd tried to tear down a monument to a controversial 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 a vacant lot not far from the new building of the Tretyakov Gallery. In December 1998, the State Duma adopted resolution, in which she called on the Moscow mayor's office to restore the monument in its original location. Then the municipal authorities did not react, but in 2002, the capital’s mayor Yuri Luzhkov himself suggested return the monument. After negative reaction The Kremlin mayor spoke about the possibility referendum, however, it has already met with resistance social activists. As a result, the idea was removed from the official agenda for a long time.

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 original location, 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 of the Russian Federation stated, which collected more than 150,000 signatures for holding a referendum on the return of the monument, but soon refused from this idea.

The newest round of history around the monument to the Chairman of the Cheka occurred in December 2020, after the above-mentioned appeal from “Officers of Russia”. Return the monument in February 2021 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. Activists recognize the controversial figure of Dzerzhinsky, but insist on the historical and cultural value of the monument.

But let’s take a look not at Lipovoy’s retelling, but at the text of the prosecutor’s response itself. This is what the end of the document given in press release “Officers of Moscow”: “According to the information provided by the State Budgetary Institution “Central State Archive of Moscow” in the documents of the archival fund “Moscow City Council of People’s Deputies”, including in the minutes, transcripts and decisions of the meeting of the Fifth Session of the Moscow Council of the XXI convocation dated 08/22/1991, as well as in the documents of the archival fund “Moscow Government. Apparatus of the Mayor and Government of Moscow”, There is no administrative legal act on the dismantling of the monument. There are currently no grounds for the Moscow City Prosecutor’s Office to take prosecutorial response measures.”

In other words, the prosecutor’s office says that there is no legal act in the archives that authorized the dismantling of the monument. But is this synonymous with “illegal demolition”? Experts say no. Here's what, for example: stated lawyer Alexey Golubev: “In the response of the prosecutor’s office, judging by full text, published on the website of "Officers of Russia", there is no word "illegal". More precisely, the only wording that contains this word is: “The statute of limitations for bringing to justice, including criminal liability, in connection with possible illegal actions to dismantle and move the monument has now expired.” This means that the prosecutor’s office does not see the prospect of punishing any of those involved in the dismantling of Dzerzhinsky.”

According to the lawyer, the response from the prosecutor’s office does not contain anything that would give hope for the restoration of the monument in its original place: on the contrary, the text of the letter (more precisely, the first of the two responses from the prosecutor’s office - editor’s note) directly states that “at present, the status and location of the monument are determined in full accordance with the current federal and regional legislation.”

In the same vein spoke out and his colleague, a former employee of the prosecutor's office, junior justice adviser Denis Markov: “What is happening here is not recognition as illegal, but a statement of the fact 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 its original place, since this issue is exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Moscow authorities, and it is impossible to issue an order to them, since they were not the ones who demolished it.”

The reaction of Sergei Stankevich, the leader of the dismantling of the monument in 1991, was not long in coming. He statedthat a decision on the legality of the demolition of the monument to Dzerzhinsky on Lubyanka Square can only be made by the court, and not by the prosecutor’s office, which at the moment has not made any decisions, since it was not authorized to do so. In addition, he called the dismantling of the monument completely legal: “There were several decisions, the result of which was the movement of the monument 4 km from one place to another. All decisions that were made in this regard were absolutely legal and were made by the current government within the limits of its powers. The decision was made by the Presidium of the Moscow City Council, and at the same time an order was issued by the mayor of Moscow. And if someone thinks otherwise, then let them prove it in court.”

And if Stankevich can be considered an interested person here, then the opinions of independent lawyers cannot be ignored. Thus, the thesis disseminated by many media outlets about recognizing the demolition of the monument as illegal does not correspond to reality. The correct heading would be the following, which would be used, for example, “Vedomosti": "The prosecutor's office did not find documents on the legality of the demolition of the monument to Dzerzhinsky on Lubyanka."