Our examples very effectively closed the mouths to lawyers. Part 1.

Text - Alina Radachynskaya

Tamara Sidarenka defended a former presidential candidate, Uladzimir Nyaklyaeu, in the so called “mass riot” trials. In 2011 her lawyer’s license was not extended.

Part 1.

Why have your colleagues not defended you? What about the solidarity within the legal community?

I have accepted sympathy from some people. The Presidium of the Minsk City Bar (AR: further - the Presidium) objectively reacted to the first actions of the Ministry of Justice, initiated on the fact of my interview, and which later resulted in an admonition. Actually it became one of two grounds to admit that I had violated something and suspend my license. The Presidium did not find any violations in my actions. It was in January 2011. The events were difficult to understand and rather disturbing.
In August, when this issue was finally considered at the Collegium of the Ministry of Justice, the Presidium applied for extending my license. That means that there was an attempt to defend my interests within the law and within the activities of the Presidium. That is not to say that there was no reaction and defence at all.

Maybe it was necessary to summarize everything what was happening and to bring it to the attention of colleagues?

The international community was outraged by the fact that the lawyers were wrongfully dismissed, but it would be better if my colleagues reacted the same way. We have got that kind of job, I personally can’t keep track of everything that happens to others in other consultation offices, because of time and being remote, no one informs me. The Presidium could perform this function. That's the only thing I could blame the Minsk City Bar for. Well, and also now it can be blamed for the absence of reaction, and no one has summarized how many lawyers were dismissed.

Unfortunately, I was offended by the National Bar: it did not consider necessary to be interested in the fate of those, whom it manages. Actually, nobody tried to talk to me before the voting. I asked in a written form to provide an intercession for the Ministry of Justice on extending my license taking into consideration my long productive work. They did not even consider necessary to reply and even to write: "we see no grounds for an intercession."

But even if the supreme organ of self-administration does not defend its members, it is almost impossible for lawyers to maintain their independence. How have we come to such a situation in the Bar?

It is difficult to evaluate from my position what is happening "at the upper level" of the Bar. But one can see that since the election of a new head of the Presidium of the Minsk City Bar, a certain confrontation with the National Board has begun. When the Presidium toughly enough reacted to the events of 2010, the National Bar took a position that it was wrong. There was a biased attitude towards the Minsk City Bar and its leadership. I think that our republican body didn’t want additional problems. Maybe this is a far-sighted policy to consider that the Ministry of Justice is always right.

Part 2.

Illustration:met-tattoo.ru