(cont)
EVIDENCE OF MURDER AND GRIEVOUS BODILY HARMIt is clear that a peaceful demonstration, although banned by the city authorities, converged on Palace Square in the afternoon of 9 January 1905. That soldiers on foot fired at the crowd as it advanced towards the Winter Palace carrying religious icons and singing hymns. Without provocation the foot soldiers opened fire on the demonstrators, with or without warning shots and the cavalry charged the crowds.
The four eye witness accounts above show clear evidence of:
Murder in that soldiers aimed firearms directly at the heads of demonstrators and opened fire. We have several pieces of evidence showing that individuals died as a result of their injuries received.
We also have evidence of others being very seriously injured and crawling away in the snow.
It is not necessary to show that any individual gave the order to fire or to charge the mounted Cossacks into the group just that death and injury occurred as a result.
At the time that the Cossacks charged and the foot soldiers opened fire the demonstrators offered no threat, it was a peaceful demonstration with women and children participating in it. The purpose was to present a petition to the Tsar.
We know that the Tsar was at Tsarskeo Selo so the military could not suggest they were protecting the Tsar. There is no evidence of provocation or that the troops were acting in self defence. Their acts of violence and murder were gratuitous. Individuals by aiming guns at individuals, or firing recklessly into a densely packed crowd knew that the consequences of such action would be death or grievous bodily harm. They clearly had the mens rea and actus reus to commit each and every offence of death and injury or were reckless as to whether death or injury was caused.
The murder and grievous injury continued to be applied to the public after the demonstration had broken up in and around the environs of Palace Square.
It is impossible for the defence team to in any realistic fashion to justify the actions of the military on that day.
THE TSAR WAS NOT THERE BUT IS NEVERTHELESS GUILTY OF MURDER, GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM AS CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.The prosecution accepts that the Tsar was in Tsarskeo Selo have departed the Winter Palace the day before the demonstration. However we do know from his own diary that many officials visited him on 8 January at Tsarskeo Selo to brief him on the arrangements for the demonstration these included:
Count Fredericks a Minister of the Court and
Sviatapolk-Mirsky, the Minister of the Interior.
Nicholas states that; ‘Mirsky came in the evening with a report of the measures taken.’
The Prosecution strongly expresses the view that the Defendant did not need to be Palace square or even within the city limits of St Petersburg at the time of the demonstration or the massacre.
Nicholas II Alexandrovich was an autocrat the definition from the Collins English dictionary is:
‘A ruler who possesses absolute and unrestricted authority.’
Autocracy is defined as:
‘Government by an individual with unrestricted authority’.
As such he was the Supreme Commander of the Russian Military this was evidenced by his taking direct command of the Russian forces during World War I and his headed paper at this time was headed ‘Supreme Headquarters’.
He had it in his gift to appoint and dismiss Ministers at will. Effectively he ruled the country through his Ministerial appointees.
As such he was in charge of the Military and the actions of the police, but in particular the Okhrana who were ‘his’ secret police.
He therefore falls within the jurisdiction of both the following sections of the Canadian legislation as a military commander, he was the Supreme Commander and as the ‘Superior’
Section 5 (1) A military commander commits an indictable offence if
(c) the military commander
(3) fails to exercise control properly over a person under their effective command and control or effective authority and control, and as a result the person commits an offence under section 4 (crime against humanity as per indictment), or
(4) fails, after the coming into force of this section, to exercise control properly over a person under their effective command and control or effective authority and control, and as a result the person commits an offence under section 6 (crime against humanity etc)
(d) the military commander knows, or is criminally negligent in failing to know, that the person is about to commit or is committing such an offence; and
(c) the military commander subsequently
(5) fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to prevent or repress the commission of the offence, or the further commission of offences under section 4 or 6, or
(6) fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.
Breach of responsibility by a superior
Section 5
(7) a superior commits an indictable offence if
(e) the superior
(3) fails to exercise control properly over a person under their effective authority and control, and as a result the person commits an offence under section 4 (crime against humanity as per indictment), or
(4) fails, after the coming into force of this section, to exercise control properly over a person under their effective authority and control, and as a result the person commits an offence under section 6 (crime against humanity etc)
(f) the superior knows, that the person is about to commit or is committing such an offence, or consciously disregards information that clearly indicates that such an offence is about to be committed or is being committed by the person
(g) the offence relates to activities for which the superior has effective authority and control; and
(h) the superior subsequently
(3) fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to prevent or repress the commission of the offence, or the further commission of offences under section 4 or 6 or
(4) fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.
(
fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to prevent or repress the commission of the offence, or the further commission of offences under section 4 or 6, or
fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.
The Tsar did have effective command and control over the Military and Gendarmes, he was briefed as to the arrangements by his Interior Minister the evening before the demonstration. It is sufficient that a person commits an offence mentioned in the Act whilst under the command of the Military Commander. Murder and grievous bodily harm against the civil population which the demonstrators were are crimes against humanity.
He was negligent if he did not issue instructions that no force than was reasonably necessary should have been used against peaceful demonstrators.
An individual Military Commander does not have to be present to commit an offence. In fact in many crimes against humanity the military commander will be further removed from the scene of the crime than the Tsar was from Palace Square in Tsarskeo Selo.
As the autocrat he also failed to refer the matter for investigation.
He clearly commits the same offence as a Superior and again fails to have the matter investigated.
His callousness to the whole vent is summed up in his diary entry 9 January
‘A painful day. There have been serious disorders in St Petersburg because workmen wanted to come up to the Winter Palace. Troops had to open fire in several places in the city; there were many killed and wounded. God how painful and sad.’
No remorse, no investigation ‘ they wanted to come up to the Palace’ they were massacred and mutilated for ‘wanting to come up to the palace’ not for rioting or for armed insurrection, but for wanting to come up to the palace!
I also support his by saying as the autocrat, the Supreme Commander he also have vicarious liability for the actions of his police and military.