Worst of all in Na'ama's trial is not the lack of evidence, but the indifference to the fact that he did not understand the allegations at all. • Issachar's Russian lawyer writes for "Israel Today"

• Naama Issachar // Photo: AFP

Delay and arrest for petty non-criminal offense, bad translation, filthy investigation and trial in the same spirit, lack of evidence of guilt in the case, sentence of seven and a half years in prison, appeal, fight. freedom. A summary of less than three hundred days in a Russian prison.

Most of us know that the percentage of credits in Russia is on a scale of statistical error. Under such conditions, many would prefer a bargain or compromise with the prosecutor's office over a fight. Naama Issachar chose the second option. And she won.

The tribunal in the first trial and appeal demonstrated to Naama the magic antics that our courts use to infect a person, depriving them of any hope. They also showed her that a person might go to jail and stay there for good, even without clear proof of guilt.

But worst of all in Na'ama's trial is not the lack of evidence but the complete indifference of the court to the fact that the person standing in front of them does not understand the language used in the legal hearings, and therefore has no idea what is happening to her. All this, when the "translator" appointed by the court can not understand Naama at all. But it turns out that in today's Russian court, even these facts are ignored when convicting a person.

When we received Naama's ruling that the court affirmed the validity and legality of the sentence that sentenced Naama and her sentence to seven and a half years in prison, something else became clear: the more and more reasoned the illegality of sentencing the defense served (Naama's case) This is 56 pages), so the court's response will be shorter and more meaningless.

We have already become accustomed to the court ignoring even the most direct and clear claims of the defense, but we are always intrigued to try to understand the reasoning behind the sentence and see how the court manages to evade the charges and determine that black is white. Petitioner from the defense claims in the case of Naama Issachar they build as snow, so the court preferred not at all to deal with them but to sweep them and reject them.

As a result, we received a blatant, ceremonial, unscrupulous, and unjustifiable answer that included three brief paragraphs of Abel, which can be summarized as "no significant violation of the law."

One thing is unfortunate in this case: Naama won her freedom not by the values ​​of the justice system but by the institution of amnesty, an institution for which no law is required. But even the pardon could not come by itself without some kind of struggle.

The writer is the lawyer for Naama Issachar in Russia

Brought to print: Neta Bar