Feminism in Russia - Passport magazine

him that his duty as a public servant in this unique case was
to ensure conviction. Koni replied by quoting Montesquieu:
“The function of a court is not to render service but to pass
judgement.” Then the Tsar summoned Koni to the Winter Palace
and suggested he “do the right thing”.
Koni was a new type of person in Russia: an educated,
middle-class public servant who believed that law and
proper procedure should take precedence over everything,
including the autocracy. The son of a theatre critic,
Koni had initially studied engineering. But, inspired by Alexander’s
law reforms, he had switched to law. He wrote
his dissertation on the right of self-defence, including that
of people against the unlawful exercise of state power. He
wrote: “The authorities should not doubt the right of defence
against unlawful acts… They cannot demand respect
for law when they themselves do not respect it.” This, of
course, was the essential issue in Zasulich’s trial. In later life,
Koni became one of Russia’s most distinguished jurists. He
died in 1927, still trying to bring respect for law to Russia,
even under Soviet conditions.
The trial was so dramatic that Dostoyevsky, who sat in the
public gallery throughout, recycled much of it in The Brothers
Karamzov. “All Petersburg” was said to have been there,
including several government Ministers.
Koni was too good a judge to want Zasulich acquitted.
He knew she had committed a deliberate act of violence,
which could have had fatal consequences. He disapproved
of what he called “the vigilante mentality”. His only aim
was to help establish the rule of law by ensuring a fair trial.
April 2011
The Way It Is
He assumed the jury would find her guilty. He planned to
give her a light sentence which would serve as a warning
to both sides.
The “not guilty” verdict which the jury delivered after a
mere ten minutes’ deliberation was a national sensation.
Even the Foreign Minister, Prince Gorshakov, was seen
applauding in the public gallery. Zasulich was the heroine
of the hour.
Her argument can be summarised in two of the sentences
she uttered from the witness box: “It is terrible to raise one’s
had against one’s fellow man… But I couldn’t find any other
means to direct attention to that terrible event.”
This went beyond Koni: civil disobedience is one thing;
criminal acts quite another. Zasulich posed a direct challenge
to the autocracy’s method of ruling by fear and violence.
Immediately after she left the court, the St Petersburg
police, acting under orders from von Pahlen, and with the
approval of the Tsar, tried to re-arrest Zasulich. With the
help of supporters, she slipped away and went into hiding.
She declared publicly she was prepared to accept any
punishment a court might impose, but not an extra-legal
executive diktat.
The result of the trial was a general disillusionment with
the court process. To the “left”, the government’s refusal to
abide by the verdict showed the hypocrisy behind the new
system of courts and juries. This was a fair charge as von
Pahlen’s subequent actions showed. He asked Koni why he
had permitted a “demonstration” in his court. Koni replied,
“By law, a judge is not required to justify his actions to the
25