About the case: Andrei Chernyshov is charged with discrediting the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (Article 20.3.3, Part 1 of the Administrative Code of Russia). The young man was standing with a poster with an anti-war inscription.
The case is being heard in the Petrogradsky District Court, presided over by Judge Elena Viktorovna Medvedeva.
During the court session, the judge spoke quietly and unintelligibly. Chernyshov frequently leaned forward from the podium to hear better. When reading out the background of the court case, the presiding judge deliberately avoids quoting the text on the poster, sidestepping it.
The defense attorney requests the summoning of witnesses – either the police officers who apprehended Chernyshov or the prosecutor.
– Based on what you’ve written here, you generally don’t dispute that there was a poster, – says the judge. – You are disputing that its content relates to the offense for which liability is provided for under Article 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
– The police officers are key witnesses, – the defense attorney responds uncertainly.
– What for? If you’re not disputing the circumstances? – the judge clarifies.
– This is the exact time of the events – it can be established from objective data, – the judge begins to get frustrated. – I just sincerely don’t understand why they, the police witnesses, are needed?
– Because we all understand perfectly well that in any case, no one calls them, – the defense attorney continues.
– So why bother with this nonsense?! – the judge interrupts. – You file motions that are obviously meaningless! Please explain your position on the case!
– Because they are key witnesses!
– What key witnesses?! – the judge exclaims. – If Chernyshov admits everything! You are just giving a different assessment of these circumstances. What are they key witnesses to?! Just to file a motion. Okay, I’m going to make a decision…
The judge denies the motion.
The judge’s assistant brought a laptop, and all the participants in the process began to look at photos and videos from Chernyshov’s protest.
Chernyshov’s speech:
– I believe that there are situations in which silence is ethically unacceptable. When silence means discarding yourself as a person and as a citizen. In these situations, there is no other way out than to exercise one’s basic right to freedom of speech. However, despite freedom of speech, one can speak in different ways and with different consequences. If a person, in speaking, calls for murder – that’s a crime. If a person calls for hatred and enmity – that’s a crime. If a person calls for war – that’s a crime. But is it a crime if a person, like me, calls for a fair trial? And isn’t it paradoxical to judge him for that? After all, if we admit that calling for a trial and nothing more – is a crime, then what will we equate the court to? In the end, is a legal proceeding the discredit of someone? I think not. I sincerely hope that in a fair court, everyone can defend their honest name or not defend it if it’s not honest and clean.
– Is that all? – the judge asks.
– That’s all, – Chernyshov replies.
The judge, sighing deeply, concludes:
– So, if I understand correctly, you exercised your basic right to freedom of speech, calling for a fair trial against Putin and his soldiers?
– Yes, that’s correct.
The judge sighs several more times, clarifies whether the accused contests the fact of displaying the placard and the route of movement, reviews the case materials.
Among other documents, there is an overdue fine under Article 20.2.2 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (Organizing mass simultaneous presence and/or movement of citizens in public places, resulting in a breach of public order).
The judge asks the participants in the process if they have anything else to add and goes into the deliberation room.
An hour later, the judge emerges from the room and declares Chernyshov guilty, imposing a fine of 40,000 rubles.
