About the case: The case was initiated against 24 individuals from the “Azov” battalion (a terrorist organization forbidden in Russia [we are obligated by the Russian law to write this, ed. note]), nine of them being women, with two others exchanged before the start of the trial. The defendants are accused under Article 278 of the Criminal Code – violent seizure of power or violent retention of power, as well as Article 205.5 of the Criminal Code – organizing the activities of a terrorist organization and participating in the activities of such an organization. Several defendants are charged under Article 205.3 of the Criminal Code – training for terrorist activities.
The case is being considered by the three-judge panel, presided by Judge Vyacheslav Alexeevich Korsakov of the Southern Military District Court.
The hearing started an hour late, the reasons for the delay were not announced. Ishchenko does not have a lawyer. Mukhin’s defense attorney is absent and Gretzky’s defense attorneys are absent. The defense and prosecution are not against continuing in such a composition.
The hearing is attended by witnesses [possibly for Natalia Golfiner, but the monitor insists that he heard the surname “Blokhikh, ed] behalf: spouse and daughter. The spouse is called first. The judge asks the profile of the witness and reads the rights of the witness, as well as the right not to testify against a close relative.
The defense side begins the questioning.
Defense attorney:
– Where did she serve in the service?
Witness:
– In military unit 3057.
– From what period of time did she serve?
– From 2019 to 2022.
– Was Natalya Vladimirovna held criminally liable?
– No.
– Do you have relatives in Russia?
-Yes.
– Are there any relatives in Ukraine?
– No.
– What is her education?
– She graduated from college as a cook
– How long has she been on sick leave?
– Since January 10, 2022.
– Were there any internal conflicts at her duty station?
– When hostilities started, she refused to go on duty, was threatened with criminal proceedings for refusal, she said that she did not care and would not take part in it.
– Did she wear a uniform at home?
– No.
– Was she a member of any social media groups supporting Ukraine?
– No.
– Did she have service responsibilities in the form of military supply, military training work?
– No, she was only responsible for food in the warehouse.
– Did you agree to the exchange?
– No, all relatives live in Russia. In Ukraine there will be either a trial or transfer to a military unit.
Prosecution:
– There are no questions.
The second witness – daughter of the defendant Blokhikh [maybe Golfiner, ed.], is called.
The judge asks her personal details. Announces the rights of the witness and the right not to testify against a relative.
Defense attorney:
– Has Natalya Vladimirovna been brought to criminal responsibility?
Witness:
– No.
– Do you have any relatives in Russia?
– Yes.
– Are there any relatives in Ukraine?
– No.
– What kind of education?
– Cook.
– How long has she been on sick leave?
– Since January 10, 2022.
– How can you characterize the defendant?
– Always helped in the village, used to work as a librarian, calm, kind.
Almost all the questions were identical to the first interrogation.
Prosecution:
– There are no questions.
The defense attorney asks to attach to the case files a document about Blokhikh’s [maybe Golfiner, ed.] education. The judge granted it.
The defense attorney files a motion to close the hearing due to the defendant’s illness. For the time being, the judge asks only to give it to him and a copy to the prosecutor.
Request for Ishchenko’s medical examination – the defense lawyer submitted an electronic appeal to the pre-trial detention center-1, which was ignored. In this regard, the lawyer sent the appeal again. This appeal was also ignored. The lawyer asks to send Ishchenko for a medical examination in order to obtain a medical report on the existence of a disease that would prevent him from serving the sentence. The lawyer also asks to attach four appeals to the pre-trial detention center, a complaint against the management, a medical examination report and extracts issued in Ukraine, in Ukrainian.
The prosecutor does not object to the examination of the medical report, but he does to the examination to identify the disease that prevents serving the sentence. The judge grants only a part of the requests, in terms of referral for examination, and refuses to attach medical documents from Ukraine, and others.
The judge asked about the process of familiarization of the defense counsel with the materials, as the latter was interested in the relationship between the seized items and his client. The defense counsel said that the list given to him on the last request contained 1000 pieces of evidence and that he had not familiarized himself with them.
The defense attorney was very close to the judge, and everything else discussed at this point I heard vaguely and possibly omitted: the defense attorney pointed out that his request was not for the documentary consistency of the items, but whether they were related to his client. The judge gave the floor to the prosecutor. The prosecutor stated that all the material evidence was in two trucks in Donetsk, and if the defense attorneys wished, they could come there and familiarize themselves with it.
The judge clarified whether there would be more witnesses. The defense attorneys say that they are doing some paperwork and maybe there will be witnesses at the next hearing. At 11:50 a.m., the court announced a recess for a medical and psychological examination of one of the defendants, and the hearing would continue from 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.
I arrived at the courthouse at 1:55 p.m. after meeting with the attorneys who were going to the hearing and the prosecutor. I asked the bailiff if the hearing would continue – he said not anymore, postponed to September 20. I do not know why the hearing was not continued.
