About the case: Anton Vladimirovich Cherednik, a serviceman of the AFU, is accused under Article 278 of the Criminal Code of “violent seizure of power”, part 1 of Article 356 of the Criminal Code of “cruel treatment of civilians, use of prohibited means and methods in an armed conflict”, part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of “murder” and Article 205.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of “training for terrorist activities”. According to the investigative committee, Cherednik shot a civilian for mispronouncing a phrase in Ukrainian.

The case is being heard by a panel consisting of: presiding judge Vyacheslav Alexeyevich Korsakov, Ilya Nikolaevich Bezgub, and Mukhamed Khasanbievich Kilyarovthe of Southern District Military Court.

This time the bailiffs are around the “aquarium” without balaclavas, smiling, talking to the secretary.

The presiding judge asks the secretary to explain the reason for the late start. Secretary: 

– Late delivery of the defendant.

The presiding judge further says that they wanted to question Baitrakov as a witness today, but as it became known, the questioning will not take place, and asks the secretary to explain why. Secretary: 

– Baitrakov, being a defendant, is in the Donetsk People’s Republic pre-trial detention center, with which there is no possibility of a video conference. There is no possibility of video conference on the entire territory of the Donetsk People’s Republic. But Baitrakov is to be transferred to pre-trial detention center № 1 in Rostov-on-Don. At present, he has not yet been transferred, and has not traveled outside the Donetsk People’s Republic.

The court asked the lawyer if the defense had any more evidence to present today. The interrogation of Baitrakov is considered as evidence for the defense – the lawyer requested it. The defense attorney replies in the negative.

The court turns to Cherednyk and explains that he cannot testify, but he can state his position and testify if he wishes.

Cherednyk states his position as follows: 

– I agree with part 1 of Article 105, I do not agree with part 2 of Article 105, I do not have fascist views, I did not serve in nationalist battalions, I was not a member of fascist parties.

The court invited the defense counsel to ask questions.

The lawyer (seated, with his back to the defendant) asks questions:

– Have you familiarized yourself with the indictment?

Cherednik affirms.

Counsel:

– Do you plead guilty?

Cherednik: 

– To Article 105, Part 1.

Counsel:

– Under Article 205.3, you are charged with [quotes indictment]. Do you confirm the scope of the charge?

Cherednik:

– I don’t confirm it. I did not serve in the military, before the contract I received some training like a young fighter course.

The court asks about the duration of the contract.

Cherednyk: 

– Three-year contract.

Counselor: 

– And the year of the contract?

Cherednyk: 

– 2016.

Counselor: 

– What else do you want to tell us?

Cherednyk: 

– I only attended a young fighter’s training course.

The lawyer quotes the following paragraph of the indictment [apparently under Art. 278] – violent seizure of power. Do you have anything to say about this episode?

Cherednyk: 

– I had no intention of overthrowing the government, I am an ordinary fighter. We did not attack anywhere. I don’t understand what I could overthrow. I was not a member of any nationalist party.

The lawyer quotes the charge under Part 1 of Article 356, then asks:

– What are your statements?

Cherednyk said that he had neither fascist nor racist views. He goes on to explain that he shot by accident: “He twitched – I twitched”.  

This phrase was often repeated by the defendant in his answers to the prosecutor and the court often referring to the contusion.

The presiding judge clarifies:

– When was he concussed, before the incriminating events? Do you have any certificates? 

Cherednyk answered that they were in Mariupol, and here [referring to Rostov-on-Don pre-trial detention center № 1] he asked [for certificate], but nothing was done.

Then the lawyer intervened again: 

– Do you plead guilty [to Part 1 of Article 356]?

Cherednyk: 

– No.

The lawyer then cited the charge under Part 2 of Article 105 and, as before, invited Cherednyk to speak.

Cherednyk repeated what he had already said about his views.

Defense counsel had no further questions. Next, the Court grants the Prosecutor the right to ask questions.

Prosecutor (also sitting, although Cherednyk has been standing all along): 

– Are you going to testify about the circumstances of the case?

– No.

– Will you answer my questions?

– Yes.

– Were you a serviceman of the Armed Forces of Ukraine? Did you have uniforms, insignia, weapons?

– Yes.

– And what was the reason for stopping the civilians? Why did you order them to undress [the prosecutor went on to list other actions] – I think you put them on the ground? 

– We were conducting a check for weapons, for dangerous objects.

– When you undressed him, did you find any weapons?

– No, there were no weapons. 

– If no weapon was found, then he posed no threat to you? What does that have to do with the translation of the word “bread”?

– My native language is Russian, I don’t speak Ukrainian well, I didn’t say those words.

– What did you learn at “Desna” [military training center]?

– Nothing. Disassembly-assembly of weapons, carrying on duty.

– You were not trained in combat tactics? To go in twos, threes? 

– No.

– And to shoot?

– No.

– I’m trying to understand the logic… You were not trained in anything, what was the nature of your service?

– As a border guard.

– You arrived at the border, then you entered the Donetsk People’s Republic?

– No, we go for a regular rotation every year. I’m involved in supply and logistics. Sector M – Mariupol.

The prosecutor begins to ask the next question, the judge interrupts him, asks when they arrived.

– At the end of December 2021 came for rotation.

– What was the purpose? – the prosecutor continues the questioning.

– Identification of DRGs [sabotage and reconnaissance groups], armed individuals.

– And then what? Was Donetsk supposed to come under Ukraine’s control?

Cherednyk was embarrassed, looked at the judge and said: 

– Well, that’s a political question, isn’t it.

– If you don’t want to, you don’t have to answer, – said the prosecutor.

– I won’t.

The prosecutor’s question is followed by a long discussion mixed with questions, to which Cherednyk responds briefly. The prosecutor says something like this: 

– Let’s get this straight. You deny the fact of participation in the violent seizure of power in the territory of Mariupol. And you confirm that he [the murdered man] was an unarmed civilian?

Cherednyk: 

– Unarmed – yes, peaceful – I don’t know.

– The fact that you were trained in “Desna”?

– No.

– That you had weapons and that you came to the Mirny settlement?

– Yes.

– Do you disagree with this qualification?

– I don’t understand the question.

– You don’t deny the circumstances, do you disagree with the qualification?

Lawyer, addressing the court: 

– May I ask?

Court: 

– Later.

Judge to Cherednyk: 

– Where was the shot fired? 

Cherednyk: 

– Towards the front of the torso. According to the examination, it was to the back.

Court: 

– Were you a contract soldier? Were you on your allowance?

– Sergeant. Senior supply sergeant. In the old terms, senior supply sergeant.

– Did you have any awards?

– A medal for the ATO [Anti-Terrorist Operation].

– Were you a senior squad member?

– I was.

– Was this the first time you patrolled with him [Baitrakov]?

– Yes, I don’t know him at all.

– There were several patrols? How was it organized?

– There was nothing! It was chaos! There was a bombing, and many residents were killed.

Court to lawyer:

– What did you want to ask?

Lawyer: 

– Why did you sign the contract?

Cherednyk: 

– I was an entrepreneur for a long time. My family started to fall apart. Things were going badly, and the AFU paid steadily. I went on contract in 2016, then extended for 3 years. In March 2022 I was going to quit.

Lawyer: 

– While serving in Mirny, did you receive briefings? Did you set tasks?

Cherednyk: 

– No.

Court: 

– Marital status? Children?

Cherednyk: 

– Divorced. Two sons: 17 and 23 years old.

Court: 

– Before the service, what did you do?

Cherednyk: 

– I had a workshop for the production of “rabitsa” mesh, nails.

Court: 

– So you claim that you fired the shot accidentally?

Cherednyk: 

– Yes.

Court: 

– And were any questions asked?

Cherednyk: 

– I didn’t have time. The automatic rifle was off the safety, the cartridge was in the chamber.

Court: 

– And what about the instructions?

Cherednyk: 

– It should be unloaded. I didn’t even think about it [at that moment].

Court: 

– Did you drink alcohol?

Cherednyk: 

– No.

Prosecutor: 

– After the shot was fired, did you try to provide assistance?

Cherednyk: 

– No.

Prosecutor: 

– Left naked lying in the street? Do you consider that normal…?

The court interrupts the prosecutor: 

– This is no longer a question of fact.

Court to Cherednyk: 

– Also, participated in hostilities?

Cherednyk: 

– No.

Court: 

– Why were you concussed?

Cherednyk: 

– Was bombed a lot.

Court: 

– Didn’t you receive treatment [after the contusion]?

Cherednyk: 

– No, we surrendered on 04.04.2022. In the settlement of Mirny.

Court: 

– Voluntarily?

Cherednyk: 

– Yes.

Court: 

– Under what circumstances?

Cherednyk: 

– We were holding the defense, 30% of the people were lost, and the commander gathered us. 

Cherednyk further said that they had to leave through a special corridor for withdrawal of troops, but there they had to surrender.

Prosecutor requests to disclose the defendant’s testimony given earlier, noting inconsistencies with today’s statements, indicating that Cherednyk did not provide all the details.

Court to the defense:

– Any objections?

Lawyer:

– No objections.

Cherednyk:

– No.

Court:

– Allow the disclosure.

The bailiff handed over three volumes and took his seat.

The prosecutor discloses Cherednyk’s statements from case records while seated, including two interrogation protocols and one on-site testimony protocol. They indicate no concussion, one son, and Cherednyk being trained as a machine gunner in Desna.

After the disclosure, the prosecutor asks Cherednyk if he agrees with the disclosed statements.

Cherednyk:

– Partially.

Prosecutor:

– But do the circumstances match?

Cherednyk:

– I didn’t fire from a machine gun.

Prosecutor:

– What were you doing at the location? Guarding a warehouse?

Cherednyk:

– We were in the settlement a month before the incident. Then we retreated to the Ilyich plant. Then to the village of Mirny, where we were assigned a specific rear area.

The prosecutor inquires about alcohol consumption.

Cherednyk:

– That’s about Baitrakov. No, I was not intoxicated. Baitrakov was noticed drinking; I even warned him about it several times.

Court:

– But earlier, you mentioned not knowing him.

Cherednyk:

– No, I knew him. It was my first patrol with him.

The court further clarifies where the alcohol was obtained. Cherednyk’s response was unclear.

The court adjourns the session.