About the case: Russian court is considering the case against 5 Ukrainian prisoners of war (Ivan Vladimirovich Bezlepkin, Yury Yuryevich Makarenko, Gleb Aleksandrovich Petruk, Vladimir Ivanovich Puzanov, Dmitry Nikolaevich Reivakh), the investigation accuses them of participation in terrorist communities (article 205.4 part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
The case is being considered by the Southern District Military Court, Judge Gurgen Dovlatbekyan Serzhikovich.
The judge for the first time throughout the whole proceeding asked the parties if anyone intended to question the public. The parties declined.
The prosecutor began reading the transcript of the interrogation of defendant Makarenko.
The prosecutor questioned defendant Makarenko on his disagreement with the statements presented. Makarenko responded that he does not affirm the statements. The prosecutor continued: “Were these statements made up by someone else on your behalf?” Makarenko’s attorney intervened, invoking Article 51 of the Constitution, and recited it in full.
Makarenko’s attorney submitted a motion to invalidate the volumes containing Makarenko’s interrogation transcripts, citing procedural violations under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The judge denied the motion, stating it was premature.
Defendant Reivakh read his own testimony aloud. To each of the prosecutor’s questions, he responded that his statements had been read in full and he had nothing to add. The prosecutor then read from the case files, detailing Reivakh’s identification and military service information. Reivakh contested his pretrial statements, asserting that his courtroom testimony was the correct and exhaustive account.
Reivakh’s attorney filed a motion to exclude the interrogation records as inadmissible evidence, on the grounds that they were produced in the absence of legal counsel. The judge denied the motion without providing a reason. Reivakh’s attorney also filed a motion to examine the defendant’s signature on the interrogation transcripts. The judge granted this motion. Approximately ten such motions were filed. When questioned by his attorney, the defendant repeatedly stated that “the signature looks like mine.”
The prosecutor opposed all of the defense’s motions. The judge adjourned the court session due to the end of the working day.
