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 District Military Court.
The presiding judge announced a change of the court secretary and clarified the parties’ right to recuse, but recusals weren’t filed.
The presiding judge noted that the delay was due to the transport and health complaints of defendant Mukhin. The judge asked Mukhin to explain his condition. Mukhin stated that he had a high fever (over 39°C), malaise, and nausea – “flu symptoms”, which he reported to the detention center, but was told that the court ordered all defendants to attend, “dead or alive” regardless of condition. The presiding judge clarified that no such order had been issued and that attempts were made to arrange video conferencing with the detention center. The judge then asked Mukhin if he could continue for the session, which was expected to last approximately one to one and a half hours. Mukhin agreed.
The presiding judge noted attendance and stated that several defense attorneys were absent, though other attorneys holding warrants for the absent attorneys’ clients were present. The defense indicated that there were no obstacles to proceeding, and the court decided to continue the hearing.
Defense attorney Mogitich submitted a motion requesting that the court prohibit her client’s transfer to detention facilities in regions under martial law, alleging both psychological pressure and witnessing assaults on others in those facilities. The presiding judge asked for clarification on the request. Another attorney attempted to clarify that the motion sought to prevent authorization for such transfers. The judge announced that the motion would be considered, but later in the session.
Examination of Defendant Natalia Vladimirovna Golfiner. Before the questioning, the presiding judge reminded Golfiner of her right to testify but clarified it was not an obligation. Golfiner stated she would testify. In response to questions, Golfiner reported that she is a native of Ukraine, has lived her entire life in the Donetsk region, and initially contracted as a cook with the “Azov” Regiment (designated a terrorist organization in Russia) to support her family, specifically for her brother-in-law’s surgery. Due to health issues, she was transferred to the position of head of the food supply depot. She did not carry weapons and was on medical leave at the start of the Special Military Operation (SMO). She voluntarily presented herself to the police for screening, where she was detained.
In April 2022, she went to the police for “filtering” voluntarily, as corroborated by her husband and a friend working in the police department. She was unaware that the “Azov” Regiment had been designated as a terrorist organization until she was detained and taken to Starobeshevo settlement. A picture of Adolf Hitler found on her phone was likely downloaded from a work-related Telegram chat. Her unit was a support unit and was not involved in combat operations. Her working hours were from 8 AM. to 8 PM, often extending to 9 or even 10 PM. In response to her attorney’s question on why she did not leave, she stated, “I was born here, how could I leave? This is my land.” Regarding tattoos, Golfiner stated she did not favor tattoos, had none herself, and had no interest in others’ tattoos. She voluntarily went to the police for “filtering,” as confirmed by her husband during court questioning and could also be verified by a friend in the police department.
Golfiner described the psychological pressure she faced after her detention, which included threats, lengthy interrogations, witnessing others being beaten, being forced to stand from 6 AM to 8 PM, and being given poor-quality food. She expressed willingness to verify her testimony via polygraph. Regarding the charges, she stated, “I lived in one place for 50 years and ended up a terrorist. Cooking borsch is not a seizure of power.” She did not voluntarily withdraw from service as she could not easily terminate her contract.
Following this, other defense attorneys asked questions about their clients, clarifying parts of her testimony.
The prosecutor then posed questions regarding her health, her role, the number of subordinates, her rank, the Hitler photo, and her claim to have voluntarily ceased involvement with the “Azov” Regiment (designated as a terrorist organization in Russia), questioning if she would have reported had she not been ill (“If you had not been sick, would you have reported as summoned?”). Golfiner replied that she would not have gone due to a scheduled surgery. She learned of the requirement to report for document checks through televised announcements explaining that military personnel should report for verification.
The court then confirmed the dates of her detention: unofficially from April 4, 2022, but officially recorded on April 7, 2022.
The prosecutor filed a motion to read Golfiner’s written statements from the investigation due to inconsistencies. Golfiner’s attorney and other defense attorneys objected. The court granted the motion, “because there is a procedural justification and no impediment.”
Golfiner’s attorney requested that a character reference from the detention center be admitted to the case file. The prosecution had no objections, and the court admitted it.
The presiding judge returned to the motion initially filed by Mogitich at the beginning of the session, regarding the transfer of the defendant to regions under martial law. The judge noted that the issue did not fall within the court’s authority. Defense explained that without court sanction, authorities [Russian FSIN, or federal penal enforcement service, ed. note] have no right to transfer the defendant, implying that court authorization is required for transfers to these regions. Another attorney supported this clarification. The prosecutor objected, claiming the motion was baseless and unclear, requesting denial. The court ruled to deny the motion as it was outside its jurisdiction but ordered the motion be added to the case file. The judge also instructed Mogitich to submit a formal statement on improper investigative methods regarding her client by the next day.
The court adjourned the session.
