About the case: Denis Vladimirovich Muryga was found guilty of participating in an illegal armed group (p. 2, art. 208 of the Criminal Code) and undergoing training for the purpose of terrorist activity (p. 1, art. 205.3 of the Criminal Code) in the Ukrainian “Aidar” Battalion (an extremist organization forbidden in Russia [we are obligated by the Russian law to write this, ed. note]). According to the prosecution, he joined the battalion in 2015 and subsequently took part in infrastructure sabotage.

The case is being heard by the Military Court of Appeals in the city of Vlasikha, with a panel of judges presided over by Judge Sergey Vyacheslavovich Vinnik.

I am in the court’s video transmission room at the security checkpoint. The attorney and defendant are connected via separate video conference sessions. Audio quality is generally clear, though the defendant’s speech has some distortion from an echo, but clear enough to understand. There is no public, except me.

The hearing was scheduled for 10:00 but started at 10:53 due to a change in rooms and technical issues with setting up the conference call.

The judge clearly and politely explained the parties’ rights and asked the defendant if his stance was prepared and whether he had met with his attorney. The prosecutor opted not to participate, and with mutual agreement, the case proceeded without the prosecutor’s presence.

The judge read out the appeal: the defendant does not dispute his guilt but considers the sentence unjust given that the training lasted only 2.5 days, during which he did not acquire any substantial skills, and his motive was solely financial.

With the parties’ agreement, the case was considered without evidence review, proceeding directly to arguments.

Defense Attorney:

– There is no evidence of handling explosive devices; the defendant’s statements alone are insufficient; there is no corroborative evidence. Muriga admitted guilt, cooperated with the investigation, and his only motive was monetary. In 2.5 days, he did not acquire any practical skills. The judgment lacks grounds and should exclude all qualifying elements.

Prosecutor:

– Witness testimonies and video recordings from Lisichansk serve as evidence. The duration of the stay at the camp is irrelevant, as the crime is considered complete [referring to clause 22.1 of the Supreme Court Plenum Resolution № 1 of February 9, 2012]. Acquiring knowledge is a qualifying factor, as specified in the judgment.

After approximately thirty minutes, the court adjourned for deliberation, returning with a decision about fifteen minutes later, announcing the denial of the appeal.