About the case: Alexander Valeryevich Skobov is accused of publicly justifying terrorism by posting messages on a Telegram channel, as well as participating in the terrorist community “Forum of Free Russia” where Skobov shared several texts identical to those on his Telegram channel.
The case is being heard by the 1st Western District Military Court, with Judge Alexander Alexandrovich Khludnev presiding.
The case is being considered via videoconference with the Syktyvkar City Court, where the defendant, escorted from the FSIN’s Pretrial Detention Center № 1 [FSIN is a Federal Penitentiary Service, ed. note] in the Republic of Komi, attorney V.V. Kosnyrev, and escorting police officers are present. The judge and court secretary are absent from the screen and do not participate in the proceedings. The identities of the defendant and defense attorney are established verbally by the presiding judge based on copies of the case materials.
In the courtroom of the 1st Western District, attorney V.Yu. Karagodina and senior prosecutor Y.S. Yankovskaya from the St. Petersburg Prosecutor’s Office are present, and 11 people are admitted (the number of available seats), with around 10 others forced to remain in the hallway. No measures were taken to ensure that all interested parties could be admitted (such as providing additional chairs, benches, or allowing standing room).
The presiding judge opens the hearing and inquires whether any witnesses are present in the courtroom. It turns out that the defendant’s wife (O.A. Shcheglova) and mother (N.L. Skobova) are present. Shcheglova also informs the court that they have submitted requests to be allowed to remain in the courtroom during the trial. The judge acknowledges this information and decides to return to the issue later.
Judge Khludnev asks if the participants in the trial can see and hear the proceedings from the Syktyvkar City Court. The defendant remains silent, and attorney Kosnyrev responds affirmatively. The court asks the attorney to immediately alert the court if the quality of the connection worsens. The judge then reads from the case materials documents confirming the powers of the defense attorneys and the prosecutor (IDs, warrants, assignments).
The identity of the defendant is established, though he refuses to answer questions and attempts to explain why. However, the judge interrupts Skobov, literally drowning out his words and raising his voice to the point of shouting (the defendant simultaneously begins shouting slogans, such as “Glory to Ukraine”), threatening to remove him from the courtroom.
The presiding judge establishes the defendant’s identity based on “the available documents in the case” (a copy of his Russian passport, a response from the registry office, and information from the Ministry of Internal Affairs), explaining that “the court will still ask questions, and it’s up to you whether to answer them”. The judge then asks whether Skobov is familiar with the case and has received a copy of the indictment. The judge waits a few seconds for his response, then reads the corresponding information from the case materials.
It is clarified whether there are any objections, with both the attorneys and the prosecutor having none. After a literal second, the court decides that the issue is left unanswered. The same procedure is followed when explaining the procedural rights to the defendant.
The statements from the witnesses Shcheglova and Skobova are discussed. They are the wife and mother of the defendant and are considered witnesses in the case. They have been requested to testify by the prosecution, but they express their wish to be exempted from testifying and ask to be allowed to remain in the courtroom as observers instead.
The prosecutor objects, stating that “the procedural will to exempt them from the status of witnesses is not provided by the requirements of the Russian criminal procedure law, so I believe it is necessary to deny this request”. The prosecution intends to question these witnesses and does not waive them.
Attorney Karagodina supports the request, as Shcheglova is the spouse of her client and expresses the defendant’s wish for her to be present in the courtroom. Skobov’s mother is 90 years old, and it is unlikely she will easily come for further questioning. “She has come to attend the session and see her son”.
Attorney Kosnyrev points out that the rule prohibiting a witness from being present in the courtroom serves a clear purpose: it prevents witnesses from altering their testimony after hearing other testimonies and case materials being examined. However, these witnesses were interrogated as close relatives to provide a character reference for the defendant, not as eyewitnesses or individuals with knowledge of the case. “Therefore, I believe that no harm will be caused to the interests of the proceedings. We don’t expect them to change their statements and start saying anything negative about Skobov”.
The court responds: “Dear defense counsel, I understand your position, and the goal you voiced is shared by the court, but..”.
Kosnyrev: “Nevertheless, especially considering the age of the defendant’s mother… why not show some reasonable degree of humanity? Why not take a more humane approach and allow ourselves to make a small exception to the formal rule, especially when doing so will not harm the interests of justice?”
Karagodina (defense counsel): “…Skobov’s mother is 90 years old, and it is unlikely she will come easily for questioning again. She has come here to attend the session and see her son”.
The court: “Well, the prosecution’s position is that they intend to question the witnesses”.
Shcheglova: “A 90-year-old woman..”.
The judge gestures: “Position of the prosecution”.
The defendant’s opinion is not asked, and the court removes Shcheglova and Skobova from the courtroom since they are witnesses and the prosecution intends to question them during the trial. “The court also believes that the requirement to prohibit a witness from being in the courtroom is imperative”.
The motion from “some Idrisov” regarding ensuring the openness and transparency of the trial is considered: allowing all listeners into the courtroom and permitting photo and video recording of the hearings. The court inquires whether this individual is present in the courtroom, and Idrisov confirms his presence.
The defense attorneys support the motion, while the prosecutor does not object to photography but sees no grounds for allowing video recording. “All rights are being upheld, the defense attorneys are present, and listeners are present”.
Idrisov points out that according to the ruling of the Supreme Court’s Plenary Session No. 35, all arriving listeners should be allowed into the courtroom, and if there is not enough space, the judge should ensure another room is provided. “This beautiful building has a large hall where all attendees could be accommodated. Around 10 people are left in the hallway, so the current situation does not meet the standard of openness as understood in the Supreme Court’s Plenary Session № 35. This could be fixed by providing additional chairs; there is no need to move to another hall today… everyone can be seated and transparency will not be violated”.
The motion is partially granted, with permission for photo and video recording of the current session without identifying the presiding judge, court secretary, and prosecutor. The reason for this restriction is not explained. “As for the access of other individuals who arrived at the court, the court is currently not empowered to ensure the participation of all listeners in the trial”.
The prosecutor begins reading the indictment but speaks quickly, stumbling over words and making numerous mistakes as they go through the charges. A condensed version of the indictment is provided below.
No later than December 27, 2023, Skobov, who was negatively disposed toward the activities of the president and government of the Russian Federation, an opponent of the “special military operation” in Ukraine, and aware of the involvement of the organizations “Russian Volunteer Corps”* and “Legion ‘Freedom for Russia'”* in terrorist activities, formed an intent to publicly call for terrorism and justify terrorist acts using the internet.
From February 28, 2023, to August 11, 2024, Skobov intentionally posted materials justifying terrorist acts on his Telegram channel, including:
Skobov’s posts contained calls for the violent overthrow of the constitutional order of the Russian Federation and were accessible to a wide audience. Thus, he committed a crime under Part 2 of Article 205.2 of the Russian Criminal Code.
From October 2, 2023, to March 17, 2024, Skobov participated in the terrorist community “Forum of Free Russia”* organized to commit crimes under Articles 205.1 and 205.2 of the Criminal Code. He actively posted materials justifying terrorism and took part in conferences aimed at supporting armed resistance against the Russian Federation.
On January 26, 2024, and March 17, 2024, Skobov published posts calling for the assassination of a state official and the violent overthrow of the government, as confirmed by the content of his records in his Telegram channel and the community’s website.
On April 2, 2024, Skobov was arrested but voluntarily continued his participation in the terrorist community. His actions are classified under Part 2 of Article 205.4 and Part 2 of Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code.
Thus, Skobov, through his actions, publicly justified terrorism and called for terrorist activity, intentionally acting as part of a terrorist group using the internet.
The court asks the participants in the process about their attitude toward the charges.
Skobov: “My attitude toward the charges is that they are not of interest to me. I would just like to clarify the charges that were presented, as they were not clear”.
The Court: “Please, without political slogans”.
Skobov states that, as a member of the “Forum of Free Russia” council and a participant in its editorial group, he took part in developing programmatic documents that reflect their position regarding President Putin’s policies and his military actions against Ukraine. These documents are publicly available.
He adds that for him, three key points are important, to which he is connected:
The Court: “Understood, thank you. Do you intend to give testimony in court?”
Skobov: “No”.
The Court: “Does the defense wish to state its position regarding the charges? Attorney Karagodina?”
Karagodina: “No, I do not wish to”.
Kosnyrev (Defense Counsel): “Your Honor, despite the fact that the indictment is filled with alarming words like ‘terrorism,’ ‘terrorist,’ I still believe that Skobov’s case is not about fighting terrorism. It is a story about war. One of the many stories about war today. A war in which there is a clear aggressor, a clear victim, and many victims whose numbers continue to grow every day. And of course… this is the story of people who, in different ways, oppose the aggressor, and how the aggressor persecutes these people, using all the resources at his disposal, including criminal prosecution, while abusing anti-terrorism laws to limit freedom of speech, to suppress political discourse, and to take other forms of action against this resistance, which different people or organizations are trying to express or engage in against the aggressor”.
The Prosecutor proposes the following order for the examination of evidence: to question the witness Tarasenko and review the case materials related to the “first episode” of the charges.
Attorney Karagodina also suggests questioning Shcheglova and Skobova as witnesses. Attorney Kosnyrev supports this position. The presiding judge asks whether the prosecution intends to question them today, and the prosecutor responds negatively, “No, my plan for today, as previously stated, remains unchanged”.
The court rules to accept the prosecutor’s proposed order of presenting evidence.
The witness, Tarasenko Sergey Igorevich, born in 1999, a student at Kotin Academy, is questioned. The court allows filming only from behind.
Witness testimony:
On some day in 2024, around 8:00-9:00 PM, I was walking along Bolshaya Monetnaya Street toward my girlfriend’s place when a man in civilian clothes approached me, introduced himself, showed his ID, and asked if I could be a witness. I agreed and went with him. There was another officer and an investigator. They entered the building on the same street, went upstairs, and invited another witness. An apartment search was conducted, and Skobov behaved aggressively. They suggested he hand over his electronic devices, but Skobov just sat there, saying nothing, making some negative comments, muttering sarcastic remarks, and laughing in a negative way. The apartment owner brought in the devices, which I understood belonged to Skobov. They seized a phone, a tablet, and a laptop. The investigator described the items and sealed them in a package, and everyone was allowed to inspect and sign the documents. The apartment owner signed the protocol, and no complaints or remarks were made by her or Skobov.
Afterward, the officers asked if I could go with them, and I agreed. The second witness refused. We went to another address (Piskarevsky Prospect), entered the building, and invited a man from a nearby apartment as a witness. The defendant’s mother was in the apartment, and the investigator showed Skobov the warrant, but he remained silent, didn’t look at it, and didn’t sign anything. They asked for his electronic devices and disks, but again, he didn’t respond. The search began, and a phone, flash drives, and other items were seized. I remember seeing many business cards, I’m not sure how to describe it… I clearly remember seeing business cards from “Ingria,” Yashin, “Open Dialogue,” Ponomaryov, a lot of opposition posters calling for protests like “Go Out,” and other similar material. No complaints or remarks were made regarding the search, and I signed the protocol.
Karagodina: “You mentioned seeing business cards with these names. Have you encountered these names before, such as Ponomaryov or Yashin?”
Tarasenko: “I saw them in the news”.
Kosnyrev: “Could you please tell us, do you have a legal background, or have you been involved in legal practice?”
Tarasenko: “No”.
Kosnyrev: “Sergey Igorevich, as an ordinary person without legal knowledge, what is your understanding of ‘terrorism’ and who do you consider to be terrorists?”
The Court: “What does this have to do with the case, Counsel?”
Kosnyrev: “It’s relevant, Your Honor, it’s relevant”.
The Court: “Explain”.
Kosnyrev: “Your Honor, I’ve already expressed my position on this matter”.
The Court: “The question is withdrawn, it is not relevant to the case”.
The prosecutor requests the reading of the search protocols in which the witness participated. Skobov does not make any statements, and the others do not object. The court grants the request, and the specified materials are read by the prosecutor:
The protocols are presented to Tarasenko for review, and he confirms his signature. No further questions are asked, and the witness is released from participation in the trial.
The prosecutor proceeds to present documentary evidence from the case. During this, one of the defense attorneys (Kosnyrev) makes a remark that the prosecutor is paraphrasing the documents rather than reading them verbatim, and requests the prosecutor speak louder so both the defendant and the attorney can hear more clearly over the video connection.
The case materials include:
Kosnyrev: “Your Honor, I apologize. I ask for the report to be read in full, not just summarized from the indictment. We request the entire document from the case materials be read aloud”.
Prosecutor: “The full document is being read aloud”.
Kosnyrev: “In full”.
Prosecutor: “The prosecution does not have to read the entire document. We are presenting the materials of the criminal case”.
Kosnyrev: “So we, the defense, will read it later, and you will blame us for delaying the trial?”
The Court: “No, we will not blame you. This is an adversarial trial, and each side presents its evidence”.
The reading of the case materials continues:
July 17, 2023: The author expresses regret that the attempt to destroy the Crimean Bridge was unsuccessful and hopes for its completion in the future. The author also criticizes journalists Simonyan and Sobchak, calling them supporters of aggressive policies that promote war. The author claims that measures against those who promote propaganda may be justified under certain circumstances. The post attracted 698 views.
August 11, 2023: The post discusses sanctions against businessmen connected to Russia. The author notes that economic sanctions are insufficient to bring about significant changes, suggesting more radical actions, including strikes on strategic targets such as the Crimean Bridge and infrastructure in Moscow. The post received 508 views.
February 7, 2024: The author analyzes possible political maneuvers by the Kremlin in connection with the visit of American journalist Tucker Carlson, speculating that Russia may offer terms that would deprive Ukraine of its sovereignty. The author criticizes the expectation of compromises and states that decisive actions, including strikes on Moscow, might be more effective. This post garnered 908 views.
Next, other materials are presented:
During the reading of the case materials (posts), the defense attorney notes poor audio quality:
Kosnyrev: “Your Honor, I apologize, but what we hear with Alexander Valeryevich is some unintelligible mumbling. Could we speak more slowly and louder so we can at least understand what the prosecutor is reading?”
The Court: “Please, prosecutor, slower and louder.”
Prosecutor: “Okay, I will speak louder for the attorney. Can you hear?”
Kosnyrev: “I can hear, that’s better now.”
Prosecutor: “But I won’t yell.”
The reading continues:
March 17, 2024: Skobov, located in St. Petersburg, being a member of the terrorist community “Forum of Free Russia,” intentionally acting as part of an organized group, together and in agreement with other unidentified individuals, who are leaders and members of the community, motivated by political and ideological hatred, independently posted an image of an electoral ballot with a handwritten inscription… calling for terrorist activity aimed at taking the life of a state official — the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin. Skobov and other unidentified individuals did not take measures to remove the post and knew that it called for terrorist activity. Therefore, Skobov’s actions constitute a crime under Part 2 of Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code.
Additionally, earlier posts from April 2, 2023, April 3, 2023, May 23, 2023, July 17, 2023, and March 17, 2024, are reviewed, along with posts missing from the indictment, including posts from January 14, 2023, January 16, 2023, February 1, 2023, February 4, 2023, July 17, 2023, March 17, 2024, March 18, 2024, March 19, 2024, and March 30, 2024, discussing various topics such as Skobov halting regular posts on Facebook due to frequent post deletions, a statement by the “Forum of Free Russia”* about the missile attack on Dnipro on January 16, 2024, the recognition of the “Forum of Free Russia”* as an undesirable organization, Skobov’s participation in all its events, his membership in the editorial group, and preparing several statements, including a statement regarding the recognition of the organization as undesirable, and reposting a publication from the “Leonid Nevzlin” channel on February 4, 2023, about possible psychopathy of Putin, making any negotiations with him impossible (“The only possible option is total defeat and total sanctions”); the importance of destroying the Kerch Bridge; participation in the “Noon Against Putin” campaign; the case initiated by the prosecutor against him under the Code of Administrative Offenses for participating in the activities of an undesirable organization due to his appearance on the “Forum of Free Russia”* channel and his membership in the FSR council, “which I have never hidden and do not intend to deny”; links to the “Forum of Free Russia”* channel with announcements of his participation in FSR streams.
The prosecution concludes its presentation of evidence for today, and the prosecutor requests notification for the next session of “all witnesses, except for Aram Khachatryan, as far as I know, he is on sick leave.”
A break is announced in the trial, and the date for the next session is set.
*“Russian Volunteer Corps,” “Legion ‘Freedom for Russia’” and “Forum of Free Russia” are organizations recognized as terrorist organizations in Russia.
