About the case: The investigation established that serviceman of the 501st Separate Marine Battalion of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Anton Baidrakov, is involved in the commission of particularly serious crimes on the territory of the republic. He has been charged with four articles of the Criminal Code of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR): Article 323 ‘Actions aimed at violent seizure and retention of power in the DPR’, Part 1 of Article 427 ‘Cruel treatment of the civilian population’, subparagraph ‘a’ of Part 2 of Article 128 ‘Illegal deprivation of liberty of a person committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy’, and Part 1 of Article 106 ‘Intentional murder’.
The case is being considered by a panel composed of three judges of the Southern District Military Court. The presiding judge is Maxim Mikhailovich Nikitin.
At the session on September 13, 2023, instead of interrogating the defendant, his testimony from the case materials was announced.
Hearing started with the resolution of the motion filed before the hearing through the secretary to allow “Mediazona” journalist Elena Igorevna Kondrakhina to take photos and video during the hearing. However, the request didn’t specifically mention this case among the general list of cases for which the media outlet sought permission for filming. As a result, the court allowed the journalist to attend only as a part of the public [the court left the request without consideration, ed. note].
The court announced that there was time before the adjournment for the defendant to prepare for interrogation and gave the floor to the defense.
Baidrakov stood up and admitted guilt, expressing remorse for his actions. The lawyer stated that the defendant refuses to give testimony and requests the disclosure of previously provided information – something Baidrakov himself did not articulate.
The prosecutor, due to the defendant’s refusal to testify, requested the disclosure of statements from the case materials. The defense did not object.
The court granted the request to disclose the defendant’s statements.
The prosecutor disclosed three interrogation protocols from different dates and a protocol reconstructing the situation on-site, from which the following emerged: Baidrakov joined the Ukrainian Armed Forces under contract since he couldn’t find employment otherwise. After signing the contract, he underwent training at the ‘Desna’ training center. In March, a part of his unit was evacuated to Mariupol and stationed at the ‘Azovstal’ plant. Under orders from his superior, Cherednik A.V., call sign ‘Georgian,’ a woman named Inna was forcibly held in the room where weapons were stored. She had escaped from a prison after its destruction and was also a deserter from the 506th infantry fighting vehicle (IFV). On one of the days after an attack, the weapons storage room was destroyed, and Inna escaped. Later, she was found in a state of alcohol intoxication, holding a bottle of brandy, locking herself inside the weapons storage room. Baidrakov entered that room and demanded her to follow him multiple times, but she didn’t comply. Subsequently, he shot her in the right temple with an AK-47 rifle, and she fell face down. Baidrakov put Inna’s body in a blue sleeping bag given to her earlier, asked another comrade for help, and together they carried the bag with the body and threw it into a ditch in the yard. Baidrakov lightly covered the bag with earth. Following orders from the command, the weapons were to be surrendered, and Baidrakov was to surrender as a prisoner.
The prosecutor concluded the disclosure and asked the defendant if he admitted guilt and if he fully acknowledged all the charges. The defendant replied:
The court clarified if there were any additions. There were none.
The court suggested discussing the detention measure due to its imminent expiration. The prosecutor stated having a written motion for extension until December 29, 2023 and read it aloud. Baidrakov agreed. The lawyer mentioned the motion was formal but, considering the defendant’s position, left it to the court’s discretion.
The court went into a deliberation room and upon return announced the extension of detention, explaining the appeal process and the right to review the session protocol and file objections. Additionally, the court stated, ‘If there are no amendments, we’ll prepare for arguments.’ The lawyer concurred.
