About the case: A case has been initiated against 24 individuals from the “Azov” battalion (a banned terrorist organization in Russia), nine of whom are women, with two of them being exchanged before the start of the trial. The defendants are charged 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 also accused under Article 205.3 of the Criminal Code – training for terrorist activities.
The case is being heard by a panel of three judges, and the presiding judge is Vyacheslav Alexeevich Korsakov of the Southern Military District Court.
At the courthouse entrance, around 9:45 AM, bailiffs at first denied access to the relatives of the defendants and spectators, citing a lack of space in the courtroom. After spectators contacted the court’s press office, the access was granted.
The courtroom is overcrowded. Some of the defendants have not only court-appointed lawyers but also retained counsel, and that’s why the defense needs an extra bench. All spectators, including members of the press, family members, and students, had to squeeze onto three benches, behaving “humanely,” sharing one seat among several people. The hearing started with a delay of over an hour “due to the organization of the proceedings” and the tardiness of one of the defense attorneys.
The press was allowed to film – camerapersons filmed the public, defense attorneys, and defendants for quite some time.
The court announced the presence of new individuals in the hearing: the retained defense attorney for the defendant Motigich – Pavel Dmitrievich [last name unclear], the second state prosecutor Andrey Anatolyevich Tretyakov, and two defendants – Oleg Dmitrievich Nizhegorodsky and Elena Lazarevna Abramova, who were absent from the previous session due to illness. The court establishes the identity of these two defendants, during which Nizhegorodsky mentions that he has gangrene in his leg, and Abramova E. L. complains of vision problems.
The court declares the absence of the retained defense attorney, who represents the interests of several defendants: Maiboroda, Nizhegorodsky, and Ishchenko. The court seeks the defense’s opinion on the possibility to continue the hearing in the absence of the absent defense attorney. One of the defense attorneys suggests that it is possible to continue the hearing, and the others either support or do not object.
The court explains the rights to the defendants who are participating for the first time. Their rights are understood, and there are no objections. The prosecutor and the new retained defense attorney also understand their rights.
The court mentions that during the previous session, there was a motion for additional disclosure. The court asks the defendants who made the request to speak, calling them out one by one. The defendants stand up and clarify their request. It is determined that three female defendants are not fully informed: Tekin M. O., Pavrianidis L. M., Rudenko L. M., and two are only partially informed: Maiboroda V. V. and Abramova E. L.
The judge addresses Abramova’s defense attorney:
Judge: “Have you spoken to them? How will you formulate the request?”
Defense Attorney: “We will meet in the detention center and formulate our position.”
The judge explains to the defense attorney that the request must be specific for consideration.
The judge inquires into the prosecution’s opinion “from the perspective of the right to defense due to lack of information.”
Prosecutor Aydinov requests permission to announce the protocol regarding the defendants’ familiarization with the case materials before addressing the presented request.
The court grants permission, and the prosecutor is provided with the mentioned volume. He reads out the protocols for each defendant, stating that Pavrianidis L. M. is informed without any time restrictions (signed by her and her defense attorney), Tekin M. O. declined to familiarize herself (signed by her and her lawyer), Abramova E. L. is fully informed (signed by her and her lawyer), Maiboroda V. V. is fully informed (signed by her and her lawyer), and Rudenko L. M. refused to acquaint herself (signed by her and her defense attorney).
The court turns to the defendants, asking for an explanation of why they claim not to be informed, despite the protocols indicating that they are either informed or have chosen not to familiarize themselves.
The female defendants stand up one by one and provide the following stories:
One of the women says: “Psychological pressure was exerted; they told me to sign this, but there was no actual familiarization. I am in a constitutional state, aren’t I? I am not familiar with the case materials!”
The next woman states: “They brought me to the FSB building in handcuffs and hooded, removed the tape from my hands, and told me to sign these papers. The lawyer in Donetsk was sometimes present, sometimes not, and he said, ‘Sign it!'”
Another defendant shares a similar story: “They brought me with a bag over my head and handcuffs, and they told me to sign that I was fully informed about something.”
The judge asks the prosecution for their opinion.
The prosecutor Aydinov says:
– We believe that it may be possible to start, but considering the provided explanations, it may be advisable to allow an opportunity for familiarization. However, starting is permissible.
The court has decided to proceed with the proceedings taking into account the existing acknowledgments of familiarization and the principle of immediacy. The defense for Pavrianidis, Rudenko, Maiboroda, and Abramova will be provided with the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the case files. There was no mention made regarding Tekin.
The court is also considering the possibility of converting the materials into digital format for use by the participants, «and such an opportunity will be provided» – the judge says.
The court addresses the new defendants, asking them to move closer to the podium in the “aquarium” and explains their rights. Their rights are understood.
The court inquires about any motions or requests from the parties before the start of the session.
The prosecutor informs the court about the requests made regarding the absent and exchanged defendants, Dmitry Vasilievich Labinsky and David Georgievich Kasatkin. As for the latter, a response has been received indicating that he was returned to the territory of Ukraine on September 21, 2022. However, there is still no response to the request regarding the first defendant. The prosecutor requests that the requests and the response be attached to the case.
The defense reviews the materials, with one of the lawyers taking photographs and mentions that they will send them to the group chat. The defense has no objections, and the court incorporates the materials.
One of the defense attorneys speaks, stating that the defense is currently only in agreement with the previously mentioned request to align the charges with the Russian Criminal Code.
The court has decided to proceed to the stage of presenting the charges, and further proceedings will be determined at a later time.
Prosecutor Aydinov reads out the indictment based on the laws of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). During this, one of the relatives had a health issue and was taken out. An attorney requested a recess on behalf of his client.
The court announced a recess, and after 16 minutes, the proceedings resumed. Prosecutor Aydinov continued to read the indictment. Then the second prosecutor read a motion to bring the charges in accordance with the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation.
The court inquires whether the defense has any objections to the inclusion of the motion to bring the charges in accordance with the legislation.
The defense requests time to review the motion, and they ask for a recess to form their position.
The court clarifies that the current question is solely about the inclusion of the motion.
The defense responds, “We do not object to the inclusion.”
The court says, “Accepted, incorporated. Since this incorporation is a part of the presented charges, a copy will be handed to the defense and the defendants. Provide a period of no less than 7 days for preparation.”
The court secretary explains that the defendants will receive the documents through the detention center, and the defense attorneys will receive them today via the chat.
The court suggests returning to the examination of the defendants’ health and reviewing the relevant documents. The court session will be closed to the public during this examination.
Both sides do not object.
The court states, “In accordance with Article 241, Part 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the session will be closed for the period of document examination due to the discussion of the defendants’ health.”
The audience is asked to leave the courtroom.
The defense attorneys, upon exiting the courtroom, inform others about the recess announced by the judge.
