About the case: Alexei Kononov is being prosecuted for a solitary picket on Nevsky Prospekt on March 27. The poster Kononov was holding had a pacifist appeal on it. The case is being considered under Part 1 of Article 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offense of Russia.
The case is being considered by the Kuibyshev District Court of St. Petersburg, Judge – Yulia Alexandrovna Trofimova.
On April 12, Kononov and his defender – lawyer Sergei Podolsky appeared in the court. At the defense counsel’s request, he and Kononov were allowed to familiarize themselves with the case materials before the hearing. It lasted 17 minutes, after which the hearing was declared open.
The court established Kononov’s identity and explained his rights.
Kononov declares a motion to attach to the case file written explanations on the imputed offense. The court grants the motion.
Defender Podolsky declares motions:
The judge recesses to rule on the motions, returns 11 minutes later and reads a ruling denying all motions:
Judge Trofimova proposes to start hearing the case. The parties do not object. The presiding Judge reads the case materials:
– A report on an administrative offense against Kononov, drawn up on March 27, 2022 by the operational duty officer of the duty unit of the 28th Police station of the Central District of St. Petersburg, according to which Kononov committed public actions aimed at discrediting Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. On March 27, at about 14:37 near the house 35 on Nevsky Prospekt, i.e. in a public place, in the presence of at least 50 people who had gathered to express their opinion on the special military operation conducted by the RF Armed Forces in order to maintain international peace and security, Kononov demonstrated a poster to others. On the poster – quoting the Joint Press Service of the St. Petersburg courts – was written – “in which country there should be freedom, and in which country there should be peace”, thus publicly calling for obstruction of the special military operation conducted by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.
It is indicated that there are witnesses to the offense. There are explanations of Kononov, from which it is clear that he does not agree with the protocol, does not admit guilt, there were no signs of discrediting the special operation in his actions, he was advocating for the peace as a phenomenon, he did not say or write anything about the armed forces. He was familiarized with the protocol on the same day at 17:32.
Also in the case materials:
Disclosure of the Kononov’s statements: administrative liability enforcement is unlawful, the case must be dismissed, as there is no corpus delicti of the imputed offense.
An obligatory element of corpus delicti under part 1 of article. 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Russia is the orientation of actions of a person aimed at discrediting Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.
Kononov’s only purpose was to express his opinion under art. 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation on the need to maintain peace and security, to take measures for diplomatic settlement of international disputes without regard to any specific paramilitary operations. It is not clear how he could discredit the Armed Forces by expressing what he thought about what was happening, when they were not mentioned at all. To be held liable for expressing an opinion is contrary to Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. He also considers that the circumstances of his detention indicate unlawful interference of law enforcement bodies in the realization of his right to freedom of assembly, in violation of Article 31 of the Constitution and the European Convention, since the public event was not violent in nature, Kononov did not violate public order and did not threaten the life and health of citizens, there is no relevant information in the case materials.
The disclosure of materials is over, then the court hears the arguments of the defense. Kononov has no additions to the announced explanations.
Lawyer Podolsky supports Kononov’s statements, and believes that the case materials do not provide any evidence of discrediting and “calling” for the termination of the special operation on the territory of Ukraine. “Police officers do not have psychic abilities and cannot predict what is going on in Kononov’s mind”. The reports and statements do not establish from where they received information about discrediting the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation or “calling” for the termination of the special operation. Kononov’s guilt under Part 1 of Article 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offense of Russia has not been proven. Moreover, the protocol on the offense contains a phrase about the use of the Armed Forces “in order to protect the interests of Russia and its citizens and to maintain international peace and security on the territory of Ukraine”. Kononov’s poster contained the same appeal. Therefore, there are big questions to the author of the protocol. Podolsky believes that in this case, the law itself is not sufficiently clear and does not provide an opportunity to determine what is possible and what is impossible. Considers that Article 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offense of Russia cannot be applied due to its initial unconstitutionality. Therefore, in connection with the absence of corpus delicti of an administrative offense in Kononov’s actions, asks to terminate the proceedings on the case.
After hearing the parties, the court leaves to make a decision. After 11 minutes, the presiding judge Trofimova returns from the deliberation room and announces the ruling on the case.
The entire introductory part of the ruling, starting with the description of Kononov’s act, verbatim duplicates the content of the protocol on administrative offense under part 1 of article 20.3.3 of the CAO dated 27.03.2022. The court concludes that Kononov’s guilt is confirmed by the examined evidence, after which it lists all the case materials submitted by the police (protocols, reports, etc.), which are assessed as relative, reliable, admissible and sufficient for the resolution of the case.
The court critically assesses Kononov’s version that his actions do not constitute an offense, since this version is refuted by the totality of the examined evidence. In view of the above, the court finds no grounds for termination of proceedings on the case.
The protocol was drawn up in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Administrative Offense of Russia by an authorized official within the time limits established by law.
Reports and statements of police officers refute the arguments of Kononov and his lawyer that the materials do not contain evidence of discrediting the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and obstructing a special military operation.
The position of the defense on the unconstitutionality of the provisions of Art. 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Russia and the impossibility of its application is a subjective opinion of the lawyer Podolsky.
The administrative offense committed by Kononov cannot be recognized as insignificant, and the guilty person on this basis cannot be exempted from responsibility by virtue of the fact that it significantly violates the protected social legal relations, regardless of the role of the offender, the amount of damage, the occurrence of consequences and severity. Taking into account the personality of Kononov, the state of his health, the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the court imposes administrative punishment in the form of a fine “not in the maximum amount” – 40,000 rubles.
