About the case: The case was initiated against 24 individuals from the “Azov” battalion (a terrorist organization forbidden in Russia [we are obligated by the Russian law to write this, ed. note]), nine of them being women, with two others exchanged before the start of the trial. The defendants are accused 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 charged under Article 205.3 of the Criminal Code – training for terrorist activities.
The case is being considered by the three-judge panel, presided by Judge Vyacheslav Alexeevich Korsakov of the Southern Military District Court.
The prosecutor continued to announce the case materials, the planned questioning of witnesses did not take place due to their absence.
The hearing began with a delay, the secretary informed us about the reasons: the defendant Ishchenko was called an ambulance, after the assistance Ishchenko could participate in the hearing.
The defendant Oleg Dmitrievich Mizhgorodsky participates in the hearing via videoconference from the medical center where he is being treated; when asked by the court, he answers that he has no objection to this form of participation. The defense attorneys also had no objections.
The court decided to continue the hearing with this form of participation, as the previous hearing could not be continued due to Ishchenko’s non-participation. The secretary said that the medical institution had submitted a document confirming Ishchenko’s presence at the examination and treatment. The court gives this document to the defense for familiarization.
The secretary announced the absence of some defense attorneys, the interests of their defendants will be represented by other defense attorneys instead of the absent ones, the defense orders are attached. The defense attorneys did not object to the continuation of the hearing.
One of the defense attorneys attends the hearing for the first time, the composition of the court, the secretary, the prosecutor are announced to her, and the right of objection is explained to her. She has no objections, her rights are clear. The other defense attorneys do not object to the participation of a new defense attorney.
The presiding judge announces that since the last hearing there has been a motion to admit a number of pieces of evidence and to call a witness. Regarding the summoning of the witness Kirik, the secretary said that he tried to contact him by phone, but could not, from the conversation with his wife he found out that he wants to appear, but he will not be able to attend this hearing because of his work, he can attend another one. The excerpt from the telephone conversation is attached.
The admission of other evidence will be discussed separately for each defendant. Grebeshkova’s attorney requests the admission of excerpts from service orders, reads them, and the second characterization – because of poor legibility of the previously admitted one. The defendant supported the defense counsel’s request. Prosecutor does not object. The court attaches it.
The court asked the defense to “submit complex documents in Ukrainian with translation into Russian”.
The court asks the prosecutor about the prosecution witness Dotsenko. The Prosecutor states that he has been served with a subpoena and informed that he is under medical treatment and cannot appear, and asks to attach his receipt and statement. The court attaches it.
Gritsyk’s defense attorney asks to attach a copy of his work record book and his characterization. The prosecutor was given the opportunity to read them. Neither the prosecutor nor any other defense counsel objected to its admission. The court admits it.
The Court again addresses the Defense: now the Prosecution is presenting evidence, so it is better, if possible, to gather all the evidence and admit it when the Defense presents evidence.
The court asked defense counsel Gritsyk if he would read anything. Defense counsel reads the text of the document just admitted.
The court allowed the prosecution to continue presenting evidence. Due to the absence of the witness Dotsenko, the prosecutor asked to read his testimony given during the investigation.
From the defense side, one of the lawyers (representing the interests of the defendant for whom the witness is called) – objected, as there are a number of issues that need to be clarified with direct participation. The court rejects the prosecutor’s request, as there is no evidence that the witness cannot appear. The prosecution undertakes to ensure the appearance of the witness at the next hearing.
The prosecutor also requests an opportunity to review the evidence in the case file. He is given the case file, and then the prosecutor reads out various documents – all of which, in the prosecutor’s opinion, testify to the affiliation of a number of defendants with the Azov Regiment (a terrorist organization banned in Russia).
[Explanation: these documents were found at two different addresses in the Donetsk region and, being material evidence, were attached to the case materials, so the prosecutor reads both the protocols of their discovery and inspection, and the documents themselves. The range of documents – material evidence – is very wide: from service orders and extracts from them to invoices for the delivery of linen to the laundry].
During the reading of the documents, the court repeatedly asks for the materials to be handed over in order to study what is being read.
While reading the medical documents, the judge stopped the prosecutor, as there was a public in the courtroom.
The prosecutor read the messages from the case materials, the results of examination of Smykova’s and Tekin’s phones (the phones are also material evidence), the files from Smykova’s phone are attached on a disk, the documents on Tekin confiscated from the witness, the results of examination of Kasatkin’s profile in Telegram.
At this point the prosecutor finished reading. The hearing was adjourned.
