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.
At the hearing on September 6, 2023, the prosecutor finished presenting his evidence and the court moved on to the defense’s evidence and considered extending the defendants’ detention.
The hearing began late “due to the organization of the trial.” The court secretary said that it was on time, but so far “to transport defendants, to check the attendance, it turns out to be long”.
The court reports that certain defense attorneys are absent, and instead, appointed defenders from among the present defenders of other defendants will be substituted. The defense does not object.
The court also introduces two defense attorneys Anisimov and Solodovnikov (in the interests of Mizhgorodsky), who are joining the trial since they signed a service agreement. The existing defense attorneys have no objections to the new ones.
The court decides to admit new defense attorneys, Solodovnikov (who never participated in the case) announces the composition of the court, the secretary, and the prosecutor. Solodovnikov has no objections.
The court asked if anyone had any motions. The defendant Tekin stands up and asks to request data on her crossing of the demarcation line. The Court explains that at this stage, procedural motions are meant, specifies what the Defendant wants to confirm with the requested data, explains how and at what stage she should submit her motion, and says that the Court does not consider it “premature” now.
Defense counsel Mogitich moves to admit the characterization.
The court asks that this motion be made later, saying that it is necessary to organize the proceedings and consider all such motions in a separate block.
The court gives the floor to the prosecutor, who says that he wants to study the file further, names the volumes and what he wants to read from them (procedural decisions on the recognition of the victims, on the deployment of the regiment, general information indirectly related to the case), and also says that he wants to read the testimonies of the victims, which he was denied the last time.
On the defense side, several lawyers objected. One refers to the fact that the procedural documents the prosecutor wants to read are not relevant to the charges in the case – if their testimony is needed, these people should be questioned in court. The second lawyer does not agree with the disclosure because the documents are not relevant to the case. The third says that if these materials are disclosed, the principle of individualization of guilt with respect to each defendant will be violated. In general, the general opinion of the defense is to refuse.
The court decided to partially grant: to disclose the procedural decisions on the recognition of victims, without disclosing their testimony, general information about the Regiment “Azov” (terrorist organization banned in Russia). At the same time, the court explained the decision made at that moment and several times later – as the lawyers interrupted the announcement with questions or rejoinders – as follows: the general information about the regiment is necessary for the indictment; if a motion for interrogation is filed, this information will be the basis for its resolution; the court cannot now decide with certainty that the information requested by the prosecutor is not relevant, but its announcement does not bind the court in the subsequent evaluation, all evidence will be evaluated in the aggregate.
The prosecutor starts to read. Most often it is a decision on recognition of the victim, with a standard introductory wording along the lines of “as a result of artillery shelling by the AFU servicemen of the city of Mariupol… damage was caused to the property of NAME”, (most often – property damage: apartment, house, car, less often – bodily injury/health damage, even less often – moral damage).
One of the defense attorneys, with the permission of the court, asked a question, in response to which the prosecutor said that the cases of all these victims are not yet before the court [the prosecutor calls them victims, because in his opinion, in general, the victims during the shelling of Mariupol are a demonstration of the criminality of the actions of the regiment as such, although in this case they are not victims, editor’s note].
After the prosecutor finished reading, he said that he would have two more witnesses, but since there was no opportunity to examine them now, he asked to proceed to the defense evidence.
The court, addressing the defense side, said, “Now we move to the defense evidence and we can proceed to the characterizations”.
Zhdamarov’s defense lawyer made two requests: 1) to add a certificate from the Fund (state institution) to trace the period of service according to deductions from employers (the court hands it over to the prosecutor for examination), 2) to demand from the Donetsk People’s Republic Investigation Department physical evidence about his defendant – a notebook and questionnaires.
On the second request, the court asked the defense counsel whether he denied the protocols of the examination of the physical evidence. He replied that he could not say so until he familiarized himself with them. The defendant himself could not remember.
The Court explains that such a request is usually justified by challenging the admissibility of the protocols and says that it will consider it after hearing the Prosecution’s position.
Mogitich’s defense attorney requests the authentication and admission of a copy of Mogitich’s daughter’s birth certificate, a certificate from a medical institution regarding her daughter’s disability, and the original characterization.
The court granted attorney Mogitich’s motion and asked him to read the documents.
At the first request of defense counsel Zhdamarov, the prosecutor did not object to its admission.
The court decides to admit the documents and asks the defense attorney to declare them. Defense counsel reads the documents.
Mogitich’s defense attorney then reads the admitted documents. The court invites Mogitich herself to speak. She stands up, cries, and says, “Yes, my daughter is disabled. When questioned by the judge, she explains that her daughter is now being cared for by Mogitich’s mother, who needs help herself.
Then the lawyer Gritsyk asks to attach characteristics (from the administration, from neighbors, from two families, from friends) and, with the permission of the court, reads them at once. The prosecutor did not object. The court decided to attach.
Mukhina’s defense attorney requests to attach and immediately reads the characteristics from the neighbors, the father’s and mother’s pension certificates, as well as their pension certificates. The prosecutor did not object. The court allowed it.
For the first time, the intervening attorney Solodovnikov asks for an opportunity to familiarize himself with the material.
One of the defense attorneys asks to question two witnesses.
Attorney Smykova asks to question a witness who is being held in pre-trial detention center № 1 – Taras Yurievich Radchenko (he can prove that violence was used during Smykova’s interrogation).
The court indicates whether Smykov’s testimony will now be challenged. Counsel: “No.” The Court clarifies that this evidence will not now be examined. Smykov supports his counsel’s request. Prosecutor objects that the motion is premature because the evidence being challenged has not been disclosed.
The court decides to deny the motion at this stage because it is “frivolous and premature”. Clarifies that if there is a basis for admissibility, it will be granted and that defense counsel has the right to apply to law enforcement.
The court asks if the defendants testify today. The defense replies that they will testify next time.
The court says that the preventive measure is expiring. The prosecutor makes a motion to extend it, as the circumstances have not changed, have not lost relevance, the circumstances have not yet been assessed by the court, the defendants may abscond, the evidence may be affected, including the information about the defendants’ personalities (which of the defendants and which ones specifically – does not name).
The court invites the defense to comment on the extension of the preventive measure in this order: first the defendant, then the defense attorney.
Basically, all defense lawyers are against it (except for defense lawyers Pshelenko, Nazarova, Bondarchuk (there are no defendants), who left the issue to the discretion of the court), because the defendants now formally have a place of residence in the territory of the Russian Federation (Mariupol), the prosecution has already presented all the evidence, the defendants have not been hiding, some of them have confessed, they ask for a more lenient measure not related to imprisonment, for example, house arrest. Ishchenko has a disease from the list of diseases that prevent detention. Mizhgorodsky has five dependent children and a non-healing wound on his leg that may require amputation. Zharkov is not a soldier at all. Mogitich has a child with a disability.
Defendants Smykov, Tyshkun and Tekin – at the discretion of the court, the lawyers supported their position. Defendants Timonin and Grebeshkov did not object, the lawyer of the former supported the defendant’s position, the latter – left to the discretion of the court.
The court set the date and time of the next hearing and went into the deliberation room on the measure of restraint.
[At this stage, the monitoring was suspended, editor’s note].
