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 request of the presiding judge, the secretary announced the reason for the delay – transportation of the defendants and organizational matters. The court also announced that some defense attorneys were absent, but instead of those absent, other defense attorneys present would defend the defendants – presiding judge named them, but very quickly. As no one objected to the substitution of counsel, the Court decided to proceed in this composition.
The presiding judge announced that for today the interrogation of the defendants Gretzky and Smykov was planned.
Prosecutor Aydinov says that before the interrogation of these defendants he has a motion – asks to read the testimony of Irina Mogitich, defendant, since at the last hearing she refused to testify.
Attorney Efimov – representing the interests of Mogitich – says that he also has prepared several motions to be resolved in connection with the prosecutor’s question on disclosure. The court gives counsel an opportunity to make motions.
First, defense counsel Efimov requests that the motivation portion of the expert’s report be read. The prosecutor has no objection, the court decides to read it. The defense counsel reads part of the report from the case file, from which it follows that Mogitich has no nationalist, chauvinist, etc. views, and that her actions were determined by material interests.
In addition, counsel Efimov asks to read the record of Mogitich’s refusal to have a defense attorney during the investigation, because he is going to file a motion later to exclude the record as inadmissible evidence. This is the same testimony that the prosecutor had just requested to read .
In response, the presiding judge explains that, unlike in a jury trial with professional judges, in order to exclude evidence, the court must first become familiar with it in order to conclude that it is inadmissible. The lawyer insists, and finally the presiding judge tells the lawyer, “Declare!”.
Attorney Efimov moved to exclude the transcripts, arguing that they had been prepared without the participation of defense counsel and were therefore inadmissible. The defendant supported Attorney Efimov’s request. The prosecutor objected, considering that the request was groundless at this stage, besides, the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Donetsk People’s Republic provide for interrogation without the participation of a defense attorney.
After deliberating on the spot, the court decided to grant the prosecutor’s request to disclose Mogitich’s testimony, to reject the lawyer’s request to declare it inadmissible (on the basis of the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Donetsk People’s Republic), and to attach the request of Efimov’s lawyer to the case file.
The prosecutor read out the statement on the refusal of the defense counsel, the protocol on the refusal of the defense counsel, the record of interrogation as a suspect and the record of interrogation as an accused. From the record of interrogation as a suspect, it follows that Mogitich, looking for work, first got a job in the regiment “Azov” (an organization forbidden on the territory of the Russian Federation, recognized as a terrorist organization) as a dishwasher, then moved to the position of a cook, and was detained in March 2022. When questioned by the investigator, she replied that during her work she had no weapons, did not shoot, did not participate in hostilities, did not undergo training, and did not feel hatred towards Russians and the military of the Donetsk People’s Republic. In the interrogation records as a defendant, she first (later partially) admitted her guilt, repented, and confirmed her earlier testimony.
After the announcement, the prosecutor asked the defendant if he could ask her questions. After she agreed, he asked if the testimony was hers and if she corroborated it. Mogitich replied that she partially confirmed it – about how she got a job, but she did not confirm the rest – about hatred among the military regiment “Azov” (an organization forbidden on the territory of the Russian Federation and recognized as a terrorist organization) towards Russians on the basis of nationality, etc.
The presiding judge asked: “And signatures, are those yours?”
Mogitich replied – “Mine”, but added that she was provided with a lawyer only once – on 26.08.2022 (the date of the last protocol), and she could not argue to anything with a bag over her head and her hands bound with tape. “I didn’t risk refusing because I was told what would happen [in case of refusal] and people nearby were suffering.“
When questioned by the presiding judge, Mogitich confirmed that she would be appealing the inadmissible methods of investigation.
The questioning of the defendant Arthur Gretzky.
The court established his identity, explained his rights. Arthur Gretzky confirmed that he would testify. According to the words of Gretzky, he was a member of the “National Corps” party, but later left it, joined the “Azov” regiment (an organization forbidden on the territory of the Russian Federation and recognized as a terrorist organization) in order to be paid during his service (he had to perform compulsory service due to his age). He did not feel hatred, despite the aggressive policy of his neighbors, he did not shoot, during the breakthrough to the “Azovstal” plant he was hit by an artillery shell, was wounded, waited it out, changed into civilian clothes and then went to the post, where he surrendered as a prisoner of war. During the investigation he refused to have a lawyer because “they said no one would defend you, write a refusal“, it was impossible to leave comments on the minutes.
Towards the end, the presiding judge made a remark to the lawyer about leading questions:
– Don’t prompt, or maybe you’ll answer the questions for him too?
When the defense counsel finished, the prosecutor and the presiding judge asked clarifying questions.
The prosecutor asked for disclosure of the suspect’s and defendant’s statements made during the investigation because the defendant refused to answer his questions and there were contradictions. The lawyer objected because Gretsky is a citizen of Ukraine and he is not familiar with the CPC of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Russian Federation. The court decided to grant the prosecutor’s request and read the testimony.
The prosecutor read out the protocol on the explanation of rights, the protocol on the refusal of the defense counsel, the protocol on the interrogation as a suspect and the protocol on the interrogation as an accused. From the read-out protocols it follows that after joining the Azov regiment (an organization forbidden on the territory of the Russian Federation and recognized as a terrorist organization) he took a course for young fighters and other training, had weapons, and fully admits his guilt.
After the reading, the prosecutor asked whether this testimony was made by him and whether it was given voluntarily. Gretsky partially confirmed it, but also stated what was not true: there was no order to shoot at the first floors of residential buildings, there was no ideology and no planting of hatred against Russians in the regiment, soldiers of the Russian Federation and the Donetsk People’s Republic were perceived simply as opponents. When asked if he knew about the independence of the Donetsk People’s Republic, he answered in the negative. “I admit that I served, but I did not pursue the goal of overthrowing the constitutional order and conducting terrorist activities”.
Other lawyers ask questions:
– How old were you in 2014 [the year the Donetsk People’s Republic declared independence]?
Gretsky:
– 12.
– Do you confirm the facts about beatings and violence against civilians in the regiment?
– Gretzky: No.
Gretzky’s attorney requests to include his client’s characterization. The court grants it. Gretzky has been kickboxing since his youth, has many athletic achievements, is conscientious, sociable and has other positive evaluations from the director of the Children’s and Youth Sports School.
The court announced that the time for the proceedings had expired.
One of the defendants asks for an opportunity to make a motion. The court specifies the essence – “to provide telephone calls”. The presiding judge replied that this question should not be addressed to the court, but to the management of the administration of pre-trial detention center.
The panel withdrew.
