About the case: The case was initiated against 24 individuals from the “Azov” battalion (a terrorist organization forbidden in Russia [we are obligated by 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 defendant filed a motion to declare the testimony given at the investigation stage inadmissible due to violations of the procedural code and the resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court. The court did not rule on the motion.
When the defendant Avramova testified, the judge admonished the defense attorney for asking leading questions to which the defendant answered only yes or no. The defendant said that she did not want to answer any more questions, the judge continued to ask questions, the defense attorney told the judge that her client did not want to answer questions, the judge said that the defendant should decide for herself, reprimanded the defense attorney and warned of the consequences if she interfered with the hearing. The attorney asked to attach to the case documents characterizing the defendant – diplomas from the school issued to her as a teacher for the work done. The judge replied that he would give her another warning and asked why she had chosen the method of confrontation with the judge.
The interrogation of the defendant Bondarchuk began. The prosecutor emotionally asked questions:
– Why didn’t you leave your workplace? Nazi prayers were recited there during formation – didn’t that embarrass you?
At the same time, the defendant had already answered similar questions from the defense that she did not know the ideology of the regiment, did not know tattoos and did not know anyone who held nationalist views, worked in the battalion to improve her financial situation and to complete the signed contract.
The Prosecutor requests the disclosure of the testimony given at the preliminary investigation due to the existence of contradictions in the testimony of the defendant Avramova. The request is granted, as there are contradictions.
The judge asked the defense to prepare a petition on the unlawful methods of investigation in connection with the testimony of the defendant Avramova to be submitted to the law enforcement authorities.
The prosecution filed another motion for the disclosure of the testimony given at the preliminary investigation due to the contradictions in the testimony of the defendant Bondarchuk. The court granted the motion. The testimony from the interrogations during the preliminary investigation had minor contradictions, from the side of the defense were heard rejoinders: “What are the contradictions?”. The defense did not openly object.
The trial was adjourned.
