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 hearing was postponed “due to organizational problems”. Three motions were filed to release the defense attorneys by appointment.
Witness Mizhgorodskaya, the wife of the defendant Oleg Mizhgorodsky, was invited. The judge asks for her profile and reads her rights, including the right not to testify against a relative.
The defense began to question her:
– Can you tell us how your husband came to serve in the military?
– He looked for a job for a long time and got a job as a driver for the National Guard in March 2021.
– How was his relationship with his co-workers?
– Often there were conflicts with colleagues because of the Russian language. For example, there might have been a conflict over the Russian radio my husband was listening to.
– Didn’t he try to leave the service when he wasn’t satisfied?
– He wrote reports, but they needed serious reasons for dismissal. After the written report, the next day, I lost contact with him – as it turned out later, he was beaten by his colleagues and punished with lashes on the back, he was accused of stealing fuel, for which he was fined 270 thousand hryvnias.
– Was the fine paid?
– Yes, his relatives had land, we sold it and managed to pay it. After that he was discharged.
– Was it proven that he was involved in fuel theft?
– He was exonerated after a while.
– Did you get your money back?
– No.
– Did he have any Nazi tattoos?
– No, he only had tattoos of a wolf and a she-wolf and a rune complex that he got after he was discharged.
– Was he in combat?
– No, he just worked as a driver.
– Do you know someone who also received fines and corporal punishment?
– Yes, his name was Ruslan, I don’t remember his surname.
– Did any scars remain on the back from the corporal punishment?
– Yes, he has scars on his back.
The prosecutor began questioning.
– You said that your spouse was denied release from service. Why didn’t you contact the police or lawyers?
– I didn’t know it was possible, I thought they had their own rules.
– What was his salary?
– 25 thousand hryvnia.
The judge clarified from the defendant whether he agreed with the testimony of the witness and asked what kind of corporal punishment it was. The defendant said that it was the practice of the Azov Regiment.
The questioning of the witness ended.
The defense lawyer files a motion to declare the physical evidence of the defendant Zhdamarov inadmissible. In his motion, the lawyer draws attention to the repeated misconduct against Zhdamarov and the violation of the right to a lawyer in accordance with both the CPC of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the CPC of the Russian Federation.
The prosecutor asks to reject the motion on the grounds that “all evidence is admissible, and the defense’s statements are nothing but a free interpretation of lawful actions”.
The judge decided to deny the motion at this stage of the trial.
The session is adjourned.
