About the case: Anton Vladimirovich Cherednik, a serviceman of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, is accused under Article 278 of the Criminal Code of “violent seizure of power”, part 1 of Article 356 of the Criminal Code of “cruel treatment of civilians, use of prohibited means and methods in an armed conflict”, part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of “murder” and Article 205.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of “training for terrorist activities”. According to the investigative committee, Cherednik shot a civilian for mispronouncing a phrase in Ukrainian.
The case is being heard by a panel consisting of: presiding judge Vyacheslav Alexeyevich Korsakov, Ilya Nikolaevich Bezgub, and Mukhamed Khasanbievich Kilyarov of the Southern District Military Court.
Prosecutor asks the defendant what news he read and if he knew about the existence of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR).
Defendant:
– I watched Ukrainian news and only had superficial knowledge about the DPR.
The prosecution files a motion to include indirect evidence materials in the case. The motion includes documents about military duty in Ukraine, documents regarding the adoption of the constitution of the DPR in 2014, excerpts from Wikipedia about the formation of statehood in the territory of the DPR, screenshots from Ukrainian news feeds about the proclamation of the DPR constitution.
The motions are granted – these documents are normative legal acts indirectly related to the case.
The defense wants to review the documents. The judge allows a 10-minute recess for this. A few minutes later, the prosecutor informs the defense that the translation was done via phone and due to a hidden IP address, the text on the screenshots might look strange.
The judge stated that there is a need to return to the stage of arguments.
The prosecutor insists on a 20-year sentence in a high-security prison.
The defense agrees only with the accusation under Article 105.2, requesting consideration that Cherednik did not attempt to overthrow the government, lacked nationalist convictions, and did not have the intent to commit murder, asking these to be considered as mitigating circumstances.
The defendant is not ready for the final statement, and it’s decided to proceed with it in the next session.
The session is adjourned.
