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.
Judge Korsakov announces a new prosecutor, Minkov, after clarification that no one has objections to the prosecutor, allowing their participation. The court continues with the arguments. Korsakov specifies with the secretary that the victims reported their inability to participate in today’s session due to a ‘telegram.’
Korsakov gives the floor to Cherednyk. At first, he refuses, then expresses disagreement with the charges attributed to him: Article 278 (‘did not hold any command positions, did not attack anyone, did not capture anyone’), Article 205.3 (‘did not undergo any training’), and part 2 of Article 105 (claims not to feel hatred towards Russian speakers and that Russian is his native language). Cherednyk points out discrepancies in witness testimonies, asserts that he never saw the witness he allegedly detained along with the deceased.
Korsakov specifies that, without “leaving the arguments”, the issue of preventive measures needs to be addressed since the current term expires on September 6th. Minkov reads out the motion to extend detention, “provides reasoning”, but does not refer to Cherednyk’s characteristics from the case materials.
Korsakov asks Cherednyk if he has any questions regarding the motion—there are none. Bakulov declares his support for his client’s position.
The court adjourns for 15 minutes to a consultation room, and upon return, grants the motion to extend the preventive measure and sets the date for the next session.
