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.
At the beginning of the session, the presiding judge announced a request from the media for filming during the proceedings. Neither party objected. The court allowed filming during the arguments.
The defense attorney filed a motion to specify the amount of payment for their services. The court granted it.
The presiding judge reminded, that the investigative stage was concluded in the previous session, announced that the current session would move to the arguments phase, and explained to the defendant what was happening during the arguments.
The floor was given to the prosecutor, who read a prepared written speech indicating that during the investigation, the defendant’s guilt in committing four offenses under articles 205.3, 278, part 2 of article 105, part 1 of article 356 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation had been proven. However, there are mitigating circumstances – cooperation in disclosure and contusion. The prosecution proposed a punishment of 17 years of imprisonment in a strict-regime correctional colony, with the first 3 years in prison. The prosecutor’s written speech was added to the case files.
Next, the defense attorney spoke, stating that during the investigation, the defendant admitted guilt only partially – solely under article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The defendant denies and the prosecution failed to prove the absence of such evidence – the presence of a motive involving political, ideological, or national hatred – acknowledging only the commission of murder without qualifying features. The attorney emphasized that the defendant had no prior convictions, joined the Ukrainian Armed Forces solely due to financial needs, and there is no evidence in the case of the defendant’s involvement in nationalist voluntary formations. The defendant surrendered as a prisoner of war and confessed to the murder on the second day, thereafter cooperating with the investigation without deception. The attorney also requested the court to consider the presence of a minor child and contusion as mitigating circumstances. Moreover, attention was drawn to the absence of pre-patrol briefings, which became a condition for the crime. It was emphasized that the defendant denied being intoxicated, a fact confirmed by witness Baydrakov. Finally, the attorney requested the court to impose a ‘fair punishment,’ without specifying.
The defendant stated that he had nothing to add and he would not speak further.
As the question regarding the participation of the victim in the arguments remained open, the videoconference was prepared for this session. Previously, the victim resided in the Donetsk People’s Republic. The court declared a recess.
