About the case: Denis Vladimirovich Muryga is accused of participating in an illegal armed group – the Ukrainian “Aidar” Battalion (p. 2, art. 208 of the Criminal Code) and undergoing training for the purpose of terrorist activity (p. 1, art. 205.3 of the Criminal Code) in the Ukrainian “Aidar” Battalion (an extremist organization forbidden in Russia [we are obligated by the Russian law to write this, ed. note]). According to the prosecution, he joined the battalion in 2015 and subsequently took part in infrastructure sabotage.
The case is being heard by the Southern District Military Court, with a panel of judges presided over by Judge Kirill Nikolaevich Krivtsov.
The hearing is scheduled for 2 PM. The case list indicates Room 3-1. I head to the third floor, finding it deserted and the room closed, with no sounds behind the door. I go back to the first floor and ask the bailiffs, who inform me that the hearing was moved to Room 1-2 and direct me to it. I mention that the posted list shows a different room and suggest updating it, receiving the reply, “They’ll sort it out themselves.”
I approach the room as people exit. Through the slightly open door, I see several people conversing and photographing the defendant in the “aquarium”. Bailiffs stand by the entrance inside. I ask a woman who has just exited (a journalist from a media outlet) if it is permitted to enter. She replies that the media was allowed to bring in recording equipment but was then asked to leave so that the defendant could speak with his lawyer. The bailiffs step outside and close the door.
We waited outside. The press secretary speaks with journalists. The time is 2:04.
2:12. Nine media representatives (including people I recognize or can identify: Zvezda, TASS) and three other observers are invited in.
Muryga sits in the “aquarium” leaning forward, with his right hand on his head, obscuring his face. Nearby are two people dressed entirely in black gear with balaclavas and caps, intently watching inside. Cameramen, situated near the prosecutor’s station, aim their cameras directly at Muryga. The prosecutor is absent. Muryga’s attorney (a dark-haired woman in a white blazer) sits with her back to him. Behind me, “relatives or close friends” quietly comment on Muryga’s demeanor (“Look how dejected he is”) and discuss if they can reach the detention center today for a handover.
2:25. The court secretary arrives.
2:30. The prosecutor arrives (unintroduced during the session but previously seen with defendant Cherednik – Sergey Vladimirovich Aidinov). He is a young, modern man carrying a black leather backpack, sets up his documents, and connects his phone to a portable charger. He greets the attorney.
Muryga remains in his hand-on-forehead posture, seemingly unchanged.
2:36. The judges finally enter, and the presiding judge announces, “We’re resuming” (apparently after a recess).
The court reminds media representatives that judges and the prosecutor must not be filmed.
Court to prosecutor: What does the prosecution have?
Prosecutor: I request to admit publicly available documents – these are Wikipedia articles on the “Aidar” Battalion (an extremist organization forbidden in Russia), OSCE and UN reports from the official websites, with translations into Russian, prepared by me using the Internet, or already translated as is on the websites.
The court reviews the documents submitted by the prosecutor, asks for clarification on each, reads the titles, and asks follow-up questions. The prosecutor explains. He requests admission of four Wikipedia articles, two OSCE monitoring mission reports, an article by Sergei Melnychuk (commander of the battalion) whether from Facebook (designated as an extremist organization in Russia), or from his other social account, and five reports from the UN website.
The court asks the attorney’s view on admitting these documents.
Attorney: Do the documents contain information about my client?
Prosecutor: No.
Attorney: At the court’s discretion.
Court: Admit and read aloud.
The bailiff returns the documents to the prosecutor, who reads the titles, sources, and summaries of each. The court asks for detailed recitations; the prosecutor reads selected portions deemed significant, occasionally paraphrasing. This process is prolonged and monotonous, such, most of the press has lost interest, messaging or playing games on their phones.
Finally, the prosecutor loudly concludes with “That’s all.”
The court addresses Muryga with a series of questions regarding the bridge demolition. Muryga states the bridge was “on the demarcation line,” describes the brigade on either side, and explains that they believed Ukraine controlled the bridge, with the attack intended to redirect movement to another checkpoint. He was unaware of any casualties, only seeing a bright flash from a distance and hearing of the blast from fellow servicemen. Civilians also used the bridge; it was the main crossing until repairs.
Court to parties: Any questions on evidence?
Parties: No.
Court to prosecutor: Any further additions?
Prosecutor: No.
Court: The next hearing is set for May 15 at 10 AM, for closing arguments.
3:23. The court adjourns.
The attorney approaches the glass box and speaks with Muryga. We exit, but the “relatives or close friends” linger, apparently wishing to speak as well.
