About the case: Alexander Valeryevich Skobov is accused of publicly justifying terrorism by posting messages on a Telegram channel, as well as participating in the terrorist community “Forum of Free Russia”* where Skobov shared several texts identical to those on his Telegram channel.
The case is being heard by the 1st Western District Military Court, with Judge Alexander Alexandrovich Khludnev presiding.
The case is being considered via videoconference with the Syktyvkar City Court, where the defendant, escorted from FSIN Detention Center № 1 [FSIN is a Federal Penitentiary Service, ed. note] in the Republic of Komi, attorney V.V. Kosnyrev, and escorting police officers are present. An unknown woman in civilian clothing (most likely a court staff member) is also present, but the judge is absent from the screen. No identity checks or document verification procedures for participants are performed on the other end of the videoconference, and the presiding judge in the other court is not informed of this procedure. In the courtroom, attorney V.Yu. Karagodina and senior prosecutor Y.S. Yankovskaya from the St. Petersburg Prosecutor’s Office are present. The case has been moved to a larger courtroom, where all arriving listeners are allowed in. As in the previous hearing, video recording and photography are allowed, with restrictions on filming the court and the prosecution.
Judge Khludnev asks the Syktyvkar City Court whether they can see and hear what is happening in the military court’s hall. The court’s employee responds, not the defendant or the defense lawyer. Upon receiving an affirmative answer, the presiding judge states that she is no longer needed, and the woman leaves the courtroom, not returning for the remainder of the session.
The court reports the non-arrival and proper notification of several witnesses, who have indicated in telegrams that they “cannot attend the court, support their statements made during the preliminary investigation, and do not object to their reading during the court session”.
The prosecutor motions for the reading of the statements from absent witnesses, citing their proper notification under Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
The defense does not object, and Skobov remains silent. The court waits for a few seconds, then states that the question remains unanswered (this behavior repeats whenever the presiding judge addresses the defendant with formal questions during the session).
The court grants the prosecutor’s motion, allowing the prosecutor to read the relevant case materials.
Protocol of the interrogation of Pavel Igorevich Sokolov from April 1, 2024.
Since the fall of 2022, I have been an expert of the Public Chamber of the Republic of Komi. My work involves monitoring the legal status of citizens from at-risk groups (the disabled, pensioners) and analyzing information from open sources. After the start of the special military operation (SMO) and the imposition of sanctions, the situation for citizens and the socio-economic state in Russia worsened. I also monitor the activities of opposition groups abroad, including the “Forum of Free Russia”* (FSR), which includes Kasparov, Tyutrin, Chirikova, Skobov, and others.
Since September 2023, FSR* has supported radical formations fighting on Ukraine’s side, such as the “Russian Volunteer Corps”, the “Siberian Battalion”, and the “Legion ‘Freedom for Russia.'” On forums and streams, including events on October 1-2, 2023, and February 23-24, 2024, they called for joining these formations, justified their actions, and advocated for the overthrow of the constitutional order of Russia.
In November 2023, FSR* held an auction in Vilnius to raise funds for armed formations. The lots included military trophies, equipment, and autographed souvenirs. The funds raised were sent to support Ukrainian formations.
FSR’s* activities are public, with reports posted on their website and YouTube channel. I consider FSR* participants, including Kasparov, Tyutrin, Chirikova, Gudkov, and Skobov, to be involved in terrorist activities and traitors to the country. For this reason, I reported them to law enforcement to prevent further harm.
I am not personally acquainted with the FSR* members, but their identities and photos were published on the FSR* website, which allowed me to identify them from videos and streams.
Protocol of the interrogation of Alexander Alexandrovich Trufanov from April 1, 2024
After the start of the SMO, I followed the events on the front, read the Telegram channels of Russian war correspondents and groups fighting on Ukraine’s side, including the “Russian Volunteer Corps”*, the “Siberian Battalion”*, and the “Legion ‘Freedom for Russia'”*. I am categorically against Russian citizens participating in these groups.
In February 2024, I saw a video on the “Russian Volunteer Corps”* channel in Telegram, where fighters thanked the “Forum of Free Russia”* for the auction that raised money for protective gear and boots. Interested in the activities of FSR*, I checked their website and YouTube recordings. I learned that in November 2023, they held an auction in Vilnius to support volunteer formations, selling military trophies, signed stamps, and autographed items, including Kasparov’s board and Chirikova’s book. The funds were directed to support groups fighting on Ukraine’s side.
I watched recordings of the 5th Anti-War Conference (October 1-2, 2023) and the 12th “Forum of Free Russia”* (February 23-24, 2024), where participants called to join armed formations, support them financially, and fight against the political regime in Russia.
I concluded that FSR’s* activities are aimed at supporting groups acting against Russia and harm its citizens.
Protocol of the interrogation of Dmitry Alekseevich Zhdanov from June 26, 2024.
Since 2002, I have been the head of the separate convoy platoon for the transportation of accused individuals in the Syktyvkar city department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia.
On May 23, 2024, I was on duty when, at 2:15 PM, the employees of my platoon were to deliver the defendant Skobov from the Judicial Psychiatric Center to the Syktyvkar City Court for the extension of his pretrial detention. Together with Sergeant Oboyeva and others, we brought Skobov to the court’s convoy area, and shortly afterward, we took him to the courtroom before Judge Lekomtseva. During transportation, Skobov remained calm, did not speak, and made no statements.
During the court session, Skobov was guarded by Oboyeva and him. Around 4:50 PM, when the judge gave him the floor, he stood up and began talking about something related to the terrorist attack on the Crimean Bridge, saying that he had called, was calling, and would continue to call Russian citizens to join the Ukrainian Armed Forces. He also mentioned that he had donated money for weapons for the Ukrainian Armed Forces and did so openly. He expressed surprise that the FSB had not yet charged him with financing the Ukrainian Armed Forces. He then said: “Glory to Ukraine”, and the judge admonished him. After that, Skobov became silent and sat down. The judge then extended his pretrial detention, and we received the decision and took Skobov back to the Judicial Psychiatric Center. After the session, Skobov remained calm, did not speak with us, and made no statements.
Interrogation Protocol of Oboyeva Elena Valeryevna, dated July 16, 2024
Since approximately 2021, she has held the position of a police officer in the escort company responsible for transporting accused and suspected individuals of crimes under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Syktyvkar. Previously, she served in the same department as a canine handler.Her testimony is generally consistent with the testimony provided by Zhdanov.
Interrogation Protocol of Molostvova Ekaterina Mikhailovna, dated September 2, 2024
When asked whether she had been subject to criminal or administrative liability, she answered in the negative. She and her husband, Rybakov Y., are the owners of the premises where the search was conducted. She uses Telegram for work purposes and is not interested in electronic pages. While she does not remember the exact addresses or phone numbers of Skobov, she provided some. She confirmed the search protocol but did not receive a copy.
Molostvova first met Skobov in 1987 and maintained infrequent contact with him. She described him as a kind, responsive person and a well-known historian. Before the search, Skobov was at her place due to the proximity of a clinic. The detention and search were conducted properly, and Skobov’s equipment was seized.
She is unaware of Skobov’s social media activity and had no correspondence with him. She does not know about the Telegram channel “Alexander Skobov’s Channel,” who its administrator is, or its content. Regarding Skobov’s political views, she stated he is a Marxist and critical of the authorities due to the lack of equality. He did not discuss topics such as the Special Military Operation (SMO), assistance to the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU), participation in the Free Russia Forum (FRF)*, or the auction in Vilnius with her. They also did not discuss terrorist acts, and she does not know Skobov’s stance on these matters.
Interrogation Protocol of Khachatryan Aram Norarovich, dated July 2, 2024
Since 2023, Khachatryan has served in the police force, and since November 2023, he has held the position of senior operative officer in the “E” Center. His duties include operational investigative measures (ORM) for identifying extremist and terrorist crimes.
In March 2023, he identified posts in the Telegram channel “Alexander Skobov’s Channel,” which, in his opinion, contained elements of justification and promotion of terrorism. The channel was registered to Alexander V. Skobov, who was its administrator. Previously, Skobov had been prosecuted for anti-Soviet activities and subjected to compulsory treatment. It was also established that Skobov was a member of the council of the Free Russia Forum (FRF)*, recognized as an undesirable organization, and a participant in the “European Petersburg” movement.
On April 2, 2024, a case was initiated under Part 2 of Article 205.2 of the Russian Criminal Code. On the same day, a search was conducted at Skobov’s residence. Khachatryan, along with his colleagues and an investigator, arrived at the apartment of Molostvova, where Skobov was staying. Witnesses Taranenko and Fedorchenko were present. Molostvova handed over Skobov’s phone, laptop, and tablet, which were seized.
A subsequent search was conducted at Skobov’s apartment, where his mother was present. Notebooks, flash drives, business cards, and other materials were confiscated. Skobov refused to sign the protocols and did not provide comments or additions. After the search, he was detained and taken to the investigative department for further actions.
The witnesses who arrived are being questioned, with the defendant’s mother, Natalia Lukinichna Skobova, born 1934, being the first to be invited. The court suggests that the witness sit down in case she finds it uncomfortable to testify while standing. However, the witness continues to give her testimony while standing until the very end.
She lived together with her son and was in the apartment when the search took place.
On April 2, 2024, she was at home when the search was conducted. Her son Alexander returned accompanied by several people. He sat by the coat rack, while the men headed to his room, causing a mess by scattering papers and books. The search in her room was superficial, nothing was seized, but she considered the actions of one of the officers to be rough. Alexander remained silent throughout the search.
She describes her son as a caring, educated person who always helped her in difficult times, especially after she broke her hip. His arrest has had a severe impact on her life, worsening both her mental and physical state.
She has not discussed her son’s political views with him but believes he is in opposition. She knows nothing about his support for the Ukrainian Armed Forces or his participation in the FSR*. He has only provided financial support to her. She believes that her son, being a kind and selfless person, cannot support terrorism. He is opposed to Nazism and fascism and views war with horror and disgust.
Karagodina (defense attorney) is questioning the witness.
Karagodina: “Natalia Lukinichna, did you experience the war yourself? Could you tell us about it and where you were?”
Witness: “Yes. It was in the early weeks of the war, and my mother worked at a school. The children and staff were relocated to a place somewhere near Leningrad. One day, when we were there, I was in critical condition because I fell out of a car during transport and ended up in the hospital. We were suddenly attacked by German planes. A train with the wounded was bombed, but our train didn’t get hit. It was one of the last trains sent to the Kirov region, where I stayed until 1944. I remember walking in the dark at night on the railroad tracks and getting into the wagons. These are very vivid memories of the war”.
Karagodina: “Did you tell your son Alexander Valeryevich about this?”
Witness: “Yes”.
Judge’s Questioning:
Judge: “And after 1944, where did you end up? Just curious”.
Witness: “In Leningrad. We returned to Leningrad”.
Judge: “Natalia Lukinichna, I have a question for you: do you know why your son is in court?”
Witness: “For me, it’s a nightmare and horror that my son is under investigation as a terrorist. He, by his very nature, cannot be that”.
Witness Olga Alekseyevna Shcheglova, born in 1958, wife of the defendant.
She has known Skobov for nearly 50 years, 30 of which they have been married. They met when they enrolled at Leningrad University in 1975. She describes him as incredibly honest, principled, courageous, kind, and a good person. She observed him in various circumstances, including when he was a student and strongly expressed opinions different from the mainstream Soviet state propaganda. He is also a person deeply interested in studying history, particularly the history of political thought, and has not only received formal education at the university, which was interrupted and later resumed, but also self-education that surpasses even her own as a candidate of historical sciences. “And this education he mostly received during his two prison terms, which included not only regular prisons but also special institutions where he was sent after his first two trials. Of course, he also worked in schools for over 20 years. He was a wonderful history teacher, the author of two excellent textbooks, still used in educational practice today”.
She also knows him as a person of extraordinary courage and firmness in his beliefs. “This was confirmed when I observed him… In 1976, at the opening of regular communist party congress, several children distributed leaflets at the ‘Gostiny Dvor’ metro station, in which they said that the course of the Soviet Union had deviated from Lenin’s principles, and that the socialism we talked about was not truly socialism”. Naturally, measures of condemnation were attempted, “and imagine: we were sitting in a large hall with about 80 students, all of us Komsomol members, and the faculty was ideologically oriented. Alexander Valeryevich behaved in such a way that everyone in the room said, ‘No, we won’t expel him from the Komsomol until we are given the right to review the document,’ the leaflet, ‘and until that’s done, we won’t expel him.’” He wasn’t expelled, but he had to transfer to the distance learning department of the university, after that he worked a lot. “We talk about him being a teacher, an intellectual, a bespectacled man, yes, but look at his resume: working as a fisherman in Dagestan, working in the forest – not as a lumberjack, not because he was convicted, but because he went there to plant young trees in the Novgorod region, working in hot furnaces at a brick factory. This was his youth”. This all coincided with his engagement in political and public literature, including samizdat, distributing samizdat, and his arrest for attempting to publish the journal “Perspektiva”. “The main ideology behind all this was Marxism and studying the latest currents in Marxism… most importantly, it was about reflecting on the path of our country,” because Skobov “also has a deep, unpretentious patriotism”. This led to his arrest, a long stay in solitary confinement, and then he was released from criminal responsibility as a decision was made to send him for compulsory treatment.
“Now let me tell you about compulsory treatment. It’s indefinite detention. The thing is, you’re not in prison, but you’re in isolation, and there’s a huge temptation before you”.Shcheglova, addressing the court: “Here we have both the prosecutor and the judge, young people, imagine..”.
Prosecutor: “Let’s..”.
Court: “Let’s not”.
Kosnyrev (defense attorney): “Your Honor, aren’t they young?”
Court: “The youth of the judge and prosecutor is irrelevant to the case”.
Kosnyrev: “Your Honor, is that bad? Is it bad to be young?”
Court: “Alright, let’s remove this from the process”.
Shcheglova: “Alright, we’ll remove this. Let’s imagine: you’re around 20, and the answer is in your hands: yes or no. You are asked: ‘Do you admit that you were mistaken, that your mistakes were related to your illness?’ And if you say “yes” the commission will review your case and might transfer you to more lenient conditions or even release you under psychiatric supervision. And he said ‘no.’ And he said ‘no’ once for two years, and then again for five. Imagine, put yourself in his shoes”.
After the collapse of the USSR, it was raised that the judicial system, especially regarding political charges (Article 70 and 190 of the RSFSR Criminal Code), often resorted to “punitive psychiatry” where people were formally released from criminal responsibility but were incarcerated for long periods, sometimes for life, in psychiatric hospitals of a special type. As soon as the Soviet system collapsed and these articles were abolished, the question arose: how did this happen? The Serbsky Institute in Moscow, known for issuing such diagnoses, particularly “slow-moving schizophrenia” – which Skobov wasn’t even diagnosed with – was one of the main institutions involved. Therefore, an international medical commission was assembled in 1989 to re-examine those previously convicted and sent for compulsory treatment. Based on interviews and prior diagnoses, this commission concluded that the diagnoses should be removed, and there was even a private ruling against the doctors who issued them. To the credit of the doctors who worked with Alexander Valeryevich, they did not apply compulsory treatment to him because it was clear that the diagnosis was politically motivated, not medically. Hence, many of the things reported by others who underwent similar treatment did not happen in his case.
Skobov was later rehabilitated, the international medical commission fully removed the diagnosis in both cases, which was confirmed by the dispensary. Furthermore, for the years lost in his life – he was 30 years old, and seven of those years were spent in limbo – he received some compensation. Skobov was released as a result of the onset of perestroika. “It was the happiest time of our lives because we saw how, in one day, a huge, heavy, seemingly eternal system collapsed, and a movement began among the people. You’ve never seen such happy faces as you did then. Naturally, he immediately became active in public life. We met at a huge demonstration in 1989 in Leningrad, in the democratic column, after a long break due to his experiences, and we renewed our old friendship, later married, and went on from there”.
All the events that shook the country at the time were significant for Skobov. He always responded to them, and it was during this time that he began his teaching career, won a competition, and wrote two textbooks: one about the history of Russia from Nicholas II to the October Revolution, and the other from the October Revolution to World War II, which were published in large editions by state publishing houses and used in schools. He turned historical materials into educational ones, with a focus on methodology, publishing educational guides in the Institute for Teacher Development in the 2000s. He combined this with active public work, especially on the Chechen Wars, which we all, including myself, strongly opposed, both the operation and the extreme violence with which it was carried out.
I want to say the following: look, this man is currently incarcerated in a detention center, he’s going blind, he writes blindly. While in detention, he wrote an article for a scientific, purely academic journal. This article was published in issue 4 of the journal “Historical Expertise” alongside articles by reputable Moscow scholars, doctors, and academics. This speaks volumes. Skobov has many chronic health issues. The most severe is the near-total loss of vision. He had ophthalmological surgeries, and in 2014, he was attacked and sustained knife wounds. They paid attention to the wounds, but not to the head injury… One of them caused severe trauma to his eye, followed by surgery at the Fyodorov Center, which addressed the cuts, but then began a rapid deterioration in his vision that subsequent surgeries couldn’t fix. He now cannot read handwritten text and only sees rectangular shapes, i.e., printed text. Everything he writes is done blindly… he asks me in his letters if the pen he’s using writes, so he can’t see anything at all.
Skobov is a courageous person, but very restrained. As hard as it is to accept, he rarely talks about his health during visits, doesn’t answer relevant questions in letters, and it’s very difficult to get him to admit he needs eye drops. Furthermore, he is very ascetic, so there are no complaints about prison food or conditions. But looking at him, I can see he’s lost a lot of weight, and seeing that he doesn’t wear the glasses I sent him, and noticing other signs like asking if the pen writes, I can see that his vision has deteriorated. He’s adapted to life without it, but I can note these two points.
In the detention center, Skobov doesn’t receive specialized medical help. This applies to his vision and diagnostic needs, as he requires constant monitoring. During quarantine before his admission to the detention center, one test was done over six months ago, and there hasn’t been any subsequent medical supervision, even though he visited doctors there regularly.
It’s unclear if the attack on Skobov in 2014 was related to his public activity. It happened in his courtyard, and seemed unmotivated at first, but the second major blow after the Chechen War was the annexation of Crimea and the near-break in relations with Ukraine… the Donbass region experienced an unprovoked attack from Russia. He strongly opposed the start of this aggression, both the annexation of Crimea and the undeclared annexation of Donbass. Perhaps these statements caused the attack, but I can only suspect this, not confirm it. At that time, honestly, we were focused on the injuries, and the subsequent issues with his eyes required months of treatment. Two homeless men were charged, and the only thing that raised questions for me was that they were also accused of attacking another person that same day, with serious bodily injuries. It happened on July 27, Navy Day, and it felt like they were blamed for all incidents in our Kalininsky district.
The witness is being questioned by the Prosecutor: Prosecutor: “Please tell us, have you read the Telegram channel, the posts related to the accusations? The channel is called, as I recall, ‘Alexander Skobov’s Channel.'”
Shcheglova: “I’ve heard references to it, but I wasn’t subscribed to it and I’m not subscribed now. I naturally visited it, and I got immersed in a sea of vile comments, then I closed it”.
Prosecutor: “Do you know what your husband is accused of?”
Shcheglova: “He published several articles, as I understand it, that are being assessed as propaganda for terrorism and justification of terrorism. We all know what terrorism is because, on the day Alexander Valeryevich was arrested, 145 people were killed at the Crocus City Hall, and more than 50 were wounded – that’s terrorism. If they accuse Alexander Valeryevich of promoting terrorism, then that is absolutely not true. He never did that, and he never propagated terrorism”.
Prosecutor: “What exactly do you say he did, just in your own words?”
Shcheglova: “Article 51, I refuse to answer”. [Art. 51 of the Russian Constitution allows not to self-incriminate or to testify against spouse and other close relatives, ed. note]
Prosecutor: “And his political views – are those also covered by Article 51?”
Shcheglova: “No, of course not. His political views have long been of a social-democratic nature, and the key point here is the word ‘democratic.’ Accordingly, this shapes his views on all current events, both recent and historical… This is the viewpoint of a person, it’s the pain for the fate of his country, it’s real, genuine patriotism. He thinks not about his own skin, but about the future of his country, even if that future comes at the cost he himself is paying”.
Prosecutor: “How does your husband feel about the current government?”
Shcheglova: “You know, Article 29 of the Constitution, I believe Paragraph 4, states that no one can be forced to express their opinions. In this case, you’re asking for my opinion. When I’m sitting on the defendant’s bench, then you can ask this question, but not right now”.
The defense attorney, Karagodina, continues the questioning:
Karagodina: “You said that Alexander Valeryevich adhered to a social-democratic current. Could you briefly explain what that means, because it’s from an area that’s not entirely clear?”
Shcheglova: “Well, the main principles of socialism are freedom, equality, fraternity, free labor, free associations. He took part in the activities of one of the first independent non-governmental trade unions, which was called SMOT, formed in response to the news about the development of the ‘Solidarity’ trade union in Poland in the early 1980s. These are ideas of socialism. Then there’s the left-wing idea, not the right-wing one – there’s no division of people legally depending on their material status, it’s not the power of force, it’s the power of law. It’s not the power of wealth, but solving issues collectively based on democratic choice. And of course, it’s a complete opposition to any dictatorship, whether it’s a state dictatorship or the dictatorship of an individual. There can only be one dictatorship – the dictatorship of law”.
Karagodina: “How detailed was his description of military history [in the textbook]?”
Shcheglova: “Well, military history is very familiar to him, because in his first textbook, he addresses the history of World War I, and also the shameful Japanese war. In the second textbook, there’s also coverage of the aggressive Finnish war that preceded World War II. He is well-informed about these events. He knows the history of these wars and understands their nature – imperialist in the first case, and aggressive and expansionist in the second – and he presents them according to his beliefs. There, he also shows the nature of revolution, much of which emerged from World War I, and the spirit of revolution: the 1905 revolution came from the Japanese war, and the revolution of 1917 came from the imperialist war. The events of the Civil War are also described in the textbooks”.
Court: “Let’s turn the imperialist war into a civil war”.
Shcheglova: “That’s Lenin’s slogan, yes”.
The witness is being questioned by Kosnyrev (defense attorney):
Kosnyrev: “Please tell us, why didn’t Alexander Valeryevich leave Russia, where he has faced political persecution throughout his entire conscious life?”
Shcheglova: “I have a friend, a well-known scholar, who was asked the same question, and she came up with a very good answer: because all her meanings are here. For me and for Alexander Valeryevich, all our meanings are here. We were born in this country, we grew up in this country, we worked in this country, and we bear responsibility for what it has become. If we’re dissatisfied with what it has become… it is on us to take responsibility for at least partially correcting what has happened, and we believe that this country is on the wrong path. That’s why we stay here. Well, why did we stay here? Because this is our Homeland! I think Alexander Valeryevich would answer the same way I do”.
Kosnyrev: “I’ll ask another general question about Alexander Valeryevich’s attitude toward war as a phenomenon. I mean, war in general, not just the wars waged by Russia?”
Shcheglova: “He has a varied attitude toward wars, not just those in Russia. And we also know from history that there are different kinds of wars – there are imperialist wars, aggressive wars, territorial wars, wars for resources. But there are also other kinds of wars, domestic wars, wars people fight because of fear for their conscience, not for large monetary rewards – wars in which they defend their Homeland. In addition, there are civil wars, which are the most bloody and terrifying things… Alexander Valeryevich clearly separated imperialist, aggressive wars, and wars for resources from those that defend dignity, freedom, homeland, and those that defend ideals. Overall, his attitude toward war as a solution to interstate and internal issues, as a method, is, of course, negative. We grew up with the idea of ‘just not war.’ And when we face it, yes, we are against this war”.
Kosnyrev: “Please tell us about Alexander Valeryevich’s attitude toward terror, terrorism, terrorists, and other similar forms of violence?”
Shcheglova: “Terror, terrorism – it’s violence aimed at intimidation. It may not be very strong in itself, but the effect is intimidation. I must say that I have my own opinion, which I believe corresponds to… well, you know, my opinion on Alexander Valeryevich’s attitude – it’s a complex issue because I might not know his attitude… We know two forms of terror: one is terror truly aimed at intimidation, which is directed at peaceful people and leads to great harm among the innocent… Just before he was arrested, there was a terrible terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall in Moscow, a real one. Naturally, the attitude toward the death of people and what happened is purely negative… But there is also the terror of the doomed, and we, as historians, studied the revolutionary terror that existed in the 1870s and 1880s and between the two Russian revolutions. This is the terror of the doomed, the terror when people cannot express their opinions or carry out their actions in any more or less legal way – neither in court nor through any public activity – and this drives them to carry out, well, I would say, extrajudicial executions. Naturally, our lawyers know the famous case of Zassulich, but there were more of them, of course, and here it’s important to understand what the person meant: did they mean intimidation, or did they mean extrajudicial, not by the legal system, not lawful, but the execution of justice. I think Alexander Valeryevich divides these two things the same way I do. And there’s what is now called terrorism – it’s justified resistance on the territory of one’s own country by Ukrainian regular forces. Sometimes their actions are assessed as terrorist, although they are actions of combatants, directed against a legitimate target. That’s my opinion”.
Skobov: “Olya, I love you!”
Shcheglova: “You bet!”
The prosecutor continues presenting the evidence, reading out the case materials. Defense attorney Kosnyrev complains again about the “very poor” audibility and requests that the prosecutor read “louder, clearer, and not too fast”. In response, the prosecutor expresses dissatisfaction and says that the defense attorney can read the parts he didn’t hear on his own.
It should be noted that the prosecutor’s speech is more or less audible in the courtroom, but apparently, the existing issues (hesitations, interjections, and slips of the tongue) are exacerbated when the sound is transmitted via the videoconferencing system.
The case materials are being announced:
The court asks the prosecutor if there’s much more to go, as defense attorney Kosnyrev is already in a hurry. The prosecutor stops, interrupting mid-sentence and clearly not finishing reading the protocol, but says that only “the photo table, photographs, nothing interesting” remains.
A break is announced in the court session.
*These organizations and/or associations have been declared terrorist and their activities are banned in the Russian Federation.
