About the case: The case was initiated against 24 individuals from the “Azov” battalion (a terrorist organization forbidden in Russia [we are obligated by the Russian law to write this, ed. note]), nine of them being women, with two others exchanged before the start of the trial. The defendants are accused under Article 278 of the Criminal Code – violent seizure of power or violent retention of power, as well as Article 205.5 of the Criminal Code – organizing the activities of a terrorist organization and participating in the activities of such an organization. Several defendants are charged under Article 205.3 of the Criminal Code – training for terrorist activities.
The case is being considered by the three-judge panel, presided by Judge Vyacheslav Alexeevich Korsakov of the Southern Military District Court.
11:30 – the actual beginning of the hearing. The assistant of the judge announced the reason for the late start of the hearing, which was due to organizational problems.
Defense lawyers Chugunov and Chernousov were absent.
The lawyer presented an order for the defense of Pavrianidis. The defendant Zharkov presented a request and a defense order of the lawyer Ivankovich.
The witness Antonina Ivanovna Butyga was called. The judge asked the witness who the defendant was – she replied that she was his common-law wife. The judge then read the witness her rights – that she had the right not to testify against herself and her common-law husband, asked about her nationality, education and whether an interpreter was needed.
The prosecutor began his questioning.
Prosecutor:
– When did you meet the defendant Gritsyk Anatoly Petrovich?
Witness:
– At the sea.
– What did he tell you about himself?
– Military life, military education, participated in armed conflicts in Yugoslavia.
– To which military unit did he belong?
– Mariupol 3057.
– Did he say anything about his service?
– There was a conflict with colleagues in the military unit in 2019, during which my husband was physically injured, I do not know the exact causes of the conflict.
– Did Gritsyk say anything about his political views?
– No, he did not.
– What kind of person was he at home?
– Very well-balanced and calm, without conflicts.
The defense began to question him.
Defense attorney:
– Did the defendant conduct organizational activities of the Azov Regiment (a terrorist organization banned in Russia)?
Witness:
– Until 2019, after that he filed a discharge report.
– Did he express nationalist views at home?
– No.
– Do you know the defendant Avramova?
– Yes, we grew up in the same village.
– Did you observe Avramova in the company of military men?
– No.
The prosecutor filed a motion for disclosure of the testimony on the grounds that there were contradictions in the witness’s statements, which differed from the statements she had given to the investigator in the Donetsk People’s Republic. The judge denied the motion, stating that it interfered with the proceedings and that there were no contradictions in the witness’s testimony.
The prosecutor began to read the transcripts of the case, very inarticulately and quietly. The defense asked him to read louder. The hearing improved, but not for long – the prosecutor continued to read as before. The defense asked to repeat the data of the transcript, in which the information on the website of the Azov regiment (a terrorist organization banned in Russia) is mentioned, the prosecutor complied with the request.
The prosecutor continued to read the transcripts of the case. The lawyer asked what names were mentioned in the minutes and said that the prosecutor had not heard them at all. The judge invited the lawyer to personally familiarize himself with the case materials.
The session was over.
