The case of Ilya Romanov. Court Chronicle: Fourteenth Day

Yesterday, July 8, the off -road board of the Moscow District Military Court continued to interrogate witnesses and experts caused by the defense side, in the case against the Nizhny Novgorod anarchist Ilya Romanov.

He is charged with a violation of the four articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: part 1 of Art. 30 h. 1 tbsp. 205 (preparation for a terrorist act), part 1 of Art. 222 (illegal storage, transportation or wearing of ammunition), part 1 of Art. 222 (illegal manufacture of ammunition) and part 3 of Art. 30 h. 2 tbsp. 205.2 (attempted public calls for terrorist activities committed using the media). All interrogated in today's court session were originally declared both parties to the process, but later the prosecution refused to call them, but the defense insisted at a judicial interrogation. The court was experts of the forensic center of the Central Internal Affairs Directorate in the Nizhny Novgorod region Konstantin Kolobov, Larisa Modinova, Larisa Braginskaya and Ekaterina Ryabkova, who participated in the production of explosive examinations in the case, forensic psychiatric expert Sergei Belyaev and witness Yuri Usoltsev, who worked as a security guard of an elite house near the regional regional house The military enlistment office, in the square near which there was an explosion of a homemade pyrotechnic device in Romanov’s hands, as a result of which the anarchist lost his left hand.

But the most important at yesterday's hearing occurred after experts and witness were interrogated. The court announced a break, and after the return it turned out that the prosecutor Alexei Ezersky, who had been the assistant to the prosecutor Alexei Vinokurov, joined the prosecutor to Alexei Ezersky, who was not involved in several court sessions. “To strengthen” - as one of the judges of the college put it.

Vinokurov handed over some documents to Ezersky, and the prosecutor immediately appealed to the court with a petition for the announcement of the testimony of the witness of Andrei Semushin, given at the stage of the preliminary investigation, which was not in court until that moment, and his location was not established. As the prosecutor of Ezersky explained, all measures were taken to find it, but they did not lead to any results. However, the prosecution received a message from the police that not only the prosecutor’s office, but also his relatives are looking for a witness. Police officers reported that on July 18, that is, two days after the beginning of the hearing of the case of Ilya Romanov, in the merits, Father Semushin filed an application for his disappearance. Immediately a search was instructed in the category of "missing." The prosecutor of Ezersky asked the court to attach to the case file all the related documents and announce the testimony of Semushin on the basis of subparagraph "4" of paragraph 2 of Art. 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: when not appearing at the court session of the witness, the court has the right to make a decision on the application of the party or on its own initiative to announce earlier these testimonies in cases of natural disaster or other emergency circumstances that impede the appeal to the court. The prosecutor Ezersky considered that the ignorance of his father, where his adult son is located, who previously communicated with him and lived separately in a rented apartment with his friends, is an extreme circumstance.

The lawyer of the defendant Evgeny Gubin stated a categorical protest against both the introduction of documents and the announcement of the testimony of the witness. He noted that Semushin, being a 19-year-old young man, could go anywhere-to work, to visit friends-and not to warn parents. Gubin noted that there are a great many such search affairs when people simply do not warn their relatives, leaving somewhere literally for a few days, and after that they return whole and unharmed, and things stop. The defendant’s lawyer told the court that the documents that the prosecutor will intercede to attach to the materials have nothing to do with the case under study. “Of course, it was like this: the FSB officers came to the dad and said:“ Dad, where is the son? Write a statement! ”, - commented on the appeal of Father Semushin to the police Yevgeny Gubin. Gubin also noted that a comparison with a spontaneous disaster, as indicated in the reasons for the announcement of testimonies in the law, cannot go that the father does not currently own information about the whereabouts of his adult son, and this cannot be regarded as extreme circumstances.

The defendant himself also opposed the introduction of documents and announcing the testimony of Semushin.

But the court, conferring on the spot, decided to take the side of the prosecution.

The court announced two protocols of the interrogation of Andrei Semushin by the investigator of the Federal Security Service of Kurkin and the protocol for checking the indications at the place drawn up by the investigator of the Federal Security Service of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Solovyov. Indications recorded in all three protocols, with a particular share of details, repeat each other.

Andrei Semushin, as well as witnesses, Alexei Gusev and Konstantin Abramov, was a colleague of Ilya Romanov. They worked together at the Avk private security agency. With Abramov, who was questioned on the first day of the hearing of the case on the merits and was noted by the fact that he said that he was anarcho-individualist and was registered with a psychiatrist, they generally protected the same object-the Lukoil under construction. He, Romanov and Abramov, were replacements and changed each other according to the schedule.

Semushin was interrogated by the FSB officers three times. On November 19 and December 18, 2013, he was interrogated by investigator Kurkin, and on February 19, 2015, his testimony was tested on the spot, however, by that time the place of events that he testified was very changed - the refueling was built, and the household of the guards was demolished.

As follows from the case file, Andrei Semushin considers himself an anarcho-primitivist, advocates the priority of agriculture and believes that people should live by natural economy. He met Ilya Romanov in mid -July at a rally against the decision of the city administration on the cutting of the park named after I.P. Kulibin, where he came, because he was interested in environmental problems. The organizer of the rally, he said, was the civil activist Valery Altarev, his acquaintance. Of all those present at the rally, according to Semushin, Romanov and another person with whom he was together stood out with their age, because, mostly, young people participated in the event. However, it is worth noting that Semushin once missed that the rally in defense of the park was a truly city-wide action, which was attended by people of completely different ages.

Further, as follows from the testimony of an anarcho-primitivist, his acquaintance with Romanov continued in September, when the defendant settled down in the same ChOP, where the witness had already worked before. Between the shifts, when Romanov was changed by Semushin, he, in accordance with the case file, showed him several chemical experiments, however, according to the witness, he did not know for what purpose the defendant showed him. Allegedly, at first he poured a potassium potato pipe, shut it with cotton wool on both sides, and glycerin dripped it on one of the cotton wool, but nothing happened. Another time, Romanov took a glass jar of white powder from a sports bag, poured this powder into a metal cover and set fire to, which is why the mixture in the lid was ignited, and a small cotton rang out. The substance in the bank of Romanov called Acetone's peroxide and explained that he made it himself at home and that it explodes when exposed to fire. The most interesting thing is that literally a few hours before the announcement of the testimony of the Semushin, the explosion equipment of Kolobov at the hearing explained that the peroxide of acetone is a very unstable connection and extremely sensitive to any kind of influences, can explode even with prolonged storage. Moreover, the expert indicated that in the ICC there is a ban on the study of large volumes of acetone peroxide due to involuntary unauthorized explosions during storage. So, in Dagestan a jar was seized with this substance and put in a safe, where it stood and exploded. The explosive technician also said that at the moment acetone peroxide is used in the food industry and registered as the E929 food supplement, however, factories for the production of this substance are exploding, but these cases are trying not to advertise. As Kolobov explained, not so long ago the next soil explosion near this plant in Moscow occurred due to the accumulation of the drained peroxide of acetone. And from the testimony of Somushin it follows that a person who has known this substance and could not know about its properties, carries a whole can of half-liter peroxide with him in a bag in a bag, calmly gets it, sets it off and so on.

In his testimony, Semushin argued that Romanov said that "the manufacture and use of explosives is its" handwriting ", and if somewhere there is an explosion and find traces of this substance (at the same time, what substance is in question), suspicion would fall on it."

Further, from the testimony of the witness, it followed that once he and Romanov began to recall the rally against the cutting of the park to them. Kulibin. Romanov said that this rally was an important event for him, he was very worried about this problem and we need to look for ways to solve it. But it is worth noting that Valery Altareva, who acted on the process as a witness earlier, said that, being one of the initiators of the campaign in defense of the park, she remembers everyone who took an active part in this activity, but Ilya Romanov was not among these citizens. So, returning to the testimony of Semushin, in accordance with them, the defendant allegedly proposed to undermine the technology when she enters the park. But on this their communication ceased, because Romanov was dismissed. The witness asked to note the investigation that after Romanov’s dismissal, they did not communicate with him.

Of course, there is also the testimony of the witness in the testimony of Romanov that he told him that he served in Ukraine for 10 years to undermine the SBU, while he did not call himself a victim of the regime and did not consider the sentence to himself unfair.

There is also a mention of Romanov’s contacts in Nizhny Novgorod. Allegedly, Romanov told him that he was communicating with representatives of the local cell of the National-Bolshevik party. It should be noted that the NBP was recognized as extremist back in 2007 and is prohibited throughout the Russian Federation. However, in the testimony of Semushin this name is used at least three to four times, while creating a steady impression that the organization is in effect to this day.

Ilya Romanov did not agree with the testimony and refrained from commenting on them.

Both for the side of protection and for the accused himself the request of the prosecutor to announce the testimony of this witness and their subsequent announcement was a complete surprise. Moreover, the defense believes that, when the testimony of the testimony of Semushin at the hearing, the most important norms of criminal procedure legislation were violated.

The next meeting is scheduled for today, at 10.00. In the course of him, it is planned to interrogate experts to Ivanov and Myasnikov, who conducted an audio recording of the Dialogs with Ilya Romanov, in which, according to the accusation, the anarchist expresses calls for terrorist activities, and the linguist Koltunov expert, which conducted the review of the aforementioned experts.