Was there a boy?..

The investigation refused to initiate a criminal case for the illegal imprisonment of two pupils of the Holy Bogolyubsky Monastery in the Vladimir region , the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation reported on Friday.

“Pre-investigation checks have been completed on the statements of 16-year-old and 17-year-old former pupils of the St. Bogolyubsky Convent about their illegal detention in the monastery. Based on the results of checks of the above statements, based on the totality of the collected materials, investigators came to the conclusion that there was no crime under this article 127 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (illegal deprivation of liberty), and therefore the initiation of a criminal case was refused,” the message says.

Obviously, we are talking about Svetlana Kuznetsova and Victoria Sarina, who escaped from the monastery in early October. Well, of course, no one stopped me. Only for some reason they did not leave the monastery quietly and peacefully with their parents (and no one would have known about them in this case), but first ran away, wrote letters of complaint to the police, were placed in a Suzdal boarding school, were asked from there and sent home with their mothers to make it more difficult to reach them. At that moment, other children also began to testify, but these children had not lived in the monastery for about a year, and Kuznetsova and Sarina were fresh witnesses and therefore especially dangerous.

Children's Ombudsman Pavel Astakhov fully supports the decision of the UPC. “I believe that this is a legal decision made by the Investigative Committee,” he told Interfax on Friday. “There are enough other cases filed in which it is quite possible to establish the events that the pupils are talking about. If something is revealed during the investigation, no one restricts the UPC’s right to initiate other criminal cases.”

Let us envy the Russian children who are protected by such an ombudsman. Last year, in the case of Valya Perova, the SKP “came to the conclusion that there was no crime,” and the crimes continued for another whole extra year.

According to statements from other children, three criminal cases are allegedly ongoing: on the facts of abduction of a minor (clause “d” of Part 2 of Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), unlawful deprivation of liberty of a minor (clause “d” of Part 2 of Article 127 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and causing physical and psychological suffering to three minors (clauses “a, d” of Part 2 of Article 117 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

But I think few people will be surprised if very soon it turns out that no “crime event” was found here either. Was there a boy?..

NEW: Yesterday in Vladimir there was an action in defense of the Bogolyubsky Monastery. As the organizer of the committee, member of the Public Chamber of the Vladimir Region Tatyana Sidorova, said, “we demand an apology from the media, in particular from the federal ones, which published untrue information about the state of affairs in the monastery,” she said.

Here is the first result of the closed, or rather “uninitiated” criminal case: the media are calling for an apology for the fact that children are running away from the monastery. That is, Archimandrite Peter Kucher and the abbess of the monastery are not to blame; everything is in perfect order in the monastery. Why were they subjected to administrative sanctions by the diocese? - unclear. The diocese was probably misled by the malicious media. Yes, deceitful children, raised, by the way, all in the same monastery. This is what happens when black is called white.