Translated material
Political pressure: media digest (May 21-27)
"Bolotnaya case"
Mikhail Kosenko may leave the psychiatric hospital
“One of the most famous “prisoners of Bolotnaya” Mikhail Kosenko , who is undergoing compulsory treatment in a psychiatric clinic near Moscow, may have a chance for early release from the ward. As Gazeta.Ru found out, the Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia, represented by its president Yuri Savenko, took charge of Kosenko’s fate, who was not indifferent to the conclusion that the oppositionist was insanity and his transfer to compulsory treatment. According to Savenko, last week he attended a reception with the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation, Ella Pamfilova . The psychiatrist suggested that she organize a group of independent experts from various organizations, including the Savenko Association, in order to determine Kosenko’s condition.”
““Have you come to talk about Mikhail Kosenko?” — Yuri Kaganovich, Deputy Chief Physician for Medical Affairs, warmly addresses lawyer Dmitry Ayvazyan. He invites Ayvazyan and The New Times correspondent (whom the lawyer introduced as his secretary) into a large office: “We no longer have someone like Kosenko, for such “polites” (as Dr. Kaganovich refers to a political matter). 87% of our patients committed crimes against the person. They sit for years, there is, for example, one patient who has been treated with us for 21 years. But regarding Kosenko, we recently held an expanded commission and determined that he does not pose a public danger. He can go home, live normally, work, get married.”
According to Dr. Kaganovich, the medical council sent its conclusion to the Chekhov City Court, attaching to it a letter from Ayvazyan’s lawyer received in April with a request “to present Kosenko to the commission to change the medical measure from inpatient to outpatient treatment.” In simple terms, the lawyer asked to let Kosenko go home so that he could take medications under the supervision of a doctor - as he did before he was arrested, kept in prison for two years and eventually declared insane. “Have you heard that Sister Kosenko wrote a letter to President Putin and asked him specifically about transferring to outpatient treatment?” - lawyer Ayvazyan asks doctor Kaganovich. “No, I haven’t.”
| | | --- | | |
Ayvazyan shows Novaya Gazeta** with a letter from Ksenia Kosenko on the front page.
| | | --- | | **See “Novaya Gazeta” May 19, 2014 |
"A! Now everything is clear to me,” Kaganovich exclaims. - Yesterday I received a call from the sky-high heights - Human Rights Commissioner Ella Pamfilova. And in general, for several days now, different people have been calling and calling... They supposedly wish Kosenko well. Don’t I wish him well?”
The doctor is getting more and more excited: they say a lot of bad things about mental hospitals, but we, they say, have not used shock methods for a long time, and our psychiatry is not punitive at all, as they write about it in the newspapers. “So, Kosenko is not dangerous to society and the judge will let him go?” - Seizing the moment, asks the correspondent of The New Times. “What an inquisitive secretary you have,” Kaganovich laughs. “Yes, the judge will consider his case in June or July.”
New defendants have appeared in the Bolotnaya case
“The St. Petersburg activist is accused of participating in “mass riots”; a preventive measure was chosen against her - a written undertaking not to leave the place. Investigators claim that the investigation into the Bolotnaya case has been extended for 25 months. At seven in the morning, Moscow investigators knocked on the apartment of oppositionist Grigory Kopp. They were looking for his girlfriend, the famous St. Petersburg activist Polina Strongina. Two years ago, Strongina was detained at a rally on Bolotnaya Square, the same one that security forces call “mass riots.” Detectives from the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation took the girl and took her to the apartment where she lives permanently. There, Polina’s parents had already been raised to their feet, to whom the security forces had also previously knocked - “three policemen, some woman with a suitcase (they were probably going to look for some kind of explosives) and two witnesses.” The police demanded that Strongina give them evidence - the jacket she was wearing on Bolotnaya Square and a backpack. Her laptop and flash drive were also seized. The laptop was later returned, but the jacket and backpack were not. “One of those who came introduced himself: they say, an investigator from Moscow. Then they brought Polina. The fact that they went to Grisha to look for her means that they are tapping phones, etc. Polina gave them her jacket. Should they hide it or something? “Otherwise they would have ransacked the whole house. They took a non-disclosure agreement from us,” Polina’s mother, Valentina Nikolaevna, told Novaya. Then the activist was taken to the “E” center of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region on Ruzovskaya Street, 8. She was interrogated for eight hours; no one was allowed to see her, including lawyer Olga Krivosheeva. Krivosheeva was told at the checkpoint that since Strongina did not call any lawyer, then she had nothing to do there (the detainee did not contact her for several hours). In addition, they claimed that “the investigators did not call anyone.” After four futile attempts to break into the building, Krivosheeva went to write a statement against the investigators’ actions to the prosecutor’s office. By the way, as it turned out, a state lawyer was assigned to Strongina to comply with formalities. The girl’s friends, who were picketing the “E” center, asked the duty officer to give the oppositionist food and water, but they were refused. At about 4 p.m., Polina left the “E” center. She squinted from the sun, hugged her friends who were crowding at the entrance, drank water, admitted that she had only now realized what it was like to lose freedom, and was ashamed that she was partially forced to admit guilt. Polina is charged with “participation in mass riots” (Article 212, Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Investigators suggested that the oppositionist write a petition for amnesty. Polina promised to consult with her lawyer (not the state one). Two years ago, Strongina was detained on Bolotnaya Square; at a rally she stood next to Sergei Krivov, convicted in the Bolotnaya case. Investigators showed the girl a video recording made by Minaev. Live operators, which shows how the activist throws an empty plastic bottle towards the police. Polina did not deny it. However, for the most part they had “moralizing conversations” with her on the topic of why she doesn’t like the current Russian government. The Investigative Committee of Russia claims that Strongina was recognized by an eyewitness to “her crime.” “A search was carried out at her place of residence, during which items relevant to the criminal case were seized, and Strongina was identified by an eyewitness to her commission of a crime,” according to the website of the RF Investigative Committee. “During the interrogation, the accused partially admitted her guilt - she admitted the fact of committing her criminal actions on Bolotnaya Square."
“The investigation intends to identify and bring to justice all, without exception, organizers, participants in mass riots and persons who used violence against government officials on May 6 on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow, in connection with which a complex of investigative and operational measures is currently ongoing,” they threatened in the department."
“As part of the Bolotnaya case, a search was carried out at the home of 30-year-old Muscovite Dmitry Ishevsky, RosUznik told Grani. After the search, Ishevsky was taken for questioning to the Main Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee. RosUznik's lawyer came to see him. Ishevsky’s relatives were also brought in for questioning. They are shown a video in which they must identify Dmitry.”
Website of the Investigative Committee, May 27 :
“During the investigation of the criminal case, another active participant in the riots was identified, Dmitry Ishevsky, born in 1983, who used violence against a government official, which is confirmed by the video recordings available to the investigation. Today, investigators from the Investigative Committee of Russia, together with operational officers of the Center “E” of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, conducted searches in Ishevsky’s home in Moscow, seized the clothes he was wearing on Bolotnaya Square on May 6, 2012, and other items relevant to the criminal case. After this, Ishevsky was taken to the Investigative Committee, where, with the participation of a lawyer, he was identified by an eyewitness as the person who used violence against police officers on May 6 on Bolotnaya Square. Currently, Ishevsky is detained as a suspect for 48 hours. During interrogation, he refused to testify. He was charged with committing crimes under Part 2 of Article 212 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Part 1 of Article 318 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (participation in mass riots and the use of violence against a government official). After committing the crime, Ishevsky left the Russian Federation some time later in order to avoid possible criminal liability. Nevertheless, his identity and location were established as a result of a complex of investigative and operational measures, and therefore, in the near future, the investigator intends to apply to the court with a petition to select a preventive measure in the form of detention for him. At the same time, investigators of the Investigative Committee today, as part of this criminal case, conducted searches in the city of Kursk of the leaders of the Kursk cell of the Left Front movement, Roman Shalimov, born in 1989, and Boris Kislyakov, born in 1993, after which they were interrogated as witnesses. During the interrogation, evidence was obtained confirming the organization by Sergei Udaltsov and Leonid Razvozzhaev of meetings with residents of various cities of the Russian Federation, carried out at the direction of a wanted person accused of organizing mass riots on May 6, 2012 on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow and preparing to organize mass riots on the territory of various subjects of the Russian Federation Givi Targamadze. The testimony of the interrogated persons confirms that the main goal of these meetings was to persuade as many people as possible to participate in opposition actions in the fall of 2012, during which it was planned to organize mass unrest.”
About the accusation of Ilya Gushchin
“Even if we rely only on the video recordings that the investigation attached to the Bolotnaya Case (and the episode is present in at least five of them), then we can clearly understand where, when and under what circumstances Gushchin committed his “crime.” But the investigators, as always, did not bother themselves with this, limiting themselves to the usual “at an unspecified time in an unspecified place” and a link to just one fragment of the video where Ilya flashes. And, as usual, instead of an investigation, we will work on finding out the details. I took several videos: the famous broadcast of Minaev, “ Clashes on Bolotnaya ” by NevexTV, “ An hour and a half on Bolotnaya ” by the Reedus agency, filming of “Moscow-24”, Taisiya Krugov’s film “ 184 Detentions ” and also Taisiya’s original file - because it contains a second part that was not included in the final cut. All of them are contained in the case materials, and most are posted on the Internet. By combining them, we get a reliable chronicle of what happened. It happens around 18:45 (it is possible to set the time quite accurately). There was already a stampede in front of “Udarnik”, a failed “breakthrough”, police attacks, dissections and harsh arrests began. The demonstrators who were unable to get to the embankment and were standing on the Small Kamenny Bridge were cut off and pushed onto Polyanka. And those who find themselves on Bolotnaya Embankment are surrounded on all sides by police chains. People just stand there without taking any action. At times, police arrest teams break into the crowd and pull out someone random. One of these groups, apparently, is returning from its “raid” along the embankment in the direction of the outer cordon. The demonstrators make way for them, but just before leaving the “inner space” of the protesters, not far from the corner of the square, the group simply runs into people standing with their backs to them. Everyone falls to the ground - demonstrators and police mixed together. What did the people do who did not notice the approach of the police “phalanx”? Standing facing the outside chain, they demanded that the head of the Moscow City Internal Affairs Directorate, Kolokoltsev, be called to negotiations. To release the detainees and restore the normal course of the agreed procession and rally. This can be seen in the footage of the Reedus correspondent present in the case. But the investigation prefers not to notice such an inconvenient moment. So everyone fell down. It would seem, well, help people get up and go your own way. But the police logic is different. Why did you fall, for what purpose? Those who have fallen begin to be rudely screwed. A senseless scuffle ensues: someone is trying to help a neighbor get up, someone is dragging aside the man who was grabbed by a policeman who had also fallen. The police themselves pull both detained demonstrators and their own collapsed colleagues out of the pile. At the same time, everyone grabs each other by different parts of their clothes. Everything happens quickly. At first, Ilya Gushchin stands on the side, calmly watching what is happening. And then something serious happens. We see that in the jumble of bodies there are several girls and an elderly man. Someone is lying underfoot. The standing people are intensely peering at something happening below. And at some point, two people rush to the landfill at once: Ilya and an elderly woman standing next to her, while she screams something. Ilya extends his hands over other people’s heads to the policeman, either touching him or not, they push him away. The policeman (it was he who later turned out to be “the victim of Ilya” Antonov) turns around, adjusting his helmet, and swings his baton at those standing behind him. Ilya steps back and no longer approaches the dump site. His head flashes several more times in the frames; he is separated from the events by the photographers filming. He could have direct contact with the participants in this fuss for no more than three seconds. This is all. If not for one circumstance. The “Gushchin Episode” ends here, but events on the patch continue to develop. And in the coming months the details will become clear. After Ilya moves back, the elderly woman who rushed into the heap with him remains there. She is sucked into the very epicenter, she finds herself squeezed into a ring of armored police officers. Fists and clubs fly past her face, she screams heart-rendingly and sinks to the ground. Several men carry her in their arms to the ambulance, where they fuss over her for a long time. Meanwhile, the demonstrators are shaming the police for “violence against the old woman,” they are embarrassed, and as a result, the conflict gradually subsides. After some time, pensioner Turana Varzhabetyan turns to the human rights organization “Public Verdict” with a request to help her with a complaint against the actions of the police. She says that she rushed to help two “guys in white” (they really are in the video), who were thrown to the ground and brutally “kicked” by the police. In the stampede, she received several blows from the police, including on the head. She has a certificate from the ambulance and the hospital: a concussion and abrasions on the body. Human rights activists draw up statements with her wherever possible, but the authorities make a decision: the claims are unfounded, the initiation of a case is refused. This story is going viral on the Internet and is being discussed. The pensioner begins to go to pickets in defense of the “bolotniks”, simultaneously telling everyone about her beating. Many people perceive her as crazy. I spoke with her back in November 2012. The memory of an elderly, very ill woman really distorts something. But in her story (at least in those days) there were much more precise details, confirmed by video footage, than in the protocols of the Bolotnaya case. And most importantly: we see a completely real fact - they carry her out unconscious, she is treated by an ambulance, and there are diagnosed injuries. What else do you need? It seems that Turana Varzhabetyan has no formal connection to the accusation against Ilya Gushchin. Their “parallel story” simply vividly illustrates the principles of domestic justice: only the policeman is an inviolable figure in our state. They are trying with all their might to throw a guy who could touch a guard with his finger into prison for several years. The ordinary pensioner who was seriously injured next to him does not deserve a fair and equally detailed investigation during the investigation and in court. But there is also a direct connection. Why did Gushchin suddenly rush into this dump? How critical for people's lives and health was the situation that forced two such different people to act in exactly the same way? And finally, the most amazing shot: Ilya Gushchin anxiously watches as the unconscious Turana Varzhabetyan is carried out. Unlike law enforcement officers, he cared about the unfamiliar pensioner who happened to be next to him on Bolotnaya. In general, as all his friends say, he “cares about everything.” That’s why he’s sitting.”
prosecution
Navalny's supporters are suspected of fraud and violations in the financing of the election campaign
“The morning of May 23 began with searches of [Nikolai] Lyaskin, [Konstantin] Yankauskas and [Vladimir] Ashurkov. Investigators also came to the parents of both Yankauskas and his wife Olga Gorelik. Then the Investigative Committee knocked on the door of the Yandex.Money office. The Investigative Committee claims that the suspects abducted more than 10 million rubles transferred to their Yandex-pies last summer: at first they announced that they were donating a million rubles of their own funds for Navalny’s campaign, then, having called for supporters to reimburse this money, collected more than 10 million and assigned their. <...> The case is about the story that began on July 19 last year. It is not so easy to finance the attached elections - only by bank transfer through Sberbank. Not everyone can handle it. And the head of the election headquarters of Navalny Leonid Volkov announced that his lawyers came up with a legal scheme that would greatly simplify the process. The scheme is this: someone donates a million through Sberbank (more individuals cannot be by law), and then sympathizers reimburse him this money through his Yandex-wallet. As soon as the money is returned, there is the next sacrifice and so on. The first donor was Ashurkov. <...> As a result, Ashurkov, Lyaskin and Yankauskas were transferred to a million rubles. According to this scheme, they began to return the money. “As a result, they were thrown more, in total something about 10 or 11 million,” Leonid Volkov recalls today, “was formed by excess, which was made as a donation to the Party of the RPR-Parnas, which nominated Navalny, because it also sacrificed the maximum Money for parties - six million rubles. " Deputies and security officials took up this scheme last summer, in August. Vladimir Zhirinovsky wrote an appeal about foreign financing of the Navalny campaign-since the translations to Yandex.Money went from foreign IP addresses. And the Ministry of Internal Affairs began to find out why the money intended for Navalny went to private accounts. The police even called the amounts : Yankauskas, according to their information, received 5 million to his Yandex-Poshelk and 4 million "transferred to his account in one of the banks." “Information about the assignment by Vladimir Ashurkov 2 million 270 thousand rubles and Nikolai Lyaskin - 790 thousand rubles,” Interfax quoted the representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. But after the checks of the Prosecutor General and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the case was stalled. <...> At the same time, Lyaskin, as Lyaskin himself said “Cityibuma, is now the status of a suspect, and Yankauskas has a witness. “To the witness himself, to the parents of the witness, to the parents of the witness’s wife come with a search! Where is the logic here, ”Yankauskas wonders.”
“Investigative actions are held on Friday in the Yandex. Money office in the framework of the criminal case on financing the election campaign of Alexei Navalny in the Moscow Mayor’s elections, a source familiar with the situation told RIA Novosti. "Investigative actions are carried out at a number of addresses, including in the office" Yandex. Money, ”the agency’s interlocutor said.”
A meeting in the case of Sergey Mokhnatkin was held
“The lawyer Viktor Viktorov appointed by the court asked the judge to introduce documents confirming that the police colonel Sergei Shorin inflicted an injury to the activist Sergei Mokhnatkin. The judge satisfied this request. Also at the meeting, police officers were questioned - witnesses of the prosecution. This was reported on May 27 by the correspondent of Kasparov.ru. Mokhnatkin also petitioned the call to the court as witnesses of Alexander Averin and Eduard Limonov, as well as a number of other participants and journalists present at the rally. The first testimony was given by an employee of the second operational regiment of riot police of the Center for Special Purpose Sergei Trepalin. According to him, women-policemen through a megaphone warned that the action was not agreed, and demanded that people "not accumulate". In particular, this was done by Tatyana Grigorenko, who was undergoing a victim in this case. According to Trepalin, the "unknown man" hit Grigorenko with his fist in the face when he was delivered to the car carrier. He later added that Grigorenko, according to her, was hit by an "unknown man with a beard." Despite the fact that the policeman initially did not testify that Mokhnatkin was hit, the prosecutor called this person his surname. According to Trepalin, Grigorenko had a swelling after the blow, and Trepalin went to an examination, where a soft tissue bruise was supposedly recorded. Mokhnatkin tried to find out with what goals the second operational regiment of OMON of the Central Administration was created, but the court shot all questions about what this unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs is doing. The court also removed all issues related to whether the riot police had to previously detain people opposing the actions of the police. The policeman at the trial stated that Mokhnatkina brought two of his subordinates riot police, Andrei Ageev and Kirill Kula to Avtozak. The prosecutor petitioned the announcement of Trepalin's testimony given in the investigation, the court granted this requirement. According to these indications, the "bodily harm" of Grigorenko inflicted a low man of 50-55 years old, who was delivered to the autozak Colonel Shorin. The judge asked to clarify the contradiction in his testimony. The policeman said that Shorin delivered to Mokhnatkin’s bus, and his subordinates "were waiting for a car carrier and helped to deliver Mokhnatkin." As he noted, the policeman gave these testimonies from the words of Grigorenko, since I personally did not see the delivery of Mokhnatkin to Avtosak. The second testimony was given by a fighter of the second operational regiment of riot police of the special forces in Moscow, Kirill Kuke. The policeman, he said, was supposed to stop an “illegal event”. Riot police said he had seen the detention of Mokhnatkin. According to him, the activist was led by Colonel Shorin, whom Mokhnatkin grabbed by the ear and hit twice. When delivering to Avtosak, as the policeman participating in this, Mokhnatkin struck the face of Grigorenko. The policeman did not see her injuries at Schorian, but according to the conversations, he realized that he had a bruise and he turned for medical help. On the face of Grigorenko, he saw redness. Omonovets also stated that no special equipment and power were applied to Mokhnatkin in Avtosak and the police department, although the accused previously repeatedly stated that he was beaten. According to the policeman, the accused was struck by Grigorenko when he stood on the steps of the car carrier. At the same time, where exactly the Grigorenko stood at that moment, the policeman could not explain, although he claimed that he had seen the moment of the blow. According to the policeman, Mokhnatkin resisted and he was pushed forward into the car zak of his back, but he did not fall. At the request of Mokhnatkina, the judge announced the testimony of the doll, given at the investigation. According to them, Shorin delivered Mokhnatkin to Avtosak not one, but with two other employees. In these testimonies, the doll spoke only about one blow from Mokhnatkin against Shorin. The employee of the second operational regiment of OMON of the Central Department Store, Andrei Ageev, also testified. According to him, on that day, Shorin and Grigorenko received bodily harm. Ageev said that he saw how Mokhnatkin struck Shorin. According to him, this happened near the car carrier. Mokhnatkin allegedly spit, cursed obscenities and grabbed the policeman by the ear. Whether Mokhnatkin took an active part in the action itself, did not see Ageev. Unlike a colleague, Ageev said that Mokhnatkin fell on the steps of a car Zaku and at that moment Grigorenko allegedly hit in the face. The witness also denied that special equipment or physical strength was applied to the accused. Mokhnatkin tried to clarify how he could hit Grigorenko in the face if he was sitting. The policeman replied that she was trying to raise him in order to bring him to the car carrier. Lawyer Viktorov tried to clarify whether Shorin did anything against Mokhnatkin, but the policeman said he did not remember. It is worth noting that earlier Mokhnatkin repeatedly claimed that Shorin strangled him. The lawyer tried to clarify whether Mokhnatkin could strike Grigorenko accidentally, brushing away from police officers. Despite the fact that the judge mainly filmed such questions, the defender managed to find out that Mokhnatkin was sitting to Grigorenko with his back and did not see her at the time of the blows. The judge agreed to announce the testimony of Ageev, data on the investigation. These testimonies did not coincide with his testimony given in court: in the first testimony, he stated that he saw how Mokhnatkin cried out the slogans before his detention, and at the trial said that he had not seen him before the detention. The next was the employee of the second operational regiment of OMON of the Moscow Central Military District, Alexei Daronin, who detained Eduard Limonov that day. He did not see Mokhnatkina. The latter was interrogated by an employee of the second operational regiment of OMON of the Moscow Center of Moscow, Anton Gumin, who was also part of the detention group. The policeman was in Avtosak and claimed that he saw how Mokhnatkin did not want to enter him, “resisted Colonel Shorin,” “waved his hands, struck him, spit,” and he held him. He also noted that he saw how Mokhnatkin hit Grigorenko, but he could not explain how this happened. Whether Shorin and Grigorenko had injuries, he is unknown. According to Gumin, Mokhnatkin did not just sit on the steps, but was lying on them. After that, he was raised and brought into a car gut. Gumin seems to be Grigorenko Mokhnatkin already inside the bus. Mokhnatkin asked to announce the testimony of this witness at the investigation, and the judge satisfied the request of the accused due to the fact that he did not get acquainted with the case file. The meeting was postponed until 11:00 on June 5 due to the fact that two more witnesses have not yet appeared. The judge asked that the defense was ready to interrogate its witnesses for the next meeting. ”
In the wake of the statement of the Krasnodar ecologist addressed to the judge in the central office of Yabloko, a search was held
“For the first time in the entire time of the party’s existence, the Central Office in Moscow came with a search - in connection with a one and a half year ago. In November 2012, the famous ecologist in the Krasnodar Territory and Yabloko activist Andrei Rudomakh was sent for several days of arrest. In the party’s press release, his words were given on this occasion-he allegedly called the judge the “lawless man”. The case under the article “slander against the judge” was brought up only a year after the event. Rudomakh passes the accused in the case, but, the employees of Yabloko explain, it was a technical mistake: the words about the judge actually belong to the chairman of Yabloko, Sergei Mitrokhin. “I stated that the phrase belongs to me: we ourselves cannot establish who said it - well, let me say that. A year and a half has passed, ”Mitrokhin explained. Yesterday he went for an interrogation to the investigator, but refused to testify. And today the investigator came to the office to seize the computer from which the press release was written. The investigation using this computer is trying to identify the direct author of the release. To give an explanation with them, the head of the press service Igor Yakovlev went. The reason for the criminal case, the investigation of which either freezes, then continues again, Mitrokhin commented as follows: “Perhaps this is the hairy long hand of Mr. Tkachev [the governor of the Krasnodar Territory - N.Z. ] who is trying to grab us for something. Obviously, he is the main acting person in justice in the Krasnodar Territory. I already had clashes with him: I accused Tkachev of assigning a large plot of land on the coast, and turned to the prosecutor's office regarding his nationalist statements. ”
In the Oryol region, the case was initiated against the teacher who wrote poetry in support of the integrity of Ukraine
Blog of Novaya Gazeta, May 22 :
“[German teacher at the school of the village of Kromy Alexander] *Fereshev published Vkontakte his poem“ Ukrainian Patriots ”, in which he supported the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Here is one of the lines: "Not the back of the Crimea of the Putin Chekists." The countrymen of the teacher were indignant, the district newspaper Zarya called him a traitor. And on May 13, I received an email from formerly: “A criminal case was opened against me under Part 1 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation ". (“The excitement of hatred or enmity, as well as the humiliation of human dignity” - up to 2 years in prison). School teachers employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the Oryol region took into development on the day of the fool - April 1. And they spent her with humor. Below is the report of the head of the regional center of the police captain Stebllets about the conducted operational-search event, during which it was found that the page with the poem “Ukrainian patriots” belongs precisely the forms (spelling, punctuation and style of the original are preserved) : “Employee of the CPE of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Ministry of Internal Affairs In the Oryol region, the captain of the police STROSTREVS, with the participation of an employee of the CPE of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in the Oryol region, Polyakova E.V., in office No. 173 was carried out by the operational-search event "Observation" behind the personal page in the social network "Contact" user nickname "Alexander Fizhev." During the observation, a service computer connected to the Internet is used. Observation was carried out in natural light and in cloudy weather. <...> In the right side of the page that opened, we see the information tape of the user “Alexander Fizhev”, where, among other things, an entry is published containing a text in the form of a poem in a language similar to a Ukrainian called “Ukrainian patriots” . The poems of the Oryol "Ashniki" were sent to a linguistic examination. And they got the desired result. Here is what Lyudmila Vlasov’s teacher wrote in an expert opinion: “The hostile nature of the statements in relation to the Russians in the poem is manifested in statements regarding the state bodies of Russia and President Putin (“ Not Paidi Crimea Putin's Chekists ”). <...> These statements contain direct and indirect calls for Ukrainian patriots to perform the following physical and other actions in relation to the enemy - the Russians: meet enemies the way their ancestors did (“Meet your enemies like your grandfathers”); prepare and keep weapons ready (“It’s too early for us to hide the cartridges”); to believe that their (Ukrainians’) cause is sacred (“May the Lord be your guide”). Thus, in the text of the poem “Ukrainian patriots” there are statements of a derogatory nature in relation to Russians, ” Vlasov summarizes. On April 16, the report on the discovery of signs of the corpus delicti in the poem of formerly was sent to the Investigative Committee to initiate a criminal case. From the resolution of the investigator of the SK SK in the Kromsky district, D. Zubov: “The basis for initiating a criminal case is to receive sufficient data on the commission of a crime, namely, that on 03/01/2014, at 20 hours 24 minutes, Frequencies A. Formhev, being in his own The apartment, in order to arouse enmity and humiliate the dignity of a person on a national basis, using a laptop belonging to him, posted on his page on the VKontakte social network a poem “Ukrainian patriots”, in the text of which there are a derogatory statement in relation to a group of people - Russians ” .*
“ The decision to institute criminal proceedings was handed to me on May 13,” says Alexander Formoshev. - And then the first interrogation took place. Zubov asked questions in the spirit "What did you want to say with this phrase?" It was evident that he was nervous: young, several times went to the office to the boss. Apparently, at the consultation.
On May 14, the ex -searches were searched in the apartment. The sanction was given by the judge of the Kromsky District Court Elena Gudkova, because in the teacher’s apartment “there may be a laptop that stores the materials of extremist content”.
“Surprisingly, the investigators did not withdraw anything,” says Alexander. - We came at about 15.00. My lessons were just over. They climbed on the cabinets and left.
On May 16, formerly visited court for the first time. Judge Gudkova recognized the poem "Ukrainian patriots" extremist.
“But she refused another application of the investigation: to remove me from work during the investigation,” says Alexander. “The investigator of Zubov assured that I would teach schoolchildren extremism, but the judge still did not listen to him.”
In Adygea, the blog editor was sentenced to a fine, finding guilty of exciting hatred for "non -Russian"
“In May 2014, Vasily Purdenko’s free word of the Adygea Blog was found guilty of exciting hatred for“ non -Russian ”and sentenced to a fine of 100 thousand rubles. On May 22, 2014, it became known that the editor of the Blog "Free Word of Adygea" Vasily Purdenko was found guilty under Part 1 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code (excitement of hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of human dignity) and was sentenced to a fine of 100 thousand rubles. Purdenko was accused of on September 5, 2012 he published in the "free word of Adygea" an article "to be Russian in Adygea, but hopelessly" ("nationalism in action"), subsequently by the decision of the Maykop City Court of 04/16/2013 recognized by extremist material. The court agreed that the article contains "statements aimed at arousing hatred and enmity, as well as humiliation of the dignity of a person or group of persons according to the grounds of nationality in relation to people not Russian nationality." Purdenko denies the authorship of the material. "
In Tatarstan, the case was transferred to the court on the publication of the video of supporters of Navalny
“ On May 23, 2014, an administrative case was transferred to the court in Kazan against civil activist Boris Begaev. On May 23, 2014, the prosecutor's office of Kazan was referred to the court under Art. 20.29 Code of Administrative Offenses (distribution of extremist materials) against the co -chair of the Kazan Civil Union Boris Begaev. The reason for the persecution was the publication on the page of Begaev on the VKontakte social network of the prohibited video of the supporters of Alexei Navalny "Let us remind the crooks and thieves of their manifesto-2002." Напомним, содержание ролика сводится к перечислению ряда нереализованных предвыборных обещаний "Единой России" из манифеста партии 2002 года и призыву голосовать за любую партию, кроме "Единой России"».
extrajudicial prosecution
В Нальчике на шествии в память о Кавказской войне задержан журналист
«Черкесский активист, правозащитник и журналист Тимур Куашев доставлен в отдел полиции Нальчика с памятного шествия, которое проводится сегодня в столице Кабардино-Балкарии в связи с годовщиной окончания Кавказской войны. "С шествия доставили в УВД. Сижу", – написал в 10.15 Куашев в Facebook. В настоящий момент его телефон не отвечает. В МВД Кабардино-Балкарии корреспонденту "Кавказского узла" информацию с задержанием Куашева комментировать отказались, сославшись на отсутствие информации. 17 мая в своем блоге в "Живом журнале" Куашев сообщил , что сотрудники центра по противодействию экстремизму МВД КБР оповестили некоторых национальных деятелей, что на траурном шествии 21 мая Куашев собирается организовать провокацию, придя туда с исламскими знаменами. Куашев опроверг эту информацию, пояснив 19 мая корреспонденту "Кавказского узла" , что ни он, ни его знакомые не имеют ничего общего с подобной инициативой, и подобные слухи сами являются провокацией».
«Черкесский активист, правозащитник и журналист Тимур Куашев отпущен из отдела полиции города Нальчика и собирается обжаловать действия сотрудников правоохранительных структур, сообщил он корреспонденту "Кавказского узла". <…> "Я только подошел к месту сбора участников шествия, до его начала, как ко мне подошли трое сотрудников полиции и сказали, что начальник УВД Нальчика хочет со мною поговорить, беседа буквально на тридцать минут. В итоге полчаса закончились четырьмя часами удержания меня в отделе, шествие я пропустил", – сообщил Тимур Куашев корреспонденту " Кавказского узла ". Журналист заявил, что будет обжаловать действия сотрудников полиции. "Повод привода мне не озвучили, начальник так и не появился. Меня не отпускали, держали, говорили "сиди, жди". Я буду обжаловать незаконное доставление, удержание, ограничение свободы", – подчеркнул он. "Были и угрозы относительно моей последней публикации в "Живом журнале". Сказали "это тебе аукнется, продолжай в том же духе", не конкретизировав, о каких последствиях намекают", – рассказал журналист. Последняя публикация активиста в "Живом журнале" была посвящена траурному шествию 21 мая. "Сотрудники ЦПЭ МВД КБР оповестили некоторых национальных деятелей, что я собираюсь организовать провокацию на траурном шествии 21 мая, а именно, прийти туда с исламскими знамёнами. Ответственно заявляю, что это абсолютная ложь", – написал Куашев в социальной сети. Комментариями представителей УВД города Нальчика относительно причин задержания журналиста "Кавказский узел" не располагает».
В Вологде у оппозиционеров сжигают автомобили
«Две автомашины, принадлежащие активистам движения "Вместе", за две недели сожгли в Вологде. Как сообщил корреспонденту "Росбалта" лидер движения "Вместе" Евгений Доможиров, в поджоге автомобилей он видит демонстрацию угроз. По словам общественника, первый поджог произошел ровно две недели назад. В ночь на 13 мая был сожжен автомобиль, принадлежащий семье Доможирова. После этого его товарищ Сергей Городишенин предоставил Доможирову в пользование свой легковой автомобиль. И в ночь на 27 мая эта машина тоже была сожжена неизвестными. "13 мая полицейские опросили нас по поводу первого поджога. За две недели мы больше не получили никакой информации, нам неизвестно – возбуждено ли какое-нибудь уголовное дело, есть ли результаты экспертизы", — рассказал Евгений Доможиров. По предположениям общественника, поджоги машин могут быть местью за гражданскую активность. "После первого поджога у нас были предположения, что это месть строительной компании, поскольку наши активисты прекратили точечную застройку. Но также не исключаем, что это может быть связано с расследованием нами предпринимательской деятельности зампреда законодательного собрания Вологодской области, единоросса Андрея Сивкова", — объяснил Евгений Доможиров».