The court allowed the person beaten at the police station not to write a refutation of the fact that he was beaten at the police station

The Moscow City Court withdrew demands from activist Nikolai T. to publish in Rossiyskaya Gazeta a refutation of the fact that he had been beaten at the Yuzhnoportovy police station. This was reported by OVD-Info lawyer Ekaterina Selezneva, who is in charge of this case.

The Interior Ministry demanded that he publish a refutation in Rossiyskaya Gazeta. This can only be done through the advertising department. The cost of such a publication is at least 70 thousand rubles.

The man was detained in May 2017 in the courtyard of his house during a meeting about renovation. The activist posted on Facebook that he was beaten by three officers at the police station.

As a witness of the detention reported, the policemen tried to take away the phone from Nikolai T., he hid it in his back pocket of his trousers and sat down on the floor. Then two employees began to very strongly, obviously with the intention of hurting him, wringing his hands behind his back.

“The third policeman began to choke him, sitting almost on his head, pressing his head to the floor, almost with his nose to the floor. The guy was screaming in pain, ”quoted witness T. He left hematomas on his body.

After the news was published on OVD-Info, the Moscow Police Department of Internal Security for the South-Eastern District began an investigation. During the inspection, the police gave explanations that they acted within the law. All witnesses to what was happening, as they say in the materials of the audit (available at the disposal of OVD-Info), could not be interviewed. The CSS concluded that the police did not exceed their powers.

Then the management of the Yuzhnoportovy police department filed a lawsuit against the activist demanding that the post on Facebook be deleted and a refutation be written in Rossiyskaya Gazeta. At first, the claim was fully satisfied, but on February 28, the Moscow City Court changed this decision, but upheld the decision that the post should be deleted. That is, he still considered the information in it discrediting.