The Commission on Juvenile Affairs of the Arbat district terminated the case of a minor on violation of the procedure for holding a public event (part 5 of article 20.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses) on August 10. This was announced by his lawyer from OVD-Info Daniil Khaimovich.
Seventeen-year-old Timofei Sokolovsky (his parents gave OVD-Info permission to publish his name) was walking with a friend in the center of Moscow on August 10. At about 6 p.m., they came across a cordon of law enforcement officers in the Zaryadye area. Young people approached them to find out how to bypass the cordon and get home. However, in response, it was heard: “And now you will pass quickly.” Only Sokolovsky himself was detained. Then he was taken to the Akademichesky police station, where a protocol was drawn up under Part 5 of Article 20.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.
The case was considered by the Commission on Juvenile Affairs (KDN) of the Arbat district. As evidence of Sokolovsky's guilt, an administrative protocol and reports of police sergeants as witnesses were attached. In the reports, as if “carbon copy”, they wrote that a group of about a thousand people shouted slogans, did not respond to demands to stop, a group of people continued to take part in an “unauthorized event”, so they detained 25 people, including Sokolovsky. As lawyer Daniil Khaimovich noted, 25 people were just a paddy wagon where Sokolovsky was.
Today, a meeting of the KDN was held, at which a witness was interrogated - an acquaintance of Sokolovsky, with whom they walked and approached the cordon. The lawyer insisted that there was no evidence of Sokolovsky's guilt in the case: what exactly he did, how he reacted to the demands of the police officers.
The commission's vote was not unanimous. Several people abstained, three - among them an assistant prosecutor and the head of the commission - voted for guilt, five members of the KDN voted for the absence of an offence.
Thus, the case was closed. Most likely, lawyer Daniil Khaimovich notes, the decision will indicate that there is no evidence of the commission of actions falling under part 5 of article 20.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.