The Moscow City Court explained the conviction of activist Konstantin Kotov by his “destructive behavior” during the protests. about this on Facebook Kotov’s lawyer Maria Eismont spoke .
The document states that “the analysis of the case materials clearly indicates the destructive behavior of Kotov and other participants in uncoordinated actions.”
An example of such behavior is the rally on August 10, 2019 in Moscow. Then Kotov, “attracting the attention of numerous citizens,” chanted slogans: “Putin is a thief!”, “Down with Putin!” and others, the document says. The court is confident that the slogans were aimed at “undermining the authority and disorganizing state power in Russia.”
According to the court, the chosen location (the presidential administration building) and the number of participants (one and a half thousand people) indicate “the destructiveness of both the illegal goals set by the organizers and the methods they used.”
In addition, the court verdict states that “such a massive number of participants, being united by a destructive ideology,” could harm the rights and interests of the protesters and “other persons.”
“The knowledge of the tortious behavior of the participants in the illegal action, including Kotov, who initially chose a behavioral model outside the legal framework, is also important for assessing both the reality of the threat of harm and the significance of this harm,” the document concludes.
As Eismont explained to Mediazona, earlier in the verdicts in the Kotov case there were no formulations about “destructiveness”.
In April, during an appeal, the Moscow City Court commuted Kotov’s sentence to one and a half years in prison. Last fall, the activist received four years in prison under the “Dada article” for repeated violations of the rules for holding protests (Article 212.1 of the Criminal Code).
The Constitutional Court ordered a review of Kotov's case in January. Soon, President Vladimir Putin, after a conversation with Dozhd journalist Anton Zhelnov, instructed the Prosecutor General’s Office to check the legality of the activist’s sentence; as a result, the appeal decision was canceled and sent for a new trial.