Perm is judged by activists who shot videos with Putin's Doll. They face up to 7 years in prison

The Leninsky District Court of Perm is considering a criminal case against local residents of Alexander Shabarchin, Danila Vasiliev and Alexander Kotov. They are accused of "hooliganism based on political and ideological hatred."

According to investigators, on November 11, 2018, young people tied to a pillar in the center of Perm a mannequin with a face similar to the president of Russia, and the inscriptions "Military criminal Pyuna V.V." and "liar." The mannequin sagged for about an hour.

In addition, a few days later, investigators believe, the accused posted on YouTube a staged video “Special Forces detained Putin”, which depicted the detention of a person in the presidential mask and his “delivery” to the Hague.

Criminal case under Part 2 of Art. 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation opened on December 26, 2018. He was investigated a year and a half. During this time, there were: attempts to close production due to the lack of corpus delicti, the dismissal of the investigator, contradicting the examination, the prosecutor's refusal to approve the indictment.

Vladimir Putin was not recognized as victims. But the case still came to court.

The process is open, but the media are not allowed to be allowed: they motivate the epidemiological atmosphere. Shabarchin, Vasiliev and Kotov threatens up to seven years in prison.

Video for entertainment

The video for which Permyakov is judged begins with a disclaimer: “The video is staged, and the people in it are actors. The purpose of the video is not to humiliate or offend someone. It was created in a purely entertaining character. All coincidences with real people are accidental. PS Do not plant us, please. "

The video was published on November 20, 2018, now he has more than half a million views, 50 thousand likes and 1.5 thousand dizlaiks.

"Thunderstorm Perm"

-Once I watched the video, there some grandfather stood on the highway with a poster “Grace, if against Putin”. I watch how he shines with joy, that people drive, signaling, and I think: I also want to. It turned out that this is very enthusiastic, many began to repeat the plot of “Posignal”, - Alexander Shabarkin, one of the authors of the “Thunderstorm of Perm” and the main accused, tells about his case.

- Now, under criminal prosecution, I understand that the risks are unjustified, and street actions that are very interested in law enforcement agencies are not yet doing. I release videos about specific events: analytics, political education. I dilute humor: ridicule, bringing to absurdity - such a presentation.

In the criminal case, the video “Thunderstorms of Perm” is studied in detail. For example, employees were interested in the New Year's campaign “Putin Gifts”, where gifts for Russians by 2019 from the president are raising the retirement age, increasing gas prices, raising housing and communal services tariffs and VAT. Or the “Plush riot” video about the protest of soft toys with posters “ashamed to be for Putin” and “Putin is tired”. But they did not become episodes in the criminal case.

22-year-old Alexander Shabarchin says that he was completely ready for such a resonance from the action with the mannequin: “For me it was a completely passing action, I did not expect that it would cause such interest both in society and from the organs. After all, shops put mannequins to the street - only such associations I had. I didn’t think about criminal proceedings at all, the maximum administrative - this ceiling was in my understanding. ”

Shabarchin appeared in Perm’s protest movement in 2017, speaking one of the organizers of the rally “He is not Dimon for us”. He says that then he first heard the word “rally”: Alexei Navalny called for organizing protests in cities, since the authorities did not have a reaction to the FBK investigation about the Prime Minister Medvedev.

- I began to look for the VKontakte event in a rally in Perm. He was gone. And I made this event myself. There, “VKontakte”, asked: “Guys, what kind of music will we listen to at the rally?” They threw a lot.

I listened to "25/17", added. Three or four days passed after the rally, the police came to me and said: "You spread extremist materials." It was unexpected.

Until this moment, I did not know what "extremist materials" were. For the song "VKontakte" they gave a thousand rubles a fine.

Alexander - from Vereshchagino - a small city in the Perm Territory. He lived there up to 8 years. Then in Perm - with mom and stepfather. Then again in Vereshchagino - with my grandparents. After the 9th grade, he moved to Perm, entered the oil college, and from the third year he began to work in a specialty with a geodesist. He travels to Vereshchagino to her grandmother regularly.

Now he is under the subscription of the lower place, but you can move around the region.

- I do not drink alcohol at all, this is a principle. I do not like the state of intoxication when I cannot control my consciousness. And I do not smoke, the hookah perhaps, I work, I go to the gym. And I'm shooting a video. I guess I am a political street investigator, a video artist, ”says Shabarkin.

There are two more accused. Danila Vasiliev, who was 17 years old at the time of the action with Putin’s Doll, helped Shabarchin lead the mannequin to the pillar, but he did not know the details of the action. And Alexander Etkin (Kotov): In November 2018, he was 26, he was the secretary of the Perm branch of the Libertarian Party and shot what was happening on the phone. With Shabarchin and Vasiliev, he said, he was not a sign.

"Particularly important business"

There are seven volumes in the criminal case. There are declassified materials: it is known from them that for several months the FSB has been listening to Shabarchin's telephone conversations and monitors his VKontakte page. The investigator of the department of particularly important cases of the Investigative Committee is conducting the case, active participants - the FSB and CPE.

To understand how carefully the employees approached the case, a simple example: the inspection protocol dated December 3, 2019 says that 995 comments on the video about the “Putin Doll” contain only positive reviews, approval of the authors and discontent with Vladimir Putin’s policy. And “any negative comments with the opinion of users that the video offends them as citizens of the Russian Federation, that events violate public order, are not found to destabilize the company.”

But the investigator gives an instruction to the FSB and CPE employees to establish and interrogate as witnesses of people who left comments under the video (he does not specify that it is, but the operatives interview those who left dizla) and ask the questions: “What do you see a gross violation of public order? Is moral damage done to you? Was the video recording insulting to you? "

Witnesses were quickly found. The support of the investigation is the leading composition of the Perm branch of the “Young Guard of United Russia”. Witnesses of the Molodogardi in the matter of about twenty.

They looked at the video on the Internet and set out their thoughts to the investigators: the same paragraphs, phrases, and even with the same descriptions.

The head of the regional Mger Igor Novoselov: “The Internet is common on the Internet, the contents of which are beyond the scope of decency. In a rough and disrespectful form, the authors and performers contrast themselves with society and the state. These actions are directed not only against President of the Russian Federation Putin V.V., but also of the citizens of the Russian Federation, including who chose it in the past elections in 2018. ”

His wife Natalya Novoselova, specialist of the party construction department of the United Russia RO: “This provocation is directed against the foundations of statehood, the state structure of Russia and personally against the guarantor of the Constitution - the legally elected President of the Russian Federation Putin Vladimir Vladimirovich. In my opinion, this action also offends the feelings of citizens who conscientiously participated in the elections. ”

Svetlana Starikova, Secretary of the RO YP YP,: “The authors, in my opinion, made a large“ spit ”towards the citizens of the Russian Federation, namely, insulting the President of the Russian Federation Putin V.V., expressed a demonstrative neglect of the adopted norms in society. The representative of the whole people was tied to a pillar as a criminal.

I consider these actions by immoral and humiliating human dignity, imbued with a hostile attitude to the current government and the pursued policy. ”

Ivan Fistin, the head of the district department of the Mger, whose testimony is in the case, told Novaya Gazeta that he knew nothing about the mannequin with Putin's face, or about the criminal case. “The session is now, diploma, I have fallen a little from a socio-political life, but I have not heard anything about it,” Fistin said.

Judging by the case file, on November 24, 2019 he answered the FSB questions for more than an hour as a witness.

“A gross violation of public order was expressed in violation (in my opinion) of suffrage freedom of choice. The persons of the President of the Russian Federation have been insulted, which violates the generally accepted rules and moral and ethical norms of behavior, as well as a direct insult to the feelings of citizens who voted and elected him to the president of the Russian Federation.

As a result of the action, I have done moral harm, expressed in my offended feelings, because I voted for Putin V.V., ”said Fistin during interrogation.

Three young heads, Rinat Sagidullin, Nikita Shafiev and Alexander Galtsky, the day after the promotion, November 12, 2018, the FSB was interviewed as eyewitnesses of the event: tie the mannequin to the pillar.

In their testimony, they describe in detail what is happening as full -time witnesses: they walked nearby, everyone saw, in one of the tied Alexander Shabarchina recognized.

In court, their testimony turned out to be different: they walked far; They did not get to the cameras of video surveillance, because they were about 70 meters from the place; "Alexander Shabarchin was recognized by his eyes."

Interestingly, during the investigation in November 2019, Sagidullin acted as a witness as a witness who watched the video on the Internet and was not present at the site of the action. He repeats several times in his testimony: "I was not there [at the scene]."

Rinat Sagidullin did not talk to the New Gazeta. At the trial, he explained that he had now matured and realized that everyone had the right to express their opinion, and the accused did not deserve criminal punishment.

Two examinations

The Young Guards in this case act not only as witnesses of the prosecution, but also as witnesses. The search of Alexander Shabarkin was held with Roman Suzdaltsev and Ilya Shobanov, witnessed from Mger.

The side of the defense believes that the Young Guards have a motive to stipulate the accused: they are in advance in advance to people who criticize the current president.

- All of them are members of Mger, everyone knows very well, in social networks there are many joint photographs of witnesses of the accusations and witnesses, including in T -shirts “I love Putin”, with the symbols of Mger and “United Russia”.

We believe that it is necessary to exclude evidence as unacceptable: the interrogations of interrogations of witnesses-fellow guard and the protocol of the search with the witness-milled guard, ”explains the lawyer of the“ protest apology ”Maxim Filippov.

A comprehensive judicial phonoscopic-psychological linguistic examination, appointed by the investigator of the IC Andrei Leontyev, did not find anything illegal in the actions of the accused. Experts called the action and video "Political Satire". “The goal is to denounce phenomena using various comic techniques. In this case, the exposure of the president’s statements containing the threat of nuclear strikes in the territories of other states.

There are no signs of accusations of illegal actions, ”said the researchers of the Lingvo-Expert ANO.

Specialists did not find signs of motivation for unlawful actions, and insults of any group or president himself:

“There are no statements with the meaning of the humiliating assessment of Vladimir Putin, including statements with signs of indecent form. The substantial type of statements about Vladimir Putin is a negative assessment of his words and activities as the president, their discrepancy, from the standpoint of the addressee, the interests of society. The negative assessment of Putin itself as a person is absent, superiority, disrespectful, contemptuous attitude to Putin’s personality is not expressed. ”

The coincidence or not, but after this examination, the investigator Leontyev left the service and became a lawyer. “Novaya Gazeta” he said that dismissal was in no way connected with the case.

The new investigator Alexei Andriyanov decided to appoint a new examination. It was instructed to hold it to the Perm State National Research University (PNIU).

The investigator gave the assignment to the rector of the university Igor Makarikhin "to clarify the commission of experts of the rights and obligations stipulated by the CPC, and warn of criminal liability for the cottage of knowingly false imprisonment."

Experts - teachers of PNIUU: Doctor of Philology Valery Mishlnov, Doctor of Psychological Sciences Svetlana Zhdanova, candidate of psychological sciences Lina Zaripova, psychologist Anna Pecherskina and candidate of legal sciences Nikolai Chudin.

Their examination was "correct."

"The effect of infection"

According to the conclusion of the PNIU, the action with Putin’s Doll was “planned and coordinated”, “with hooligan motives” and “with an open disrespect for the president”, “committed by accused jointly under a single plan”.

It is perceived "as a gross violation of public order [..], and the method of committing a crime is a demonstration of a mannequin identified with a specific political figure, of course, insulting, humiliating human dignity, which is provocative in nature."

Experts also determined the motive of the defendants: political and ideological enmity in relation to a social group of persons. And they revealed a specific social group with which the defendants are “enmity” - these are “residents of the Russian Federation who supported the political activities of President V.V. Putin.”

“Organization of the accused”, “direct intent” and “sustainability of a criminal attitude” confirms “belonging to a certain political administration [..], the use of the media” and “legal preparedness of violators”, namely “collective refusal to testify in accordance with Art. 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. "

In addition, from materials to experts “can be seen” that the group of the accused “is a link, an integral part of an even larger group, organization”. Viewing the video and observing the event is not safe for citizens, experts say: “Such events have the“ effect of infection ”, which can cause the reactions of panic attacks, pranks, a sense of anxiety, fear, response affective reactions.” Experts separately fear for categories of persons who "have special sensitivity, susceptibility and increased excitability."

According to PRIU, these are minors, women, persons of retirement age. “Their psychological reaction is unpredictable, there is the possibility of a psychological trauma, and a negative psychological impact may be long -term,” the university’s study said.

At the trial, psychologists could not cite sources confirming the “special susceptibility” of certain categories of persons.

The defense believes that such statements are discriminatory.

However, lawyers have many questions for examination. Even on the formal side. They indicate that PGNIU is not a forensic institution that there are no links to research methods in the text and there are no documents on the education of specialists. There was no notice of the appointment of the examination: the investigator announced a “psychological-linguistic” examination, and another “psychological-linguistic and legal” was carried out.

- Why is a lawyer in the list of experts? - the defenders are surprised. Why did the examination turn into "legal"? After all, the investigator himself is the expert in jurisprudence.

- The court and investigation are appointed by examinations when special knowledge is needed in areas beyond their professional legal knowledge. Legal examination - this is the professional knowledge of the investigator, he should not appoint an examination in this direction, this is a violation. The investigator himself, and in the future, the court determines the legal qualification.

The issues of law are not posed and should not be put in forensic examinations, ”says lawyer Maxim Filippov.

“The conclusions of the legal expert Chudin contain an assessment of the act, the qualifications of actions and an indication of the accused as offenders, that is, a direct accusation, which is the exceptional competence of the court. In addition, the expert expresses his own conclusions regarding the presence of intent in connection with the collective application of the right granted by Art. 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, ”the lawyers write.

The defense also notes that to determine the social group, it was necessary to attract an expert sociologist. Philologists, psychologists and lawyers do not have special knowledge in sociology, social groups are not in their competence.

In addition, according to lawyers, experts mixed up the dialogs in telephone conversations and because of this built conclusions on incorrect data. Lawyers believe that it is necessary to appoint a second examination outside the Perm Territory.

У следователя Андриянова, впрочем, сомнений в обоснованности заключения экспертов и их квалификации не появилось.

Правда, после критики в деле все-таки появился специалист-социолог, тоже преподаватель ПГНИУ, Александр Кузнецов. На суде он пояснил, что негативное или позитивное сообщение направлено на определенную социальную группу, если в сообщении есть указание на эту социальную группу, на ее признаки. А привязанный к столбу манекен с лицом президента Путина и надписями «Лжец» и «Военный преступник» не содержит признаков какой-либо социальной группы, к которой может быть обращена эта акция.

Адвокат Максим Филиппов просил следствие допросить в качестве потерпевшего президента России.

«В соответствии с заключением экспертизы Владимиру Путину причинен моральный вред, нанесен ущерб его репутации, то есть он является непосредственным потерпевшим. С целью полного и всестороннего рассмотрения дела полагаю необходимым выяснить, реально ли испытал потерпевший моральные страдания или относится к происшествию как к шутке», — написал Филиппов в ходатайстве о привлечении к делу президента.

Но следователь Андриянов Владимира Путина допрашивать отказался, посчитав, что экспертиза не содержит указаний на причиненный президенту ущерб.

В результате в деле нет потерпевших и нет ущерба, но Александру Шабарчину, Даниле Васильеву и Александру Эткину грозит реальный срок.

The process continues.