The administrator of the “Police Ombudsman” public admitted guilt after the charge was mitigated

The administrator of the “Police Ombudsman” public page, Igor Khudyakov, pleaded guilty to the charge of distributing pornography after mitigating the charge. His lawyer from OVD-Info, Maxim Pashkov, told Interfax about this on the evening of July 21.

“After the charge was softened from Part 3 of Article 242 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation ( distribution of pornography in a group of people using the Internet ) to Part 1 of Article 242 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation ( Distribution of pornography ), my client admitted guilt of sending a photo in one of the chats,” reports Interfax words by Pashkov.

On July 21, Khudyakov was released from the pre-trial detention center. The investigation canceled the preventive measure against Khudyakov “due to a change in the scope of the charges.” No other preventive measure was chosen for Khudyakov.

16:07 Khudyakov was chosen as a preventive measure in the form of a written undertaking not to leave the place, lawyer Pashkov reports in his Telegram channel.

• On May 25, 2020, the Tverskoy District Court sent Khudyakov to a pre-trial detention center as part of a case on the production and circulation of pornography (Part 3 of Article 242 of the Criminal Code). Two days earlier, Khudyakov’s place in Vologda was searched. After the security forces announced that they planned to take Khudyakov to Moscow, nothing was known about his whereabouts for about a day. Then members of the Public Monitoring Committee found him in the temporary detention center on Petrovka, 38.
• “Police Ombudsman” was originally a group on VKontakte , which was created by Vladimir Vorontsov when he was still serving in the police and Center “E”; then similar channels and pages appeared in other social networks and instant messengers. The main topic of the publications of the “Police Ombudsman” is the violation of the rights of employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, as well as criticism of the work of the department and its individual leaders.