Diplomat says UN may act as mediator at Astana talks between Damascus and oppositionRussian Politics & Diplomacy January 17, 21:31
Expert believes Brexit to bring UK closer to USWorld January 17, 20:29
Italian Foreign Ministry: It is necessary to assess conditions for returning to G8 formatWorld January 17, 20:04
Russia hopes ECHR will cancel its ruling on Dima Yakovlev Law — diplomatRussian Politics & Diplomacy January 17, 19:35
Preserving Moldova's neutrality impossible without partnership with Russia — presidentWorld January 17, 19:10
OPEC to monitor oil production, export — Saudi Arabian Energy MinisterBusiness & Economy January 17, 18:57
Group of Sukhoi-24M bombers to return from Syria soon — Defense MinistryMilitary & Defense January 17, 18:50
Russian reconciliation center reports over 1,130 Syrian settlements join ceasefireWorld January 17, 18:47
Over 5,000 Syrians get medical aid from Russian doctorsWorld January 17, 18:37
MOSCOW, October 25 (Itar-Tass) — The discussion of legal consequences of the verdict of the jury, which recognized the guilt of all the accused on the case of the murder of Yegor Sviridov, a fan of the Spartak football team, will be held in the Moscow City Court on Tuesday.
The parties will explain their stand to the court and will ask to impose the punishment that they deserve. Under the law, since the jury decided that the accused should not be recommended for mercy, the court has the right to impose on them the maximum punishment envisaged by the articles of the law, on which they are tried.
Aslan Cherkesov from Nalchik, who is the main culprit, was found guilty of a premeditated murder of Sviridov and was not recommended for mercy. The jury established his guilt under Part 2 of Article 213 of the Penal Code (“hooliganism committed by a group of people on preliminary collusion”), Part 2 of Article 105 (“murder with hooligan motives”), Part 3 of Article 30 and Part 2 of Article 105 (“attempted murder”), Part 2 of Article 115 (“deliberate inflicting of light damage to one’s health out of hooligan motives”) and Part 1 of Article 161 (“robbery”). According to the verdict, the votes of members of the jury were divided over the Cherkesov case by eight to four in favour of the prosecution.
The other five accused –Akai Akayev, 20, Artur Arsibiyev, 20, Nariman Ismailov, 20, Ramazan Utarbiyev, 21, and Hasan Ibrahimov, 19, all from Dagestan, were found guilty under Part 2 of Article 213 (“hooliganism committed by a group of people on preliminary collusion”) and Part 2 of Article 115 (“deliberate inflicting of light damage to one’s health out of hooligan motives”). The jury also came to the conclusion that they should not be recommended for mercy. The votes of members of the jury were divided over their case by ten to two in favour of their guilt.
It took the jury five hours to pass judgement on that case. Justice Andrei Rasnovsky twice sent the jury back to correct the mistakes, made during the drafting of the verdict.
The jury found it proved that another conflict, that took place in the Beer Centre Cafe, situated in the Kronschtadt Boulevard on December 4, was the motive of the attack on Sviridov and his friends on December 6. On December 4 Cherkesov in the presence of Utarbiyev had fired at the floor from a traumatic revolver during a quarrel with one of the visitors of the caf·, after which his opponent had retreated, fearing serious consequences.
The state prosecutor insisted, and the jury agreed with him, that the impunity that followed the use of the weapon in a public place, as well as the effect made by it on the public, urged Cherkesov to stage another attack.
“On December 5 at 22.30, Cherkesov, staying in the same caf· in the Kronschtadt Boulevard, told Akayev, Arsibiyev, Ibrahimov, Ismailov and Utarbiyev about the incident, which had taken place on December 4, after which they agreed to attack someone they do not know, using Cherkesov’s revolver and other objects,” the verdict said.
According to the document, Cherkesov and his companions saw in the street Sviridov and his friends, and “chose them for an attack.” He took part in the beating of the young people, using a glass bottle and a traumatic revolver.
The verdict of the jury said that Cherkesov had fired at the victims -- Filatov and Sviridov. He had fired at the Spartak fan twice, as a minimum – “at the head, point-blank, and at the stomach, from the distance of one metre.”
According to the jury, the reason for Cherkesov’s attack was the fact that he “emphatically opposed himself to other people and demonstrated contempt for them, using a minor pretext.”
Yana Falaleyeva, Sviridov’s widow, is pleased with the verdict of the jury. “Of course, I am pleased with it. It would be bad, if they were acquitted,” she told Itar-Tass. “I am not happy that the accused will be kept in prison, but I am happy that, perhaps, other people’s lives will be saved in this way.”
The counsel for the prosecution are also pleased with the verdict of the jury. “The state prosecutors are satisfied with the verdict, because the jury came to the conclusion by way of voting, that the accused are guilty on all items of the accusation,” said Prosecutor Maria Semenenko, who represented the counsel for the prosecution at court.
Dmitry Pankov, Cherkesov’s lawyer, said that “the verdict of the jury will certainly be appealed against at the Supreme Court.”
The murder of Yegor Sviridov was followed by broad public response. Initially the suspected participants in the fight were released from the police station. Five days later their release triggered massive unrest in the Manezhny Square and in other parts of Moscow.