ECHR rules not to revise its judgement on Beslan hostage taking caseWorld September 19, 19:18
Trump vows to 'totally destroy North Korea' if threatenedWorld September 19, 17:50
Russian top brass calls on US to not hamper Damascus’ fight against terrorismMilitary & Defense September 19, 17:49
Zapad-2017 exercise puts Russian army’s "nervous system" to testMilitary & Defense September 19, 17:33
Ukrainian conflict led to spike in hate speech, Russophobia — Council of EuropeWorld September 19, 17:00
Russian regions contribute scores of natural stones for memorial to Gulag victimsSociety & Culture September 19, 16:45
Warsaw police hunting vandals who desecrated Soviet military cemeteryWorld September 19, 16:39
Donbass truce first step towards lifting anti-Russian sanctions — German top diplomatWorld September 19, 16:36
Moscow court arrests man suspected of stabbing hiker to deathSociety & Culture September 19, 16:34
MOSCOW, October 10 (Itar-Tass) —— The Federation Council, the upper house of the Russian parliament, will monitor the inquiry into the facts stated in the controversial documentary “Anatomy of Protest-2” shown on one of the federal television channels last week.
The decision was adopted by a vote of 137 senators, with two abstentions. It instructs the Federation Council’s Defence and Security Committee and the Committee on Constitutional Legislation to monitor the situation for a month and then make a report.
The Russian Investigation Committee has begun an investigation into facts stated in the documentary.
“The Main Investigation Department of the Investigation Committee of Russia has arranged for an investigation of the facts concerning organisation of mass riots in Russia that were stated in the ‘Anatomy of Protest-2’ documentary shown on NTV on October 5, 2012,” Investigation Committee spokesman Vladimir Markin said.
“Based on the results of the inquiry, the investigator will make a procedural decision,” he said.
“The Main Investigation Department of the Investigation Committee is continuing to investigate the criminal case on the organisation of and participation in mass riots the use of violence against representatives of the authorities in Bolotnaya Square in Moscow on May 6, which involves 17 suspects,” Markin said.
“With regard to two suspects the criminal cases were investigated separately and the investigation has already been completed,” he added.
The Prosecutor General’s Office said it would also examine the facts mentioned in the controversial documentary.
Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika has ordered the facts stated in the film to be verified, the spokesperson for the Prosecutor General’s Office, Marina Gridneva, said.
“Based on the results of the inquiry, if violations of law are found, all necessary measures of prosecutor’s response will be raken,” she said.
The second part of the controversial film “Anatomy of Protest” appeared on NTV on Friday, October 5. Its authors exposed mechanisms used for providing funding to the so-called non-system opposition in Russia. They claimed that some funding could be provided by former Bank of Moscow CEO Andrei Borodin through Givi Targamadze, former head of the Defence and Security Committee in the Georgian parliament. According to the authors of the film, Sergei Udaltsov, Left Front coordinators, was one of the actors in spurring the protest movement in the country.
Duma Security Committee Chairperson Irina Yarovaya stressed that the facts mentioned in the film were “the unconditional basis for an investigation into what has signs of a criminal act”.
“The bunch of criminal intentions and criminal acts collected in the film is very serious both in terms of substance and in terms of public threat and danger for our people, especially when it comes to possible terrorist acts,” she said.
In her opinion, “the volume of funding and the masterminds [mentioned in the film] suggest that activities were well organised”.
“There is such a notion in law as prevention of a crime,” Yarovaya said. “The ‘Anatomy of Protest-2’ film is an expose that may as well have prevented grave consequences of criminal designs. I think that law enforcement agencies must protect public security.”