Russian space corporation plans 25 carrier-rocket launches in 2017Science & Space August 22, 17:48
Russian Defense Ministry develops electromagnetic gun to counter dronesMilitary & Defense August 22, 17:14
'Paradise' placed on longlist for European Film Academy awardSociety & Culture August 22, 16:56
Peru, Myanmar, Bangladesh interested in purchasing MiG-35sMilitary & Defense August 22, 16:51
Mossad chief to accompany Netanyahu on official visit to RussiaWorld August 22, 16:41
Russian Investigative Committee brings charges against stage director SerebrennikovSociety & Culture August 22, 16:33
Russia's advanced interceptor may become unmanned in futureMilitary & Defense August 22, 15:58
Foreign space agencies take interest in Soyuz-5 rocketScience & Space August 22, 15:48
Russian Energy Ministry comments on impact of US coal supplies to UkraineBusiness & Economy August 22, 15:46
MOSCOW, February 24. /ITAR-TASS/. Zamoskvoretsky court in Moscow sentenced eight defendants from in suspension to 4 years in prison for participation in massive disorder on central Moscow’s Bolotnaya Square on May 6, 2012.
“Sentence Belousov and Savelov to 2.5 and 2 years 7 months in prison, respectively, Krivov to 4 years in jail, Lutskevich, Polikhovich, Zimin to 3.5 years in jail each, Barabanov to 3 years 7 months in prison. Sentence Naumova to 3 years 3 months in suspension with a probation period of 3 years,” the judge announced the court verdict.
After hearing the court verdict, defendants noted that it was unclear for them. Their lawyers said that they would appeal the verdict.
The court ruled that guilt of defendants was proved and was substantiated by evidence of witnesses and case files.
“The defendants participated in massive disorder and used violence not dangerous for life of law enforcers,” the verdict reads.
Defendants did not deny in their testimony that they had come for a protest action on May 6, 2012, but had not participated in massive disorder and, moreover, had not used violence against policemen, the judge said in the verdict.
The court has found testimony of injured parties as an attempt to avoid criminal prosecution. Meanwhile, “the court does not have any reasons to mistrust testimony of injured parties.”
Arguments of lawyers that defendants failed to recognise people coming up to them as policemen, because the latter did not introduce themselves as policemen, were turned down at the trial. Meanwhile, policemen were wearing their police uniform at the action.