US and coalition bomb Syrian Raqqa, like Dresden was bombed in 1945 - Defense MinistryMilitary & Defense October 22, 9:56
NATO rejects media claims alliance unable of quick deploymentWorld October 21, 13:01
Russian senior diplomat: Moscow has 'no doubts' that Iran fulfilling JCPOA dealRussian Politics & Diplomacy October 21, 11:04
Monuments to Soviet troops in PolandWorld October 21, 10:57
Putin and Erdogan give positive assessment to joint efforts in Astana processWorld October 21, 3:03
Privileges to certain languages in Ukraine’s education law to worsen situation — diplomatRussian Politics & Diplomacy October 20, 21:46
International balance of forces in Syria after Raqqa’s liberation unclear yet — expertMilitary & Defense October 20, 21:05
Russia to resume import of aubergines, pomegranates from Turkey since October 30Business & Economy October 20, 20:18
International station to orbit Moon at 70,000 km distance from EarthScience & Space October 20, 20:09
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.