Moscow and Beijing call for complete denuclearization of Korean PeninsulaRussian Politics & Diplomacy May 26, 14:35
G7 summit kicks off in ItalyWorld May 26, 13:55
Kremlin spokesman says Russia stands with UK in war on terrorRussian Politics & Diplomacy May 26, 13:13
Russia looks for traces of extra-terrestrial life forms on ISS surfaceScience & Space May 26, 13:04
Press review: NATO's anti-terror Trump card and US' Syrian civilian body countPress Review May 26, 13:00
Russia warns NATO against military buildup along eastern borderRussian Politics & Diplomacy May 26, 12:01
Russia to sell over 360 cutting-edge helicopters by 2030Military & Defense May 26, 11:37
Trump’s limo too big to fit through Royal Palace gates in BrusselsWorld May 26, 11:18
Russian ambassador says Paris remains important partner for MoscowRussian Politics & Diplomacy May 26, 10:20
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.