Putin orders to draft over 140,000 men into army this springMilitary & Defense March 30, 10:51
Russia cuts oil output by 200,000 barrels a dayBusiness & Economy March 30, 8:09
Russian historical epic Viking to be released in Italy, UKSociety & Culture March 30, 2:11
Putin visits ice cave during Arctic tourSociety & Culture March 30, 0:02
Moscow slams West’s reaction to Russian protests as part of long-planned campaignRussian Politics & Diplomacy March 29, 23:56
Putin orders Defense Ministry and FSB to ensure protection of Russia’s interests in ArcticMilitary & Defense March 29, 21:46
Kiev aware of few chances to win in debt lawsuit case — envoyBusiness & Economy March 29, 20:52
Russian top diplomat dismisses claims about human rights violations in Crimea as liesRussian Politics & Diplomacy March 29, 20:23
Moscow suspects Jabhat al-Nusra could be used to topple AssadRussian Politics & Diplomacy March 29, 19:58
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.