Gazprom supplies to Europe reach record-breaking 590 mln cubic meters on FridayBusiness & Economy October 22, 18:24
Minsk protests against Ukraine's forced return to Kiev of Belavia planeWorld October 22, 14:05
Russian Foreign Ministry: Militants in Aleppo fail assistance delivery, civilians outflowsRussian Politics & Diplomacy October 22, 14:03
Kremlin: Syria’s breakup may become catastrophe for the regionRussian Politics & Diplomacy October 22, 14:00
Kremlin: Common language at Normandy Four talks is not oftenRussian Politics & Diplomacy October 22, 13:56
Kremlin: Extending humanitarian pause in Aleppo is Putin’s independent decisionRussian Politics & Diplomacy October 22, 13:50
Putin offered condolences to families of victims in Mi-8 crash in YamalSociety & Culture October 22, 11:20
Production of Russian flu vaccines in Nicaragua may start on October 22Society & Culture October 22, 7:44
Mascot of 2018 World Cup should be remembered like Olympic Mishka, Mutko saysSport October 22, 6:31
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.