Putin calls to improve mechanisms of combating cyberattacks against banksBusiness & Economy December 07, 15:06
Deal on Russia’s Tartus naval base in Syria 'at final stage' — senatorMilitary & Defense December 07, 15:00
Putin orders to recommend medical workers killed in Syria for awards of distinctionRussian Politics & Diplomacy December 07, 14:48
Sukhoi-30SM fighter to join Baltic Fleet’s aviation in 2017Military & Defense December 07, 14:44
Stoltenberg says dialogue with Russia 'not sign of weakness'World December 07, 14:28
Stoltenberg confirms Ukraine will have 'unwavering support' from NATOWorld December 07, 13:53
Russia respects Italy referendum outcome — diplomatRussian Politics & Diplomacy December 07, 13:39
Media: Militants leave Aleppo’s ancient quarters via special corridorWorld December 07, 13:21
Putin offers condolences to president of Indonesia over deadly earthquakeWorld December 07, 13:18
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.