Press review: Trump terrifies Western elites and Alibaba eyes partnership with SberbankPress Review January 18, 13:00
Kremlin knows nothing about Snowden’s intentionsRussian Politics & Diplomacy January 18, 12:50
Russian lawmaker: McCain confirms US recognizes Russia’s growing world roleRussian Politics & Diplomacy January 18, 12:42
Kremlin: Issue on Crimea status not matter of discussion for MoscowRussian Politics & Diplomacy January 18, 12:31
Russia views Austria’s OSCE chairmanship program as pragmaticRussian Politics & Diplomacy January 18, 12:16
New movie marks return of Russian cinema to India’s silver screens after 25-year hiatusSociety & Culture January 18, 12:09
Senator says Russia should not abide by ECHR ruling on adoption ban for USRussian Politics & Diplomacy January 18, 12:00
Stunning Miss Universe 2017 candidatesSociety & Culture January 18, 11:46
Chinese Foreign Ministry: Beijing ready to boost cooperation with MoscowWorld January 18, 11:11
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.