Ukrainian Army units shell Donetsk Republic in first hours of newceasefireWorld June 24, 5:19
Politician says Russia vs Mexico football game will be interesting to watchSport June 23, 21:11
Kyrgyz president sees revival of relations with Russia as major result of his tenureWorld June 23, 20:49
Ex-premier says initiative to impeach Poroshenko stems from Ukraine’s economy collapseWorld June 23, 20:20
This week in photos: Confederations Cup opening and summer solstice celebrationsSociety & Culture June 23, 19:11
Turkish ambassador to Russia: Moscow and Ankara to join efforts in war on terrorWorld June 23, 18:45
Ukraine’s finance ministry files appeal to London Court against Russia in $3 bln debt caseBusiness & Economy June 23, 18:42
Ukrainian society tired of Poroshenko’s policy — expertRussian Politics & Diplomacy June 23, 17:58
Deutsche Welle sees Russian international broadcasters as threat to European ideasWorld June 23, 17:34
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.