Lavrov says Russia-Belarus relations developing in working modeRussian Politics & Diplomacy February 21, 21:48
Condolence book in memory of Churkin opened at Russia’s Permanent Mission to UNWorld February 21, 20:53
Ukrainian billionaire Dmitry Firtash detained in Vienna at Spain’s requestWorld February 21, 20:40
UN secretary-general offers Lavrov condolences on Churkin’s deathWorld February 21, 19:53
OPEC does not see problems regarding growth of Russian oil exportBusiness & Economy February 21, 19:46
Kremlin to bake 100,000 pancakes for MaslenitsaSociety & Culture February 21, 19:23
Production of Mercedes Benz cars to start in Russia in 2019Business & Economy February 21, 18:43
UN Security Council holds a minute of silence in memory of Russia’s deceased envoyWorld February 21, 18:30
Russia and US might launch joint operations against terrorists in Raqqa — ministerWorld February 21, 18:17
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.