The highlights of 2017 FINA World ChampionshipsSport July 25, 19:37
IAAF to hear report on Russia’s reinstatement ahead of 2017 Athletics World ChampionshipSport July 25, 19:25
EU Council to discuss Nord Stream 2 project in SeptemberBusiness & Economy July 25, 19:13
Berlin preparing common European response to Siemens turbines supplies to Crimea — sourceBusiness & Economy July 25, 18:49
Finnish president: Dialog with Putin is direct and clearWorld July 25, 18:22
Summer surprises: Arctic swelters in heatwave, while resorts soak in rainBusiness & Economy July 25, 18:03
Sports minister says RUSADA doping inspectors started testing athletesSport July 25, 17:25
Arctic shelf development tops agenda of Murmansk international business weekBusiness & Economy July 25, 17:08
Trump backs investigation into Kiev’s meddling attempts to sabotage his election campaignWorld July 25, 16:57
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.