Currency converter
News Feed
News Search Topics
Use filter
You can filter your feed,
by choosing only interesting

Defendants in Bolotnaya Square case sentenced from in suspension to 4 years in jail

February 24, 2014, 13:45 UTC+3
Alexandra Naumova was sentenced to 3.3 years in suspension
Material has 1 page
{{$root.cfg.modules.slider.galleryTable_720684.stepNow *12 +1}} - 6 из {{$root.cfg.modules.slider.gallery_720684.sliderLength-1}}
{{$root.cfg.modules.slider['gallery_720684'].sliderLength - 1}}
{{$root.cfg.modules.slider['gallery_720684'].sliderLength - 1}}
Artyom Savelov
© ITAR-TASS/Anton Novoderezhkin
Stepan Zimin
© ITAR-TASS/Stanislav Krasilnikov
Yaroslav Belousov
© ITAR-TASS/Stanislav Krasilnikov
Alexei Polikhovich
© ITAR-TASS/Stanislav Krasilnikov
Denis Lutskevich
© ITAR-TASS/Stanislav Krasilnikov
Andrei Barabanov
© ITAR-TASS/Zurab Dzhavakhadze

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.


Показать еще
In other media