The Tsipinova case has become an example of the prosecutor's office abusing its right to appeal.

The prosecution, unlike the defense, can initiate repeated review cycles until a guilty verdict is reached or until procedural options are exhausted. The prosecutor's office is exploiting this bias in Tsipinova's case, the lawyers noted.

As "Caucasian Knot" reported, on December 1, 2025, the Urvan District Court, having retried Diana Tsipinova's case, again acquitted her. However, the prosecution had requested a 2.5-year prison sentence for Tsipinova, according to the Union of Young Lawyers' Telegram channel. The prosecutor's office challenged the second acquittal of Kabardino-Balkaria lawyer Diana Tsipinova, demanding that the case be remanded for a new trial. Tsipinova's defense criticized the agency's position. On February 18, the Supreme Court of Kabardino-Balkaria began hearing the appeal. The lawyer is represented by five colleagues, who called for the ruling to be upheld.

The right of higher courts to overturn a verdict and remand a case for a new trial is expressly enshrined in the Russian Criminal Procedure Code, said attorney Kondrat Gorishny. "However, in practice, such reversals are often made without sufficient grounds, which contradicts the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and leads to lengthy and unfounded prosecution. This violates the adversarial principle and equality of the parties, creating a clear incriminating bias. It's difficult to say what the court is thinking, but its actions are perceived by the defense as cautious, associated with the increased risk of another acquittal being overturned by a higher court. The long-standing situation with a minimal number of acquittals confirms this,” he stated.

Repeatedly returning a case after acquittals can be an abuse if the returns are used not to correct serious procedural violations, but as a way to secure a guilty verdict at any cost, lawyer Timur Filippov told a “Caucasian Knot” correspondent.

“In theory, a return is possible if significant violations of criminal or criminal procedure law have been committed that have affected the objectivity of the decision or sentence. In practice, we see that systematic “pressure” after an acquittal turns into procedural pressure from the executive branch on the judiciary. Formally, everything happens within the law, but in reality, the prosecution gets several attempts to achieve the desired result. This creates an asymmetry: the defense cannot “restart” the process before an acquittal as many times as it deems necessary, but the prosecution can initiate repeated cycles up to "until a guilty verdict is reached or until procedural options are exhausted," Filippov believes.

The reversal of acquittals, especially those handed down by juries, has long been a systemic practice, transforming from a way to correct a judicial error into a tool for achieving departmental results, he said.

"Criminal proceedings should not resemble a series of attempts 'until they succeed.' The principle of legal certainty assumes that the dispute has an end. If an acquittal is repeatedly nullified, this calls into question the reality of the presumption of innocence: formally it exists, but in fact, the accused is forced to prove his innocence over and over again for years, not to mention justice and judicial protection as such. Such a mechanism is used as a tool of exhaustion even without a direct violation of the law. The defendant may run out of resources for defense, his physical or mental health may be undermined, as a result of which he cannot "He can defend himself effectively," the lawyer emphasized.

He also noted that such reversals inevitably affect the judge. "When a higher court overturns an acquittal, the judge receives a signal: 'You have assessed "The evidence is incorrect." After several such signals, a natural professional caution is formed. In other words, the judge begins to think not only about the evidence, but also about the likelihood of an overturn. This changes the internal psychology of the process. The judge becomes less free in issuing an acquittal, even if their independence is formally guaranteed. And this has long been the case with judges in Russia, where you either rule in favor of the state or simply won't be a judge. As for the balance of power, the very possibility of multiple revisions of an acquittal in favor of the prosecution speaks of a structural imbalance. The prosecution has state resources, an apparatus, procedural and enforcement tools. The defense in Russia, on the other hand, is significantly limited in its capabilities. An old legal saying goes: "An acquittal is a victory of one against all," and this is true. And if the system allows for multiple "restarts" after an acquittal, this means that the presumption of innocence in such cases is more declaratory in nature, and the Constitution, as a fundamental law of direct effect, simply does not work," he stated. he.

"Balance, first and foremost, means equal procedural risks. When the risk to the prosecution is minimal (it's possible to return and return), and to the defense is maximal (each new round for which the defendant pays with years of his life), there is no equality in fact," the lawyer concluded.

Commenting on the statement by the Kabardino-Balkarian Prosecutor's Office that the court "replaced a legal assessment with the subjective perception of the conflict by one of the parties," Gorishniy noted that the line between the subjective perception of the parties (which must be assessed by the court) and an objective legal assessment is drawn in the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on the evaluation of evidence, where the court's internal conviction is limited by the rules of cumulativeness, admissibility, and relevance, taking into account the principles of adversarial proceedings and the presumption of innocence. "That is, there is a certain standard of proof that must be observed, despite subjective perception," he stated.

The court has the right to take into account the subjective perception of the conflict, for example, when assessing motive, affect, self-defense, or threats

Filippov emphasized that the line between subjective perception and objective legal assessment lies where emotions end and evidence begins. "The court has the right to take into account the subjective perception of a conflict, for example, when assessing motive, affect, self-defense, or threats. Moreover, the court has the right to take into account subjective perception, since this is directly provided for in Article 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which states that a judge evaluates evidence based on his or her inner conviction, based on the totality of evidence available in a criminal case, guided by the law and conscience. But, for example, a subjective sense of danger is not the same as a legal fact of danger. Criminal proceedings are based not on "who felt what," but on the circumstances being verified: were there real actions that created a threat, was there evidence supporting the party's version. The problem arises when the subjective perception of one party begins to replace the analysis of evidence. If the court makes a decision without an objective verification of the facts, guided only by "This cannot be called a legal assessment based on an inner conviction. The court is not a psychotherapist or a mediator; its function is the legal qualification of facts and making a decision based on the correct application of criminal law," he noted.

As a reminder, in May 2020, Diana Tsipinova was among three lawyers who volunteered to provide legal assistance to her colleague Ratmir Zhilokov after his arrest in Nartkala. They arrived at the police station and were unable to get access to Zhilokov for 40 minutes.

The security forces were not pleased that The lawyers were filming, and they forced them out of the building. According to investigators, Tsipinova hit the police officers while trying to get to the detained Zhilokov.

The situation with the use of force against lawyers in Kabardino-Balkaria and their subsequent criminal prosecution is considered extraordinary by the professional community, although this is not an isolated incident. Violation of the right to legal representation poses a potential threat to every citizen, according to lawyers interviewed by the "Caucasian Knot."