Vladimir Atamanchuk was found guilty of discrediting the army.

THIS MATERIAL (INFORMATION) WAS PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED BY A FOREIGN AGENT LLC "MEMO", OR RELATES TO THE ACTIVITIES OF A FOREIGN AGENT LLC "MEMO".

The court in Sochi found former candidate for the State Duma from the "Yabloko" party, Vladimir Atamanchuk, guilty of discrediting the army and imposed a fine of 50,000 rubles. All his arguments were ignored by the judge.

As reported by "Caucasian Knot", on September 11, the Krasnodar Regional Court canceled Atamanchuk's registration as a candidate in the Southern single-member district No. 54. On September 20, he was detained outside the district electoral commission and arrested for three days on charges of petty hooliganism and illegal campaigning. On September 23, he was released from the isolation facility in Matsesta. On September 24, law enforcement officers drafted a new protocol against Atamanchuk for discrediting the Russian army, the reason being a campaign leaflet he was distributing on the street. According to a lawyer, the protocol contains numerous gross violations.

On September 26, the court found Vladimir Atamanchuk guilty of discrediting the Russian army and imposed a fine of 50,000 rubles. Considering the previously imposed penalties, the total amount of fines reached 100,000 rubles, Atamanchuk himself told the correspondent of "Caucasian Knot".

The court session of the Lazarevsky court took place on a court holiday, September 26 at 12:00 in the police building. This process is not indicated on the website of the Lazarevsky District Court. It is also stated that Saturday is a day off in court.

Atamanchuk stated that he defended himself because he could not afford a lawyer. According to the politician, the head of all precincts visited Judge Rubtsova the day before the session, and after their conversation, he claimed to have arranged with her for a quick consideration of the case. "Yesterday [the head of all precincts] visited the judge in my presence and said upon leaving that he had arranged with the judge to quickly resolve my case. His office is opposite the office of the judge who found me guilty based on the fabricated protocol," Atamanchuk said.

In fact, I was deprived of the right to defense

He claims that during the session, the judge ignored the violations he pointed out that occurred during the drafting of the administrative protocol, as well as his arguments in his defense. According to the politician, the court denied his motions for audio recording or written protocol of the court session and for calling two witnesses whom he considers to be false witnesses. "In fact, I was deprived of the right to defense. The evidence of my innocence that I presented, which she was supposed to quote in the protocol and refute, she ignored," Atamanchuk stated.

He also reported that in the ruling, the judge indicated that a copy of the protocol was signed by the deputy head of the police, although, according to the politician, there was no such signature in the copy issued to him. At the time of preparing the material, Atamanchuk reported that the court ruling was to be issued to him the next day.

The politician stated that he considers the prosecution to be politically motivated and links it to the dissemination of his views. "Naturally, this is a political case," Atamanchuk said.

I am one against the whole system

He characterized what is happening as a witch hunt, in which, in his opinion, the entire power system is involved. "I am one against the whole system. You know how many people find themselves alone, and the system and its actors always go against a person and his rights," the politician stated.

Atamanchuk intends to appeal the court ruling, but does not expect that his arguments will be heard. "They refuse to listen and hear. I have no doubt that it will be the same this time," he said.

According to the politician, the imposed fine has become a serious financial problem for him. "Considering today and the others, I have a total of 100,000 rubles to pay. I have no idea where to get such an amount," Atamanchuk stated.

The lawyer believes that it is possible to petition for the termination of the case

Let us remind you that the protocol handed to Atamanchuk by law enforcement was thoroughly analyzed by lawyer Elena Didenko. "Based on the existing protocol, on the basis of which the decision was made, I can say that it contains significant procedural defects," she noted.

According to her, the description of the alleged offense lacks specific quotes from Atamanchuk's campaign leaflet. The police officer limited himself to general formulations about "actions of an agitative nature" and "discrediting the Russian army." "The analysis of this protocol shows numerous significant procedural defects and violations of the rights of Atamanchuk V.D., which, in accordance with Article 28.2 of the Administrative Offenses Code of the Russian Federation and judicial practice, including the explanations of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 5, provide grounds to demand recognition of the protocol as inadmissible evidence and termination of the proceedings in the case," the lawyer believes.

In particular, in the protocol, according to her, it is noted that Atamanchuk refused to sign in the section on the explanation of rights, however, the politician made a note that his rights were not explained to him. At the same time, the refusal to sign, as the lawyer claims, was not recorded by witnesses or video recording. Didenko believes that this could have violated Atamanchuk's right to defense.

The uncertainty of the accusation makes the narrative "empty" and also violates Atamanchuk's right to defense

Moreover, in the protocol, in her assessment, it is not indicated which specific phrases, words, or slogans became the basis for the accusation. The alleged action itself is not described: whether Atamanchuk distributed leaflets or posted a poster. "The uncertainty of the accusation makes the narrative 'empty' and also violates Atamanchuk's right to defense," the lawyer noted.

Another violation pointed out by Didenko concerns the timing of the protocol's drafting. According to the document, the event attributed to Atamanchuk occurred on August 26, while the protocol was drafted on September 24. The lawyer believes that drafting the document almost a month later without conducting an administrative investigation contradicts the requirements of Articles 28.5 and 28.7 of the Administrative Offenses Code of the Russian Federation. In her opinion, these circumstances provide grounds to question the admissibility of the protocol as evidence.

In the event of an appeal against the court's decision, Didenko recommends that Atamanchuk file a motion to recognize the protocol as inadmissible evidence due to alleged violations in explaining rights and documenting the refusal to sign. In addition, the lawyer believes it is possible to petition for the termination of the proceedings due to the absence of an administrative offense. Among other recommended actions, this includes a motion in the appeal for a judicial linguistic examination of the leaflet, attaching Atamanchuk's comments to the protocol, and pointing out the violation of the timing of its drafting.

Didenko also considers it necessary to ask experts whether the text of the leaflet contains a negative assessment of the actions of the Russian armed forces or calls to prevent their use.

Atamanchuk reported that he intends to appeal the court ruling.