The court began to consider the criminal case of the co-founder of “Memorial” Oleg Orlov

On Thursday, the Golovinsky District Court of Moscow began considering the criminal case of one of the oldest Russian human rights activists, Oleg Orlov. The 70-year-old co-founder of Memorial (included in the register of foreign agents and liquidated by the Armed Forces; in 2022 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize) is accused of “re-discrediting” the army – for publishing a text in which he criticized the SVO and the Russian government. As a public defender, Mr. Orlov was represented at the trial by the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize-2021, Dmitry Muratov.

By three o’clock in the afternoon it was almost impossible to get into the court: journalists and human rights activists crowded at the entrance to the building and in the courtyard. The process had to be moved to a more spacious office, but not everyone managed to go there either. At the beginning of the meeting, Oleg Orlov asked to be admitted as a public defender, journalist Dmitry Muratov: “I have known Muratov for 30 years and trust him. The latter is of decisive importance for me. Despite the prosecutor’s protest, Judge Kristina Kostryukova granted the petition.

Lawyer Katerina Tertukhina asked the court to suspend the consideration of the case, pointing out that Oleg Orlov sent a complaint to the Constitutional Court against the administrative article about “discrediting” the army (Article 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses). The human rights activist is confident that the norm adopted last year restricts the right to peaceful assembly, freedom of thought and speech, as well as a ban on the establishment of state ideology and discrimination. But Judge Kostryukova refused, pointing out that the Constitutional Court had not yet accepted Mr. Orlov’s complaint for consideration.

Then the floor was given to Mr. Muratov. He also asked the court to suspend the process and send a request to the Constitutional Court to verify the constitutionality of the already criminal art. 280.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on “repeated” discrediting, for which, in fact, Mr. Orlov is accused. Recall that in March 2022, the human rights activist went to Theater Square with a single picket against the special operation and was fined 50 thousand rubles. under Art. 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. Then Mr. Orlov went out with a poster to Red Square – and was again fined. In November, the human rights activist published on the social network a translation of his article “They wanted fascism, they got it”, written for the French edition of Mediapart, after which a criminal case was initiated on the “repeated” discrediting of Russian troops. According to the investigation, in this article the actions of the RF Armed Forces “are characterized as criminal, fascist, connected with the killing of civilians and the destruction of civilian infrastructure.”

Mr. Muratov began to talk about the one-man picket of the human rights activist, but was interrupted by the judge: “What does this have to do with the fact that I have to send a request to the Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of the criminal art. 280.3?

Then the journalist told the judge the content of Mr. Orlov’s article. And then noted that Art. 280.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation allows you to attract “for any peaceful expression of a critical opinion.” “Thus, this article undermines ideological diversity as the basis of the constitutional order of Russia, suppresses freedom of thought and speech, and is at odds with the ban on repeated convictions for the same crime,” Mr. Muratov said. But the judge refused.

The public defender was replaced by a professional defender. Lawyer Katerina Tertukhina asked the judge to return the case to the prosecutor’s office, saying that “the indictment does not contain important information about the merits of the charge.” According to her, the indictment does not disclose the concept of “discrediting”, it does not indicate what kind of public danger the actions of Mr. Orlov carried, what kind of public danger he was aware of and what consequences he foresaw.

The lawyer unexpectedly called incorrect data about the identity of the human rights activist as the second reason for returning the case: “The investigator mistakenly indicated that Oleg Petrovich was under the supervision of a narcologist and a psychiatrist, but this is not so.”

At the same time, even the names of a narcologist and a psychiatrist were indicated in the case. Mr. Muratov ironically told the court that he honestly tried to find these doctors, “to fight together with my friend’s addiction.” They laughed in the hall, and the prosecutor said that the petition was aimed at delaying the case: “The defendant is registered with the PND, he is not – the preliminary investigation considered it so.” The judge agreed that the “inaccurate data” given by the lawyer would not affect the verdict.

Oleg Orlov himself said that he did not understand how he could be prosecuted for his personal opinion. The prosecutor proposed to postpone the meeting and interrogate the specialist who conducted the linguistic examination. The next meeting was scheduled for July 3, until then, Mr. Orlov will remain under house arrest.

After the meeting, Dmitry Muratov told Kommersant that the decisions of the judge were expected for him. “Very often, the accusation itself and what the prosecutor’s office supported automatically migrates to the verdicts of the courts. I hope this will not happen this time,” he said. “And a blatant story when the indictment says that Orlov is under the supervision of a narcologist and a psychiatrist. The prosecutor says that everything is fine and they will fix it later. How come?” The Public Defender reiterated that Art. 280.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation conflicts with Oleg Orlov’s constitutional right to freedom of opinion: “No one can force him to renounce his beliefs. There are restrictions during a state of emergency. It didn’t exist and it doesn’t exist now.” Mr. Muratov said that the defense was very much counting on the interrogation of the expert.

Emilia Gabdullina