Yuri Shevchuk gave an assessment – Picture of the Day – Kommersant

The Sovetsky District Court of Ufa, which found the leader of the rock group DDT Yuri Shevchuk guilty of discrediting the Russian Armed Forces (part 1 of article 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation), published the reasoning part of the decision. In particular, it says that Mr. Shevchuk’s controversial statement at a concert in Ufa on May 18 contains a negative assessment of the president’s decision to conduct a special military operation in Ukraine, expressed in an implicit form. Yuri Shevchuk urges viewers to “assess the events taking place in Ukraine, prompts doubts about the goals of the presence of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in the implementation of the JMD,” said judge Yulia Yegorova. She regarded the non-acknowledgement of guilt by the musician as a way of avoiding responsibility.

The motivational part of the decision in the case of the leader of the rock group DDT Yuri Shevchuk became known, who on August 16, by decision of the judge of the Sovetsky District Court of Ufa, Yulia Egorova, was found guilty of discrediting the Russian army (part 1 of article 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation) and fined 50 thousand . rub.

The report on Yuri Shevchuk was drawn up after a concert in Ufa on May 18, at which the musician, in particular, stated that “Motherland is not the president’s ass to procrastinate and kiss her.” “… Rodina is a beggar grandmother at the station selling potatoes. This is the Motherland,” Mr. Shevchuk said from the stage. The materials of the case of an administrative offense were received by the Sovetsky District Court of Ufa, but were transferred to St. Petersburg – at the place of residence of the musician. On May 30, the Dzerzhinsky District Court of St. Petersburg returned the case to Ufa to eliminate the shortcomings. In July, a new protocol was drawn up against the musician (Mr. Shevchuk was not present at the same time). A month and a half later, the Dzerzhinsky District Court again returned the materials to Ufa, indicating that the case should be considered at the place where the administrative offense was committed.

Yuri Shevchuk pleaded not guilty. His lawyer Alexander Peredruk asked to stop the proceedings due to numerous procedural violations. The defender suggested that “another person was called to re-draw up the protocol,” since the document indicated the wrong date of birth of the musician. Also, Mr. Peredruk had doubts about the changes in the protocol, since the changes were not recorded in the manner prescribed by law. According to the lawyer, it is impossible to establish the time and place of the offense from the document drawn up by the police officers, and he called the statements of Yury Shevchuk “taken out of context.”

An employee of Department 7 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for Ufa, Rashida Kamalova, who drew up a report on the musician and acted as a witness in court, said that she was involved in maintaining public order at the concert, and did not hear the first phrases that “served as a reason for initiating the case”. However, she was present at the second part of the concert, when Yuri Shevchuk deciphered the meaning of the controversial statement about the hostilities, explaining that it was about the situation in Ukraine. In the words of the musician, the police officer saw a violation of the law.

Oleg Ermolaev, a representative of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs for Ufa, said that the place and time of the offense were confirmed by a service agreement concluded between Yuri Shevchuk and HC Salavat Yulaev for renting the Ufa Arena Ice Palace, where the concert was held. Mr. Ermolaev also noted that the musician’s words about “Napoleonic plans” discredit the army, since the expression means carrying out an aggressive policy. “In this case, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation do not carry out these activities,” he explained in court.

Making a decision, Judge Yulia Egorova pointed to the reliability of the evidence of Yury Shevchuk’s guilt and called the argument about violations in the preparation of the protocol far-fetched. She also considered the conclusions of linguists provided by the defense to be unconvincing, since the experts did not analyze the context of Yuriy Shevchuk’s statements for the presence of indirect appeals. “In this case, the evidence presented is only the opinions of individual experts,” Yulia Egorova concluded, noting that Shevchuk’s non-admission of guilt is regarded “as a chosen way to avoid responsibility.”

“By asking such questions, Shevchuk calls on the audience to evaluate the events taking place in Ukraine, encourages them to doubt the goals of the presence of the Russian Armed Forces in the implementation of the NMD, replacing and compromising the goals and objectives of using the Armed Forces. At the same time, it is not necessary to voice the words “armed forces”, “army”,” the judge concluded.

Alexander Peredruk intends to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Bashkiria.

The head of the Agora international human rights group, Pavel Chikov, commenting on the high-profile court decision, noted that he was “offended by the Bashkir police and courts.” “Several times they had the opportunity to preserve their dignity, as the court in St. Petersburg did, twice refusing to consider the case. Not a single DDT fan will turn his back on the group because of this case, on the contrary, Shevchuk confirms his crystal reputation again and again. And legally there is nothing to comment on the case, the article itself directly contradicts the Constitution, since it introduces punishment for opinion,” said Pavel Chikov.

Lyubov Shebanova, head of the criminal and administrative law practice at Amulex.ru, believes that the decision was generally justified, but pointed out shortcomings in the consideration of the case: “Unfortunately, in this case, the police officers did not appoint and did not conduct a linguistic examination, and also, as far as it is clear from the decision, there are no explanations of witnesses that could express and confirm what kind of emotions they experienced and how the audience understood the statements. This could strengthen the position of the ruling. But this does not indicate a lack of evidence, ”said Lyubov Shebanova.

Karina Mamaeva, Ufa