The Sevastopol City Court heard and concluded the criminal case against 66-year-old local resident Alexander Glukhoyedov, who was found guilty in a single hearing of treason and possession of an explosive device. The judge imposed a sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment to be served in a strict-regime penal colony, a fine of four hundred thousand roubles and a one-year restriction of liberty.
According to the indictment, Glukhoyedov was allegedly recruited by an SBU officer in December 2022 whilst in the Volyn Oblast of Ukraine. On his instructions, after returning to Sevastopol, Glukhoyedov carried out visual surveillance and photographed the deployment sites of Black Sea Fleet vessels and their defence systems, before passing the information obtained to his handler. He also monitored military personnel’s vehicles on the instructions of the Ukrainian security service officer. “He then acquired a radio-controlled homemade explosive device and kept it in a hiding place within the city,” emphasised the so-called Sevastopol City Prosecutor’s Office.
The trial of Glukhoyedov was marred by numerous breaches of standards regarding access to a fair trial. In particular, whilst observing the trial, it was noted that the court took steps to conceal information about the defendant, as well as the date and venue of the sentencing hearing, which, under the rules of criminal procedure, must always be held in public. At the time the information was released by the Press Office of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the case file did not indicate that the pronouncement of the verdict was scheduled for that date, nor did it specify the time or the number of the courtroom. This information was only published the following day, after the verdict had been delivered. This constituted a significant obstacle to ensuring the openness of the proceedings, in particular the ability of members of the public to attend the pronouncement of the verdict.
It is also important to note that the trial was presided over by Igor Kozhevnikov — a Russian judge who was transferred from Smolensk following the occupation of Crimea and who is unlawfully administering justice in the occupied territory. The participation of the Russian judge Kozhevnikov in the trial calls into question the independence and impartiality of the court. Apart from the fact that the judge is a citizen of the country occupying the territory where the defendant resided, this is at least the sixth trial presided over by Judge Igor Kozhevnikov in cases involving a particularly serious offence (treason), all of which have been heard within an abnormally short period of time. According to the case file for Glukhoyedov, the court scheduled the first hearing for 29 July at 10 am, and just 62 minutes later the judge had already begun reading out the verdict
It seems doubtful that, in such a short period, the court was able to fully carry out all the necessary stages of the proceedings, which include establishing the defendant’s identity, announcing the composition of the court, explaining the rights and rules of procedure, clarifying challenges and motions, opening and closing the trial, the opening and closing of the cross-examination phase, hearing closing statements, retiring to the deliberation room, delivering the verdict and pronouncing it. It seems unlikely that Judge Igor Kozhevnikov could have fulfilled all the necessary procedural requirements in such a short space of time whilst, at the same time, having sufficient time whilst in the deliberation room to examine the case file objectively and comprehensively—including the circumstances affecting the nature of the sentence—and then deliver a fair verdict.
It should be noted, however, that there was a high degree of coordination between the court and the press office of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. First and foremost, it is striking that the closed nature of the trial, its brevity and the absence of any information regarding the verdict on the court’s official website did not prevent representatives of the Public Prosecutor’s Office from being present in the courtroom and taking photographs and videos of the defendant whilst the verdict was being read out. Secondly, it should be noted that the sentencing concluded at 11.37, and just two hours later this statement was published on the prosecution service’s page, even though during that time a representative of the prosecution service would have needed to pass on information about the verdict – including the facts of the case, the severity of the sentence and multimedia files from the courtroom – to the relevant section of the press office, where they would then have to reconcile the publicly available information with that from the trial, which had been held in camera, prepare and publish the text of the press release, as well as process (by adding the prosecutor’s office logo) and upload photographs and video footage of the convicted person.
Such a deliberately formalised approach on the part of the judge, coupled with the synchronised interaction with the prosecution, may indicate a decision that was planned and agreed upon even before the trial began. In this case, the trial itself appears to be nothing more than a formal procedure, with no possibility or intention of establishing the truth.
The campaign to report on the verdict in the Russian media appears no less coordinated. At least 12 reports have been recorded across various media outlets, all of which cited the Sevastopol Public Prosecutor’s Office as their sole source of information. No comments from Alexander Glukhoyedov himself, his lawyer, or members of the public present at the trial were featured in any Russian media outlet. Also noteworthy is the use in some media outlets of judgmental and emotive language, such as the headline ‘Retired traitor receives a massive prison sentence for working for the SBU’ or the subheading ‘Traitor convicted in Sevastopol for collaborating with Bandera supporters’.
Among other things, the report notes the degrading treatment of the defendant resulting from his detention in an aquarium-like cage. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) equates detention in cage-like enclosures with inhuman treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and humiliation of human dignity. Furthermore, the publication of images showing the defendant in a cage creates a visual impression of a dangerous criminal and influences public prejudice prior to sentencing.