On 28 July, the Kerch City Court heard an administrative case under Article 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, ‘Public actions aimed at discrediting the Russian army’, against local resident Sergei Makedonsky. He was found guilty of the offence, and the court imposed a penalty in the form of an administrative fine of 30,000 roubles.
According to the court’s ruling, he filmed a Russian military petrol tanker, camouflaged as a civilian lorry, whilst commenting on the matter. He then sent the footage to a friend, who posted the video on Telegram channels. The court regarded the remarks made during the filming as actions aimed at discrediting the Russian army. At the same time, the trial revealed indications of a breach of standards of access to a fair trial.
In particular, the court’s evasive stance regarding the qualifying element of ‘publicity’ is noteworthy. It is clear from the content of the voice-over comments that Makedonsky produced the video recording exclusively for a specific recipient, with no intention of distributing it. The judgement notes that the recording ‘was published on a public Telegram channel’; however, the court did not establish either the identity of the person who actually posted the material or whether Makedonsky had the intention to publish the video recording and the accompanying comments.
Furthermore, according to experts from the ‘Crimean Process’, the court did not describe any elements of defamation, but merely quoted a passage whose meaning does not demonstrate any clear intention to undermine confidence in the Russian armed forces. The full text of the voice-over commentary reads as follows: ‘Vova, here’s an exclusive. I’ve overtaken it and I’m standing here showing it to you now. A petrol tanker’s coming; look, there it is. Look what they’ve done! There it is, a real beauty; look how they’ve fucking camouflaged it – a fucking military petrol tanker. Look. There it is. Fuck, what a bunch of clowns.” The ruling does not specify exactly what, in the court’s view, in these words could have served the purpose of undermining confidence in the Russian army. Nor was an expert analysis of the statement carried out.
Such a superficial approach by the court to assessing the evidence presented may indicate that the judge is biased or has a preconceived opinion. It is noteworthy that Judge Natalya Titova had previously issued a ruling imposing an administrative penalty on Sergei Makedonsky in connection with this incident. Earlier, immediately after the video was published, as part of the general practice of ‘comprehensive repression’, an administrative report was drawn up against the driver for failing to comply with the demands of FSB officers, to whom the Kerch resident allegedly refused to present his documents. Judge Natalya Titova considered the report and imposed the maximum penalty provided for under the Administrative Code – 15 days’ detention. However, information about the hearing and the decision reached only appeared on the court’s official website a day after it had concluded.
A judge must not harbour any personal bias or prejudice against the accused. If a judge has previously heard a case involving the same individual, and where violations were noted in that case and the maximum sentence was imposed, the judge may have developed a tendency to find the offender guilty. The court should have ruled out any reasonable doubt as to its impartiality, but this was not done.
* The photograph shows a still from a video of Sergei Makedonsky’s arrest by FSB officers