Second Case of Prianikov and Others in Karpinsk

Vladimir Sudedan, Senior Investigator of the Investigative Department for Krasnoturyinsk of the Investigative Committee of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, initiates criminal cases against Venera and Daria Dulov and Alexander Pryanikov under Part 1.1 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It was he who had previously initiated the criminal prosecution of three believers, which eventually turned into a suspended sentence for them. The decisions to initiate criminal cases include secret witnesses, according to whom the believers allegedly involved them "in the activities of a banned religious organization."

All three criminal cases are combined into one.

Judge of the Karpinsky City Court Svetlana Gabbasova, who had previously sentenced Venera and Darya Dulova and Aleksandr Pryanikov to suspended sentences, grants the petition of investigator A. Spirin to conduct searches in the homes of believers.

Early in the morning in Karpinsk and the neighboring city of Volchansk, searches are conducted in the houses of the Dulovs, Pryanikovs and Ruslan and Svetlana Zalyaev, and the Pryanikovs' car was also searched. Digital media and electronic devices were seized. Investigators A. Spirin, V. Sudin and A. Ovchinnikov participate in special events.

A. S. Spirin, senior investigator of the Krasnoturyinsk Investigative Directorate, initiates criminal cases against Anastasia Pryanikova, Ruslan and Svetlana Zalyaev. All three were chosen as a preventive measure in the form of a written undertaking not to leave and proper behavior.

The head of the SO combines the new case into one proceeding with the case of Pryanikov and others in Karpinsk. The criminal case is assigned No. 12002650042000009.

Aleksandr Pryanikov files a complaint against the decision to initiate a criminal case against him under Part 1.1. Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Judge of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court Tatyana Ainsof rejects the appeal against the search of Svetlana Zalyaeva. The appellate court considers Zalyayeva's arguments that it was carried out during the period of restrictive measures related to coronavirus infection to be groundless.

The Karpinsky City Court returns to Darya Dulova the complaint filed against the decision to initiate a criminal case against her.

As a result, the believer is deprived of the opportunity to challenge the legality of the new criminal prosecution. Daria intends to challenge this decision.

Svetlana Zalyaeva, her husband, Venera and Daria Dulov, as well as the Pryanikovs, submit petitions to the senior investigator of the Investigative Department for the city of Krasnoturinsk of the Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee for the Sverdlovsk Region A. S. Spirin to terminate the criminal case.

The basis for the application is Opinion No. 10/2020 of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention of the UN Human Rights Council. Although the Opinion refers to the specific circumstances of 18 individuals whose rights have been violated by Russian law enforcement officers, the Working Group stresses that "its conclusions ... apply to all other persons in similar circumstances."

The suspects refer to the norms of international and Russian law. According to the legal position of the Constitutional Court, "the Russian Federation cannot leave without consequences the opinion of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in cases where it has been found to have violated the provisions of the [International] Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights]. [...] The state is obliged to recognize and guarantee the rights and freedoms of man and citizen in accordance with the universally recognized principles and norms of international law.

Lieutenant of Justice A. C. Spirin rejects all suspects' request to dismiss the criminal case.

Olga Dybkova, judge of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court, does not satisfy Aleksandr Pryanikov's complaint against the decision that allowed him to search his home.

The appeal against the decision to initiate a case is considered by the judge of the Karpinsky City Court of the Sverdlovsk Region, Svetlana Gabbasova, the same one who convicted the believer in another criminal case.

Alexander challenges the judge, but Gabbasova refuses, arguing that the fact of her key participation in the previous case does not indicate her bias in the consideration of the current complaint.

Judge Gabbasova upholds the investigator's decision to initiate a second criminal case.

A. S. Spirin, senior investigator of the Investigative Department for the city of Krasnoturinsk of the Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the Sverdlovsk Region, initiates 2 new criminal cases against a resident of Karpinsk, Alexander Pryanikov - under Part 1 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (organization of the activities of an extremist organization) and Part 4 of Article 150 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (involvement of a minor in a criminal group). Earlier, on February 18, 2020, a criminal case had already been initiated against him under Part 1.1 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (involvement in the activities of an extremist organization). In addition, the criminal case initiated against him under Part 2 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (participation in the activities of an extremist organization) has already passed the stage of court hearings, a verdict has been passed on it, but the appellate court overturned the verdict, returning the case for a new trial to the Karpinsky City Court. Thus, 4 criminal cases for faith were initiated against Pryanikov at once, all of them are in the active phase.

In addition, investigator Spirin opened a new criminal case under Part 1.1 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code against Anastasia Pryanikova, the wife of Alexander Pryanikov. She is charged with involving residents of the Sverdlovsk region in the activities of an extremist organization, as well as a certain citizen "Osokina", whose true identity data was kept secret by the investigation. This is the second criminal case brought against Anastasia for her faith. The first case, under Part 2 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, was initiated against her three months earlier. It was initiated by the same investigator Spirin.

Finally, investigator Spirin initiates a criminal case against Svetlana Zalyaeva and her husband Ruslan (who does not profess the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses) under Part 4 of Article 150 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (involvement of a minor in a criminal group). The Zalyayevs, who live in the city of Karpinsk, have two children, aged 12 and 16, whom they raise in accordance with evangelical values, which serves as the basis for initiating a criminal case under Article 150. In addition, 2 more criminal cases were initiated against the Zalyayevs - under part 1.1 and part 2 of article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (involvement and participation in the activities of an extremist organization). All three cases are being investigated separately.

(Earlier, investigator Spirin also initiated 2 criminal cases against Venera and Daria Dulov, a mother and daughter living in the city of Karpinsk. The criminal case under Part 2 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is at the stage of court hearings, and the case under Part 1.1 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is at the stage of investigation.)

Since the 12-month period of the investigation expires on February 18, 2021, and the investigating authority needs good reasons to extend it, investigator Spirin goes to court with a petition to limit the term for the accused Pryanikov and his lawyer Svintsov to familiarize themselves with the materials of the criminal case (which in itself limits the possibilities of the defense).

Judge Svetlana Gabbasova rejects investigator Spirin and prosecutor Salavat Zaydullin's request to limit the time limit for familiarization with the case materials.

Investigator Spirin and Deputy Head of the Investigation Department Anna Ovchinnikova summon the accused to the Investigation Department, ostensibly to explain to them their rights, but in fact they are asked under a video camera whether they will sign a protocol on the completion of familiarization with the case materials. On the same day, the case materials are sent for approval to the Karpinsky prosecutor's office.

It becomes known that the prosecutor's office returned the case back to the investigation stage. Believers are again invited to familiarize themselves with the materials of the case.

Judge of the Karpinsky City Court Bazueva V.V. (chairman of the court) is considering the petition of investigator Spirin to set a deadline for the court to familiarize himself with the materials of the criminal case to the accused Pryanikov and his defender, lawyer Svintsov until April 12, 2021. The court grants the petition, but partially: the deadline for familiarization is limited on April 13, 2021.

All believers sign a protocol on familiarization with the materials of the criminal case. The case shall be sent to the prosecutor for signature.

The indictment was approved by the prosecutor A. Arzhakhovsky.

The criminal case is submitted to the Karpinsky City Court and transferred to the proceedings of Judge Vera Dranitsyna.

The questioning of prosecution witnesses begins. Many of them are not, as they have already been interrogated twice in court on the same circumstances. To ensure their appearance, the court attracts bailiffs.

The hearing is being held behind closed doors. Secret witnesses "Ivanov", "Petrov", "Elizarova" and "Vorobyov" are interrogated.

Judge Vera Dranitsyna rejects the defense's motions to interrogate the witnesses in the usual manner, despite the fact that in their testimony they note that there were no threats to their lives, property, health and loved ones.

Ivanov is the first to perform. He says that the defendants did not call him to violence, genocide, crimes against the state, the breakdown of family relations, propaganda of the superiority of Jehovah's Witnesses over other religions.

Witness "Petrov" is confused in concepts and considers all believers who profess the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses to be an organization, or a legal entity.

During the interrogation, "Elizarova" expresses her personal dislike for Jehovah's Witnesses and admits that after she learned that Zalyayeva had become a Jehovah's Witness, she stopped communicating with her and her husband.

The next to be questioned is the witness "Vorobyov", a graduate of the Missionary Institute in Yekaterinburg. When answering questions, he expresses his negative attitude towards Jehovah's Witnesses, calling them "sectarians."

A witness under the pseudonym "Markin" is being interrogated. The court rejects the defense's request to declassify the witness, despite the fact that the defendant Pryanikov calls his exact name.

The Witness says that he attended services voluntarily, but stopped doing so almost immediately after the liquidation of the legal entities of Jehovah's Witnesses. He admits that in order to become Jehovah's Witness, "you don't have to sign any documents."

"Markin" confirms that at divine services believers read and study the Bible, learn to show love, sympathy and kindness to others. He also says that he has not heard from the defendants calls for the overthrow of the government or the constitutional order, and that it is not typical for Jehovah's Witnesses to be violent, cause serious harm to health or property.

The secret witnesses "Semenov" and "Osokina" are being interrogated. The judge rejects the lawyer's request to declassify them.

"Semyonov" tells how some man and woman came to him, talked about God, while adding that the believers behaved culturally, did not insult, did not threaten, did not express religious or social superiority. When asked by the lawyer whether he had previously testified in the present case under the pseudonym "Ivanov", the witness replied that he did not know him, despite the fact that their testimony completely coincided.

"Osokina" in her testimony claims that she knows the Pryanikovs and attended services in 2012. When asked what was discussed at the services, the witness replies that she does not remember exactly, but the main topic was about God. She also confirms that she has not heard anything related to the overthrow of power, genocide and violence. On the contrary, they talked about respect and love for others.

Interrogation and reading of the testimony of another witness. She recalls that during the first interrogation, the investigator threatened her that her children "would be sent to an orphanage, and their mother would be imprisoned."

Svintsov's lawyer asks the judge to pronounce the name "Jehovah" correctly, since the mispronunciation of God's name hurts the feelings of the defendants as believers. The defendant Pryanikov explains to the court how to pronounce the name of God correctly. The judge tries to read out the name of God, putting the emphasis in the right way.

The prosecutor filed a motion for the disclosure of the testimony of the witness, to whom the believer Venera Dulova allegedly came. The judge grants the request.

The witness states that his testimony given to the investigator was "clearly embellished". He says that he has never been shown or offered any religious literature mentioning Jehovah's Witnesses, has never been invited to religious meetings, and believers have never even introduced themselves in conversation as representatives of the Jehovah's Witnesses denomination.

The materials of the case and the conclusion of the expert Alexei Starostin are being examined, although he himself is not interrogated.

The prosecutor announces that he will use the results of the examinations as evidence for the prosecution.

Expert Alexei Starostin, Ph.D., who was an expert in 10 criminal cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, is being questioned at the hearing. He is asked about the name of God Jehovah, Bible translations, and various terms from spiritual literature. The expert notes that the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation did not ban the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses.

An expert, psychologist Mark Itskovich, is being interrogated. He believes that the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses was promoted to the Zalyayevs' minor child, as he was offered to paint drawings depicting the creation of the world by God. According to the expert, "any fine art is education, and any education is the promotion of values and cultures."

The lawyer states that the expert's testimony in court differs significantly from the testimony given to the investigator and questions the impartiality of the expert. The court, at the request of the defense, examines the website of the Orthodox organization, which contains information about Itskovich.

The defendant Alexander Pryanikov turns to the expert: "You say that it does not matter to you what terms to use in the text of the examination and what meaning to put into them ... Do you realize that by using different terms ['confession', 'doctrine', 'organization'], without giving it meaning, you can ruin someone's life?"

A woman who is familiar with Venera Dulova at work is being interrogated. She claims that Venus did not come to her house, did not offer anything, and they did not talk about biblical topics. The witness does not corroborate his affidavit. She states that some of the statements were attributed by the investigator and that "I did not read the protocol, I signed and that's it."

The defense objected to the disclosure of the written testimonies of the witnesses who did not appear, since they were taken from the materials of another case in which the court had already made a decision. In addition, their interrogations took place in 2018, and a criminal case was initiated in 2020. The court does not accept the arguments of the defense.

One of the defenders expresses a remark on the actions of the presiding judge: in his opinion, he does not ensure the adversarial nature of the parties.

The written materials of the case submitted by the defense during the investigative actions shall be announced. The letters of the Zalyaev family are studied.

Material evidence that was also used in the first criminal case is considered, in particular, a documentary film about nature and a cartoon "How to Become a Friend of God" are watched.

The testimony of a witness who did not appear at the hearing due to a prolonged illness is also read out.

Defense witnesses are being interrogated - the son and husband of Venera Dulova, who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as a psychologist who made an expert opinion on the Zalyayev family and Alexander Pryanikov.

Venera Dulova's son, Alexei, says that he was never pressured to choose his religion or beliefs. The different religious views of the family members did not prevent them from maintaining warm relations. Alexei also says that for Jehovah's Witnesses, the Bible is the authority in all spheres of life, and it was thanks to the biblical principles that his mother instilled in him in childhood that he grew up to be a calm, non-confrontational person.

Venera Dulova's husband, Igor, informs the court that he professes Orthodoxy, and is proud that in his family there is an Orthodox priest who was shot in 1933 by the Soviet authorities. According to the witness, different beliefs in his family have never prevented him from loving and respecting his wife, to whom he always turns for advice, as he considers her wise.

The prosecutor asks how Igor reacted to the fact that his wife began to study the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses, Dulov replies that he saw how "the wife stopped being nervous because of some troubles, and the family became calmer."

When asked by the defendant Anastasia Pryanikova, Igor Dulov replies that they never tried to "draw" him into the activities of a religious organization and did not read him sermons. On the contrary, it was "easy and simple" to communicate with the Pryanikov family, since they "breathe kindness".

The court proceeds to the interrogation of psychologist Alexander Lozhkin. The expert came to the following conclusions: neither open nor hidden forms of psychological pressure of the Zalyaevs on their children were revealed; parents do not have antisocial or criminal tendencies; there are no deviations in the style of upbringing, children behave freely and correspond to their age in intelligence; the upbringing of parents did not harm the psychological state of the children, but an increased level of anxiety was revealed in connection with the persecution of the family by law enforcement agencies; the method of authoritative suppression of the will of children on the part of Pryanikov has not been revealed, and the emotional and volitional qualities of Pryanikov are expressed in a benevolent attitude; The reaction of children to society, if not ideal, is close to ideal.

The judge satisfies the petition for inclusion in the case file of the study of a specialist.

Instead of interrogating the secret witness "Mironova", her written testimony is read out. The prosecution provides a certificate stating that this witness cannot speak in court due to illness.

Anastasia Pryanikova, Venera and Daria Dulov testify to the court. Svetlana and Ruslan Zalyaev ask to summon their daughter for questioning at the next hearing. The court grants the request.

In her testimony, the daughter of the Zalyayevs says that their family has a warm friendly atmosphere, they love to spend time together, go fishing, play and communicate. She explains that her parents are not against getting an education, they respect the state authorities.

When asked if her parents forced her to adhere to certain religious views, Nina answers in the negative and explains: "This is my own business. It's not the nature of parents to force." She adds: "I don't understand how they could involve [me in illegal activities]. They themselves have never been involved in it.

Daria Dulova submits a petition for a copy of Venera Dulova's disability certificate. Her hearing aid is broken, she can hardly hear anything and cannot participate in the meeting. The court, deliberating on the spot, decides to postpone the hearing.

The prosecutor filed a petition for the recognition of the children of the Zalyayev spouses as victims. The court satisfies him. The children will be summoned to court.

Venera Dulova still does not have a suitable hearing aid, so she still cannot fully participate in the process. The believer explains to the court that she is undergoing a medical examination by a number of doctors in order to obtain the necessary device. Relevant documents are attached.

The judge asks Venus to sit next to her desk so that the woman can hear better, and resumes the hearing. The defendants file motions to attach their characteristics to the case file.

The court appoints a representative from the guardianship authorities to the son of the Zalyaevs. The representative asks for time to review the case file. The daughter of the Zalyayevs asks for the same. The court gives them 1 month to do so and postpones the hearing until August 9.

The judge decides to return the criminal case to the prosecutor in connection with violations in the indictment. The prosecutor's office intends to appeal this decision.

The Sverdlovsk Regional Court issues a ruling according to which the indictment in the case against believers from Karpinsk must be eliminated. Judge Natalya Aubakirova rejects the prosecutor's appeal against the decision of the court of first instance.

The prosecutor submits an appeal decision to the Seventh Court of Cassation in Chelyabinsk.

The Seventh Court of Cassation refuses to consider the prosecutor's submission. The court agrees with the previous instances that the indictment does not contain essential elements of a crime sufficient to pass a sentence or other decision. The cassation considers the prosecutor's arguments untenable.

The decisions of the first and second instances to return the case to the prosecutor remain in force.