District Court confirmed activist’s innocence

On November 15, 2013 Smolny district court of Saint Petersburg has ruled on the case of the organizer of a picket in memory of murdered antifascist Timur Kacharava, which was held back in 2012. The activist who had organized the picket, A.Yakimov, was charged with violation of Article 20 Section 2 of the Code on administrative violations, which refers to higher than provisioned number of participants of the public event. It was already almost a year ago, back on January 21, 2013, that the local Justice of Peace ruled to declare Yakimov “not guilty”  of violation (http://adcmemorial.org/www/6259.html#more-6259).

However, the local police officer has made an appeal against this ruling of the Justice of Peace to the Smolny district court, which then left this appeal without consideration in February 2013, thus confirming the earlier ruling of the Justice of Peace.

In spite of the fact that “not guilty” verdict had been put in effect, law enforcement officers continued judicial persecution of the organizer of the picket, this time through the procurator’s office. In May 2013, half a year after the picket had been held, deputy procurator of Saint Petersburg sent a protest to Saint Petersburg city court, requiring overruling of Smolny district court’s decision. This protest of the procurator’s office was approved and the case was sent for repeated consideration. Between August and October 2013 several court hearings were held on this case in Smolny district court and the case was again considered in its essence. As the participants of these hearings reported, police officers who had testified in court couldn’t remember what was the reason for their appeal and why they tried to pursue administrative persecution of Yakimov. But the police officers had referred to some unspecified  “great public repercussions” of the case as the reason for that.

Administrative prosecution continued for more than a year since the picket had been held and finally Smolny district court ruled again to close the case due to absence of violation on the part of the defendant.

Эта запись так же доступна на: Russian