Thursday, December 15, the Moscow city court held the appeal hearing of a prominent journalist, social activist and blogger Anton Nosik on a sentence of Presnensky court of 3 October.
We will remind that Prosecutor’s office A. the Spout was charged under part 1 of article 282 («inciting hatred or hostility, and humiliation of human dignity») the criminal code of the Russian Federation in connection with the publication in the «Live journal» under the heading «Wipe Syria off the face of the earth» from 1 October 2015. The prosecution requested to sentence him to two years in prison.
On 3 October this year, a Moscow court declared Anton Nosik guilty and was sentenced to pay a monetary fine in the amount of 500 thousand rubles (about $7.900).
However, the Moscow city court after the verification of the legality of sentence, reduced the penalty to 300 thousand rubles.
Protection Spout is asked to overturn the conviction and make a new one to an acquittal.
«Now the sentence has entered into legal force, under house arrest is no longer valid. We’re going to fight,» wrote Anton Nosik on his page on Facebook after the announcement of the decision of the court.
Before the court A. the Spout has published in his blog the following text last words: «may it please the court, ladies and gentlemen, in a criminal case, which is now considered by Moscow city court, not less than five hundred pages. You might think that we are talking about some terrible crime. Although in reality, none of these 500 pages does not contain a plausible answer to a very simple question: what exactly am I charged with. What specific phrase in my short post of three paragraphs, published in the last 14 months, or in a four-minute dialogue with the leading «echo of Moscow», pulled on the criminal article of an extremist. What is the social danger of my statements, and based on what the belief of the Prosecutor that I am expressing my personal opinion about events in distant Syria, had a criminal intent. In my case is the conclusion of a psycho-linguistic examination, which, by order of the Investigative Committee of the Moscow research center of Department of regional security and combating corruption of the city of Moscow. Examination was started on 30 December 2015 and finished on March 4, 2016. Three independent experts of the Moscow research center concluded that in my words of support for military action videoconferencing in Syria, there is no extremism is not contained. All my researched statements, without exception, the three state experts came to the conclusion that the sign of excitation of hatred or enmity are provided. This conclusion appears in the first volume of my criminal case, expert opinion was voiced in the Presnensky district court during the trial, it is the Protocol of the second meeting. According to the 14th article of the code of criminal procedure and in the 49th article of the Constitution of the Russian Federation the experts of the Moscow research center contains the most fatal question of my guilt and that both the investigation and the court had to take into account. In March, after reviewing that opinion, my defense filed a motion to dismiss the criminal case. It was rejected by the investigator without a hint of explanation. But the verdict of October 3, Presnensky district court, does not contain even any mention of the fact that such a psycho-linguistic examination ever conducted. I respect the right of the Investigative Committee and the Presnensky district court to disagree with the conclusions of the experts whom they themselves and attracted. But 500 pages of my criminal case does not say a single line about this discrepancy. First the investigation, then the Prosecutor’s office and Presnensky court alternately pretended that expert opinion MITS just does not exist in my case. The 40-page document that contains the doubt of my guilt, disappeared first from the indictment, and then from the judgment of the Presnenskiy district court. I asked the Moscow city court to consider the expert opinion of MITS, and all other essential circumstances of my case, which Presnensky court, unfortunately, left unattended. If three experts MITS did not see in my words there is no extremism — how could take in my mind criminal intent? The case is proved by its presence? What was the danger to the public my personal opinion in support of videoconferencing in Syria? If anyone seriously believes that my post of 1 October 2015 is extremist, why for the past 437 days nor the Ministry of justice, the FSB, MVD, neither the court nor the prosecution has not tried to prescribe me it to delete or edit? The amazing thing is that the answer to a simple question, what my comments are extremist, I never got over 400 days trial. In the case this question independently from each other tried to answer the specialists of the FSB, interior Ministry, justice Ministry and the MITS, but the answers have not agreed in no one point. And from the obligation to judge conflicting expert Presnensky court in its judgment declined. I want to reiterate that I do not consider myself guilty and I do not see two volumes of his criminal case the slightest evidence of my guilt. I am confident that with an impartial and objective examination of the case it can only end in acquittal, due to the fact that in my actions not constitute and event of crime. No public danger my personal opinion about the Syrian events can not imagine — as any other opinion on this issue. I’m not a criminal and not an extremist and a law-abiding citizen of the Russian Federation. Conviction I Presnensky court, is a legal error, not only in the amount of the penalty, contrary to the provisions of the 282-th article of the applicable wording, but in substance. I hope that after so many months of trial, this error will finally be corrected. Especially given the recent decision of Plenum of the Supreme Court on the practice on the 282-th article. It says exactly about this disregard of the courts of first instance to significant circumstances of the case, which I saw on a private experience in the Presnensky court. Thank you for your attention».