Analytical review of the trial of Dzmitry Miadzvedz: the last day

The trial of entrepreneur Dzmitry Miadzvedz continues in the Maskouski District Court of Minsk, with participation of Judge Alena Rudnitskaya, lawyer Siarhei Lepesh and representative of the state accusation Mr. Mazovka.
 
Miadzvedz is accused of armed resistance and violent actions against several police officers. He allegedly tried to break through the police cordon and kicked them with his feet, used iron bars and bottles.

10.10 a.m. The six police victims sit in the front row. The trial began.

10.15. The court decides the question of recognizing the policemen as victims. After they are declared victims, prosecutor Mazouka takes floor. Judge Rudnitskaya questions Dzmitry Miadzvedz.

10.25. Miadzvedz’s testimony:

At 10 p.m. I met with an acquaintance at the railway station, on business. My son played with his friends in the Serabranka suburb. I planned to meet with him near the stop in the Nezalezhnastsi Square and go home.

We met. I saw many people on the square. My son wanted to see what was going on and find his friends in the crowd. I insisted on going home, but then agreed to come towards the monument to Lenin and take his friends with us.
 
I noticed that the glass on the entrance doors was broken, but there were no people near it. Then there appeared policemen with baffles and a fight started. A guy fell down, I tried to help him stand up. At this time the crowd went straight for me.

I felt blows. I covered myself with hands, but still got some in the head. I couldn’t get out of there, as there were too many people. I fell.

1030. The prosecutor asks: ‘How did you defend yourself?’

Miadzvedz explains: ‘I covered myself with my hands, I was hit with truncheons from all sides. Someone helped me to get out. I met my son and tried to get away. However, all ways were blocked. My son and I returned to the monument to Lenin, where we were detained and put into a paddy wagon.

Prosecutor: Did you take active steps?

Miadzvedz: No, I just covered myself with hands from the blows.

Prosecutor: What were other people doing?

Miadzvedz: I didn’t see as I tried to protect myself from the blows. Not seen since closed by strikes.

Prosecutor: Did you resist during the arrest?

Miadzvedz: We quietly went into the paddy wagon.

The defendant’s lawyer starts asking questions to him.

10.36. Interrogation of the victims starts. The first of them, Aliaksei Sakach, born in 1983, a riot policeman. He sais he is not acquainted with the defendant. ‘We lined up in front of the Government House at 10.30 p.m. We heard the rebels breaking the glass of the entrance doors. After a while the people rushed at us, hitting on the baffles. We saw a crowd of aggressive men (they shouted). We cut them off from the porch of the Government House, the crowd was in front of us.’, says the policeman.

He adds that he didn’t see anything – the helmet went misted, blows rained down on him, but he cannot say with what and how he was hit. He didn’t remember any of those who delivered the blows.

The questioning of the next victim, Andrei Palavinkin, born in 1983, begins. He says that on 19 December he worked on the Square, dressed in civvies. Being asked what was happening on the square, he said that “People were shouting slogans”, but cannot remember any of them. He says that he stood there with a walkie-talkie. While in the crowd, he was struck from behind. He turned around and saw a man running away.

11.00. Victim Palavinkin is questioned by the lawyer.

11.05 The next victim is riot policeman Dzmitry Liavitski.

Victim Liavitski doesn’t see any contradictions between his current and past testimony. In his oral testimony he said that he had received the same injuries occasionally – somebody had allegedly fallen and got under his baffle. All happened by an accident. The people tried to leave the “corridor”. It was the moment when people were put into paddy wagons.
 
11.25. The next victim, Siarhei Masalski, says that he dissected the crowd into two parts. He saw that the chain of the riot police was broken and liquid was spilled over some policemen from fire extinguishers. Then demonstrators started tearing truncheons out from the policemen and hitting them. “I was hit in the temple”, he says. He also says that his testimony during the investigation is more accurate and he really saw some fire.
 
11.35. Another police officer, Vital Polipeika, is questioned. He argues that two people hindered his movement, someone pulled him out of the police chain, but his friends brought him back into the line. He saw that a man on the right was holding a spade stem in his hands. People were hitting in the shield and on the legs, and then someone poured him from a fire extinguisher. He also confirms that reinforcement rods were thrown at the police by someone in the crowd.

11.40. The last victim, Yahor Karavai, is questioned. He heard how slogans and insults against police were cried out. ‘I was hit in the head one time and wasn’t beaten after it,’ he says. ‘I went to doctors, as I had a hematoma’.

11.50. All victims (riot policemen Aliaksei Sakach, Andrei Palavinkin, Dzmitry Liavitski, Siarhei Masalski, Vital Pilipeika and Yahor Karavai) were questioned and left the court hall. Three new victims are invited.

11-58. Aliaksei Kashtalan, Deputy Chair of the special mission police regiment, is questioned. He tells that the people were aggressive and smashed the glass at the entrance doors of the Government House. He saw how policemen were poured from fire extinguishes and hit with spade stems and fishing rods. Being asked by the lawyer whether he had seen the defendant there, he said that he hadn’t.

12.05. Ruslan Volkau is questioned. He explains that he heard the crash when the glass was smashed. He got a hit in the leg, but didn’t remember anyone.

12.10. Another victim is Yury Dzemidovich. He saw the crowd with flags and heard the beating of the glass. ‘Sticks and a litter bin were thrown at us. We were kicked in the legs. I had a feeling that the people want to make a slaughter. Somebody smashed my lips by tearing away the face guard from the helmet. I didn’t see any incendiary devices. We were dazzled with flash-light.’

12.25. The questioning of the civil plaintiff Dzmitry Lepesh, representative of the Presidential Administration, begins. He reports that the damage caused to the property has been fully repaid and refuses from the claim. The judge announces a break and goes into her room.

1.10 p.m. The break is over. Another victim, lieutenant colonel Ihar Bazhok, is questioned. He confirms that he got hit from behind. He didn’t see any things in people’s hands. As this testimony contradicts the previous one, the judge reads the protocol of his testimony during the preliminary interrogation, where he stated that demonstrators swore, threw bottles and fought with sticks. He didn’t see Miadzvedz on the square.

1.26. A break is announced till 2 p.m.

2.10. After the break, the trial resumed. Five more victims are questioned. The first of them is Dzianis Bulavatski. He says that demonstrators threw plastic bottles and sticks at them. All of them were aggressive. ‘We started pushing the crowd away, encircled them and started loading them into vehicles. I was hit with a fist and asked for help. I didn’t see who hit me. I didn’t see Miadzvedz’.
 
2.20. Another victim, Dzmitry Skarahod, bears testimony. He says that the crowd wanted to break through the cordon and kicked them. Somebody forcedly removed the helmet from his head and hit him in the head several times. The crowd threw snowballs and litter. He didn’t see Miadzvedz either.
 
The next victim is Aliaksandr Kudravets. He asked to read out his previous testimony because he didn’t remember anything. The prosecutor asked him to recall. Kudravets said that he had been hit with a metal bar and he received a hematoma. He didn’t see the defendant.

2.30. The next victim, Yury Ziankevich, explains that sticks and ice were thrown at them. ‘I was attacked with a metal bar and a spade stem, and then was poured from a fire extinguisher. I went blind and applied to an ambulance. I didn’t see the accused Miadzvedz.’

The next victim, Komar, didn’t saw Miadzvedz either. But another one, Aleh Dudarchyk, says that the defendant was an active participant of the rally. During the detention, he shouted anti-state slogans. He didn’t see that Miadzvedz resisted to the police, but remembers how he was dressed.

The defendant asks him about it and states that, contrary to Dudarchyk’s statement, he wasn’t dressed in a black sweater, and didn’t wear a beard either. He says that he was wearing a cap with an ornament, and a light brown coat.

2.50. Victim Aliaksandr Hrysenka is questioned. He explains that the defendant shouted the slogan “Long Live Belarus!’ against the police.

3.10. The court starts studying the written materials of the case. The judge enumerates the items which were found on the square, and the traumas that were received by policemen.

The prosecutor asks the defendant: “You took some photos with your mobile phone during the rally. In what circumstances did you do it?”

The characteristics of Miadzvedz and the list of the social objects constructed by his company are attached to the case.
 
3.33. The viewing of the video shots made during the rally begins. Miadzven can be seen covering his hands from policemen’s blows. He answers to the prosecutor that it was impossible to leave the square, because the people were standing to close to one another.

3.50. State accuser Mazouka takes floor. He states that the guilt of the defendant is completely proved by testimonies of the victims and asks to sentence him to 4 years in prison.

4.01. Lawyer Siarhei Lepesh states that no evidence of Miadzvedz’s guilt was drawn at the trial. He argues that there were no arms, as spade stems and spades aren’t arms. “There was no mass riot”, he says.  He also draws many discrepancies in the case materials in the preamble of the accusation.
  
4.22. Dzmitry Miadzvedz makes his last plea. “When I got in this situation, I had no aggression. I tried to defend myself from the blows. I got two blows. It can be seen on the video that I didn’t deliver any blows.

In fact, I am a peaceful man. I have great plans for the development of my business, the use of new technologies for building social houses. All this is terrible.”

4.30. The judge went into her room to prepare the verdict.

7.50 p.m. Dzmitry Miadzvedz was sentenced to 3 years of personal restraint without direction to an open penitentiary institution.

Conclusions: Analyzing the trial of Miadzvedz we should point that the trial of Miadzvedz and the trial of Breus and Gaponov different from the previous trials, (of Parfiankou, Novik, Malchanau and Atroshchankau), as this time the procuracy presented new charges to defendants, trying to refine the notion of the mass riot. In addition, new victims were introduced in the case on motion of the state accuser Mazouka. As a result, 15 injured policemen of the special mission police regiment of the Main Police Department of the Minsk City Executive Committee were interrogated as victims during the court proceedings. According to the results of forensic expertise which were attached to the case, they had received inconsiderable injuries. It should be noted that that the victims appeared in the case as a result of questionings and forensic expertise only on 18 February 2011, almost two months after the events of 19 December 2010, after the case materials had been passed to court. It should be viewed as reinforcement of the accusation by the procuracy and an attempt to present it as organization of the mass riot in Minsk on 19 December 2010.

The confession of people as victims by court gives them the opportunity to lodge claims for compensation of the health damage and moral damage by the people who were found guilty of participation in the mass riot. Thus, the authorities can use such mechanism of material punishment towards participants of the action of 19 December 2010.

Analyzing the court proceedings, we must make the following conclusions:

1. It wasn’t proved that a mass riot took place on 19 December 2010 in Minsk. Thus, the state accuser didn’t manage to prove that participants of the actions used personal violence, pogroms, arsons, demolished property and showed armed resistance. The items that had been allegedly found on the square aren’t considered as arms by the Law of the Republic of Belarus On Arms. There were no arsons and demolition of property, because according to the results of the expertise of the damage inflicted to the Government House (presented to court by the Main Economic Council of the Presidential Administration) the damage didn’t result in demolition of property, because the entrance doors needed to be repaired, not replaced.

2. A very important reason to punish a person for participation in mass rioting is the personal involvement in the actions which are qualified as mass riot. As confirmed by victims and witnesses during the trial, it wasn’t Mr. Miadzvedz who inflicted damage to the health of the victims. None of the witnesses managed to provide a detailed account of Miadzvedz’s actions on the square. As it can be seen from the video materials viewed at the trial, Mr. Miadzvedz really stood in front of the police cordon, but his actions were absolutely non-violent – he just covered his hand from the truncheon blows delivered by the police. That’s why, there wasn’t presented any evidence that Miadzvedz committed a crime.

3. There is no doubt that the only legal decision of the court with such evidence could be acquittal of Mr. Miadzvedz.

The court, using Article70 of the Criminal Code, which gives the right to use a punishment even milder than the lowest sanction provided by the accusative article, found Miadzvedz guilty of participation in the mass riot and sentenced him to three years of personal restraint without direction to an open penitentiary institution. Thus, Miadzvedz was released from guard at the court hall. This witnesses the political motivation of the verdict, because at earlier trials on the criminal case defendants were sentenced to imprisonment, though there was no evidence of their guilt either. It can be connected to the fact that the criminal case of two citizens of the Russian Federation, Breus and Gaponov, who were also charged with participation in the mass riot, was considered at the Maskouski District Court at this very time. Due to the pressure from the side of the Russian Federation, the judge issued a maximally mild verdict. In such circumstances, it was impossible to punish Mr. Miadzvedz with imprisonment.