Judge Charkas pronounces Atroshchankau, Mauchanau and Novik’s sentence

18:30. The court has sentenced Alyaksandr Atroshchankau to 4 years of imprisonment in a high security colony, Zmitser Novik – to three and a half years and Alyaksandr Mauchanau – to three years of imprisonment. See here for a more detailed sentence pronounced by Minsk Frunze District Court.

18:07. The court has admitted the fact of agreement between Atroshchankau, Mauchanau and Novik.

15:45. Two-hour break until 5.45 p.m.

15:38. Atroshchankau’s final plea – he says that he does not understand why he is accused of participation in mass disorders. On the whole, it has not even been explained for what action he is standing trial.
 

15:35. Novik’s final plea. He says he did not commit waste but repented and understood his guilt while he was in the detention centre.

 

15:33. Mauchanau’s final plea. He regrets about participation in the action and about his actions.



15:30. The lawyer is asking to acquit Alyaksandr Atroshchankau.

 

15:27. Alyaksandr Atroshchankau’s lawyer continues: his client did not commit waste and did not approach the door of the House of the Government. At least, there was no evidence presented during the hearing. Police operators did not see him breaking the door of the House of the Government either. On the whole, the lawyer claims that it is difficult to understand what made the investigators start a case against Atroshchankau. He has added that the investigation was conducted with administrative violations: he has not managed to talk to his client privately.

 

15:24. Atroshchankau’s lawyer draws the court’s attention to the lack of coincidence between the notion of mass disorders in the Criminal Code and the events that took place in Independence Square on December 19. He says that no evidence of Atroshchankau’s guilt has been presented. The video can only prove the fact that he was in the crowd and the defendant does not refute it.

15:20. Alyaksandr Atroshchankau’s lawyer is making a speech.

 

15:19. Zmitser Novik’s lawyer is asking to acquit him according to the article on mass disorders.

 

15:17. Zmitser Novik’s lawyer says that she did not see any proof of a preliminary agreement. She is asking to take the extenuating circumstances into account: repentance and shame for the committed actions, army service with gratuities and the fact that he was brought up by a single parent.

 

15:14. Novik’s lawyer continues. The Criminal Code has notions for “committing waste” and “destruction”. The second notion is applied to cases when property cannot be repaired. However, according to the act of “December 19 case”, the property has been repaired. Furthermore, when driving inspectors say that people should not walk in the traffic way it is disobedience rather than resistance.
 

15:11. The lawyer continues: People were walking from October Square towards Independence Square in an organized way, there was no crowd. Breaking the door is not mass disorders. The tables the defendants are said to have been hitting are not mentioned in the report on waste…

 

15:08. Novik’s lawyer has stressed that the defendants were not going to commit waste – they just wanted to enter the building. According to the demonstrated video, only 5 people were breaking panes in the House of the Government. However, mass disorders are actions of an uncontrollable crowd involving arson, violence and resistance to the police.

 

15:04. Novik’s lawyer claims that the action in the square cannot be called mass disorders because it was local. It can be proved by the evidence of employees of Minsk City Department of the Interior who made the video. The policemen also confirmed that the action was peaceful and that only 17 people were trying to break the door of the House of the Government while the rest – more than 10 thousands – did not take part in any mass disorders and did not commit waste.

 

15:01. Alyaksandr Mauchanau’s lawyer has asked to remove the aggravating circumstance – intoxication and previous agreement, and highlighted the extenuating circumstances – positive testimonials and the fact that he provided for his two disabled parents.

 

14:50. The prosecutor demands to sentence Atsroshchankau, Novik and Mauchanau to 5 years in a high security colony. He says that acting according to an agreement is the aggravating circumstance. He has asked to take the degree of danger the defendants represent to the society.

14:45. The prosecutor says that despite the fact that Atroshchankau has not pled guilty his guilt has been proved by witnesses’ evidence, videos and decoding of phone calls. He says that Atroshchankau could be clearly seen in the crowd that was about to rush into the House of the Government and that he was smiling.

 

14:42. Legal controversies have begun, the prosecutor is speaking.

 

14:40. Witness Slyapuhin has not appeared in court. Nobody opposes to finishing without him. Atsroshchankau made and a mistake and said that he was not against “continuing in his absence” and the judge corrected him by saying “finishing, not continuing”. The air in the court room was cleared a bit, Atsroshchankau corrected his mistake and the judge even smiled.

 

14:38.  Copies of pension IDs belonging to Mauchanau’s parents – Halina and Yury – and certificates of their incapacity for work have been attached to the case.

 

14:36. The lawyer is reading Atroshchankau’s testimonial from the information agency DELFI. According to it, Atroshchankau assisted a DELFI reporter in his work in Independence Square.


14:31. The lawyer has asked to attach Atroshchankau’s testimonial from EHU and his marriage certificate to the case papers. The testimonial says that he studied international law. He was a good student, an appeasable and friendly person and had no remarks. Atroshchankau’s academic average was 7.3.

14:00. The hearing has been resumed. The present are watching the videos made by a camera installed near the KGB’s building. They cannot recognize Mauchanau there. The judge has asked Mauchanau whether it is him in the video. The situation is strange as Mauchanau has already admitted that he had removed state flags from the KGB’s building.

13:05. The court has announced rest until 2 p.m.

 

12.54 There is Malchanau’s confession of his guilt in the records. He admits that he removed flags from the KGB’s building and knocked on the door of the House of the Government under the influence of the crowd. He regrets it.


12:38. The prosecuting official is reading the list of documents aloud but is not quoting them. There are reports about searches and item examination, their confiscation, phone tapping and conclusions of the investigation, - informs Radio Liberty.

12.10. Reports about the examination of Independence Square and the entrance to the House of the Government are being considered. “Bonaqua” bottles thought to be filled with combistibel liquid, gasoline cans and metal rods were found. A backpack with salt and soda, a bottle with some liquid and a smoke pellet were also found there. There are a lot of records that bottles “with liquid resembling combustible liquid” were found there. However, it has not been revealed what liquid it was. Some brown substance, a bottle with some liquid and fragments of tissue and gasoline cans were found on the pedestal near the monument to Lenin.

11:55 The court has finished watching the video materials from the action in Independence Square and has started considering the records. 11:30. The last interrogated witness was Mikita Kastytski, a fireman from Minsk. He said that he knew Zmitser Novik and confirmed that Novik had used the SIM-card registered under his name. Kastytski says that Novik asked him to tell the police that he was just passing by the meeting if they asked him about the phone. 11:20.The next witness in Tatstsyana Haurylchyk, video reporter of “Nasha Niva”. She took a video of the moment when flags were removed from the KGB’s building. The prosecuting official asked: “What did he do with the flags?” Tatstsyana responded: “He threw it aside, the staff was not broken.” She replied that she could not describe the person who attached a white-red-white flag to the building. She could not recall what he had been wearing. She could not recall whether it was one and the same person to have removed the state flag and to have hoisted the national one or not. She said that the guy had tried to cut the official flag to pieces and that she did not remember whether he had trampled it down, - reports Radio Liberty.

11:05. Vital Lyauchuk from Barysau has been interrogated. He was the driver of the car Malchanau used to reach Minsk. According to him, the suspect drank a little beer while they were driving from Barysau. However, he did not notice any signs of intoxication.
 

10:55 The next witness, Uladzimir Krasau – driver of the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates – is being interrogated. The witness says that Novik (one of the accused) did not tell him that he wanted to enter the building of the House of the Government. Novik did not explain why had been hitting the fence. Krasau knew that a peaceful action had been planned in Independence Square and when he came there he saw that “it was an absolutely peaceful action, there was nothing nonpeaceful”. Novik has commented that the witness “gave him up” to KGB members because they found him first in Independence Square. The relations between Novik and the witness were spoilt on December 19, - informs Radio Liberty.
 
10.38 The next witness is Syarhei Mayorau (born in 1977), a truck driver from Minsk. The witness has informed the court that he was working in Independence Square on December 19. The traffic was blocked by the crowd when he was driving along the avenue. A guy climbed up the truck and started brandishing a flag – the witness did not pay attention what flag it was. “I demanded that he should climb down. But he did not respond, it was very noisy there, people were shouting. Mayorau: “I left when the traffic was unblocked”.

10:35. The court has noticed a discrepancy in his current and previous evidence. Ulenski used to claim that Malchanau told him he had removed flags from the KGB’s building and had been brandishing a white-red-white flag taken away from a tractor in Independence Square. The witness has confirmed his evidence but added that he thought the conversation was an attempt to boast, - informs Radio Liberty. 10:30. Witness Ulenski: "I do not remember exactly what Malchanau told me. He did not mention any flags on the KGB’s building. He did not tell me that he had removed the flags, I am sure of it”. A representative of the prosecution is interrogating him. The judge keeps adding rare comments: “Did you see the video with Malchanau on the Internet?” Ulenski replies: “A person resembling him was breaking panes and knocking on the door. He confirmed that it was him later. I did not ask about his motives”.

10:05. The hearing continues, witnesses are being interrogated. Syarhei Ulenski – an unemployed from Vitsebsk – accompanied Malchanau to Minsk on December 19. He confirmed that they drank a 2-litre bottle of beer on their way there, reports “Radio Liberty”.

 
10:00. IDs were checked near the entrance to the court room and personal information was noted down. State journalists have been allowed to enter the court room in the first place. Only some independent journalists have been allowed to cover the hearing, reports “Nasha Niva”. Half of the audience, about 15 people, are strangers refusing to introduce themselves. Few human rights activists and journalists have entered the court room.

It was impossible to watch the last video material during the hearing of the case of Andrei Sannikau’s press secretary Alyaksandr Atroshchankau and two other participants of the Square – Zmitser Novik and Alyaksandr Mauchanau. The hearing was postponed until 10 a.m. today. Despite the materials and evidence presented in Frunze District Court yesterday, the state prosecution stands firm. It is said that all the three participants of “the mass disorders” acted “according to a preliminary agreement of a group of people”. Prosecuting official Tatstsyana Moladtsava announced that the prosecution would not change the version to BelTA yesterday. Meanwhile, the defendants refute the very fact of “an agreement” and even their acquaintance.