Verdict in the “veteran defamation” case

No. 1-6-321/2021 Moscow

JUDGMENT

In the name of the Russian Federation 20 February 2021 Justice of the Peace of Court District No. 321 of the Yuzhnoye Medvedkovo District of Moscow, V.V. Akimova, with court assistant A.S. Gukasyan, with the participation of: state prosecutor E.S. Frolova, prosecutor of the department of state prosecutors of the criminal judicial directorate of the Moscow Prosecutor’s Office, defense counsel, attorneys V.D. Kobzev, who presented attorney ID No. 6925 and warrant No. 040330 dated 12 August 2020, and O.O. Mikhailova, who presented attorney ID No. 10104 and warrant No. 507 dated 17 August 2020, - the defendant A.A. Navalny, having considered in open court the materials of the criminal case against: Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny, born 4 June 1976, a native of the village of Butyn, Odintsovo District, Moscow Region, citizen of the Russian Federation, with higher education, married, with a minor child born in 2008 as a dependent, an individual entrepreneur, registered at the address: Moscow, residing at the address: Moscow, street previously convicted: on 30 December 2014 by the Zamoskvoretsky District Court of Moscow, taking into account the amendments introduced by the appellate ruling of the Judicial Panel for Criminal Cases of the Moscow City Court dated 17 February 2015, under Part 3 of Article 159.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 207-FZ of 29.11.2012), Part 2 of Article 159.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 420-FZ of 07.12.2011), Paragraph “a” of Part 2 of Article 174.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 420-FZ of 07.12.2011), and pursuant to Part 2 of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, by aggregation of crimes, to a final sentence of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, suspended pursuant to Article 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with a probation period of 5 years; by ruling of the Simonovsky District Court of Moscow dated 2 February 2021, the suspended sentence was revoked and it was ordered that the sentence of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment be served in reality, in a general-regime correctional colony,

242 - accused of committing the crime предусмотренного by Part 2 of Article 128.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

FOUND:

And A.A. Navalny committed libel, that is, the dissemination of knowingly false information damaging another person’s honor and dignity and undermining that person’s reputation, contained in a public statement, under the following circumstances: at the address: konstituciya, - Thus, on 2 June 2020 at 10:53 a.m., a video was posted on information resources in the Internet information and telecommunications network at the internet address russian.rt.com/Russia/news/751439-rossiiskie-artisty-preambula- konstituciya, in which I.S. Artemenko, a participant in the Great Patriotic War (the Soviet-German front of World War II, 1941-1945), expressed his civic position in support of amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

A.A. Navalny, being a user of the cross-platform messenger `Telegram` under the name “Navalny,” which allows the exchange of messages and media files of many formats via the Internet, and also being registered on the social network `Twitter` at https://twitter.com, created for public exchange of messages via a web interface, SMS, instant messaging tools, or third-party applications, under the name “Alexey Navalny” (“Alexei Navalny”), having the intent to publicly disseminate on the Internet knowingly false information damaging the honor and dignity of I.S. Artemenko and undermining his reputation, and knowingly aware of the falsity of the information he was disseminating, while in Moscow, using unidentified technical means providing access to the Internet, on 2 June 2020 at approximately 11:31 a.m. posted on his personal `Telegram` channel on the Internet, open to unrestricted public access by an indefinite circle of persons and having the Internet address https://t.me/navalny, the above-mentioned video in which I.S. Artemenko expresses his civic position in support of amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, previously posted on the Internet information and telecommunications network, and beneath it published the message: “Oh, there they are, the little darlings. You have to admit, so far the team of corrupt lackeys looks rather weak. Look at them: they are the shame of the country. People without conscience,” and also on the same day, no earlier than 10:53 a.m. and no later than 8:30 p.m., on his personal page on the social network `Twitter` on the Internet, open to unrestricted public access by an indefinite circle of persons and having the Internet address `twitter.com/navalny`, posted the same video under

มัก 11 251 with the video titled “Musk ‘showed up’ Rogozin, the Norilsk disaster, and lackeys from Instagram,” published on 4 June 2020 (Vol. 2, case file pp. 188-190).

By the record of inspection of items (documents) dated 2 July 2020, from which it follows that, during the investigative action, an optical disc was inspected containing a video of the `Russia Today TV` channel (“Rossiya Segodnya TV Channel”) (RT trademark), published and posted by that channel on 2 June 2020 at 10:53 a.m. at the address mssian.rt.com/Russia/news/751439-rossiiskie - artisty-preambula - konstituciya, received in response to an inquiry from ANO “TV-Novosti” (Vol. 2, case file pp. 199-201).

By the record of inspection of items (documents) dated 2 July 2020, from which it follows that, during the investigative action, an optical disc recorded in the course of inspecting the `RT Russian` news site of the `Russia Today TV` channel (“Rossiya Segodnya TV Channel”) (russian.rt.com/Russia/news/751439-rossiiskie-artisty-preambula-konstituciya) was inspected, containing a video published on 2 June 2020 at 10:53 a.m., in which the victim I.S. Artemenko appeared (Vol. 2, case file pp. 104-106).

By the record of inspection of items (documents) dated 3 July 2020, from which it follows that, during the investigative action, an optical disc recorded in the course of inspecting A.A. Navalny’s blog on the social network `Twitter` (`twitter.com/navalny`) was inspected, containing a video posted on 2 June 2020, under which A.A. Navalny published the message: “Oh, there they are, the little darlings. You have to admit, so far the team of corrupt lackeys looks rather weak. Look at them: they are the shame of the country. People without conscience. Traitors” (Vol. 2, case file pp. 185-187).

According to linguistic expert report No. 246/6-118л/20 dated 20 July 2020, its conclusions state that I.S. Artemenko is a participant in the Great Patriotic War who appeared in the video and read the preamble to the country’s Constitution in connection with the 1 July 2020 vote on amendments. This video was attached to the text in a post by a person using the nickname “Alexey Navalny” on a page on the social network `Twitter` on the Internet, and also by a person using the nickname “Navalny” on his `Telegram` channel.

The study showed that the negative semantic component expressed with respect to I.S. Artemenko is contained in the analyzed texts: “Oh, there they are, the little darlings. You have to admit, so far the team of corrupt lackeys looks rather weak. Look at them: they are the shame of the country. People without conscience. Traitors” (SKT1); “Oh, there they are, the little darlings. You have to admit, so far the team of corrupt lackeys looks rather weak. Look at them: they are the shame of the country. People without conscience” (SKT2).

The submitted material (SKT1 and SKT2) contains statements in which facts of reality and

the state of affairs relating to I.S. Artemenko, a participant in the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945), as well as statements containing a negative assessment of I.S. Artemenko, were verbally expressed by the person appearing in the video attached to the text under the name “Alexey Navalny” (“Alexei Navalny”) and “Navalny” (Vol. 1, case file pp. 140-150). In addition, during the trial, information concerning the personality of the victim I.S. Artemenko was examined. Thus, according to the personal file of Armed Forces officer Ignat Sergeyevich Artemenko, born 28 June 1926, concerning his military service, including according to the record dated 2 July 2002 of the inspection of the aforementioned personal file, and taking into account information from the ZIC of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, the Information Center of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Moscow Region, and the Federal State Institution “GIAC of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia,” there are no facts showing that I.S. Artemenko committed treason, espionage, desertion, or other crimes, including crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and state security, nor any compromising information; according to a medical certificate, the victim I.S. Artemenko is a Group I disabled person as a result of a war injury; according to information from ANO “TV-Novosti” dated 21 July 2020, it is stated that Great Patriotic War veteran I.S. Artemenko did indeed take part, without payment, in the filming of the video published on 2 June 2020 at 10:53 a.m. by the Russian international multilingual news television channel `RT`; no money was transferred to I.S. Artemenko or members of his family, nor were any material benefits provided by the channel; according to information from the Department of Social Protection of the Population of the Severnoye and Yuzhnoye Medvedkovo districts of the North-Eastern Administrative Okrug of Moscow dated 17 July 2020, the victim I.S. Artemenko was not provided with any social payments or individualized social support measures (Vol. 1, case file pp. 220-221, 223; Vol. 2, case file pp. 111-184; Vol. 3, case file pp. 123-125; Vol. 4, case file pp. 3-6). Material evidence was also examined during the trial. Thus, from the video materials viewed during the court hearing, it follows that: on the `RT Russian` news website of the `Russia Today TV` channel (“Rossiya Segodnya TV Channel”), a video was indeed published on 2 June 2020 at 10:53 a.m. in which, among others, Great Patriotic War participant I.S. Artemenko appeared, and it was he who read the words of the preamble to the Constitution of the Russian Federation; on 2 June 2020, A.A. Navalny, being a user of the social network `Twitter` under the name “Alexey Navalny” (@navalny), posted on his `Twitter` blog a video of the `Russia Today TV` channel in which Great Patriotic War participant I.S. Artemenko appeared, publishing libelous comments concerning I.S. Artemenko, -

/ 13 on the `YouTube` video-hosting platform, on the `NAVALNY LIVE` channel, a video titled “Musk ‘showed up’ Rogozin, the Norilsk disaster, Instagram lackeys” was posted; upon viewing it, it was established that at 2 hours 30 minutes 40 seconds A.A. Navalny states the following: “All of these people absolutely need to be crushed, all the people who appear in these videos. Russia Today is trying to stir up a little scandal. I really did call everyone taking part in this video a bunch of lackeys. Let’s show the Russia Today video,” and further on (after the demonstration of the Russia Today video supporting amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, featuring, among others, Great Patriotic War participant I.S. Artemenko), at 2 hours 32 minutes 10 seconds the defendant says the following: “...they’ll lay out this whole deck for us, there’ll be a few crooks, there’ll обязательно be a veteran, they’ll put in an honored doctor, an athlete, and so on. And when you call them lackeys—and I certainly consider lackeys, lackeys and traitors, all those who drag people into this deception... Everyone will say, my God, what? You insulted a veteran, a famous doctor saved 27 lives or 277,000 lives, and you called him a lackey. And, of course, these people need to be branded directly. Of course I called him a lackey; he is a lackey...” The video materials examined during the trial confirm the circumstances established at the hearing. At the request of the defense, the opinion of linguistics specialist A.N. Baranov was admitted into evidence at the hearing; he was also questioned in court. It follows from this specialist’s opinion that, when analyzing the videos with A.A. Navalny’s comments presented to him, it was established that the words spoken by A.A. Navalny contain negative information conveyed in the form of value judgments expressing the commentator’s opinion and his public stance, while not reporting any facts whatsoever and not being verifiable for correspondence to reality. Questioned in court, specialist A.N. Baranov fully confirmed the conclusions of his opinion and explained that it had been prepared for payment at the request of attorney O.O. Mikhailova. The specialist stated that the words used in the comments contain a negative assessment, but do not contain any assertions of fact that could be verified for accuracy. The arguments of specialist A.N. Baranov concerning the figurative meaning of the word “traitor,” which allegedly contains no assertion of fact, cannot be accepted by the court. Thus, all examples cited by the specialist of figurative use of the word “traitor” are entirely not N

comparable to the content of the videos with comments posted by A.A. Navalny. The court notes that the word “traitor” in the relevant comment appears together with the phrase “the shame of the country,” which corresponds to the direct meaning of the word “traitor” stated by the specialist, namely “betrayer of the Motherland,” which, along with the other statements, constitutes an assertion of fact concerning I.S. Artemenko. The evidence examined during the trial is recognized by the court as relevant, admissible, and, taken together, sufficient for consideration of the criminal case on the merits. In assessing the testimony of the victim I.S. Artemenko as read into the record, in which he reported the circumstances under which he became aware of A.A. Navalny’s comments concerning him and his participation in the patriotic video, as well as his distress over those comments, the court fully credits that testimony. At the same time, the court notes that the defense and A.A. Navalny himself did not in fact dispute the substance of the victim’s testimony during the trial. The defense’s arguments that the victim I.S. Artemenko did not seek protection of his rights and that all materials of the criminal case in this part were falsified for the purpose of unlawfully prosecuting A.A. Navalny are unfounded and are refuted by the totality of the above-cited evidence in the criminal case. There are no grounds whatsoever for the victim I.S. Artemenko to falsely accuse the defendant A.A. Navalny; they were not previously acquainted, and according to the victim’s clearly expressed will, as reflected both in his complaint, in the interview records during the preliminary investigation, and during the trial, he was insulted and defamed by A.A. Navalny’s comments, in which, among other things, he called him a “traitor.” The defense’s arguments that the victim I.S. Artemenko, due to his health condition, could not have filed a complaint or given the testimony contained in the case materials cannot be accepted by the court, since they were fully refuted during the trial. Based on the testimony of witness I.V. Kolesnikov, his grandfather I.S. Artemenko is legally competent, and witness S.V. Kichibekov explained that, when taking the victim’s medical history, the victim independently and in detail reported his complaints. The court notes that according to the materials submitted concerning the victim I.S. Artemenko,

155 25-8 15 according to the medical documents, he has a number of severe chronic illnesses, the existence of which was the basis for reading his testimony into the record at the court hearing. At the same time, none of the illnesses diagnosed in victim I.S. Artemenko is a mental illness. The defense’s assertions that the victim’s signature on his statements and other documents was falsified found no objective confirmation during the trial. The court concludes that the victim I.S. Artemenko consciously and voluntarily gave testimony independently regarding the circumstances of the case, guided by the desire to protect his honor, dignity, and reputation, which had been damaged by A.A. Navalny’s libelous comments. The court also concludes that the testimony of the witnesses questioned in court—I.V. Kolesnikov, Z.Kh. Temurova, S.V. Kichibekov, G.A. Margulis, A.I. Lukin, and V.A. Akimov—is reliable and truthful, since it is consistent, non-contradictory, and corresponds both with each other and with the victim’s testimony, as well as with the other evidence examined, including written and material evidence. The court cannot agree with the defense’s position that the testimony and actions of witness I.V. Kolesnikov, who is the victim’s grandson, were politically motivated. Contrary to the opinion of defendant A.A. Navalny and his defense counsel, it was established at the hearing that witness I.V. Kolesnikov, in giving the above testimony, pursued no motives other than protecting the interests of his close relative—his grandfather I.S. Artemenko, who endured the gravest trials during the Great Patriotic War. Unlike defendant A.A. Navalny, witness I.V. Kolesnikov, when testifying, referred only to information concerning I.S. Artemenko; neither during the preliminary investigation nor during the trial did he demonstrate any political views of his own, and his testimony and conduct at the hearing show that the libel against his grandfather voiced by A.A. Navalny is an exclusively personal matter for him. In assessing the testimony of expert A.V. Glotova given at the hearing, the court finds it reliable and objective, fully consistent with the conclusions of the forensic linguistic examination she conducted, and credits it. The court also notes that no violations of criminal procedure law were committed in carrying out the examination.

There is no information indicating the expert’s incompetence or bias, and none has been presented by the defense. As follows from the expert’s testimony at the hearing, in conducting the examination she analyzed the content of A.A. Navalny’s comments together with the video sequence showing various people, including war veteran I.S. Artemenko. According to the expert report, I.S. Artemenko and the other persons appearing in the video are characterized as dishonorable, deserving of censure, lacking a sense of moral responsibility for their behavior and actions before themselves, other people, and society, as toadies, sycophants, violators of loyalty, occupying a shameful and humiliating position that evokes contempt, which serves as a means of expressing a negative assessment by the person using the nickname “Alexey Navalny” (Navalny), and in turn contains a verbal expression of facts of reality and a state of affairs relating to I.S. Artemenko. Thus, taking into account the testimony of expert A.V. Glotova given during the hearing and her conclusions set out in the expert report, the court concludes that the judgment in question is not, in all cases, one containing exclusively a negative assessment that is merely conjectural and subjective, but on the contrary can be verified for accuracy. As established during the judicial investigation, all statements contained in the examined comments of A.A. Navalny concerning I.S. Artemenko are knowingly false. On the contrary, the evidence examined established that the victim I.S. Artemenko is not and has never been a traitor or the shame of the country. Contrary to the defense’s position and the testimony and opinion of specialist A.N. Baranov, the content of A.A. Navalny’s comments could be checked for correspondence to reality, and this was in fact done during the proceedings in the case. For this reason, the court evaluates the opinion and testimony of specialist A.N. Baranov critically, since they contradict the evidence examined, including the expert report prepared by an authorized person in accordance with the procedure established by criminal procedure law. The conclusions of specialist A.N. Baranov, both those expressed by him during the hearing and those set out in his opinion, contradict the results of the judicial investigation and are of a superficial nature. In assessing this specialist’s testimony, the court

17 -9 notes that they are imprecise and non-specific. Moreover, when questioned by the state prosecutor during the trial, specialist A.N. Baranov evaded answering most questions. In addition, the specialist’s testimony was contradictory: specifically, A.N. Baranov stated that all of A.A. Navalny’s statements were evaluative in nature and that an opinion cannot be assessed as true or false, but later stated that everything he said in his opinion was an objective opinion. - In assessing the evidence examined at the hearing, the court concludes that it is relevant, admissible, and reliable. No violations of criminal procedure law were committed in obtaining it that would require it to be declared inadmissible evidence. The content of the written evidence, records of investigative actions, and material evidence is consistent with each other and with the testimony of the victim and the witnesses. Having examined the video materials, and taking into account Articles 87 and 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, and considering that the video materials contain information about facts and circumstances significant to the criminal case, the court finds that these materials meet the legal requirements of relevance and admissibility, since this information, taken together with the other evidence in the criminal case, is objectively confirmed by the testimony of the victim, witnesses, and defendant questioned during the criminal proceedings, namely that on the `RT Russian` news website of the `Russia Today TV` channel, on 2 June 2020 at 10:53 a.m., a video was indeed published in which, among others, Great Patriotic War participant I.S. Artemenko appeared, and it was he who read the words of the preamble to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and later, on 2 June 2020, defendant A.A. Navalny posted this `Russia Today` video on his blog on the social network `Twitter`, publishing libelous comments concerning I.S. Artemenko; in addition, on the `YouTube` video-hosting platform, on the `NAVALNY LIVE` channel, A.A. Navalny posted a video titled “Musk ‘showed up’ Rogozin, the Norilsk disaster, Instagram lackeys,” also containing libelous comments concerning I.S. Artemenko. The court credits this evidence, finding no grounds for the victim or witnesses to falsely accuse the defendant, or for self-incrimination. In assessing the testimony of defendant A.A. Navalny, in which he did not dispute the fact of disseminating the videos with his comments, the content of which is set out in the charge, but stated

that his actions did not constitute a crime and that the prosecution against him was politically motivated, the court treats this testimony critically, considering it aimed at avoiding criminal liability.

Based on the factual circumstances established at the hearing and set out above, the court classifies A.A. Navalny’s actions under Part 2 of Article 128.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 141-FZ of 28 July 2012), since he committed libel, that is, the dissemination in a public statement of knowingly false information damaging another person’s honor and dignity and undermining that person’s reputation.

that C

Thus, it was indisputably established during the judicial investigation that A.A. Navalny posted on the Internet videos showing the victim I.S. Artemenko together with comments by A.A. Navalny of a libelous nature, containing knowingly false information about facts of the victim’s life, about his having committed acts and actions deserving of censure, and characterizing the victim as a person occupying a shameful and humiliating position and deserving of contempt.

The public nature of the dissemination of the data containing knowingly false information concerning victim I.S. Artemenko is evidenced by the posting of the said videos on the Internet, after which they became accessible to an unlimited circle of persons.

introduction concerning

The arguments of defendant A.A. Navalny that the comments cited do not constitute libel because they are his negative assessment of all persons who took part in the campaign supporting amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation cannot be recognized as valid. Thus, it was established at the hearing, including as a result of examining the material evidence, the expert report, the testimony of the victim, and the witnesses, that A.A. Navalny’s statements were insulting and libelous in relation to a specific person, namely Great Patriotic War veteran I.S. Artemenko. At the same time, neither the Constitution of the Russian Federation, nor the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, nor other regulatory legal acts and international treaties provide for a right to disseminate knowingly false information damaging another person’s honor and dignity or undermining that person’s reputation; on the contrary, these non-property interests are classified as objects of legal protection.

And acts of a person And to

19

The court concludes that A.A. Navalny’s actions in disseminating the above-cited libelous information concerning victim I.S. Artemenko were deliberate and intentional. Thus, it follows from the video that formed the basis for A.A. Navalny’s comments that beneath the image of I.S. Artemenko there is a caption stating that he is a participant in the Great Patriotic War.

Contrary to the defense’s arguments, the statements set out in the description of the criminal act, which include the words “traitors, the shame of the country, corrupt lackeys,” contain assertions that dishonest acts and improper, unethical behavior were committed, which damage the honor and dignity of victim I.S. Artemenko and undermine his reputation. The court reaches these conclusions not only on the basis of the expert report, but also on the basis of the testimony of the victim and witnesses V.A. Akimov and A.I. Lukin, who have no interest in the outcome of the case and regarded this information as insulting and libelous. A.A. Navalny’s statements in the comments to this video contain libelous and knowingly false information which, based on the expert report and on an analysis of the videos posted by the defendant themselves, relate specifically to I.S. Artemenko. -

The court assesses critically the statement made by defendant A.A. Navalny at the hearing that he did not notice the presence in the video of war veteran I.S. Artemenko because there were many other public figures there. These explanations by the defendant are motivated by an intention to conceal the fact of libel against I.S. Artemenko by claiming that his statements were allegedly general, evaluative, and subjective in nature. The court regards these explanations by the defendant as a means of defense against the charge brought.

The court does not agree with the arguments of the defense and defendant A.A. Navalny regarding a violation of the rules of territorial jurisdiction, since it was determined correctly based on the victim’s place of residence at: 27 Molodtsova Street, Building 1, Apt. 37, Moscow, which in this case determines territorial investigative jurisdiction in accordance with Part 4.1 of Article 152 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, and subsequently court jurisdiction as well.

The defense’s arguments concerning violations of criminal procedure law in bringing charges against A.A. Navalny, including regarding

160 the absence in the charge of data characterizing the defendant’s personality, are not based in law and are contrived. In imposing sentence on the defendant, the court takes into account: the nature and degree of social danger of the crime, which criminal law classifies as a minor offense; information concerning the defendant’s personality, namely that he has a criminal record; his state of health; and the fact that he has a minor child born in 2008 as a dependent. The state of health of defendant A.A. Navalny and the fact that he has a minor child as a dependent are recognized by the court, in accordance with Paragraph “g” of Part 1 and Part 2 of Article 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as mitigating circumstances. No aggravating circumstances have been established by the court. Taking into account the nature and degree of social danger of the crime committed, the information examined concerning the defendant’s personality, his family and financial situation, and the mitigating circumstances, and considering the effect of the sentence imposed on the correction of A.A. Navalny and on the living conditions of his family, the court concludes that A.A. Navalny should be sentenced to a fine. It was established during the hearing that A.A. Navalny was convicted by the judgment of the Zamoskvoretsky District Court of Moscow dated 30 December 2014, taking into account the amendments introduced by the appellate ruling of the Judicial Panel for Criminal Cases of the Moscow City Court dated 17 February 2015, under Part 3 of Article 159.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 207-FZ of 29.11.2012), Part 2 of Article 159.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 420-FZ of 07.12.2011), Paragraph “a” of Part 2 of Article 174.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 420-FZ of 07.12.2011), and pursuant to Part 2 of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to a final sentence of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, suspended pursuant to Article 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with a probation period of 5 years. By ruling of the Simonovsky District Court of Moscow dated 2 February 2021, the suspended sentence under that judgment was revoked, and it was ordered that the sentence of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment be served in reality, in a general-regime correctional colony. Since A.A. Navalny, during the probation period under the judgment of the Zamoskvoretsky District Court of Moscow dated 30 December 2014, again committed an intentional crime, the court sentences A.A. Navalny under the rules of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation by fully

2171 261 adding the unserved part of the sentence under the judgment of 30 December 2014 to the sentence under this judgment. In resolving the issue of material evidence, the court concludes that the optical discs containing video and audio recordings are to remain stored in the materials of the criminal case. On the basis of the foregoing and guided by Articles 307, 308, and 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Justice of the Peace,

HEREBY SENTENCES:

To find Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny guilty of committing the crime provided for by Part 2 of Article 128.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 141-FZ of 28 July 2012) and sentence him to a fine of 850,000 (eight hundred fifty thousand) rubles. Pursuant to Article 70 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, by aggregation of judgments, to fully add to the sentence imposed under this judgment the unserved sentence of imprisonment under the judgment of the Zamoskvoretsky District Court of Moscow dated 30 December 2014, and finally sentence Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny to 3 (three) years and 6 (six) months’ imprisonment with a fine of 850,000 (eight hundred fifty thousand) rubles, with the term of imprisonment to be served in a general-regime correctional colony. Pursuant to Part 2 of Article 71 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the fine of 850,000 (eight hundred fifty thousand) rubles shall be enforced independently. In accordance with the ruling of the Simonovsky District Court of Moscow dated 2 February 2021 (as amended by the Judicial Panel of the Moscow City Court on 20 February 2021), credit A.A. Navalny toward his term of imprisonment the time he spent under house arrest from 28 February 2014 to 18 February 2015, calculated as one day of house arrest for one day of imprisonment, as well as the time he spent in custody from 17 January 2021 to 20 February 2021. Details for payment of the fine: recipient — Federal Treasury Department for Moscow (Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia for Moscow, personal account 04731A59170), TIN/KPP: 7704773754/770401001, BIC: 04452500, OKTMO: 45374000, OKATO: 45286552000, Budget Classification Code: 41711621010016000140. To cancel the preventive measure imposed on A.A. Navalny in the form of a written undertaking not to leave and of proper conduct. upon entry into legal force: - Material evidence, upon this judgment entering into legal force: an optical disc with a video of the `Russia Today TV` channel (“Rossiya Segodnya TV Channel”) (RT trademark), downloaded

Numbered and sealed pro Medvedkovo, Moscow Justice of the Peace: with seal on

from the Internet address: russian.rt.com/Russia/news/751439-rossiiskie-artisty-reambula- konstituciya;

an optical disc with a video of the `Russia Today IV-` channel (“Rossiya Segodnya TV Channel”) (RT trademark), downloaded from the page of the user named “Alexey Navalny” / “Alexei Navalny” on the `Twitter` social networking site;

an optical disc with a video of the `Russia Today` channel (“Rossiya Segodnya TV Channel”) (RT trademark), published on 2 June 2020 at 10:53 a.m., provided by ANO “TV-Novosti” part

an optical disc with A.A. Navalny’s video report, posted on 4 June 2020 on the `YouTube` video-hosting platform, DISTRICT 321

an optical disc with audio recordings dated 9 June 2020 of the call for an ambulance team to the victim, stored in the materials of the criminal case, shall remain stored in the materials of this criminal case for the entire retention period of the case.

The judgment may be appealed by the parties to the Babushkinsky District Court of Moscow within ten days from the date the judgment is issued, and by a convicted person held in custody within the same period from the date a copy of the judgment is served on him.

Justice of the Peace Court: 1 JUSTICE OF THE PEACE JUDGE Estok V.V. Akimova

243 3 under which he published the message: “Oh, there they are, the little darlings. You have to admit, so far the team of corrupt lackeys looks rather weak. Look at them: they are the shame of the country. People without conscience. Traitors.” In disseminating the said information, A.A. Navalny reliably knew that it was knowingly false in nature, damaged the honor and dignity of I.S. Artemenko and undermined the latter’s reputation, and would also be accessible to an unlimited circle of persons on the Internet. According to expert report No. 246/6-118л/20 dated 20 July 2020, the above-mentioned public statement by A.A. Navalny also contains statements expressing facts of reality and a state of affairs relating to I.S. Artemenko, as well as statements containing a negative assessment of I.S. Artemenko, made by the person appearing in the video attached to the text under the name “Alexey Navalny” (“Alexei Navalny”) and “Navalny.” Thereafter, an unlimited circle of persons became acquainted with the said publication by A.A. Navalny through free access to the `Telegram` messenger and the `Twitter` social network on the Internet, including A.I. Lukin, who on 2 June 2020 at 8:30 p.m. was at the address: 6 Sumskaya Street, Building 3, Apt. 33, Moscow. After becoming acquainted with the public statements, the victim I.S. Artemenko stated that they contained false and libelous information about him, demeaned his honor and dignity, did not correspond to reality, and undermined his reputation. The criminal actions of A.A. Navalny caused moral harm to the victim I.S. Artemenko, a participant in the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945). Thus, he (A.A. Navalny), being aware of facts that did not correspond to reality, disseminated in a public statement information that had no basis in reality, damaging the honor and dignity of I.S. Artemenko and undermining the latter’s reputation, the latter being registered and residing at: 27 Molodtsova Street, Building 1, Apt. 37, Moscow. - 7 At the hearing, defendant A.A. Navalny did not plead guilty and explained to the court that the criminal case had been initiated unlawfully and that the prosecution against him was politicized. His actions did not contain the elements of any crime, including libel. He had no intent to disseminate knowingly false information damaging the honor and dignity of I.S. Artemenko. He was not personally acquainted with I.S. Artemenko. The judgments he expressed in the videos posted on the Internet were exclusively evaluative and did not contain factual assertions. These statements referred to all persons who appeared in the video in

support of amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and expressed his negative attitude toward them. Despite the defendant’s refusal to admit guilt, the defendant’s guilt in committing the crime charged against him is confirmed by the following evidence. By the testimony of victim I.S. Artemenko, given during the preliminary investigation and read into the record pursuant to Part 2 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, according to which he is a participant in and veteran of the Great Patriotic War. Throughout his life he was engaged in the moral education of young people, speaking about the war, the feats of the Soviet people, and the Great Victory achieved at great cost, at the price of many millions of lost lives and ruined destinies. During the war he suffered an injury, and as a result is a Group II disabled person. He took part, without payment and for patriotic reasons, in a video segment released in March 2020 by the `Russia Today TV` channel (“Rossiya Segodnya TV Channel”) in support of changes to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The filming took place at his home; as a Great Patriotic War veteran, dressed in his military uniform, he spoke several words from the preamble to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, namely: “...honoring the memory of our ancestors who passed down to us...”. Later, while at his dacha on 8 June 2020, his caregiver Z.Kh. Temurova told him that the patriotic video in which he had appeared had been publicly commented on by A.A. Navalny, and that in his comments he had slandered him by calling him a “corrupt lackey,” “the shame of the country,” “a person without conscience,” and a “traitor.” On the caregiver’s mobile phone, they watched the video with A.A. Navalny’s comments, after which he (I.S. Artemenko) became distressed, thinking that A.A. Navalny’s actions could create a negative public opinion of him, namely that he appears in such videos and other programs out of selfish interest, that he is a conscienceless person who betrayed his country, possibly even during his participation in the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945). Because of this distress, on 9 June 2020 he felt unwell and an ambulance was called. He would like A.A. Navalny to apologize to him, because throughout his life he did everything selflessly, was a patriot of his country, acted according to conscience, did not serve anyone, especially not for material benefits, and was not a traitor. On the contrary, during the Great Patriotic War he was wounded in battle, and during interrogation by the Nazi invaders he told them nothing and betrayed no one. He is hurt that he was defamed by A.A. Navalny, and therefore asks that law enforcement authorities protect him.

245 From the testimony of witness I.V. Kolesnikov at the hearing, it follows that he is the grandson of victim I.S. Artemenko. His grandfather took part in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945 and is a veteran. I.S. Artemenko appeared in a video supporting the introduction of amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. In the summer of 2020, on the Internet, he saw this video featuring his grandfather together with comments by A.A. Navalny, who called his grandfather “a traitor, the shame of the country, and a corrupt lackey.” He sent the link to this video to his grandfather’s caregiver, but asked her not to show it to I.S. Artemenko because he feared for his life. Later he learned that, at I.S. Artemenko’s request, the caregiver nevertheless showed him the video. He believes that A.A. Navalny’s comments about his grandfather contain insults and libel, and he does not understand why the defendant does not wish to apologize for causing such distress.

From the testimony of witness Z.Kh. Temurova at the hearing, it follows that she is the caregiver of victim I.S. Artemenko. She knew that I.S. Artemenko had appeared in a video supporting the introduction of amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. In the summer of 2020, she learned from I.S. Artemenko’s grandson that this video was on the Internet together with insulting and false statements by A.A. Navalny. I.S. Artemenko’s grandson sent her a link to the video, but asked her not to show it to his grandfather because he feared for his health. She told I.S. Artemenko about the content of A.A. Navalny’s comments regarding the video in which he appeared. She did not intend to show the video to I.S. Artemenko, but after his persistent requests, she nevertheless agreed. After watching the video, I.S. Artemenko was very upset, and the next day he felt unwell, as a result of which an ambulance was called for him.

From the testimony of witness S.V. Kichibekov at the hearing, it follows that he works as a district general practitioner at the State Budgetary Healthcare Institution of the Moscow Region “Professor V.N. Rozanov Moscow Regional Hospital,” Polyclinic No. 8. In June 2020, he attended patient I.S. Artemenko. Upon arriving at the patient’s home, he was met by the grandson, and the caregiver was also present. In speaking directly with the patient, the latter reported that he was suffering from high blood pressure and pain in the heart area, indicating that the cause of his condition was distress and stress. I.S. Artemenko was unable to fully specify the medications he had been taking, and therefore he obtained that information from the caregiver. He provided I.S. Artemenko with the necessary medical assistance.

5

296

From the testimony of witness A.I. Lukin at the hearing, it follows that on the Internet he saw a video supporting the introduction of amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation together with comments by A.A. Navalny. Various people took part in this video, including public figures. In addition, the said video featured a Great Patriotic War veteran in uniform with decorations. In his opinion, A.A. Navalny’s comments, which included such words as “the shame of the country, lackeys, traitors,” are unacceptable. The subject of the Great Patriotic War is very painful and sensitive for him. Upon hearing those words, especially the word “traitor” in relation to a Great Patriotic War veteran, he decided to report the matter to law enforcement authorities because he believed that people must be held accountable for such things. The witness also explained that the word “traitor” in relation to a veteran and soldier is not merely criticism, but is obviously libelous in nature. He contacted law enforcement specifically in defense of I.S. Artemenko, believing that the other people who appeared in the video could stand up for themselves.

From the testimony of witness V.A. Akimov at the hearing, it follows that he is an Internet user and has an account on the social network `VKontakte`. In one of the groups on that social network, on 3 June 2020 he saw news that A.A. Navalny had expressed his insulting opinion regarding persons who had spoken in support of the introduction of amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Following the link, he watched the video in support of the amendments together with comments by A.A. Navalny, which stated the following: “Oh, there they are, the little darlings. You have to admit, so far the team of corrupt lackeys looks rather weak. Look at them: they are the shame of the country. People without conscience. Traitors.” Among the persons who took part in the video and read out the text of the preamble to the Constitution of the Russian Federation was Great Patriotic War veteran I.S. Artemenko. After watching the video, he felt unpleasantly affected and offended on behalf of the veteran, about whom the said insulting comments had been made. He considered that A.A. Navalny had thereby defamed veteran I.S. Artemenko, who had never betrayed his country, had fought for it, and was not a person without conscience or a lackey. Believing that it is unacceptable to defame and insult a veteran, he contacted law enforcement authorities with a request that A.A. Navalny be investigated on these facts. He personally knows neither A.A. Navalny nor I.S. Artemenko, but the words directed at the veteran outraged him, and that is why he filed the complaint.

From the testimony of witness G.A. Margulis at the hearing, it follows that

it became known that she is a participant in the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945) and served as a nurse. She is acquainted with I.S. Artemenko, whom she characterizes exclusively positively. She knows that I.S. Artemenko appeared in a video that was commented on by A.A. Navalny. In his comment, A.A. Navalny called the victim a “corrupt lackey, a person without conscience, the shame of the country, a traitor.” Victim I.S. Artemenko, an officer, was a direct participant in the Great Patriotic War, defended the Motherland from the occupiers at the risk of his life, fought in partisan units, was wounded in battle, and later served for the good of the Fatherland; he cannot be “the shame of the country” or a “traitor.” She is unaware of any facts showing that the victim acted against his officer’s honor. The information stated by A.A. Navalny about the victim does not correspond to reality. At the hearing, at the request of the state prosecutor, expert A.V. Glotova was questioned. She stated that she had conducted the forensic linguistic examination, as a result of which she prepared report No. 246/6-118л/20, the conclusions of which she confirmed. The expert explained that she had been provided with the necessary materials of the criminal case for the examination, including records of inspection of the video recordings and the video recordings themselves on discs. In conducting the examination, she was guided by official methodologies established by the recommendations of the methodological council of the Forensic Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. In carrying out the examination, she did not express her subjective attitude toward the circumstances recorded in the video recordings under study. The list of literature she used in conducting the examination is set out in detail in the report. She did indeed refer to A.N. Baranov’s work “Linguistic Expertise.” The fact that this monograph by A.N. Baranov appears second in the bibliography is due to alphabetical ordering. A.N. Baranov is an authoritative author in the field of linguistics; however, his work was not used by her as the primary source. Moreover, in conducting the examination she relied on established official methodologies. The scholarly literature cited in the examination is an additional source of information used in conducting the research. In carrying out the examination, no pressure was exerted on her for the purpose of compelling any particular conclusions, and she received no remuneration from the person who commissioned the study. Expert A.V. Glotova explained that the text of the comments she analyzed was assessed together with the video sequence, on the basis of which she concluded that the statements containing a negative assessment referred to all persons shown in the video, including I.S. Artemenko. The content of the comments, including “corrupt lackeys, traitors,”

contains a negative assessment, in particular of I.S. Artemenko. This judgment contains an evaluation, but at the same time, in itself, contains an assertion about facts of reality that can be checked for accuracy and proof.

The foregoing is objectively confirmed by the written evidence examined at the hearing.

By the victim I.S. Artemenko’s complaint dated 15 June 2020, in which, having been warned of criminal liability for a knowingly false report under Article 306 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, he asks that A.A. Navalny be held criminally liable for libel, namely for his false statements addressed to the victim, in which he called victim I.S. Artemenko, a participant in and veteran of the Great Patriotic War: a “corrupt lackey,” “the shame of the country,” “a person without conscience,” and a “traitor” (Vol. 1, case file p. 26).

B

By the report on the discovery of indications of a crime dated 11 June 2020, according to which it was established that on 2 June 2020 the `Rossiya Segodnya` television channel posted on information resources, including on the Internet telecommunications network, a video in which, among others, Great Patriotic War participant I.S. Artemenko took part and expressed his civic position in support of changes to the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

B ΠΟ by the user

On 2 June 2020 at approximately 11:31 a.m., A.A. Navalny, being in an unidentified location, accessed the Internet by means of an unidentified device and, being a user of the social network `Twitter` under the name “Alexey Navalny” and of the `Telegram` messenger under the name “Navalny” (https://t.me/navalny), posted the said video of the `Rossiya Segodnya` television channel on his blog on the social network `Twitter` and on his `Telegram` channel, publishing a comment containing knowingly false information damaging the honor and dignity of, among others, I.S. Artemenko, who had spoken in support of changes to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and undermining his reputation: “Oh, there they are, the little darlings. You have to admit, so far the team of corrupt lackeys looks rather weak. Look at them: they are the shame of the country. People without conscience. Traitors.”

By the record of inspection of Internet resources dated 11 June 2020, from which it follows that on 10 June 2020 at 8:56 a.m., an article titled “Veteran Felt Unwell Because of Navalny’s Words” was posted on the `REN TV` news website at `ren.tv/news/v-rossi/709279-veteranu-stalo-ploho-iz-za- slov-navalnogo`. Attached to this article is a photograph depicting Great Patriotic War participant Ignat Sergeyevich Artemenko, with the following caption: “Oh, there they are, the little darlings.”

9 because of It must be acknowledged that, so far, this team of venal lackeys looks rather weak. Look at them: they are the disgrace of the country. People without a conscience. Traitors.” This article is accompanied by a video in which the news anchor stated that Ignat Artemenko, a veteran of the Great Patriotic War (the Soviet-German front of World War II, 1941–1945), who in the video read the preamble to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, developed heart problems brought on by stress as a result of insults directed at him by A.A. Navalny, who earlier, on June 2, 2020, in his remarks called the front-line veteran a traitor. As the grandson of the 93- year-old veteran reported, immediately after this news, an ambulance team was called for I.S. Artemenko. In the video, I.S. Artemenko stated the following: “A.A. Navalny insulted me. He called me a lackey and a traitor. I believe I did not deserve that. And I want this matter to be fully investigated.” The news anchor also stated that: “The veteran’s grandson has already said that the Artemenko family intends to seek justice and defend the grandfather’s honor” (Vol. 1, pp. 36–39). amendments B According to the Internet resources inspection report dated June 11, 2020, it follows that on the RT Russian news website of the Russia Today TV channel (“TV Channel Russia Today”) at the address: <<russian.rt.com/Russia/news/751439-rossiiskie-artisty-preambula-konstituciya>>, on June 2, 2020, at 10:53 a.m., a video was published in which, among others, I.S. Artemenko, a participant in the Great Patriotic War (1941–1945), appeared, having read out words from the preamble to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, “...Honoring the memory of our ancestors who passed down to us...,” thus expressing his civic position in support of the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Vol. 1, pp. 71–82). According to the Internet resources inspection report dated June 11, 2020, it follows that on June 2, 2020, at 11:31 a.m., A.A. Navalny, being a user of the Telegram messenger service under the name <<Navalny>> (https://t.me/navalny), on his Telegram channel posted a video by the Russia Today television channel (the Russia Today TV channel (RT trademark)), in which I.S. Artemenko, a participant in the Great Patriotic War (1941–1945), appeared, publishing slanderous comments regarding I.S. Artemenko of the following content: “Oh, there they are, the fine fellows. It must be acknowledged that, so far, this team of venal lackeys looks rather weak. Look at them: they are the disgrace of the country. People without a conscience.” This video and the comments on it were viewed by 130.2 thousand users of the Telegram messenger service (Vol. 1, pp. 51–70). According to the Internet resources inspection report dated June 11, 2020, it follows that on June 2, 2020, A.A. Navalny, being a user of the social network Twitter under the name “Alexey Navalny” (@navalny), on his blog on the social network Twitter at the Internet address: twitter.com/navalny, posted a video by the television channel

250 10 <<<Russia Today,” the Russia Today TV channel (RT trademark), in which I.S. Artemenko, a participant in the Great Patriotic War (1941–1945), appeared, publishing slanderous comments regarding I.S. Artemenko of the following content: “Oh, there they are, the fine fellows. It must be acknowledged that, so far, this team of venal lackeys looks rather weak. Look at them: they are the disgrace of the country. People without a conscience. Traitors.” This video and the comments on it were viewed by 141.2 thousand users of the social network Twitter, there are 2 thousand comments, and 2.4 thousand users copied the post to their social network pages (Vol. 1, pp. 40–50). According to the Internet resources inspection report dated June 17, 2020, it follows that on the YouTube video hosting platform (a video hosting service providing users with video storage, delivery, and display services) on the channel NAVALNY LIVE>>> - at the address: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_- ttObArW5s, a video titled <<Musk “outdid” Rogozin, the Norilsk disaster, Instagram lackeys” was posted, published on June 4, 2020. In the description of the video, Alexei Navalny there is the following text: “Production team: Host (A.A. Navalny) https://twitter.com/navalny”. Upon viewing the video, it was established that at 02 hr. 30 min. 40 sec., A.A. Navalny states the following: “All of these people absolutely need to be crushed, all the people who appear in these videos. Russia Today is trying to stir up a little scandal. I really did call everyone taking part in this video a pack of lackeys. Let’s show the Russia Today video.” The video is then shown, and upon viewing it, it was established that the speakers read the preamble to the Constitution of the Russian Federation regarding the July 1, 2020 vote on the introduction of amendments. Among the speakers, among others, was I.S. Artemenko, a participant in the Great Patriotic War (1941–1945), who read out the text “...Honoring the memory of our ancestors who passed down to us...”. After the end of the video about the upcoming vote, at 02 hr. 32 min. 10 sec., A.A. Navalny says the following words: “...they’ll lay out this whole deck for us, there will be a few crooks there, there will обязательно be a veteran, they’ll put one up, there’ll be an honored doctor, an athlete, and so on. And when you call them lackeys—and I certainly consider lackeys, lackeys and traitors, all those who are dragging people into this deception... Everyone will say, my God, what? You insulted a veteran, a famous doctor saved 27 lives or 277,000 lives, and you called him a lackey. Of course I called him a lackey; he is a lackey... And, of course, these people need to be branded in plain terms.” This video has 1,081,548 views and 9,898 comments (Vol. 2, pp. 81–99). According to the inspection report of items (documents) dated July 4, 2020, it follows that in the course of the investigative action, an optical disc was examined, recorded during the inspection of the “NAVALNY LIVE” channel on the YouTube video hosting platform (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_- ttObArW5s),