The last word of the defendant Dmitry Mikhailov in Shuya

 RUSSIA 

The last word of the defendant Dmitry Mikhailov in Shuya

January 24, 2024

Ivanovo region

In his last word, the believer said: "I have no resentment and anger against those who are involved in my criminal prosecution for believing in God… No matter how the events unfold in this criminal case, I intend to remain devoted to God no matter what."

Transcript of the court session in the Shuisky city Court of the Ivanovo region in Shuya dated 01/24/2024 in the case 1-2/2023 (1-138/2022; 1-169/2021) according to the accusation of Mikhailov Dmitry Vasilyevich and others. of committing a crime under Parts 1 and 2 of Articles 282.2 and Part 1 of Article 282.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Mikhailov Dmitry Vasilyevich:

Dear Court, Dear participants of the process! Not so long ago, an article entitled "The term "truth" in the legal culture of Ancient Russia" was published in the journal "Legislation" in 2017. And here's what's remarkable: according to the historical facts given in this article, one of the first Russian lawsuits was called "Russkaya Pravda". So, "the truth," it said, "is one of the names of the court in Ancient Russia." The court was called "the truth", because through it people fervently hoped to find this truth, to find justice and justice.

Therefore, Your Honor, being here in court, we, as defendants, not only defend our legitimate rights, but through the court and relying on God, we seek truth, justice and justice. And this is understandable, because God created man in his own image and likeness with an innate need for justice and truth (the Bible, Colossians 3:9, 10).

The Bible says about the personality of God: "It is unthinkable for the true God to do evil, for the Almighty to do wrong! Indeed, God does not do injustice, and the Almighty does not pervert judgment" (Job 34:10, 12). Therefore, addressing the judges in ancient times, God commanded them: "Do not pervert justice" (Deuteronomy 16:19, Restorative translation). The biblical term "justice" used here also means justice, righteousness and truth, it indicates impartiality and impartiality, the absence of prejudice, it indicates that the foundation of justice is the love of justice and truth. And this is very important, Your Honor, because the biblical principles of justice are the basis for modern legal norms and judicial ethics.

That is why, Your Honor, we, as defendants, appeal for fair and impartial justice, in which there is no place for groundless and illegal substitution of the concept of "realization of the right to freedom of conscience and religion" (Article 28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) for the concept of "commission of a crime".

We hope, Your Honor, that it is obvious to you as a lawyer and as a person that we are just believers who live according to the biblical principles of love for God and neighbor, that we are peaceful and hardworking people, conscious and law-abiding citizens who realize their duty to obey the laws of the country and obey the legally established authorities and to whom we are completely alien extremism in all its manifestations.

Now about the formal approach of the prosecution. The prosecution said many terrible words about the serious extremist crimes allegedly committed by us against the foundations of the constitutional system and the security of the state, but no convincing evidence was presented to support such an accusation.

The prosecution did not distinguish between the lawful behavior of a citizen in exercising his constitutional rights to freedom of conscience and religion and a socially dangerous act provided for in Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, thereby directly violating the fundamental principle of law — the principle of legal certainty, which requires clarity, unambiguity, absence of contradictions not only in the content, but also in the application of legal norms. As a result, the prosecution has drawn up its own portrait of an "extremist" who does not fit into the framework of the law "On Countering Extremist activities", which is arbitrary against the defendants.

Due to an incorrect approach to the criminal legal assessment of the peaceful actions of the defendants, the prosecution groundlessly and illegally replaced the concept of "realization of the constitutional right of a citizen to freedom of conscience and religion" with the concept of "commission of a crime", as a result of which "joint peaceful confession by believers of their religion" suddenly turned into "organization or participation in activities prohibited by the court organizations", that is, in a criminally punishable act.

The prosecution focused all its efforts on what is not the subject of proof in the present criminal case — an attempt to prove to the court the existence of some kind of organization in the order of holding joint worship services by believers, and not the presence of extremism as such. At the same time, she overlooked the fact that joint worship, joint reading and discussion of the Bible, joint prayers — all this is in principle unthinkable without some elementary organization of believers, otherwise such actions cannot be characterized as joint confession of religion — a right guaranteed by Article 28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. And such a formal approach of the prosecution contradicts both the disposition of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, according to which joint confession of religion, worship by themselves, if they do not contain signs of extremism, do not constitute a crime (paragraph 20 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court dated October 28, 2021 No. 11 "On judicial practice in cases of extremist crimes").

The prosecution also ignored the fact that the organization of the activities of an extremist organization, which is referred to in Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, should be understood as organizational actions aimed at continuing or resuming not any, but exclusively illegal activities of a prohibited organization, that is, such activities violating the law, in connection with which religious activities were prohibited by the court The organization "Management Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia" (p. 20 Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/28/2011 No. 11 "On judicial practice in cases of extremist crimes").

The prosecution did not establish which specific socially dangerous actions were committed by the defendants, their significance for the continuation or resumption of extremist activities of a religious organization banned by the court, as well as the motives for these actions. The prosecution only unreasonably limited itself to general formulations against the defendants, such as: "realizing criminal intentions", "acting from extremist motives", "realizing the illegal nature of their actions", "anticipating the inevitability of socially dangerous consequences", "as part of a group of persons by prior agreement", "voluntarily not ceasing to participate in activities", "with intent to resume activities" and others (paragraph 20 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 28, 2011 No. 11 "On judicial practice in cases of extremist crimes").

The prosecution ignored the requirements of the law that extremist crimes can be committed only with direct intent and with the aim of inciting hatred or enmity, as well as humiliating the dignity of a person or group of persons on the grounds of religious affiliation or attitude to religion (Part 2 of Article 25 of the Criminal Code; paragraph 8 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 28, 2011 year No. 11 "On judicial practice in cases of extremist crimes"). Therefore, it is not surprising that there is no evidence in the indictment that the defendants had such intent.

The prosecution also ignored the fact that the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation did not prohibit the Christian religion of Jehovah's Witnesses, did not restrict the right of citizens to practice this religion together with others, and also did not assess the legality of religious beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and ways of expressing them. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has only verified the legality of actions committed by a particular religious organization in accordance with the law "On Countering Extremist Activities".

Therefore, it is no wonder that the accusation against us has turned, figuratively speaking, into a Christmas ball on a Christmas tree — shiny on the outside, but empty inside.

I would also like to mention some of the "evidence" of the prosecution voiced by the public prosecutor in his main speech in the debate. What did the public prosecutor pay attention to? On the conclusions of expert T. P. Belova, according to which "meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses are the primary organizational structure in the international organization of Jehovah's Witnesses", "meetings are held twice a week", "there are elders and official assistants in the assembly", "every Jehovah's Witness is a member of a certain assembly", "meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses regularly attend the district supervisor."

However, this conclusion of T. P. Belova is not evidence in the case. Firstly, Belova is talking here about the international denomination of Jehovah's Witnesses, and not about specific Russian religious organizations of Jehovah's Witnesses, which were banned by the court.

Secondly, there is no evidence on the videos of religious services of believers and in other materials of the case that the defendants met twice a week and held meetings according to a certain unified scheme approved by the "Management Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia." On the contrary, the defendants met once a week and discussed the chapters of the Bible itself in order, without using any doctrinal or other instructions from the "Management Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia."

Thirdly, it is recorded on the video recordings of the services that the defendants met with their religious friends in a small group; they did not speak of themselves anywhere as a whole assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses in Shuya; there were no invited speakers at the services, there was no religious literature, and the believers did not call themselves either elders or office assistants, not by heralds.

Fourthly, there is no information on the video recordings of the defendants' services about the participation of a certain "district supervisor" in them.

In other words, the prosecution, without understanding the essence of the issue, tried to make the defendants part of some alleged structure of the "Management Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia", but did not provide any evidence to support their assumption.

The State Prosecutor referred to a letter dated January 20, 2015, signed by D. V. Mikhailov, sent to the head of the intermunicipal department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia "Shuisky", which states that the religious group of Jehovah's Witnesses operating in Shuya carries out its activities without state registration and acquisition of legal capacity of a legal entity, and is also part of a centralized the religious organization "Management Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia". However, this information also has no relation to the essence of the charges brought by the defendants and is not relevant evidence in the case.

Firstly, the above-mentioned letter is dated January 20, 2015, therefore, the information from the paragraph quoted by the public prosecutor was relevant only as of the date of writing of this letter.

Secondly, this letter refers to the whole assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses in Shuya, and not to individual believers, the defendants, who made a joint decision to discuss the Bible itself together in a small circle.

Thirdly, this letter informs that the beliefs of believers are based on their personal relationship with God, and not on their relationship with any organization.

Fourthly, the assumption of the state prosecutor that Arkhipov, Shishina, Ryzhkova and Mikhailova took part in the religious group in Shuya indicated in the letter does not correspond to the facts, since both this letter and the materials of the criminal case do not contain information about citizens belonging to the religious group named in it, indicating their surnames, first names, patronymics, addresses of residence. The prosecution did not request or provide such information from the relevant authorized body of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation (Article 7 of Federal Law No. 125-FZ of 09/26/1997). Also, judging by the testimony in court, some of the defendants either lived in other regions of the Russian Federation during the period indicated in the letter, or did not attend meetings of the religious group mentioned in the letter in Shuya, which means they obviously could not be members of such a group.

The State Prosecutor also referred to the testimony of witnesses E. Sh. Shabiev and A. S. Khamidov as evidence of the defendants' guilt. However, the testimony of Shabiev's witness is neither relevant nor admissible evidence in the case. While testifying, this witness spoke about events that, according to his own words, took place in 2010-2011, and after that time he did not follow the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses. Moreover, in his testimony, Shabiev did not indicate the source of his awareness, did not name any names of citizens who allegedly contacted him in connection with the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses in Shuya (Part 2 of Article 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).

Khamidov's testimony is not only not relevant evidence in the case, but also raises questions from the point of view of objectivity and reliability. Khamidov, judging by his own testimony, spoke about events in the period from December 2016 to February 2017, which does not apply to the period of time that is imputed in this criminal case. Moreover, this witness told the court that he secretly collected information at the request of police officers and as part of operational search activities illegally carried out outside the period of validity of the Supreme Court decision of 04/20/2017 (case no. AKPI 17-238), which is confirmed by an audio recording of Khamidov's conversation with police officers, made by Khamidov himself and attached to the materials of the criminal case. This audio recording also confirms that the witness Hamidov had a biased attitude towards the Jehovah's Witness denomination during his attendance at the services of Jehovah's Witnesses, as evidenced by the transcript of the audio recording of this conversation. For example, Khamidov says on it: "These are sectarians. Sectarians will always do something."

[…]

The state prosecutor drew the court's attention to the fact that the services at S. A. Ryzhkova's apartment were allegedly secretive, where the defendants discussed among themselves the provisions of Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and how to behave with law enforcement officials.

In connection with this assumption of the public prosecutor, I would like to recall the following. We did discuss the provisions of Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, but we did so for understandable reasons unrelated to conspiracy. Although the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, by its decision of April 20, 2017, eliminated specific religious organizations of Jehovah's Witnesses, law enforcement practice is such that after this decision in some regions of Russia ordinary believers began to be treated as if Jehovah's Witnesses were banned, criminal cases were unlawfully initiated. Unreliable reports about the ban on Jehovah's Witnesses were increasingly heard in the media. In view of this, we were afraid that we might face persecution for our faith, religious discrimination due to hysteria in the media and possible misinterpretation by law enforcement officers of the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

Your Honor, we also cannot ignore the fact that in the recent past, in the Soviet Union, repressions were launched against Jehovah's Witnesses (as well as against believers of other faiths). And although the state has officially apologized to Jehovah's Witnesses for this, we, the defendants, cannot but take into account that nevertheless such persecution of the faith was allowed by the state. Therefore, discussing the provision of Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, we wanted to protect ourselves in case of possible persecution of the faith and illegal actions of law enforcement officers.

Your Honor, I could continue to provide evidence that the whole accusation is based on assumptions and speculation and thus expose all the lies about the crimes allegedly committed by me of an extremist orientation. But I want to say this.

No matter how the events unfold in this criminal case, I intend to remain devoted to God no matter what. I talked about it in the pre-trial detention center, and I'm talking about it now in court.

In the Bible, the Apostle Peter once wrote these words: "Who can harm you if you zealously strive to do good? But even if you have to suffer for righteous deeds, then you are happy. So don't be afraid of them and don't let yourself be intimidated. Keep your conscience clean, so that when you are insulted, those who denigrate your good behavior in Christ will be ashamed. For, if it pleases the will of God, it is better to suffer for good deeds than for evil ones" (1 Peter 3:13, 14, 16, 17).

And indeed, Your Honor, I am very glad that, being under criminal prosecution, I suffer not for any real crimes (that is, I did not steal, rape, blackmail, cheat or kill), but for believing in God, whose name, according to the Bible, — Jehovah. I have a clear conscience before God, before people, and before the court. Therefore, when they ask me (and they asked me when I was in jail): "Why are they persecuting you and trying to pass you off as an extremist?" — I answer: "I do not know!" And during this trial, I never received an answer to this question.

Your Honor, I have no resentment or anger towards those who are involved in my criminal prosecution for believing in God, because I understand that for these people it is often just a job. I remember the example of Jesus Christ, who prayed for those who gave him up for execution. These are his words: "But Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing'" (Luke 23:34). But at the same time, I do not lose hope that the court in your person, Your Honor, will make a fair and lawful decision, acquitting both me and my friends.

The judicial system is fair and reliable only as far as the people who run it are fair and reliable, to which I include you, Your Honor.

Summary of the case

Region:

Ivanovo region

Locality:

Shuya

What is suspected:

According to the investigation, he participated in divine services, which is interpreted as participation and financing of the activities of an "extremist organization" (with reference to the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the liquidation of all 396 registered organizations of Jehovah's Witnesses)

Criminal case number:

11802240009000024

Initiated:

April 19, 2018

Current stage of the case:

Appeal

Is investigating:

SU IC of the Russian Federation for the Ivanovo region

Articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation:

282.2 (2), 282.3 (1), 282.2 (1)

The number of the case in court:

1-1/2024 (1-2/2023; 1-138/2022)

Court:

Shuisky City Court of the Ivanovo region

Judge of the Court of first instance:

Anton Mokin