Photo: Mediazona
Russia’s Second Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction, an appellate court in Moscow, upheld the sentence of Dmitry Ivanov, a mathematician and creator of the “Protest MSU” Telegram channel: he received 8.5 years in a penal colony for posts about the killings of Ukrainian civilians by the Russian military. Today in court, Ivanov tried to explain that Russians receive more reliable information about the war from foreign sources than from official Russian ones, and that he considers spreading the truth to be the best strategy for combating “fake news.” Judge Olga Myanzelets interrupted Ivanov every time he started talking about the investigation into the murders in Bucha or about Vladimir Putin. We publish their dialogue in its entirety.
Judge. Do you have anything to add to what your defence attorney said, to what she stated in the appeal? Don’t just repeat her words.
Ivanov. I have a few words to say, because I am accused of spreading false information—that is, untruth. So let me say a few words about the truth and the general context of this criminal case.
When I published the posts that became the subject of criminal proceedings, the immediate suburbs of Kyiv—Irpin, Bucha and others—were under the control of Russian military forces. We know what was happening there from the testimonies of hundreds of eyewitnesses, from expert examinations, detailed reports and a huge amount of photo and video materials that are very frightening to watch.
All the facts have been carefully verified and documented by journalists from all over the world. So if you have any grounds not to trust, for example, the detailed reports of The New York Times or Associated Press about this investigation, you can familiarise yourself with the materials of Arab, Indian, Kazakhstani and any other journalists. With reports from human rights activists from various countries, with reports from international organisations, including the UN, in which Russia is not only a member, but also a member of the Security Council.
Therefore, I would very much like the description of the events in Bucha to be untrue, for this not to have happened. But the totality of the information we have, alas, leaves no doubt about its authenticity.
At the same time, even legitimate Russian territory is not fully under the control of Russian military forces for three weeks. Foreign journalists who cover events in the Kursk region are threatened with prison terms, declared wanted, ambassadors are summoned and notes of protest are announced. They are trying their best to hide from us what is happening there.
And as a TV viewer, I am only told daily that—I quote—“Russian military forces are pushing back Ukrainian terrorists in the Kursk border region.” That is, they are pushing back, and that’s it—for three weeks. And the evacuation continues daily.
Martial law has been declared in Ukraine, military restrictions are in effect, and nevertheless, for an objective reflection…
Judge. Excuse me, please, these circumstances are not related to the grounds of the cassation appeal and the subject of this criminal case. Please do not highlight what is not relevant to this case.
Ivanov. It is [related] to my case, Your Honour, I am talking about the events in Bucha, which became the subject of the accusation in this criminal case, and about the information and sources of this information. Why I trusted the information I published, why I do not consider it false, let alone knowingly false, on what basis I decided that I could trust, for example, The New York Times sources.
So, I am saying that the Ukrainian side attracts independent observers who criticise it as well, who record all potential violations of international humanitarian law and war crimes. And, as you remember, indeed, The New York Times wrote about the torture of Russian prisoners of war by Ukrainian military personnel. Amnesty International released a report on…
Judge. Stop, please. What you are saying now has nothing to do with your crime, stay within the scope of your criminal case, which was considered, and the arguments of the cassation appeal.
Ivanov. Okay, within the scope of this criminal case…
Judge. Yes, please, only with the arguments of the cassation appeal, we are familiar with the case. Only what you disagree with.
Ivanov. I object to Article 207.3 of the Criminal Code itself because, while ostensibly prohibiting the dissemination of knowingly false information, the way this article has been applied in practice effectively bans the sharing of any information that does not come from official sources. Official sources, meanwhile, unfortunately do not communicate any information to us. Which I mentioned, because now the only sources of information I can use are official ones. It’s our television.
I see the response that this approach to information evokes in our society. Total distrust of official sources, anxious anticipation and the spread of even the most unrealistic rumours among those who watch these news reports and try to read something between the lines.
If reducing the spread of fake news were truly the legislator’s goal, it could be achieved simply by telling people the truth. However, this is a challenging path, as it would require admitting one’s own mistakes, explaining the causes of failures, and facing tough questions and criticism. Had Vladimir Putin chosen this approach a quarter of a century ago, there would be far fewer difficult questions to answer now...
Judge. Dmitry Alexandrovich! Stop! We are not examining the Criminal Code, we are considering the cassation appeal. What you are telling us now does not relate to this!
Ivanov. Regarding the cassation appeal, I have already said everything. I consider this sentence unfounded, unlawful, unfair. The very norm of the law in the form in which it is applied by the courts of first and second instance contradicts the norms of the Constitution.
Judge. Thank you, and please sit down already.
Editor: Maria Klimova
Support Mediazona now!
Your donations directly help us continue our work