The Case of Valery's Work in Knyaz-Volkonsky

Case History

In March 2022, the Investigative Committee opened a criminal case under an extremist article against Valery Rabota from the village of Knyaz-Volkonskoye. His house was searched, after which the believer was taken away for interrogation and placed in a temporary detention facility, and two days later the man ended up in a pre-trial detention center for “unwillingness to cooperate” — to incriminate himself and fellow believers. In June 2022, despite the investigator’s demand to extend Valeriy’s detention, the judge softened the measure of restraint by placing the believer under house arrest. In March 2023, the case went to court, and in November, the prosecutor asked to send the believer to a colony for 6 years. A month later, the judge recused herself, and the case was sent for a new trial in a different composition.

  • #
    March 1, 2022

    A. A. Kozlov, Senior Investigator of the Investigative Directorate for Komsomolsk-on-Amur of the Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia for the Khabarovsk Territory, decides to initiate a criminal case on the grounds of a crime under Part 1 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation against Valery Rabota.

  • #
    March 3, 2022 Search

    Investigator Kozlov A. A. makes a decision to search the home of Valery Rabota. Phones, a laptop and data carriers are seized from the believer. After the search, Valeriy is interrogated and placed in a temporary detention facility in Khabarovsk.

  • #
    March 4, 2022

    Investigator Kozlov A.A. requests a measure of restraint in the form of detention for Valery Rabota until 01.05.2022.

  • #
    March 5, 2022

    The judge of the Khabarovsk District Court of the Khabarovsk Territory Karnaukh T.V. chooses a measure of restraint for Valery Rabota in the form of detention until 04/30/2022. Valery objects to the measure of restraint, explaining that "the investigator said that after the search and testimony he would be released home, but after he took advantage of the provision of Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, he was informed that he would be detained because he did not want to cooperate." The suspect's lawyer expresses confidence that "the very fact of choosing a measure of restraint is used by the investigator not as a measure of restraint, but as a measure of intimidation, since he refused to testify against himself and his relatives."

  • #
    March 9, 2022

    The defense of Valery Rabota is filing two appeals against the court's decision to choose a measure of restraint in the form of detention.

  • #
    March 11, 2022

    Investigator A. A. Kozlov attracts Valery Rabota as a defendant under Part 1 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

  • #
    March 31, 2022

    The lawyer visits Valery Rabota in SIZO-1 in Khabarovsk. According to the lawyer, his health and mood are generally positive, but sometimes he is worried about exacerbations of chronic diseases. Recently, Valeriy was transferred to a 4-bed cell. He had a good and respectful relationship with his cellmates. He receives parcels and parcels, he also has a Bible.

  • #
    June 29, 2022

    Judge of the Khabarovsk District Court of the Khabarovsk Territory Zhigulina G. K. refuses to satisfy the petition of investigator Kozlov A.A. to extend the period of detention for Valeriy Rabota and decides to choose a measure of restraint against the believer in the form of house arrest for a period of one month, that is, until July 28, 2022 inclusive.

  • #
    March 30, 2023 Case went to court

    The case goes to the Khabarovsk District Court of the Khabarovsk Territory. It will be considered by judge Angelina Sviderskaya.

  • #
    May 18, 2023 Hearing in a court of the first instance

    The prosecutor begins the hearing by questioning the witness Martyn. He explains that he communicated with the defendant in 2021-2022, and then "stopped communicating and simply disappeared." The court satisfies the prosecutor's request to read out the testimony of the witness, since the year 2020 was indicated in the interrogation protocol. The witness confirms his testimony given during the preliminary investigation.

    Although Martyn has a law degree, he does not understand the difference between a legal entity and a group of believers. He gives a positive characterization of the defendant.

  • #
    May 22, 2023 Hearing in a court of the first instance Interrogation Fabrications

    One of the prosecution witnesses states that, on the instructions of the FSB, he introduced the informant Martyn to believers. According to him, he did this because of threats from an employee of the service Ogienko A.A. to his wife. The witness states that the record of the interrogation does not contain the testimony that he gave to the investigator.

  • #
    May 23, 2023 Hearing in a court of the first instance Interrogation

    The witness Romanov, who has known Valery Rabota for about 20 years, is being interrogated. According to Romanov, the believer spoke to him about his beliefs several times before 2017. The witness considers Valeriy to be a man "good, polite, hardworking."

  • #
    May 29, 2023 Hearing in a court of the first instance

    Another prosecution witness states that the words in the interrogation record do not correspond to her testimony.

  • #
    June 28, 2023 Hearing in a court of the first instance Interrogation

    FSB officer Ogienko is being questioned as a witness for the prosecution. He says that he does not know the difference between the concepts of denomination, legal entity and religious group, since he does not have a legal education. According to him, when drawing up the interrogation protocol, he copied these terms from the recommendations of higher authorities.

  • #
    August 21, 2023 Hearing in a court of the first instance

    At the prosecutor's request, the court listens to recordings of conversations about the Bible with Martyn.

  • #
    September 1, 2023 Hearing in a court of the first instance

    Listening to the recording of Bible discussions at the worship service continues.

    The prosecutor concludes the presentation of evidence.

  • #
    October 10, 2023 Hearing in a court of the first instance

    The defense submits to the court the ECHR rulings and expert opinions confirming that Jehovah's Witnesses are not involved in extremism. The lawyer also petitions for the attachment of the decision of the ECHR of June 7, 2022, which recognized the criminal prosecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia as unjustified and illegal. The judge attaches the document to the case file.

    The meeting was attended by 17 listeners who came to support the believer.

  • #
    October 18, 2023 Hearing in a court of the first instance

    The defense examines material evidence—reference books and various translations of the Bible.

  • #
    October 25, 2023 Hearing in a court of the first instance

    The defense is requesting the exclusion of the evidence provided by the prosecution: the conclusion of a psychologist and the survey of a religious scholar. These documents were drawn up even before the initiation of the criminal case. The court dismisses the petition.

    Valery Rabota testifies.

  • #
    November 23, 2023 Prosecutor requested punishment Closing arguments for the defense Elderly

    The prosecutor asks to find Valeriy Rabota guilty under Part 1.1 and Part 2 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and to sentence him to 6 years in a general regime colony and 1.5 years of restriction of liberty.

    The defense asks to acquit the defendant.

  • #
    December 7, 2023 Retrial (court of first instance)

    Judge Angelina Sviderska reports that she is recusing herself. The case of Valeriy Rabota will be re-examined by a different composition of the court.

    The judge explained her decision by the fact that she had previously considered a similar criminal case against Lyubov Ovchinnikova and Lyubov Kocherova. Both cases involved the same witnesses, and she had already assessed their testimony.