The defense called Nagavkin's sentence for disrupting the work of a pretrial detention center unlawful.

A lawyer has filed a complaint with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation against the sentence of human rights activist Igor Nagavkin in a case of disrupting the work of a pretrial detention center. The defense believes that the courts of first instance, appellate, and cassation committed numerous violations.

As reported by "Caucasian Knot," on June 26, 2024, a court in the Volgograd region found Igor Nagavkin guilty of disrupting the work of a pretrial detention center and sentenced him to two years' probation. The human rights activist said he intends to seek recognition of his innocence. On July 29, 2024, Nagavkin appealed the verdict in the case of disruption of the pretrial detention facility. In his appeal, Nagavkin demanded that the verdict be overturned, citing 13 violations committed by the court: infringement of his right to defense and violation of procedural law in the criminal proceedings. Nagavkin had previously presented these arguments during the trial. The Volgograd Regional Court overturned the Leninsky District Court's verdict and sentenced him to two years in a penal colony.

Igor Nagavkin's lawyer, Valery Shukhardin, told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent on April 4 that he had filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation against the verdict and the rulings of the appellate and cassation courts.

Shukhardin recalled that the Fourth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction upheld the rulings. According to Nagavkin and his lawyer, the courts issued their rulings "in significant violation of criminal and criminal procedure laws." Thus, the Volgograd Regional Court failed to comply with the requirements of Article 53.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the clarifications of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the Resolution of December 22, 2015, No. 58 "On the Practice of Appointing Criminal Punishments by the Courts of the Russian Federation" (paragraphs 22.1 and 22.2) "and imposed an unfair and excessively harsh punishment."

"When rendering a guilty verdict with the imposition of a sentence in the form of actual imprisonment, the appellate court did not clarify whether there were grounds for replacing the sentence in the form of imprisonment with forced labor. This violation of the law by the appellate court influenced or could have influenced the rendering of a lawful and reasoned final decision in the criminal case, which is a significant violation of the rules of substantive and procedural law. The appellate court significantly violated the requirements of the criminal law and imposed an illegal, unfair, and excessively harsh punishment," said Valery Shukhardin.

The court, according to the lawyer, also failed A legal assessment of the arguments in Nagavkin's appeal "regarding the lack of objective evidence of the preliminary investigation authorities' compliance with the requirements of Part 5 of Article 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation," since the case file contains no evidence that Nagavkin was advised of his rights regarding filing a petition for a special procedure hearing.

"My client was effectively deprived of the opportunity to petition for his criminal case to be heard under a special procedure and, accordingly, he could not count on a more lenient and just punishment. Failure to explain to Igor his rights under Part 5 of Article 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and depriving him of the real opportunity to have his case heard under a special procedure, given the existence of legal grounds, constitutes a significant violation of the right to defense of the accused and entails the annulment of all court decisions in the criminal case," Shukhardin explained.

The lawyer also pointed out another significant violation committed by the appellate and cassation courts. In the absence of any sufficient objective evidence of Nagavkin's guilt, "the court placed the burden of proving his innocence on him."

"This was done illegally, citing the fact that the accused was thereby exercising his legal right to defense. "This reasoning by the court contradicts the principle of the presumption of innocence," the lawyer is convinced.

Furthermore, according to Shukhardin, the court assumed the inappropriate functions of a forensic medical expert and, lacking specialized knowledge in such sciences, illegally stated in the verdict: "The court concludes that I.B. Nagavkin is sane, since his behavior both during the preliminary investigation and in court does not raise doubts about his sanity."

"The trial court clearly exceeded its authority, assumed the inappropriate functions of an expert for the prosecution, and failed to legally eliminate doubts about the possibility of legally bringing my client to criminal responsibility in this criminal case, thereby significantly violating his right to the presumption of innocence, which entails the annulment of all court decisions in the criminal case," the defense lawyer stated.

Listed by Valery Shukhardin and the violations committed by the district court during the expert examinations, both during the investigative actions and during the trial. The experts, according to the lawyer, drew "unreliable and inadmissible conclusions." Shukhardin stated, "The verdict was based on an expert opinion obtained in violation of Articles 195 and 198 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code, which was not contested by the prosecution and was not refuted by the court in the verdict. Under these circumstances, the verdict (of June 26, 2024) and subsequent court decisions are subject to overturn as based on inadmissible evidence that was decisive for the resolution of the criminal case." The lawyer also noted that the judge unlawfully denied Nagavkin the linguistic examination he requested. Shukhardin presented all of the arguments listed here to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in his cassation appeal. The defense asked the higher court to initiate cassation proceedings and overturn the verdict, the appellate ruling of the Volgograd Regional Court, and the Cassation Ruling of the Fourth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction. The date of the court hearing in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has not yet been set, he said.

01:39 26.02.2026

The Volgograd Regional Court sided with Nagavkin in three disputes With the Federal Penitentiary Service

The Volgograd Regional Court has upheld three lawsuits filed by Igor Nagavkin against the federal and regional departments of the Federal Penitentiary Service (FSIN) regarding the conditions of his detention in the Leninsk Pretrial Detention Center and Uryupinsk Correctional Facility No. 23.

The Central District Court of Volgograd continues to hear lawsuits filed by Igor Nagavkin against the Federal Treasury Department for the Volgograd Region. The human rights activist is seeking compensation for moral damages for the unacceptable conditions of detention in the Leninsk Pretrial Detention Center and the Uryupinsk Penal Colony, where he was held while awaiting trial and serving a two-year prison sentence. One of the lawsuits was heard by Judge Elena Zhiteneva alone on March 23. She dismissed the lawsuit "without action." On March 24, another lawsuit was accepted for "sole consideration" by Judge Dmitry Korotenko. His decision is not yet known, as the review process is not yet complete. Nagavkin's sister, Natalya Shishlina, told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent that Igor has no complaints about the conditions of detention in the general regime penal colony in Kamyshin or his health. Igor's exchange of letters with his relatives is proceeding without violation of the law. In one letter, Nagavkin informed the "Caucasian Knot" editorial staff that he would not answer questions "since the letter won't go away." "Ask all questions to my lawyers," Igor said.