Security forces removed the electronic bracelet of Hieromonk Ilya Sigida.

On November 27, 2025, masked security forces seized monetary donations and documents from the church of Archbishop Viktor Pivovarov of the Russian Orthodox Church, 1 , and then took his assistant, Ilya Sigida, with them. Sigida's mother was informed that he was being detained on charges of discrediting the army. On November 28, he was released under house arrest. Parishioners reported that after his arrest, Sigida was wearing a torn cassock and had his head shaved, and Sigida's mother described her son's state as depressed. Sigida's arrest has been extended several times. On April 22, security forces arrived at the church where Ilya Sigida was serving house arrest. They announced that the court's decision to soften his pretrial detention at the request of the investigation had entered into force, after which they removed his bracelet, which the penitentiary service used to track his location, parishioners told the "Caucasian Knot."

“Two people came and said it was a medical check. They removed the bracelet and took away the equipment it was connected to,” said parishioner Oleg, who helps elderly priest Viktor Pivovarov with his daily living.

That same day, Sigida was able to go outside, noted parishioner Maria. “Iona went to the store and the pharmacy. He still feels unwell, has lost his appetite, and has noticeably lost weight. "He has a great weakness," the woman said.

The investigator's initiative to lift the hieromonk's house arrest is unusual, but understandable, and it's impossible to predict how harsh Sigida's sentence might be based on this step, says lawyer Timur Filippov.

"Investigators, as a rule, move toward tougher, not softer, sentences, and yet this is not an isolated case. An investigator won't go to court with a knowingly weak position; if he understands that extending a harsh pretrial detention will no longer be possible, or that doing so would appear frankly forced, he prefers to propose a softer sentence himself. This is not a sign of the "humanization" of the system, but rather an indicator that in this particular case, the investigation has run out of convincing arguments to maintain the previous level of pressure," Filippov stated.

The lawyer recalled that the Criminal Procedure Code The law obliges investigators to regularly justify to the court the need to extend the accused's house arrest.

"Each extension must be justified by specific risks: that the person will abscond, exert pressure, or continue 'criminal activity'—however, even in such a situation, a year under house arrest is effectively the limit. As this period approaches, investigators inevitably face difficulties justifying further extensions: the court must demonstrate specific risks, rather than merely refer to them pro forma. If the accused has not violated the terms of the measure over a long period, has not absconded, or attempted to influence the trial, these risks appear increasingly less convincing." Therefore, the investigator's initiative to mitigate the measure in such a situation is also explained not by a change in position on the case, but by the fact that the investigation had reached the procedural limit and preferred not to escalate the situation to the point of a court refusal," he explained.

Filippov noted that if the initiative for mitigation comes from the investigation itself, a judge very rarely opposes it—in the absence of a conflict between the parties, the court has no reason for demonstrative harshness.

"It's important to understand that this doesn't change the general nature of the case. Criminal prosecution under articles such as 'discrediting the army' remains an instrument of pressure, and a change in the measure of restraint does not mean a change in the state's attitude toward the accused. "This is more of a technical adjustment within an already-running mechanism," the lawyer concluded.

He added that the personal views and considerations of a particular investigator in practice have no impact on the fate of the accused, since in criminal proceedings, decisions are made "not on the level of personal convictions, but within the framework of the rigidly defined logic of the system."