JEHOVAH'S
WITNESSES
FROM VOLGOGRAD DECLARE THEIR READINESS FOR PERSECUTION
Kavkazskii
Uzel, 14
March 2020
The
investigation and
prosecution may summon Jehovah's Witnesses for questioning, but
this will not
force them to refuse to support their fellow believers, who have
already been
put on trial on a charge of extremism, representatives of the
congregation
declare.
As
Kavkazskii Uzel
has reported, the investigation charged five believers from
Volgograd—Valery
Rogozin, Sergei Melnik, Igor Egosarian, Viacheslav Osipov, and
Denis
Peresunko—with extremism. They were placed in detention and then
their
restriction was mitigated to a prohibition of certain
activities. The
defendants do not acknowledge themselves to be extremists. They
insist that
they are not participating in the activity of a legal entity
that has been
banned by a court but they simply profess their own religion as
individual
persons. The defense attorneys of the believers have pointed to
the lack of
evidence of their guilt.
Wives
and mothers of
defendants arrived to support them
The
scheduled hearing
in the case of the Jehovah's Witnesses from Volgograd occurred
on 13 March in
the Traktorozavod court. The trial began a half hour late
because of the
arrangement for the questioning of a secret witness. While the
questioning was
being arranged, the participants in the trial and attendees
waited in the hall.
The wives of Valery Rogosin, Sergei Melnik, and Denis Peresunko
came to support
their husbands, along with Igor Egozarian's and Viacheslav
Osipov's mothers. In
all, the support group consisted of approximately 30 persons.
The
believers
conversed with one another, discussing the prospects of the
trial and daily affairs.
Marina Rogozin said she would not attend the sessions but is
waiting in the
corridor, since she is a witness in the case. Egozarian's mother
and
Peresunko's wife also are witnesses and they also will await the
conclusion of
the sessions in the corridor. "We are worried and nervous, and
we support
them," Marina Rogozina told a Kavkazskii Uzel correspondent.
The
fellow believers
declared readiness for prosecution for support of the
defendants
A fellow
believer of
the defendants named Katerina, who came to the trial in order to
support them,
explained that she is not afraid of the prospects of receiving a
summons to
questioning, as happened in Dagestan. "I have come in order to
encourage
my fellow believers with my support and also to be encouraged
myself because we
are enduring so much. But I think that will not happen here
because in order to
take you down there must be some accusation. There is some kind
of human,
subconscious fear, but in reality there shouldn't be. Although
they can drag
everybody in for everything. So we will present our passport and
they can copy
the passport information, and welcome," she told the Kavkazskii
Uzel
correspondent.
The same
position was
also expressed by another believer named Nina. "I think that it
depends on
who gave such evidence to the investigator, and so our
conscience is clear. I
was prompted to come to the trial by love for the brothers [what
the fellow
believers call one another—Kav. Uzel note]. We are for unity; we
support one
another with our presence. If I were the defendant, then I could
count on the
support of fellow believers," she explained.
"With
each
session it is clearer that any one of us could wind up in the
dock. It is
evident that the defendants have nothing to do with extremism;
that's
obvious," the observer Vladimir told the Kavkazskii Uzel
correspondent.
The
Jehovah's Witness
Tsolak came to the trial for the third time. "I come in order
that our
fellow believers have support," he told a Kavkazskii Uzel
correspondent.
The man also stated that he is not afraid of a summons for
interrogation.
"It's possible, but not scary. God supports us and we place our
hope in
him," he emphasized.
The
fellow believers
shared that they feel a oneness with the defendants. "Like close
relatives, we experience one and the same feeling. We are joined
by spiritual
bonds. What the defendants go through, we also go through, only
by proxy. It is
hard to imagine that we may be summoned. Everything is possible,
what have you,"
a believer named Mikhail said to a Kavkazskii Uzel
correspondent.
A
believer named
Irina agreed with him. "We have come to support so that our
friends will
know that they are not alone. This should be evidence for those
who work here
that we are not frightened and that we are one family. We have
heard that it
happened in other cities that believers who come to a trial are
summoned for
interrogation. [see related
article] But why be afraid of what hasn't happened?
And I also want to
say that it is possible to shut down an organization, but not to
forbid belief
in God. After the revolution the church was threatened, but our
grandmothers
continued to believe and they read the Bible and baptized their
children and
grandchildren in secret," Irina told a Kavkazskii Uzel
correspondent.
The
defense opposed
questioning a secret witness
The
state prosecutor
Anna Miagkova addressed the audience and trial participants with
the words
"my friends" and invited them to proceed to the courtroom on the
first floor. The first to enter the room were the defendants.
They appeared
concentrated and several were ready with paper and pen in order
to make notes.
Then the audience entered. The room was packed; only 17
observers were present.
Igor
Egozarian's
81-year-old mother tried to attend the session, but the
believers themselves
explained to her that she could not attend since she is a
witness in the case.
One of the audience asked the others whether there were in the
corridor some
who were first to arrive and when it was discovered that there
were such, she
gave her place to a girl who arrived first and she herself went
out into the
corridor. The court session began after the state prosecutor
asked the audience
whether it was too hot or too cold for them in the room.
The
state prosecutor
announced that witnesses Gul and Belikova were not at the court
today and she
filed a motion for questioning a secret witness. The witness
himself was in a
room near the courtroom, behind a screen.
The
defense objected
to the secrecy of witnesses. Attorney Alexander Obukhov declared
that by law
witnesses may be kept secret in the event that there is
information about
threats to the witness or to his relatives of murder, use of
force, or
destruction or damage of property. He also pointed out that the
religion of
Jehovah's Witnesses advocates pacifism and does not use force.
The lawyer noted
that without knowing the identity of the witness it is
impossible to conduct
the defense of his clients.
Other
defense lawyers
also expressed objection. "The participation of witnesses in a
criminal
case under a pseudonym is provided for by the national
legislation of many
countries, but in Russian practice often witnesses are kept
secret not for
reasons of safety but with a goal of giving false evidence and
avoiding
criminal liability," the lawyer Olga Zinchenko said.
However
the state
prosecutor declared that the secret witness will be questioned
under the
pseudonym Klintsov. Klintsov himself reported that despite the
fears for his
safety, he went to the investigator to give evidence, since he
considered this
to be his civic duty. At the same time he noted that the
investigator
"found him by himself." "Several members of the congregation
were in psychiatric hospitals and I do not know what to expect
from them,"
Klintsov explained the reason for his secrecy.
Jehovah's
Witnesses
reacted to Klintsov's testimony with irony
The
questioning of
Klintsov lasted almost four hours. After the start of the
questioning, trial
participants and the audience complained about the poor
acoustics and the
unintelligibility of the witness' speech, and a recess was
declared for checking
the equipment. During the recess, the audience was upset that
Klintsov was
secret. "They did nothing that was forbidden;" the phrase was
sounded
among the support group, a Kavkazskii Uzel correspondent
attending the session
reported.
Despite
the repair of
the equipment, throughout the whole trial the speech of secret
witness Klintsov
was heard poorly. Because of this the sides in the trial
re-questioned him
several times. Several questions Klintsov answered after a
lengthy pause.
Because of this the state prosecutor asked him how he was
feeling. In the
course of Klintsov's responses, defendants Valery Rogosin and
Sergei Melnik
made notes on paper.
Klintsov
described
how the defendants were elders and after the ban they met in
small groups,
acting conspiratorially, using video connections, and leading
meetings.
According to Klintsov, they buried forbidden literature.
Klintsov said that he
himself was not a Jehovah's Witness, but he attended their
meetings before and
after the ban of the organization. "I was neither a baptized nor
an
unbaptized evangelist; I simply watched from the sideline. I
began wondering
when I 'fell for' their propaganda," the witness said.
When
they began
arresting
When
they began
arresting elders, then Klintsov realized that the organization
was forbidden.
"The actions of the defendants were directed from above," he
explained, and he added that the so-called "regional supervisor"
told
the elders what they should do. Ridicule of these words was
heard in the
courtroom and "What nonsense" was whispered. The judge noted the
emotional conduct of the audience in the first row.
Klintsov
tried to
refuse to answer some questions. The judge warned him that he
could not answer
questions if that could endanger his safety.
The
secret witness
noted that he attended at least three meetings in a private home
in the village
of Erzovka. "An ordinary brick house with a roof," Klintsov
described
the meeting place, which evoked laughter in the courtroom. "Yes
there is
one there," came the response in the courtroom. The witness
recalled also
that there was a large fence around the house and a rusty gate,
and the house
itself was on Victory Street. Klintsov declared that he did not
recall the
layout in the house. "We did not go into the rooms. They came,
sat down,
and remained. An ordinary wardrobe, sofa, and television," he
described
the situation and noted that all the elders were engaged in
collecting
donations.
"Can you
explain
why you take so long to answer the questions?" attorney Obukhov
asked
Klintsov about the reason for long pauses. "I am sketching in my
head," the secret witness replied.
To
questions by
lawyer Roman Levin whether Jehovah's Witnesses called for the
overthrow of the
government and for participation in mass disorders and for
acquiring weapons
for armed confrontation with the existing government, Klintsov
responded
negatively. To the question of what they called for, he answered
that they read
forbidden literature—the magazines Watchtower and Awake. Levin
noted that according
to the Criminal Procedure Code, the witness is required to
report the source of
his information, but he is not doing this.
Klintsov
also
maintained that believers "spoke against the coat of arms and
the Russian
flag and called for not observing state holidays—23 February,
New Years, 9
May." But at the same time they oppose bearing arms and
expressed
dissatisfaction with the government. "They had nothing against
the
government, but they did not bow to it," Klintsov said "And were
they
supposed to bow?" lawyer Zinchenko asked. "Believers were
supposed to
respect and observe the laws," Klintsov responded. He explained
that the
disrespect of Jehovah's Witnesses for the government is
expressed in the way
they "choose for themselves a single sovereign, Jehovah God."
"Each religion has a God. Do you wish to say that all believers
do not
respect the laws?" the lawyer asked.
In
posing questions
for the witness, defendant Valery Rogozin called him by the name
Anatoly.
However Klintsov stated that he is not Anatoly.
In
replying to the
judge's questions where he learned the concept "baptized" and
"evangelist," the witness explained that it was from the
publications. He also told the judge that the fact that the
defendants are
elders he heard from them themselves, and also from the
"sisters." He
said that at meetings they talked about receiving instructions.
He also noted
that he himself saw how they conducted collection of money in
envelopes.
The
court extended
for Denis Peresunko the means of restriction in the form of a
prohibition of
certain actions for four months. This was requested by both the
defendant
himself and the state prosecutor.
The
defense pointed
out the lack of evidence for the charge of extremism
The
lawyers declared
that they did not see in the testimony of the witness any
evidence that the
defendants were guilty of extremism. "I posed questions for the
witness
listing those actions that might be regarded as extremist
activity and as
participation in an extremist organization. But the witness
denies such
activity," Osipov's lawyer Roman Levin told a Kavkazskii Uzel
correspondent.
"The
secret
witness gave the court some testimony and he did not say that he
does not
recall, but he said that he supposes. Then his evidence that he
gave the
investigator is produced. It is obvious that he did not write
it, since one can
hear the difference in the wording of the sentences that were
recorded in the
affidavit of the interrogation and those that he gave here. We
request that the
witness be declassified so that it will be possible to
understand whether this
man really is the one who attended the meetings and participated
in them and
really knows something about the organization and its activity,
or simply about
the people," Rogozin's lawyer Irina Sulatskova told a Kavkazskii
Uzel
correspondent.
"Today
an abuse
of the procedure of assuring the safety for witnesses is
occurring. There is no
basis here for adopting these measures, and the witness
confirmed that he never
received any threats. He said that he does not know 'what
tomorrow will bring.'
But there is no basis in the Criminal Procedure Code. It turns
out to be a
rather tricky situation: the witness may not answer some
question, claiming
that he fears identification. And we cannot confirm this
information. In this
regard we are not equal participants with the prosecution,
although by law we
are equal," Igor Egozarian's lawyer Aleksander Obukhov told a
Kavkazskii
Uzel correspondent.
The next
session of
the trial is scheduled for 14.00 on 24 March. Added by
Kavkazskii Uzel on 14
Maarch: The next session of the court is scheduled for 25 March.
At it
questioning of prosecution witnesses will continue. Whether
questioning of yet
another secret witness will occur will depend on whether this
special courtroom
can be arranged, the state prosecutor told a Kavkazskii Uzel
correspondent.
(tr. by PDS, posted 19 March 2020)
Editorial disclaimer: RRN does
not intend to certify the accuracy of information
presented in articles. RRN simply intends to certify the
accuracy of the English translation of the contents of the
articles as they appeared in news media of countries of
the former USSR.
If material is quoted, please give credit to the
publication from which it came. It is not necessary to credit
this Web page. If material is transmitted electronically, please
include reference to the URL,
http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/.