The case of Sirotkin in Tambov

A.S. Seleznev, an investigator for particularly important cases of the Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the Tambov Region, initiates a criminal case against 57-year-old Oleg Sirotkin under Part 1 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The investigation interprets peaceful worship services with friends via video conferencing as "active deliberate actions of an organizational nature aimed at continuing the illegal activities" of a legal entity.

Searches are being conducted at at least two addresses, one of them at Oleg Sirotkin's. Personal records, a computer and a webcam are seized. All items are attached to material evidence.

Investigator Seleznev chooses Oleg Sirotkin a measure of restraint in the form of a written undertaking not to leave and proper behavior.

Oleg Sirotkin is involved as an accused. He is charged with the events from March 19 to March 25, 2021. The investigation claims that during this period of time, Oleg, being at home, via the Internet "took part in collective religious services, consisting of ... singing songs and prayers to Jehovah God." At the same time, no specific facts of extremist calls or actions are given.

As part of the Sirotkin case, a search is underway at another address. A computer and a webcam are seized from believers.

Oleg's car is seized in case of recovery of a fine for the execution of the sentence.

The prosecutor approves the indictment. It mentions a religious study in which Yana Chernyaeva, a lecturer at the Department of Theology at Tambov State University, claims that the audio recordings recorded a worship service. She unreasonably calls it a continuation of the activities of a liquidated legal entity, although this worship service was an exercise of the constitutional right to freedom of worship.

Among the witnesses is the head of the Department for Youth Affairs and Missionary Work of the Tambov Diocese, Vitaly Shcherbakov, who is not familiar with the accused, but at the same time in his testimony reports untrue information about the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses.

The case is submitted to the Leninsky District Court of Tambov. It will be considered by judge Denis Lipatov.

At a closed preliminary hearing, the court refuses to exclude from the case file an examination that the defense considers biased.

The lawyer draws the court's attention to the fact that the expert Larisa Astakhova is known in other cases for allowing distortions in the conclusions of the examinations.

She makes no secret of her negative attitude toward Jehovah's Witnesses. Astakhova has degrees in philosophy and sociology, but does not have sufficient qualifications in the field of religious studies. "The clearly anti-scientific and biased approach of the expert L. S. Astakhova," the lawyer declares, "demonstrates absolute ignorance of the object of study and inability to objectively answer the questions posed."

The court is interrogating a witness who is Oleg Sirotkin's immediate superior. He characterizes the defendant as a reliable, modest, responsible, very sociable employee. When asked by the lawyer whether Sirotkin ever provoked conflicts in the team, the witness answers: "On the contrary, he always smoothed them out, he was a peacemaker."

The court examines other witnesses for the prosecution. However, it turns out that most of them are not familiar with the defendant.

The defendant's neighbor is being questioned in court. He says that when his daughter died, Sirotkin came, tried to comfort him and talked about the biblical hope for the resurrection.

The meeting is attended by 27 listeners.

Orthodox clergyman Vitaly Shcherbakov is invited to the meeting. He says that the investigator had previously questioned him as a specialist, not as a witness. The lawyer declares the disqualification of the clergyman, since he was invited not as a specialist, but as a witness in the case. The judge rejects the motion and continues the questioning.

Shcherbakov confirms that the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia is not prohibited, and only their legal entity was liquidated. He also says that the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses, which were provided to him for research, dated to the period before 2017, that is, before the Supreme Court made a decision regarding the legal entity. He did not meet any later dates.

The hearing is attended by 46 listeners, and there is room for 12 people in the courtroom.

Local religious scholar Yana Chernova, associate professor, master of religious studies, is being interrogated. She cannot explain why the Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia was needed and whether followers of this denomination can carry out religious activities without it. At the same time, she agrees that, as a specialist, she is obliged to have this information. Chernova says that it is possible to practice the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, but only alone.

The defense presents evidence and insists that the case materials be dealt with in detail. The lawyer begins by considering the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court, at which clarifications were given in defense of the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses. "According to the ruling," the lawyer says, "Oleg Sirotkin's actions should be looked for extremism, and not the fact of organizing peaceful worship, which he does not deny."

Religious expert Larisa Astakhova does not appear at the hearing. Judge Denis Lipatov places the duty on the prosecutor's office to ensure the appearance of a religious scholar.

The judge proposes to read out the examination without questioning Astakhova, since she does not appear again. The defense objected, since it is this examination that is the basis of the accusation, and the lawyer and the defendant would like to interrogate her. The prosecutor's office supports the defense.

Religious expert Larisa Astakhova again does not appear at the meeting. The prosecutor's office says it has exhausted the possibilities of bringing the expert to court. The judge proposes to proceed to the interrogation of the accused. The defense asks for time to prepare, so the hearing is adjourned to 20 September.

Oleg Sirotkin and his lawyer object to the judge's actions in connection with the decision not to interrogate the expert Astakhova. The judge attaches the objections to the case file.

For the next 4 hours, the lawyer reads out the religious studies of Doctor of Philosophy, religious scholar Ekaterina Elbakyan. Among other things, it concludes that in order to worship God, believers were not required to register a legal entity or to continue the activities of a liquidated organization. The judge refuses to attach the text of the study to the case file, arguing that there is already enough evidence of the defendant's guilt and innocence. Counsel again objects to the actions of the presiding judge.