Talantov Dmitry Nikolaevich

Full description

The criminal case against Dmitry Talantov, a lawyer, was initiated on 23 June 2022 and sent for investigation to the Investigation Department for the South-Western Administrative District of the State Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the City of Moscow. Since Dmitry Talantov is an acting lawyer, he is subject to a special procedure for criminal proceedings. The search of Talantov’s private home was authorised by the Cheremushkinsky District Court of Moscow, with Judge S.A. Khomyakov prohibiting the investigative team from seizing and copying the lawyer’s materials on his clients’ cases, as “investigative actions should not violate the attorney-client privilege”.

Dmitry Talantov was detained in Izhevsk on 28 June 2022. On the same day, searches took place at Talantov’s place of work and residence, as well as at his relatives, and then he was taken to Moscow. The next day, the Cheremushkinsky District Court sent the lawyer to a pre-trial detention centre until 21 August 2022. The same judge Khomyakov justified the choice of such a preventive measure by the fact that Talantov is a lawyer and can ‘continue criminal activity’ or escape using his professional knowledge of the law enforcement system.

According to the investigation, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Dmitry Talantov repeatedly made posts on his Facebook page condemning the actions of Russian troops and supporting anti-war protests, and on 3 April 2022 he published a photo of a male protester with a placard saying ‘Peace to Ukraine. Russia – sanity, horror, shame, repentance. To Putin – hell’ and placed next to the photo a text that read: ’And how else could it be after the photos and videos from Kharkiv, Mariupol, Irpeni, Bucha? This is no longer fascism – this is extreme Nazi practices! If after this the majority of my compatriots support the murderer of PU and his gang – I personally refuse to recognise them as human beings. Human beings have the quality of compassion. And these people are just stupid and evil scum.’

Thus, according to the expert involved in the investigation, Dmytro Talantov deliberately disseminated information in the form of statements about the killings of civilians in Kharkiv, Mariupol, Irpeni and Bucha to an unlimited number of people, as well as expressed a negative attitude towards Russian President Vladimir Putin. As evidence that the information was knowingly unreliable, the investigation points out that the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation had previously reported on its website that the information about the killings of civilians by Russian servicemen in the towns of Bucha and Irpen in the Kyiv region was untrue.

Since the investigation concluded that Dmitry Talantov acted on the grounds of political hatred, he was charged under paragraph ‘e’ of part 2 of article 207.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

It should be noted that even before the criminal case was initiated, a neighbourhood policeman came to Dmitry Talantov in Izhevsk to conduct a ‘survey’, during which Talantov confirmed that he was the author of the statements on the page ‘Dmitry Talantov’ on Facebook, and refused to delete them.

Dmitry Talantov does not admit his guilt.

The investigator in the case – A.S. Panyutishchev.

Grounds for recognition as a political prisoner

A week after the beginning of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, on 4 March 2022, the State Duma of the Russian Federation adopted laws amending the Code of Administrative Offences and the Criminal Code in an emergency order (not in the form of separate bills, but by amending others already passed in the first reading). These laws prohibit calls for sanctions, spreading fakes about the Russian armed forces, discrediting them, as well as calls to ‘obstruct their use’. On the same day, the laws were approved by the Federation Council and signed by the president in the evening. The amendments came into force from the day of their official publication – 5 March 2022.

The corpus delicti of the offence under the new Article 207.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is formulated as follows: ‘Public dissemination, under the guise of reliable reports, of deliberately false information containing data on the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation to protect the interests of the Russian Federation and its citizens, to maintain international peace and security, as well as containing data on the execution by state bodies of the Russian Federation of their powers outside the territory of the Russian Federation for the above purposes.’

We believe that this article contradicts both the Russian Constitution and international obligations of the Russian Federation, as well as basic principles of law.

According to Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ‘Everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference … shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice’.

Restrictions on the exercise of these rights ‘shall be established by law and shall be necessary: to respect the rights and reputation of other persons; to protect state security, public order, public health or morals’.

Similar guarantees are contained in Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which guarantees freedom of thought and speech. Restrictions on these freedoms are related to the prohibition of propaganda or agitation inciting social, racial, national or religious hatred and enmity, propaganda of social, racial, national, religious or linguistic superiority, as well as state secrets.

According to part 3 of article 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, ‘human and civil rights and freedoms may be restricted by federal law only to the extent necessary to protect the foundations of the constitutional order, morality, health, rights and legitimate interests of other persons, and to ensure the defence of the country and the security of the state’.

The restrictions on freedom of expression established by Article 207.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation clearly do not serve the purposes for which such restrictions could have been established.

It is important to note that there is no legal restriction on freedom of expression even under martial law, under which para. 15 of Article 7 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation ‘On Martial Law’ allows for the introduction of military censorship, suspension of the activities of political parties, other public and religious associations. All the more, there are no grounds for them in a situation where martial law has not been imposed.

No less significant is the fact that the wording of the article itself does not allow us to determine in advance which statements are lawful and which are prohibited. A citizen cannot judge in advance which of his statements or information may be considered false in a given context and fall under the scope of this norm.

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has expressed its opinion on this issue in a number of legal positions. According to them, ambiguity, vagueness and inconsistency in the regulation of the law are inadmissible because, by preventing the proper clarification of its content, they open up to the law enforcer the possibility of unlimited discretion, weakening the guarantees of constitutional rights and freedoms (in particular, the CC rulings of 20 December 2011 No. 29-P, 2 June 2015 No. 12-P, 19 July 2017 No. 22-P).

In fact, the norms of Article 207.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation allow prosecution for expressing any opinion on the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and the activities of its state bodies abroad. Judgements on whether the actions mentioned in the article have the purpose of ‘protecting the interests of the Russian Federation and its citizens, maintaining international peace and security’ or not, by their nature are evaluative, expressions of opinion.

But even with regard to information, i.e. statements of fact in the conditions of military operations and competition of contradictory information from different sources, it is extremely difficult to judge their truthfulness or falsity. Moreover, it is impossible to establish knowingly, i.e. intent to disseminate false information.

The mentioned organic defects of Article 207.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation determine its non-legal nature, which does not even allow its application in good faith. However, the very fact of urgent introduction of this article into the Criminal Code immediately after the beginning of armed aggression against Ukraine, the rhetoric of officials accompanying its consideration and adoption, and, most importantly, the context of its application – the ongoing hostilities and accompanying state military propaganda – exclude such good faith. In a situation when the only true information and assessments are those of official Russian sources, which not only justify a war of aggression and deny numerous evidences of civilian deaths as a result of Russian strikes and war crimes committed by Russian forces, but also forbid naming events, which from any point of view are war, by the word ‘war’, the application of this inherently unlawful article of the Criminal Code is also of a purely unfair and unlawful nature. The grounds for criminal prosecution are both legitimate opinions assessing the war and circumstances related to it, and statements about documented and confirmed facts.

The qualifying features of part 2 of this article, which provides for tougher criminal prosecution, are both legitimate opinions assessing the war and related circumstances and statements of documented and confirmed facts. 2 of this article, which provides for tougher penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment, are often subjective, as paragraph “e” provides for the presence of “a motive of political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity or a motive of hatred or enmity against a social group”. In modern conditions, proof of the presence of such a motive is reduced to a simple declaration of its existence. At the same time, proceeding from the fact that any speech against war is in itself socially useful and has no public danger at all, none of the qualifying features, if it does not form an independent corpus delicti of the offence, can be considered as increasing the social danger of the act.

Based on the above, the Independent Human Rights Project ‘Support for Political Prisoners. Memorial’ believes that Article 207.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is anti-legal in nature, was created to carry out political repression against critics of the authorities and should be cancelled. Any prosecutions under this article are unlawful and should be stopped.

Moreover, even without regard to the anti-constitutional nature of Article 207.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the specific statement imputed to Dmitry Talantov is not covered by its composition, as it does not contain information, i.e. statements of facts, but only opinions and expression of the author’s attitude to events and people. This was also noted by Amnesty International, which recognised him as a prisoner of conscience.

The more dangerous and should be assessed most critically by the society are the prosecutions under this article against the lawyer. Colleagues of Dmitry Talantov do not exclude the motive of persecution for professional activities. Dmitry Talantov not so long ago became one of the defenders of the journalist Ivan Safronov in the case of state treason. He became the third defence lawyer in the case of Ivan Safronov. The first two – Ivan Pavlov and Yevgeny Smirnov – had to stop defending him and leave Russia. Pavlov due to criminal prosecution because of his work on the Safronov case, Smirnov left Russia when he noticed he was being followed. Enter Talantov, who spoke about how the investigation into Safronov’s case was hampering the work of defence lawyers.

Although Talantov is the first defence lawyer to be prosecuted under the ‘military fakes’ article, pressure on the legal profession, both in connection with military censorship cases and other ‘political’ cases, has long been a reality.

It is necessary to listen to the opinion of Dmitry Talantov’s colleagues:

Evgeny Smirnov: ‘Lawyers who defend people under these new articles are in a special risk zone. Now it is very difficult to find a lawyer who is ready to speak in defence of people accused under such articles, even in administrative cases. Because lawyers are becoming afraid that those norms of the law on their immunity simply do not work. In the case of a lawyer, the law explicitly says that a lawyer cannot be held liable for the words he says in defence of his client in a court hearing.

Ivan Pavlov: ‘I know that he dealt not only with Safronov’s case, but he had a number of anti-war cases that he handled in Udmurtia. And besides, you see, he is being tried for his word. And a lawyer’s word is the only weapon. And the only means of production. So, of course, I see what is happening to Dmitry as an attack on lawyers‘ rights’.

To understand the context of Talantov’s persecution, we would also like to point out that recently a report was drawn up on lawyer Maria Bonzler in Kaliningrad under the administrative article on ‘fakes’ about the army: she was fined 60,000 roubles for two court appearances. In both cases, the lawyer defended detainees at anti-war rallies. Protocols on Bonzler were drawn up because of several phrases about the invasion of Ukraine:

‘Russia attacked Ukraine.’

‘It is not clear what our state is doing. It attacked 16 regions of Ukraine. For what?’

We believe it is important to note that Dmitry Talantov is one of the recognised leaders of the truly independent Russian Bar, who has consistently fought for the principles of independence and self-governance of lawyers. His status as president of the Bar Association, which was difficult to deprive him of through legal procedures, gave additional weight to his public position. We believe that all this is also very probably one of the reasons for his prosecution.

Formally, the criminal case against Dmitry Talantov was initiated on the basis of the Report on the discovery of signs of an offence during the monitoring of the Internet by the Central Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. However, there are reasons to believe that the inspection and the criminal case may have resulted from the actions of a certain blogger Roman Skomorokhov, the author of the resource ‘Military Review’. Skomorokhov, according to his own reports, wrote statements against Talantov to the FSB and the Investigative Committee, and also urged users of the resource ‘Voennoe Obozrenie’ to follow his example, because, in his opinion, ‘it is our sacred duty as citizens to identify and report on these Bandera nests in our country’.

The human rights association ‘First Department’ also found out that both witnesses who were at the search in Talantau’s house are connected with the law enforcement agencies. The first witness, Boris Tokiyev, former head of the enquiry, wrote articles for the newspaper Petrovka 38. In 2002, he was sentenced to two years on charges of falsifying evidence. The second witness is Mikhail Senkin, a ticktocker under the pseudonym Grisha Bigudinsky. With the help of GetContact ‘First Department’ managed to find out that Senkin was recorded in phone books as ‘Mishanya (bartender from the Ministry of Internal Affairs)’, ‘Misha, canteen of the UVD’, ‘Misha the bargainer’.

The independent human rights project ‘Support for Political Prisoners. Memorial’, which continues the work of the thematic programme of the state liquidated Memorial, in accordance with the international guidelines on the definition of “political prisoner”, finds that the criminal case against Dmitry Talantov is politically motivated, aimed at involuntary termination or changing the nature of public activities of critics of the authorities, as well as intimidation of society as a whole, i.e. consolidation and retention of power by the subjects of authority, and the deprivation of liberty was applied to him in violation of the right to freedom of expression. Moreover, we consider that the persecution of individuals for their anti-war stance is solely related to their political views and the exercise of their freedom of expression.

Thus, regardless of whether the reason for the prosecution of Dmitry Talantov is his professional advocacy or not, his prosecution under Article 207.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is unlawful due to the anti-legal nature of this article.

The independent human rights project ‘Support for Political Prisoners. Memorial’ considers Dmitry Talantov a political prisoner and demands his immediate release.

Recognition of a person as a political prisoner does not mean either agreement with his views and statements or approval of his statements or actions.

Lawyers of Dmitry Talantov: Pavel Bijanov, Alan Gamazov, Anastasia Kostanova, Dmitry Katchev, Daniil Berman, Maria Nemova and Dmitry Lapin.

Links to media publications:

Mediazone. The post Arrest. What is known about the criminal case against lawyer Talantov // http://zona.media/article/2022/06/29/talantov

Mediazona. Arrest of lawyer Talantov for ‘fakes’ about the war // http://zona.media/online/2022/06/29/talantov

First Department. Baryga Misha and a lover of minors: who is involved in the case against lawyer Talantov // http://t.me/deptone/3344.

News.ru. German failure: how the cases of Ivan Safronov and Dmitry Talantov are connected // http://news.ru/society/ochishenie-ot-dvorcovyh-parazitov-zachem-vlasti-uprazdnyayut-pensionnyj-fond/

Military Review. ‘Their name is legion’. Dmitry Talantov, an admirer of Ukronazism // http://topwar.ru/194697-imja-im-legion-poklonnik-ukronacizma-dmitrij-talanov.html

Date of reference update: 14.07.2022.