“There is no such thing as someone else’s pain,” the closing words by citizen journalist Osman Arifmemetov at court of appeal

On January 29, Osman Arifmemetov, a journalist and computer science teacher from Crimea, delivered his closing speech in the russian military court of appeal of the Vlasykha City District.

On November 24, 2022, the Southern District Military Court sentenced the political prisoner from the “second Simferopol group” to 14 years in prison. We publish his words in full with the permission of the Crimean Solidarity non-governmental organization.

“I suggest that you listen to what is written in the sentence, according to which I was imprisoned for 14 years by the senior judge of the Southern District Military Court Korsakov and judges Galkin and Shendrikov. I will call them “the three” as they continue the tradition of persecution for dissent that developed in the Soviet past.

This is what they write: “It should be noted that numerous statements, petitions of the defendants … with reference to the materials of the criminal case, detailed speeches of the defendants … during the court session, in which the defendants provide a detailed analysis of the materials of the criminal case with reference to specific volumes, in fact, they testify to proper familiarization with them, and the stated motions and arguments of the defendants – to clear delay of time and abuse of procedural rights.” This is how “the three” explains the groundlessness of the defendants’ statement regarding the violation of the right to defense due to failure to familiarize themselves with the materials of the criminal case.

“The three” saw with their own eyes how we worked with pens in our hands in each trial. We were not idle, by no means, rolling up our sleeves, trying both in the courtroom and in the cells upon our return. This explains our numerous voluminous speeches, petitions, and detailed analysis of case materials.

Isn’t it the judge’s duty to rely solely on the materials provided in the case files? There is a review schedule signed by the investigator, from which it follows that we were familiarized with only the third part of the materials, and there is no mention of physical evidence, audio, or video recordings. In the course of the trial, when examining the evidence of the accusation, we managed to discover a huge array of violations. And this is thanks to our efforts.

As an example, I will give a quick study of video materials in the courtroom. I wrote down everything I saw and heard. This is how the montage of the video recording was discovered. In one of the videos, the time code started from 13:00 and ended before 22:00. The video itself is six hours long. Can a continuous nine-hour recording fit into a six-hour video? We drew the judge’s attention to the signs of video cropping. However, “the three” ignored this fact and did not dare to question the actions, in this case, the results of the operative-search activity “Surveillance” of the FSB officers.

We put all detected violations on paper. “The three” assessed this behavior as an abuse of rights. Their narrow thinking was not even able to ask the question: “Why are these guys trying so hard? After all, they perfectly understand what the result will be.” So, I will answer. The fact is that we have a sense of responsibility for our people. A sense of responsibility is an emotional state of a person that prompts them to think about finding ways to solve problems that concern them. We are limited by the non-violent method of struggle we have adopted, but not limited in the ways and forms within that method. Yes, one of the ways is to fight in the legal field.

We recorded detailed research and analysis of investigative actions and court hearings for violations in order to show russian society and the world community how things are done. Let the world see how the FSB falsifies evidence of the fight against dissent and how prosecutors and judges help in fabricating cases. The security forces, the government, and the mass media are trying to expose us as dangerous criminals. Thus justifying their repression in the eyes of the international community.

We are not criminals or terrorists. See how the trials are going. Don’t believe them. We are ready to submit for review the amount of violations recorded by us. There has never been terrorism in Crimea. Only with the arrival of russia in the peninsula did the pursuit of non-existent terrorists begin.

For the “geniuses” among the judges of the Southern District Military Court, the concept of a sense of responsibility is something alien. Remaining unpunished, “the three” are not responsible for their duties as one of the branches of government before society and history.

I will try to show, as they say, “in simple terms,” how the criminal case against us was fabricated.

The Crimean court directs operatives of the FSB to the Kamiyanka micro-district of the city of Simferopol. The operation was carried to a completely different district, to another administrative-territorial unit of the city. We have documentary evidence from the Department of Urban Planning, as well as the homeowner’s personal documents. “The three” believed that the FSB broke into the wrong house.

All findings of the first instance are based on hearsay and conjecture.

Only on the basis of exclusion from the evidence of the inspection protocol, audio and video recordings, as well as examinations, should have been excluded. There is no evidence that the audio and video recordings were made at that time and month indicated by the FSB. The court takes them at their word. Why? What non-procedural relations connect judges and FSB investigators that the former accept evidence from the latter only on their honest word? The same question arises already in relation to experts.

In the conditions of the 21^st century, it is possible to synthesize voice and face with the help of freely available software. Confirmation of this was the fact that at the end of last year, the president was asked a question by his clone on a direct line with him. The clone had the president’s voice, face, and characteristic movements. Why didn’t “the three” check the audio and video recordings presented by the prosecution for the use of Deepfake technology? Neural network technology is too complex for carefree judges. It is easier to believe the FSB and not worry.

During a careful study of the case materials, it can be seen that the expert phonoscopists and photo-portraitists are employees of the FSB department. Experts, a linguist, and a religious scholar raise doubts about impartiality and objectivity. There is no document explaining the appearance of transcripts. Transcripts were used by the linguist and religious scholar. I mean the document, not the piece of paper the prosecutor pulled out when we pointed out the date discrepancy. Yes, the religious scholar is “fake,” as there is no document confirming his specialization in the case file. There is only a diploma of a historian. And again, are we to believe in the FSB that the historian has the education of a religious scholar?

In the remainder, we have only the testimony of hidden witnesses. Here, it is necessary to pay attention to two facts:

1. The classification took place at the unjustified request of the witnesses themselves. The proof of that is the words of the investigator, S.V. Makhnev, who answered in a parallel case of the organizers who believed the information about the witnesses’ fears. For this reason, they decided to classify it.
2. The testimony of witnesses is based on hearsay, on what they talked about themselves. Allegedly, someone told them that they took an oath, that they made an appeal, and so on. But it is important that they are witnesses to their words.

So, what kind of witnesses are these? Why do judges believe them? Why did the judges turn into rumor spreaders and discuss rumors? Why do they believe the investigators, the prosecutor, and their witnesses, and they do not believe us and our witnesses? Where is the equality of the parties? Where is the presumption of innocence? Where is the principle of the rule of law?

These principles have long been alien to the russian judicial system. It is not surprising because we all witnessed the termination of the criminal proceedings against the rebel, who violated more than ten serious articles of the criminal code of the russian federation and was released to Belarus. By undermining the rule of law, russia has descended to the level of a “banana republic.”

We found no weapons, no plans for capture, no corpses, no march to the capital to overthrow the government. We lived and built our families and raised our children in the bosom of our culture and tradition – the way we understand it, not as we are ordered from above. Apparently, this fact became the main reason for criminal prosecution. We are accused of “crime expressed in the form of thought” in the context of the joint fight against dissent in russia. And the judicial system has turned into a tool for the destruction of alternative opinions, opinions different from those of the authorities.

As for the internal climate, you yourself will witness mass denunciation, witch hunts, and the expected bloody struggle of the Kremlin towers.

They treat us like terrorists. No one understands the matter. They only look at the court’s decision. However, we did not kill anyone. No one was hurt by us. We are not terrorists or criminals. We lived by the principle of “there is no such thing as someone else’s pain” and brought benefits to society. For kitchen conversations and reading books, we are treated like terrorists from day one. We are kept in prisons in inhumane conditions, in violation of all the treaties, in particular the IV Geneva Convention. Because of this attitude, the person involved in our case, Dzhemil Gafarov, has already died. Among the elderly participants, there are people in need of urgent medical care, those who have suffered strokes.

I want to thank everyone who supported me and my family all these years. Human rights defenders of Ukraine and russia, as well as other countries, our lawyers, and journalists. Thanks to Francis Fukuyama for his initiative to be my voice on the world stage. I also want to mention the Ukrainian writer Viktoriya Amelina, who died as a result of the missile attack in Kramatorsk. She took on the responsibility of being my voice to the Ukrainian audience.

I want to express my gratitude to the activists of Crimean Solidarity who, all this time, sent us messages, wrote letters with warm words, and took care of my family. And to everyone who was just worried, remembered and read about us, the prisoners of the Kremlin, prayers.”