Twenty Lawyers Defend Colleague in Court Over Alleged Assault on Police Officer

Vladivostok lawyer Ruslan Omelchenko has been placed under house arrest until March 15 as a suspect in a case of using violence against a government representative. Over 20 colleagues, convinced of his innocence, came to the Frunzensky District Court to defend him.

Omelchenko became a suspect in a criminal case after a meeting with a Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) employee at a pretrial detention center (SIZO). On December 12, he went to the detention center to meet with his client. Meetings with detainees at the center are conducted in turn: visitors go through a security check, receive a ticket at the duty station, and are then escorted to the detainee and shown the number of the room for the conversation.

Ruslan approached the door and waited for his client to be brought out. An MVD investigator approached the same room and said that she needed to speak with the detainee first in the criminal case. The lawyer expressed dissatisfaction, citing that the detention center operates on a first-come, first-served basis, and everyone has the right to meet with their defender without outside interference. Moreover, he was first in line.

According to Omelchenko, the woman pushed him and tried to enter the room, but could not open the heavy door. A SIZO employee and other lawyers approached the conflict, and they, allegedly, also pointed out the priority of his visit.

The claimant asserts that Omelchenko «acting intentionally, grabbed the forearm of the left hand of M.A. Ananchenko with his hand, then, holding her, struck the surface of her left shoulder against the surface of a vertically positioned metal door of the investigative room […], causing Ananchenko M.A. physical pain and a bruise on the area of her left shoulder through his criminal actions...».

According to the lawyer himself, there was no violence, and this can be proven by video footage from cameras in the SIZO, provided by the Federal Penitentiary Service (FSIN). According to information from the Telegram channel TOR, the lawyers in court asked to review the video and interrogate witnesses — two other lawyers. But the claimant objected, asserting that the witnesses were not present during the conflict, and the source of the video recording is unclear.

The court agreed, citing the unclear origin of the recording. Later, the victim herself asked to draw conclusions based on this video footage, but since its viewing had already been denied at the beginning, this was not possible.