Olga Slegina, a 70-year-old resident of Moscow, is being tried for “discrediting the army.” The pensioner is said to have allegedly spoken out publicly in support of Ukraine and Ukrainian government while staying in a sanatorium in Nalchik. During interrogation, the police persuaded the visually impaired woman to sign a report in which her words were distorted. In the course of the first hearing the judge interrupted the defense counsel, threw out sarcastic remarks and obviously made it clear that she was predisposed against Slegina. This case is described below.

Olga’s version

In December 2022, 70-year-old Muscovite Olga Slegina stayed in the Nalchik sanatorium belonging to the Federal Penitentiary Service. On 24 December, she dined in the dining room with a woman originating from the Ukrainian city of Odessa. They jokingly started a conversation at the table about how to pronounce the Ukrainian word “palyanitsya” (bread). During the conversation Olga asked the man who was also sitting at the table whether he was for Russia or Ukraine, without mentioning the war in any way.

After dinner, Olga also asked Natalia Zakharova, a waitress who came up to their table, if she knew the word “palyanitsya” and who she was for. Zakharova responded by saying that Zelensky is “an ugly creature.”  Olga replied that “Zelensky is a handsome young man with a good sense of humor, previously everybody used to laugh at his jokes.” She also asked: “In your republic, don’t Ukrainians cry “Glory to Ukraine” like we see in Moscow?”

At noon on 27 December, a man dressed in civilian clothes came to Olga’s room. He produced “some document” and said that three persons had filed a complaint with the police saying that Olga “was praising Zelensky.” Olga replied that the conversation was only about Zelensky’s appearance.

The police officer stated: “You have no right to praise him because he is our enemy.”

The man took her passport from her to make a photocopy and left, warning her that she shouldn’t go anywhere until the fact-finding is completed.

Right after him, two girls in police uniform came. They drew up an administrative offense report. The report was not shown to Olga, nor was she asked to sign it.  After lunch, she was convoyed to the police car in front of other holidaymakers and delivered to the police office. In doing so, the police officers did not allow the woman to take medicines with her, even though her blood pressure could rise due to stress.

‍

Interrogation

According to Olga, none of the officers in the police office introduced themselves and informed her of her rights. “The boss of neighborhood police inspectors” – this is how the female police officers referred to him later – said right away:  “Why talk to her, get her processed for the court.”

Olga was taken to a room where another police officer demanded that she give him her telephone. When she refused to do that, he threatened her with a 15-day arrest and said that they would “withdraw the phone anyway because they have the right to do so.”  Olga gave him her phone, but the police officer did not find anything prohibited on it. After that they started asking the woman where she was born, whether she had been to Ukraine and had relatives there.

Then she signed a report, which was purportedly written “from her words.” She also put several signature where she was told to do so. However, Olga was not able to read the document because she did not have her glass with her in the police office, whilst her one eye was after surgery and the other had a cataract. The woman wrote with difficulty under the explanation: “Recorded correctly from my words and read.” The word “none” against Olga’s signature in the line “remarks regarding the content of the report” is written in someone else’s handwriting.

Later, Olga found out that her words were distorted in the report. For instance, during the conversation with the law enforcement officer she said that she was “indignant about the fact that those who have money, [those] leave for abroad.” Female police officer Tekuyeva interpreted this phrase in the report in the following way:

“Slegina expressed her support for Ukraine, believing that the Ukrainians glorify their country, while Russian soldiers are running off from the war.”

She also asserts that Olga cried “Glory to Ukraine”, said the phrase “Zelensky is a cutie” and “expressed her dissatisfaction with the situation in the country.” Besides, she allegedly asked the waitress a question in order “to provoke her.”

According to Olga, she understood little during the interrogation due to what she had experienced and wanted “everything to end quickly.”  She was afraid that she would have a hypertensive crisis in the police office.  Furthermore, the police officers asked her to hurry up, saying that it was necessary to go faster to the court, which will “go into the matter fairly” and where she will be able to “tell the judge everything.”

After the interrogation, Olga was taken to the court, but the hearing did not take place. On that day, she only returned to the sanatorium by dinnertime.

Witness testimony

Waitress Natalia Zakharova explained in her testimony that on 24 December, Olga Slegina approached her during dinner, saying “Glory to Ukraine”, “Zelensky is a jewel of a man, he will rule everybody and Russia will be ‘in the ass.’”

According to Olga, she did not aim to provoke Zakharova. She said the phrase about Zelensky’s appearance in assessing his masculine nature and a good sense of humor. Olga called the waitress’s testimony “speculation” due to the conflict that took place between them the day before, when Olga remarked to the catering director that waiters should not carry food on the bottom shelves of the trolley which are almost at the floor level.

After that, the waitress expressed discontent to Olga and complained that “they got more work to do.”

Yevgeny Kalugin, who was staying in the sanatorium, explained that on 23 December, Olga Slegina, who was sitting next to him during dinner, asked him a question: “What is your attitude toward the war in Ukraine?” According to Kalugin, he was embarrassed by this question and replied briefly that his attitude was positive and let her know that he didn’t want to discuss politics-related matters.

Court hearings

On 29 December, Olga got a phone call saying that she had to appear in court next day. Slegina asked how she would get there, as she didn’t know the city, and what she was charged with. The man replied: “Why did you sign documents in that case?”

In the evening her blood pressure rose significantly, and in the morning on 30 December she experienced a hypertensive crisis. Olga got injection against pressure and was recommended   staying in bed.

Later, two female police officers came to the sanatorium. They insisted that she go with them to the court despite the fact that Olga had a certificate saying that she had elevated pressure.

Answering the question about what they would do if she had a stroke, they replied that they would call an ambulance.

They also added: “You must necessarily attend the hearing, this will only take 5 minutes - just go in there and leave. Otherwise it will be worse for you, as the court may decide on your matter in your absence.”

Olga said that she had not seen any documents and refused to go because she was feeling bad. Just before the police officers left, she again tried to find out under what article she would be tried. When leaving, one of the female officers said reluctantly that this would be Article 20.3.3 of the Administrative Offences Code (“discrediting” the army). After the officers left, Olga’s blood pressure rose anew and she was again given medical care.

Eventually the court hearing was postponed to 9 January 2023. On that day, Olga filed a petition with the Nalchik City Court saying that she wanted to exercise her right to have her case heard at the place of residence, which petition was granted.

‍

Judge Salnikova

On 5 April 2023, the Shcherbinsky District Court of Moscow commenced the trial of Olga Slegina’s case. At the start of the hearing Lidia Anosova, Olga’s defense counsel from OVD-Info, asked the court to enter into the record a certificate saying that Slegina has a minimal pension and a cataract on both eyes, and also a certificate from the medical department of the sanatorium evidencing that the defendant had elevated blood pressure.

Judge Darya Salnikova asked how all this had affected Slegina’s statements. The defense counsel started explaining that Olga could not read the explanation written by the police officer “from her words”, but the judge interrupted her: “Being an adult and capable person of sound mind, Slegina writes: ‘Recorded correctly from my words.’” Replying to the remark of the defense counsel that such wording was proposed by the police officers, Salnikova said: “And what if she was asked to write a standard receipt for 10 million, would she write it too?”

The judge repeatedly allowed herself caustic comments towards the defendant, such as “What Slegina, an adult woman, needs that for?  Does she have a boring life?”

The defense counsel noted several times that as Olga’s conversations with Zakharova and Kalugin were private, the publicity criterion, which is the necessary element of the offense, was not present in the case. Therefore, Anosova filed a petition for questioning witnesses in court. Salnikova dismissed this petition and the next one on using video conference for questioning witnesses, stating that “explanations from all witnesses are available in the case file.”

The judge also refused to request video records from the dining room. Interrupting the defense counsel again, she said:  “You come and say, ‘We want a video record, witnesses, someone else…’ Limitation periods are shortened, not rubber-like for us to conduct investigation. The available materials are sufficient for the trial of the case. Everything is so clear that no questions arise for the court. And Slegina even didn’t show respect – she has failed to appear in court, although she was duly notified.”

The defense counsel said that Olga did not come to the hearing due to her state of health. Salnikova replied to that: “Ill persons with a cataract don’t put up riots in the dining room.” The defense counsel noted that Olga had not provided information about her poor eyesight and health in the report because she was lost - she was charged for the first time. The judge interrupted her again: “She is not a little child. You boldly sign everything first, and then all of a sudden you have high blood pressure, a cataract, a pregnant wife, planes are departing, you were late for work, so many things – real storytellers… And inspectors are misleading your, police officers are putting pressure on you, and you cannot read, and your blood pressure is rising right away. You know nothing and don’t remember anything…”

Besides, Salnikova expressed an opinion that Slegina “wrote ‘Recorded correctly from my words’ in the report in a pretty even way. If one has elevated pressure, one’s handwriting is “skewed” in different directions; if one sees poorly, the lines are “running away”.  It cannot be seen from the text that she was feeling bad.”

Responding to the proposal from the defense council that the defense position be summarized, the judge said: “Let Slegina come to the court and express her position.” When judge Salnikova asked again whether Slegina had been notified of the hearing, the defense counsel replied that she had informed the defendant of the hearing. Eventually the judge said that “the court will notify Slegina once again so that nothing happens to her again…”  

The next hearing was scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on 18 April.