According to the Society for Threatened Peoples (STP), today’s hearing in the proceedings against the Russian human rights advocate Oleg Orlov once again shines a light on the ongoing harassment by the Russian authorities. “Oleg Orlov must – as his lawyer demands – be transferred back to Moscow immediately. By moving him to Sysran, the Russian judiciary ignored his right to confidential discussions with his lawyers, systematically violating his right to legal protection,” criticized STP expert Nora Erdmann. “Orlov has been unjustly imprisoned for over 100 days. We are demanding his immediate release and unconditional acquittal.”

The court in Moscow had scheduled the first hearing in the appeal proceedings for this Friday. Representatives from numerous embassies – also from Germany – had attended the hearing as trial observers. Judge Maria Larkina decided to postpone the hearing to July 11, which was also supported by Orlov’s lawyer Ekaterina Tertukhina and himself. Orlov had taken part via video conference. The judge denied a request to transfer Orlov back to Moscow to allow him to prepare for the appeals process properly and to avoid disadvantaging him against the prosecution.

“The judge’s notion that taking part via video conference is to be seen as equivalent to being present in the hall is completely absurd. Orlov was not able to discuss positions with his lawyer during the trial. His constitutional rights are being grossly violated. In addition, as pensioners, he and his wife do not have the financial means to pay – in addition to the attorney’s fees – the costs of the long journey from Sysran to Moscow and back,” Erdmann emphasized.

Due to Orlov’s transfer, he had no time to familiarize himself with the materials relating to his case, his lawyer criticized. Confidential communication was not possible. “In my opinion, this is a blatant violation of the right to defense prior to an appeal,” Tertukhina stated during the hearing. Further, Orlov’s lawyer argued that arbitrarily postponing and obstructing the preparation of the appeal would be tantamount to prejudgement – emphasizing that the presumption of innocence applies until a final verdict is reached.