28 November 2021, Sunday, 20:38
Sim Sim, Charter 97!
Categories

Woman From Gomel Sentenced to Two Years of House Arrest for Slandering Military Enlistment Office Staff. She Mistook Them for Protesters

33
Woman From Gomel Sentenced to Two Years of House Arrest for Slandering Military Enlistment Office Staff. She Mistook Them for Protesters

Lukashenka's supporter had to ask for forgiveness from all those who were resting in the white-red-white tent.

The court of Dobrush district of Belarus gave resident Tatsiana Kazakova, 44, two years of "house arrest" (restriction of freedom without sending her to the open-type correctional facility). She was found guilty of slandering (Article 188 of the Criminal Code) against military officers, reports the Homel Spring human rights website.

At the request of the prosecutor, the trial was held behind closed doors.

According to Kazakova, on 7 May, she was walking outdoors and saw a white and red tent and several people nearby. The woman took a video of it.

"Went out for jogging, decided to do some exercise. Someone is resting on our river bank. Anyway, it turns out that our military registration and enlistment office in Dobrush is celebrating the holiday near our home today," the woman says in the video. The video, titled "Opposition Military Enlistment Office Dobrush," was posted on the channel Anonim Belarus. The song Change by the Kino band plays as a background.

According to Gomelskaya Vesna, eight employees of the military registration and enlistment office wrote a statement to the police asking to prosecute the author of the video for slander. During the investigation, the accused Tatsiana Kazakova pleaded guilty and apologized to all the victims.

"Lukashenka is against this white-red-white symbolism. I was walking around and saw this tent with white and red stripes. It looked like the prohibited symbols. I always vote for him. I have never attended any rallies or protests either in Dobrush or in Gomel. That's why I decided to shoot this video", explained Kazakova.

The victims of the case did not sue for compensation for moral damage.