'You Are Charged With Feeling Hatred For Regime'

A pensioner from Vaukavysk was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison.

On February 7, the court of Berastavitsa and Berastavitsa district sentenced Halina Mikhalchuk, a 69-year-old pensioner from Vaukavysk, to 2.5 years of imprisonment in a penal colony. She was taken into custody in the courtroom. The verdict was made by Judge Andrei Talochka. The side of the state prosecution was supported by prosecutor Ala Kuzma. The secretary at the hearing was Tatsiana Karol, writes spring96.org.

Mrs. Halina was found guilty under three articles of the Criminal Code. She was sentenced to two years in prison by partial addition of sentences: 1.5 years in prison - under Part 2 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code, 1.5 years in prison - under Part 1 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code, two years of liberty restriction - under Article 369 of the Criminal Code. This is the punishment requested by the prosecutor Ala Kuzma. She also asked to increase the sentence to 2.5 years in prison due to the fact that the accused is already serving a sentence under Article 369 of the Criminal Code.

It is known that on October 26, 2021, she was sentenced to two years of liberty restriction under Article 369 of the Criminal Code. Before the trial, the pensioner was in custody for two months (from September 21, 2021 to November 21, 2021): initially she was detained under Article 342 of the Criminal Code. Before retirement, she worked for the railroad.

What are the lawsuits filed by the victims?

The victims did not appear in court and asked to consider the case in their absence. The victims were Mikhail Sitko, chairman of the Vaukavysk district executive committee (the only one who did not file a claim for compensation for moral damage), Darya Bandarchuk and Maryja Mazurkevich, riot police officers of the Hrodna police department (claimed for 1,000 rubles of compensation each), Valer Ramanchyk, head of the Vaukavysk district police department (claim - 1,500 rubles), head of the Volkovysk District Department of Internal Affairs Vital Asotski (claim - 1500 rubles). The defendant noted that she understood the demands, but she would not be able to pay the amount in full right away, therefore she recognizes the claims in part. Note that her pension is about 500 rubles.

The lawyer asked to call the victims Bandarchuk, Mazurkevich and Ramanchyk, since they filed claims, but did not indicate what kind of moral suffering they experienced:

Judge Andrei Talochka: "How do you imagine it? That they will arrive during lunch break? (laughs)

Lawyer: "What's wrong with that? 60 kilometers. 1,500 claims have been filed."

State prosecutor Ala Kuzma: "What, is this a large sum?"

Lawyer: "What should the defender of a person who receives a pension of 500 rubles answer to this?"

State Prosecutor Ala Kuzma: "High Court, it is inappropriate to summon the named persons to a court session, since the claims are not so large, based on today's prices, etc. In general, there are no grounds for this. The amount is commensurate with the statements that took place, and there is no need for an invitation of the above-mentioned persons. Moreover, these persons are at the workplace and they cannot just rush off and come here."

What was she found guilty of?

Mrs. Halina was charged over more than three dozen episodes: for six months she wrote comments on the Vaukavysk for Life Telegram channel.

She was tried for a number of comments containing a negative assessment of Lukashenka.

"Charged with hatred towards the regime"

Mrs. Halina first said that she partially admits guilt, then she clarified: if everything is proven, she admits guilt in full. However, the woman noticed that now she no longer remembers what she wrote and did, because since then it has already been the second year. The prosecutor noted that the pensioner "is charged with hatred for the regime," to which Halina replied that she did not pose any threat to the state.

"It's actually a death sentence for me"

The lawyer of defense Kira Kislyuk asked for a non-custodial sentence. She noted the following:

"Of course, High Court, I would very much like to see these persons (victims) in court for one reason: I would like to look them in the eye. How they performed their duties, how they went out into the street, how they went out in uniform. How did they patrol the streets in those difficult days for them? And how could they, such courageous people who guarded our state in such a turbulent time, now endure such moral suffering for 1,000 Belarusian rubles, which they ask to recover from a pensioner who receives 538 rubles of pension?

She noted that for a number of episodes it was not established to whom the posted comments related. She also noted that she would like to combine two episodes into one, since two articles cannot be incriminated for the same comment. After analyzing the comments and examinations, she agreed with only two comments that the prosecution had, so she asked to reduce the punishment under Article 369 of the Criminal Code. According to Article 367, she asked for an acquittal, since not a single examination indicated that comments were left in the address of Lukashenka. According to Article 368, she asked to take into account that the accused pleaded guilty and repented, and therefore impose a punishment not related to deprivation of freedom.