Analysts explained the three-time return of Kantsaliyev's case to law enforcement.

The repeated return of the case regarding the discrediting of the army against resident Sosruko Kantsaliyev from Kabardino-Balkaria is an exception in judicial practice. Analysts believe that law enforcement had to send the case to court three times because they could not eliminate the violations.

As reported by "Caucasian Knot", it was previously known that the Nalchik City Court returned the case regarding the discrediting of the army against local resident Sosruko Kantsaliyev to the police three times, as the protocol was drawn up without his participation. Kantsaliyev himself is presumably in the area of the special military operation.

Since Kantsaliyev's case involves an administrative offense, the court has a bit more opportunity to bury it, noted lawyer Yevgeny Smirnov. "The practice of repeatedly returning protocols exists; often this is a result of poor case preparation," he told a correspondent of "Caucasian Knot".

If the protocol was drawn up without the participation of the defendant, and he was not familiarized with its contents, then the court, according to the law, can return the materials to law enforcement. The police could have easily established Kantsaliyev's whereabouts, even if he was in the area of the special military operation, by contacting the Ministry of Defense, explained the lawyer.

Smirnov added that he had repeatedly heard of cases where similar cases were returned by the court. "There are no limits on the duration of such a 'carousel' of materials; I can recompile it even 50 times. But if the statute of limitations expires, the person will not be held accountable," the lawyer clarified.

In Kantsaliyev's case, the court "showed character," and the protocol was returned because there was no strong interest behind it, believes the director of the research center "Sova"* Alexander Verkhovsky. "If there was no pressure on the court right away, then there was no desire to apply pressure," he told a correspondent of "Caucasian Knot".

It is likely that the police did not dare to make a fourth attempt to submit the protocol to the court due to the impossibility of correcting it, he continued. "The court in its ruling says that it needs to be corrected. If they couldn't come up with a way to correct it twice, then they have no ability to correct it," the analyst believes.

The repeated return of cases to law enforcement is more of an exception than a rule, he added. "The champions of refusals for such protocols have usually been the courts of St. Petersburg," Verkhovsky emphasized.

The statute of limitations for the administrative article on discrediting the army is 90 days, and if during this time the judge does not make a decision in the first instance, the person will not be held accountable, explained an anonymous human rights project employee.

He noted that judges try to avoid the practice of terminating cases. "They really prefer to return materials to the police to eliminate deficiencies," he told a correspondent of "Caucasian Knot".

If law enforcement did not notify the person about the drawing up of the protocol, this is a significant violation, he noted. "Based on the materials of the case, a decision cannot be made with such a protocol," explained the human rights project employee.

He also pointed out that law enforcement could have easily found Kantsaliyev. "When signing a contract with the Ministry of Defense, the registration address changes to the location of the military unit. Accordingly, the summons can be sent there, and to the court via 'Gosuslugi'," explained the human rights defender.

Recall that responsibility for discrediting the armed forces was introduced on March 4, 2022, since then residents of Russia, including Kabardino-Balkaria, have been prosecuted under the relevant article 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. It provides for fines for citizens ranging from 30,000 to 100,000 rubles, and repeated violations within a year threaten criminal prosecution.

* included in the register of foreign agents by the Ministry of Justice of Russia.

** the activities of the company Meta (which owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp) are banned in Russia.