The lawyer stated that there were violations in the protocol drawn up against Vladimir Atamanchuk.

THIS MATERIAL (INFORMATION) WAS PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED BY FOREIGN AGENT LLC "MEMO", OR RELATES TO THE ACTIVITIES OF FOREIGN AGENT LLC "MEMO".

The protocol on the discrediting of the Russian army, drawn up by Sochi police against former State Duma candidate Vladimir Atamanchuk, contains gross violations, reported lawyer Elena Didenko after analyzing the document. Atamanchuk himself believes the protocol was politically motivated.

As reported by “Caucasian Knot”, on September 11, the Krasnodar Regional Court canceled Atamanchuk's registration as a candidate for the South single-member district No. 54. On September 20, he was detained outside the district electoral commission and arrested for three days on charges of petty hooliganism and illegal campaigning. On September 23, he was released from the isolation facility in Matsesta. On September 24, law enforcement officials drew up a new protocol against Atamanchuk for discrediting the Russian army, triggered by a campaign leaflet he was distributing on the street.

Vladimir Atamanchuk showed the protocol on the discrediting of the RF Armed Forces, drawn up against him by law enforcement, to a correspondent of "Caucasian Knot" on September 25. The document states that on August 26, 2026, at 12:10 near house No. 58 on Polevaya Street in Sochi, Atamanchuk "carried out public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the RF Armed Forces... namely, he committed public actions that discredit the official activities of law enforcement agencies of an agitational nature."

Based on this, the Sochi resident was charged under part 1 of article 20.3.3 of the Administrative Offenses Code of the Russian Federation. In addition, when refusing to sign the protocol, the police did not involve witnesses, leaving blanks in the relevant sections. Atamanchuk himself made comments directly in the protocol: "My rights and obligations under Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation... were not explained. I do not agree with the protocol, as it does not specify the specific facts of how the discrediting of the RF Armed Forces occurred."

The reason for law enforcement's attention to me was precisely the campaign leaflet.

"The reason for law enforcement's attention to me was precisely the campaign leaflet, officially produced and paid for by me from the electoral fund of the candidate for the State Duma of the 9th convocation for district No. 54 <...> Regarding the content of the leaflet and its comparison with the party line of "Yabloko", I can say that in the upper and central part of the leaflet is my candidate's appeal: "I, Vladimir Atamanchuk, as a doctor, know how hard it is to snatch life from the hands of death... I am running for these elections from the party "Yabloko", as it is the only party that openly advocates for PEACE and Freedom, for a life without fear, for an immediate agreement on a ceasefire," Atamanchuk said.

Further in the party block, according to him, the official theses of the party are presented, which are also posted on the website. "As for the entire text of my leaflet, it represents a synthesis of my personal biography and my position as a candidate, as a pediatrician, military doctor. The leaflet also contains official publication data," he added.

The lawyer commented on the protocol drawn up against Atamanchuk

A correspondent of "Caucasian Knot" turned to lawyer Elena Didenko with a request to analyze the protocol.

Elena Didenko reminded that article 20.3.3 of the Administrative Offenses Code of the Russian Federation punishes for "public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in order to protect the interests of the Russian Federation and its citizens, maintain international peace and security, or fulfill the powers of state bodies of the Russian Federation for these purposes." The article provides for fines for citizens from 30 to 50 thousand rubles, the lawyer explained, noting that the protocol indeed lacks the words that the police considered discrediting the Russian army.

The analysis of this protocol shows numerous significant procedural defects.

According to Didenko, the summary of the protocol lacks any specific quotes or excerpts from the printed material of Atamanchuk's campaign leaflet. The police officer limited himself to general words about "actions of an agitational nature" and "discrediting the RF army." "The analysis of this protocol shows numerous significant procedural defects and violations of the rights of Atamanchuk V. D., which, in accordance with article 28.2 of the Administrative Offenses Code of the Russian Federation and judicial practice (including the explanations of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 5) provide grounds to demand recognition of the protocol as inadmissible evidence and termination of the proceedings in the case," the lawyer believes.

She highlighted key legal flaws in the document. First, this is a violation of the right to defense (part 1 of article 28.2 of the Administrative Offenses Code of the Russian Federation and article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). "In the section about explaining rights, it is written that Atamanchuk "refused to sign", however, he immediately made a note that his rights were not explained. At the same time, the refusal to sign is not recorded by witnesses or video recording (the sections have a dash). According to paragraph 18 of the Resolution of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 5, the failure to explain rights is a significant violation that deprives a person of the right to defense. The police did not specify which specific phrases, words, or slogans were pronounced or distributed. The fact itself is not described: were leaflets distributed, was a poster hung up. The vagueness of the accusation makes the summary "empty" and also violates Atamanchuk's right to defense," Didenko noted.

She also identified a violation of the deadlines for drawing up the protocol. "The event attributed to Atamanchuk, according to the protocol, occurred on August 26, while the protocol was drawn up only on September 24, that is, a month later, without conducting an administrative investigation (articles 28.5, 28.7 of the Administrative Offenses Code of the Russian Federation), which is also a violation," the lawyer said.

Drawing up a protocol a month after the event and in a completely different place is absurd.

She noted that the protocol is drawn up at the scene on the same day and hour when the incident was identified. "Drawing up a protocol a month after the event and in a completely different place is absurd and makes the protocol invalid from the moment of its unlawful drafting," Didenko reported.

In response to the question of whether a call for peace meets the criteria of article 20.3.3 of the Administrative Offenses Code of the Russian Federation, the lawyer emphasized that the criteria of the article are extremely vague in practice, however, legally, a call for peaceful negotiations and a ceasefire does not contain statements about the "illegality" or "ineffectiveness" of the army. "In the very text of article 20.3.3 of the Administrative Offenses Code of the Russian Federation, there is no direct prohibition on using the word "peace" or calls for diplomatic resolution. However, law enforcement practice interprets any pacifist statements as discrediting, as the norm is formulated in maximally broad and vague categories," the lawyer explained.

When asked about the need for a judicial examination, Elena Didenko replied: "Formally, the law does not require the court to appoint a linguistic examination in all cases; judges often make decisions "based on their internal conviction" or based on "research reports" prepared by the police themselves. However, if there are no expert conclusions in the case or the summary of the protocol does not contain quotes at all, equating the text to "discrediting" without a special linguistic study is unlawful. If a person is accused of discrediting, and there are no examinations in the case, the defense has the right to insist on appointing a full judicial linguistic examination, to involve an independent specialist to prepare an alternative conclusion (review) to prove the absence of negative assessments or calls in the text."

She recommended Atamanchuk before the start of the court session: - to file a motion to recognize the protocol on the administrative offense as inadmissible evidence (article 26.2 of the Administrative Offenses Code of the Russian Federation) due to procedural violations in explaining rights (article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, article 28.2 of the Administrative Offenses Code of the Russian Federation) and the absence of witnesses/video recording when refusing to sign; - to file a motion to terminate the proceedings in the case based on paragraph 2 of part 1 of article 24.5 of the Administrative Offenses Code of the Russian Federation due to the absence of an administrative offense, the emptiness of the summary, the absence of quotes and evidence of the act of discrediting the RF Armed Forces; - to file a motion for a judicial linguistic examination of the printed material (leaflet), posing questions to the experts about the presence or absence of negative assessments of the actions of the RF Armed Forces or calls to prevent their use based on specific phrases from the leaflet; - to attach to the case materials the objections and comments recorded by Atamanchuk in the protocol during its drafting; - to declare a procedural violation in the drawing up of the protocol a month after the event.

According to Atamanchuk, he doubts that his objections will be taken into account.

Vladimir Atamanchuk notes that the police, prosecutors, and judges are closely connected and his arguments do not interest them at all. "They refuse to listen and hear. I am one against the whole system. You know how many people find themselves one-on-one with the system, its actors always go against the person and his rights. I have no doubt that it will be the same this time. I have no doubt that I will be convicted, despite the absurdity of all their accusations," he added.