Artist Peter Pavlensky has to pay a fine of 0.5 million RUB over the arson of the doors of the main building of FSB on Lubyanka. This decision was made on Wednesday by the petty-bourgeois court of Moscow. Earlier, the court found Turkey guilty of damage to cultural heritage sites during its last campaign “the Threat” (article 243 of the Criminal code) and imposed a fine as punishment.
According to the decision of the judge Elena Gudoshnikova Pavlensky must also compensate the damage in 481,5 thousand RUB the injured party — the military unit No. 55002, which manages the building.
Pavlensky himself before sentence announcement has declared to journalists that is not going to pay better and will remain in custody.
Pavlensky was detained in November 2015, when posed for photographers on the background of the burning doors of the building of the FSB. After that, he spent seven months spent under arrest in a remand prison. On Wednesday, the Gudoshnikova judge ordered his release in a court hall after sentence announcement.
In the cage for the defendants Pavlenkova, dressed in shorts and flip-flops, delivered by a reinforced unit of the convoy with a dog. He was seated on the bench for the defendants, but did not remove the handcuffs on his hands behind his back. Pavlensky smiled and said Hello to the audience. The hall was filled with reporters, friends of the defendant in court came on the strength of ten men.
Went out into the hall, the judge Gudoshnikova almost immediately stated, “Pavlensky had committed the damage to the cultural object” and its wine by the case materials and witness statements. According to the prosecution, on the night of 9 November 2015 Pavlensky doused with gasoline and set fire to the front door entrance No. 1 to the FSB building on Lubyanka square. Almost immediately, he was arrested.
First, investigators have accused Turkey of vandalism committed on motives of ideological hatred (article 214 of the criminal code). But shortly before the case goes to court the charge was changed to “damage of cultural heritage objects (article 243 of the criminal code).
The reason for that were the conclusions of experts of the Central scientific restoration design workshops (tsnrpm). They had cultural expertise and recognized the door, constructed according to drawings of architect Alexey Susova, historical object, estimating it at half a million rubles. In the result of military unit No. 55002 filed a claim for that amount.
Pavlensky in court observed the “rules of silence” and refused to testify. During court hearings he was asked to classify the charges to “terrorism”. But in November, when the question about his first arrest, the artist said that dedicated its action of the “Threat” of criminal cases on terrorism, which, unreasonably, in his opinion, was initiated and investigated by the security Service.
Pavlensky insisted that the case of terrorism, and were excited for lesser violations.
In court his lawyers Olga and Dmitry dinze asked the court to acquit the defendant. At their request, the court was made by the witnesses — former prisoners of the KGB, including Soviet dissident and Chairman of the human rights Foundation “Glasnost,” Sergei Grigoryants.
Grigoryants insisted that the building of FSB on Lubyanka square can definitely be called exceptional, but not a cultural monument.
The defense in turn was insisting that the door, which was set on fire Pavlensky, is not genuine, designed by renowned architect, and represents a remake. The day before the verdict Pavleski filed a complaint to the Prosecutor General in which he accused the FSB that in 2008, the service had replaced the old door with a new one. He asked me to bring the guilty under the same article of the Criminal code that is imputed to him.
In may, the magistrate of Saint-Petersburg at exit session in Moscow has sentenced Turkey for another campaign “Freedom” — ignited tyres at the Small court of the stable bridge in the “Northern capital” in 2014. The court appointed the artist to the restriction of freedom, but has released from punishment behind the expiry of the period of limitation.