Press Release, 21.07.2026

Photo: Lev Shlosberg / Photo by Pskov Yabloko

The trial in the consolidated criminal case against Lev Shlosberg, Deputy Chairman of Yabloko, is continuing at the Pskov City Court. It should be noted that hearings in the politician’s case are being held daily from 13 to 31 July (except at weekends). At previous hearings, Lev Shlosberg had filed a motion to recuse the judge and the state prosecution; after this was rejected, the prosecution moved on to presenting evidence, which included wiretap recordings. Prosecution witnesses were then questioned in court — members of the nationalistic Russian Marches and the quasi-paramilitary Pskov Territorial Defence. Here is an account of how the hearings on 17 and 20 July unfolded (read the detailed report on the hearing here.

On 17 July, Pskov City Court questioned Mikhail Semenkov, the fourth prosecution witness in the consolidated criminal case against Lev Shlosberg. Like three others — Alexander Semyonov, Igor Ivanov and Anatoly Lukin — he turned out to be a member of the regional defence and security assistance unit Druzhina, whose members, according to Ivanov, are engaged to take part in operational-search activities.

Semenkov told the court that in 2022 Lukin had sent him a link to a post on Lev Shlosberg’s Telegram channel that had angered him. The post concerned the front page of the British newspaper the Daily Mirror; it is over this repost, made in February 2022, that the politician stands accused of spreading “fake news” about the army (Article 207.3(2) of the Russian Criminal Code).

Asked about his political views, Semenkov replied that he “simply supports the policies of our President” but “tries to stay out of politics”. He said he could not recall whether he had given any explanations on Lev Shlosberg’s case to officers of Centre E (Centre for Combatting Extremism).

Since the witness stated in court that he bore no hostility towards Lev Shlosberg, whereas the record of his interrogation dated 27 January 2026 contained precisely such a reference to hostility, the politician filed a motion for the record to be read out in respect of the contradiction.

The witness, who had earlier stated that he had not known who Lev Shlosberg was before 2022, explained that during the interrogation he had said this “in the heat of the moment”, because “the post had provoked a negative reaction in him”, and that his “emotions had now subsided”.

Lev Shlosberg asked the witness where he had got the information that he broadcasts an anti-Russian stance in various interviews. Semenkov replied that it was “from the media” and “from talking with colleagues”. This concluded the questioning of the witness.

The prosecution stated that two final prosecution witnesses — Darya Pavlova and Vitaly Isakov — had been summoned to appear in court on Monday.

On Monday, 20 July, the prosecution concluded its presentation of evidence in the consolidated criminal case against Lev Shlosberg. The judge said that witness Darya Pavlova had sent notice that she was unable to attend the 20 July hearing owing to work commitments.

Since the judge had made clear more than once that the court was to move on to the defence’s evidence on Monday, the prosecution announced the conclusion of its presentation of evidence and added that the issue of questioning the last witness would be resolved “as a supplement to the judicial investigation”.

Lev Shlosberg asked to be given three days to re-examine the documents that the prosecution had used as evidence. He reminded the court that he had no means of copying documents at the pre-trial detention facility and had to make notes by hand. Moreover, the politician explained, an inmate at Pre-trial Detention Facility No. 1 is permitted no more than 50 kg of belongings in his cell, including papers, clothing and food, meaning it was impossible for him to keep all eight volumes of the criminal case file.

The judge said the motion would be ruled on after the hearing concluded.

Defence lawyer Vera Kovalchuk told the court that the defence intended to present evidence first in the case concerning the repeat charge of “discrediting the army,” and then in the “fake news” case. She then filed a number of motions relating to the collection of evidence needed for the first case, asking the court to send requests to the mobile operator MTS, the OOO VK which owns the VK social network, and the regional directorates of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the FSB (Federal Security Service). In the second case, according to Vera Kovalchuk, witnesses would be questioned.

The prosecution asked for time to formulate its position on the motions.

The trial was then adjourned until Tuesday, 21 July.