Press Release, 27.10.2026

Photo: Dmitry Khorzov

Today, 27 October, the Moskovsky District Court of St. Petersburg has fined Yabloko member Dmitry Khorzov, a former candidate in the 2026 State Duma elections, under the administrative article on “discrediting the use of the armed forces” (Article 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences). The judge ordered him to pay a fine of 30,000 roubles.

The administrative prosecution of Dmitry Khorzov was prompted by his campaigning for peace: Yabloko’s candidates ran under the slogan “For Peace and Freedom! For a Life Without Fear!”.

Dmitry Khorzov was only given the opportunity to examine the case file the day before the hearing. On 27 October, he twice filed a motion to adjourn the hearing, insisting that he and his defence counsel needed to analyse the conclusion of the so-called “specialist”, on which the protocol of violation and the other case materials had been based.

This refers to the conclusion of a specialist from the Herzen State Pedagogical University, who found that Khorzov’s peace leaflet contained the elements of an offence.

Article 48 of the Russian Constitution guarantees everyone the right to qualified legal assistance (free of charge in cases provided for by law). However, the judge did not see fit to be guided by the Basic Law, points out lawyer Alexander Kobrinsky, Deputy Chairman of St. Petersburg Yabloko, who is providing legal assistance to Dmitry Khorzov:

“Both of Khorzov’s motions were rejected, and the ruling drawn up by the judge does not even mention the right to defence, nor does it mention Khorzov’s request for time to prepare a review of the specialist’s conclusion.”

Dmitry Khorzov stresses that he disagrees with the protocol of violation:

“The case materials need further examination by the defence. The conclusion of the ‘specialist’, on which the protocol was based and on which the court’s findings now rest, also requires a qualified assessment by an expert on the defence side. Unfortunately, the court did not give my defence counsel and the specialist we engaged time to examine the materials. Moreover, the protocol does not even bear my name but that of an unknown woman, yet the court treated this as a ‘technical error’.”

The ruling of the Moskovsky District Court of St. Petersburg will be appealed.