Ukrainian-born paediatrician faces long sentence on ‘fake news’ charge based on true words about Russia’s war against Ukraine
68-year-old Nadezhda Buyanova is in a Russian SIZO [remand prison] and is on ‘trial’ in Moscow, facing a sentence of up to 10 years for alleged criticism of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The case is especially chilling since the criminal prosecution against the Lviv-born paediatrician is based on a denunciation from the mother of a patient, and called for by Aleksandr Bastrykin, the head of Russia’s ‘Investigative Committee’. The authoritative Memorial Support for Political Prisoners Project has declared Buyanova a political prisoner and demanded her release.
Nadezhda Buyanova was born in Lviv on 29 March 1956, but has lived in Russia since 1995. She was working as a paediatrician at a Moscow hospital when an encounter with the widow of a Russian killed in combat in Ukraine resulted in her losing her job and being arrested on the worst of the new charges rushed into legislation after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. She is accused of ‘publicly circulating knowingly false information about the use of the Russian armed forces out of motives of political and national enmity’ under Article 207.3 § 2d of Russia’s Criminal Code. This article has been used for over two years to imprison people for up to 10 years for entirely truthful information about Russia’s war of aggression, or simply criticism. She has been in custody since 26 April 2024.
The criminal charges were initiated after Anastasia Akinshina complained, first on social media, then in a formal complaint to the enforcement bodies, about her visit to Buyanova, the paediatrician on duty, on 31 January. She claimed that the paediatrician had drawn attention to her son’s behaviour and that Akinshina had told her that the boy was suffering the loss of his father, killed while fighting in Ukraine. She alleges that Buyanova told her that her husband had been a legitimate target for Ukraine. She posted a second video that same day, this time asserting that she had been contacted by the police who suggested that she come in and write (“where necessary, we will dictate”) a complaint to the prosecutor and Investigative Committee.
Judging by the report, the police would appear to have “dictated” a great deal. In this formal complaint, she notes that Buyanova is a graduate of the Lviv Medical University in Ukraine and asks for criminal charges to be laid against her for two statements. Buyanova is now alleged to have said both “Any military serviceman of the Russian Federation army is a legitimate target for Ukraine” and “Russia is the aggressor who attacked Ukraine”.
The charges called for were under Articles 280.3 (‘public action aimed at discrediting the use of the Russian armed forces’); 284.2 (calls to impose sanctions against the Russian Federation) and 207.3 (publicly circulating false information about the use of the Russian army). The complaint also asked that Buyanova be investigated in case she had sponsored the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
In the final indictment, she is charged under Article 207.3 § 2 with the supposedly “knowingly false information” being “about the murder of civilians by the RF armed forces during the course of the special military operation, as well as about the attack on Ukraine.
In explaining the many reasons why Buyanova should be considered a political prisoner, Memorial has pointed to the rising use of denunciations against work colleagues, neighbours, etc. There are grounds for believing that in some cases these are entirely false claims used to settle personal scores, or similar. It is certainly noticeable in this case that even the words that Buyanova is alleged to have spoken have been significantly embellished when made part of the formal police report. Since then, the prosecution has also come up with a supposed ‘witness’ to the conversation (identified as ‘F. F. Nikolaev’). This is while the initial claim that the child had been present has been quietly dropped. On the video that Akinshina first posted, she said she was leaving the hospital with her two children, and it was the little boy who was supposed to be examined and whose behaviour had prompted the alleged exchange.
On 1 February, Buyanova was dismissed from her post at the hospital. She and her lawyer lodged a civil appeal against the dismissal was almost certainly in grave breach of labour legislation.
By 2 February 2024, Aleksandr Bastrykin, head of the Investigative Committee and close ally of Russian leader Vladimir Putin, had demanded that criminal charges be laid. Bastrykin has been just as active in the political persecution of several Ukrainian political prisoners and has recently proposed that Putin use a decree to reinstate the death penalty.
That same evening, enforcement officers turned up at Buyonova’s home, carrying out a search in a demonstratively rough manner. Buyanova’s lawyer was, typically, prevented from being present. Buyanova herself was taken away for interrogation and charged, albeit at that stage under the lesser charge of Article 207.3 § 1 (without the impugned political and national enmity motive, with the charge carrying up to five years’ imprisonment.
Worth mentioning that the first judge, Nadezhda Tkacheva from the Tushinsk district court did, at least, reject the prosecution’s application for Buyanova to be remanded in custody.
On 19 April, the charge was changed to the more serious Article 207.3 § 2d (adding the political and national enmity motive and carrying a sentence of up to 10 years).
On 26 April 2024, ‘judge’ Andrei Mikhailovich Kostyrev from the same Tushinsk district court proved more amenable and remanded Buyanova in custody for two months. This has now been extended to November 2024.
Buyanova denies saying the words that she is accused of and says that nothing at all was said about Ukraine at the appointment. Defence lawyer Oskar Cherdzhiev further insists that there could not have been a witness to any conversation between the paediatrician and Akinshina and points out that no evidence has been provided of this individual’s supposed presence.
It transpires that this hospital does make audio tapes of medical appointments. This could, once and for all, prove whether the alleged conversation took place yet, according to the defence such a tape has not been produced,
Under no circumstances, however, even were there proof that the words were spoken, would they justify criminal prosecution. Memorial has consistently pointed to the lawless nature of the charge under Article 207.3, the harshest of the four criminal and administrative charges signed by Putin into law just 10 days after the beginning of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The norm infringes both Russia’s constitution and Russia’s international commitments, as well as fundamental principles of law by denying the right to freedom of expression.
It is, in addition, clear from previous prosecutions under this article, and that against Buyanova, that people are being imprisoned for telling the truth. In this case, Russia has invaded Ukraine and the brutal truth is that any Russian soldier who has taken part in such an invasion of foreign territory, is a legitimate target for defenders of the invaded country.