Inna Barleva

According to the prosecution's version, Barleva committed the crimes during a trial in the Supreme Court of Tatarstan in May 2024, where a jury panel considered the case of two murders 20 years ago and rejected all the prosecution's evidence with a bang, pronouncing an acquittal verdict on 21 August on the defendant lawyer Ibrahim Zakiev. Barleva is accused of interference in the activities of the court with the purpose of obstructing justice (part 1 of article 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and two episodes of illegal collection and dissemination of information about the private lives of two witnesses of the prosecution (part 1 of article 137 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). According to the Investigative Committee and the Tatarstan prosecutor's office, all three offences were committed in prior collusion with the Kazan-based publicist and blogger Iskander Siraziev (Siradzhi). Siradzhi was accused of publishing a 55-minute "Appeal of a Tatar journalist and writer to the prosecutor of Tatarstan" on YouTube on 19 August 2024 (before the jury was removed to the deliberation room). In it, with references to the case materials, the author pointed out the inconsistencies in the prosecution of the murders, for which several people had been convicted earlier, and for which in 2024 Zakiev was put on trial. According to the law enforcers, after the beginning of the trial, the lawyer "had a criminal intent" to interfere in the court's activities "by bringing to the jury negative information about the identity of witnesses Sabirov and Safiullin, as well as negative assessments of the activities of law enforcement officers Karibullin (ex-operative of the BOP Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Tatarstan), Zalialov (ex-head of the BOP Department, now convicted for bribery - Ed.) and Zolotov (formerly an investigator of the 1st Department of the Investigative Committee of the Republic of Tatarstan), which can cause prejudice of the jury against these witnesses, as well as the innocence of Zakiev". According to the law enforcers, the lawyer obtained this information, "realising the unlawful nature of her actions", when familiarising herself with the case file in court, which included information that the witness Safiullin had a criminal record for murder and drugs, and during the forensic psychiatric examination it was established, among other things, whether he was suffering from any addiction. According to the prosecution, Barleva offered Siraziev to participate in obstruction of justice and he agreed, expressing his willingness to post the very negative information on YouTube. According to the Investigative Committee and the prosecutor's office, the lawyer provided the blogger with photocopies of the case materials, and he used them to create the film. In this way, the very expert reports on Ilgam Safiullin's health, which, according to the prosecution, constitute a medical secret, appeared on the web. The materials about witness Adel Sabirov's service in the ranks of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and his dismissal from there, along with the decision to discontinue criminal prosecution for not being involved in the commission of an offence under Part 4 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm that caused death by negligence) were also disseminated. This information came to light after Barleva's lawyer's request to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The lawyer was also accused of guilt and petitioned the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan to announce the above information in the presence of the jury. The judge refused, considering that information about the identity of witnesses should not influence the opinion of the jury. However, the materials were nevertheless read out in the absence of the jury. And the presiding judge did not make the hearing closed. Despite this, the law enforcers believe that the publication of a video message to the prosecutor of the Republic of Tatarstan with the inclusion of this information without the consent of the witnesses Sabirov and Safiullin led to the disclosure of their personal and medical secrets, which together with the negative impression of the law enforcers' work results in the case turned out to be an interference in justice. According to the prosecution, the publication became available to an unlimited number of people, including jurors, thus violating the constitutional principle of independence of judges.