The electronic edition of "Diary", citing its own sources, has filed his version of the explosion at the Embassy of the Russian Federation, which took place last year. Human rights activist Anastasia Loiko Freedom denied in an interview with the main points of publication.
In an article published in the "E" states:
"Imaginary anarchist who committed the attack on the Russian embassy, which was put back in charge of four arson.
Recall that on the night of 30 to 31 August at the Russian Embassy in Belarus were thrown two Molotov cocktails. They hit the embassy official car, causing the fire started. Fortunately, the guard quickly discovered fire and coped with it.
The next day there was a reaction to a night attack the Russian embassy. The police opened a criminal investigation st.139 the Criminal Code of Belarus (hooliganism) and the Belarusian Foreign Ministry, responding to the Russian note, said that the bottle was thrown enemies of the Russian-Belarusian cooperation.
At the same time a group of young people on the Internet spread the message that the attack on the Russian Embassy — the action of anarchists, which they allegedly expressed anger and protest against the arrests and repression of social activists who stood up to defend the Khimki forest in Moscow.
Police immediately arrested more than a dozen suspects from among anarchists, but it turned out that she was wrong, because a week after the events of a similar event was held near Minsk police detention center on vul.Akrestsina — with the same political motives. Anarchists demand the release of their colleagues.
Now the results of the investigation charges are filed Igor Olinevich, Nicholas Gramps, Maxim Vetkin, Alexander Frantskevich, Eugene Selivonchyk and Part Dmitry Dubovskii, that is wanted. How do the facts, their actions did not have any political motives. They just like to set fire to, and the mastermind behind it was Dmitry Dubovskii.
The investigation revealed that his first arson young people have done more December 5, 2009. This is the case of the general public knows little, because under it even with a strong desire can not be justified politically motivated. Guys just set fire to a casino "Shangri-la" in Minsk. As has been established by the investigation, the action against the casino did Dedok, Olinevich and Dubovskii.
Similarly difficult to find any political motives and the second action of suspects, which was made March 9, 2010 in Soligorsk. Then Dubovsky, Franzkevich Selivonchyk and tried to have some fun, throwing incendiary mixture into the building GUPP "housing" complex. "
Apparently, the young people were satisfied, as the following two months, made no attempt to arson. Only 30 April 2010 they again took to the road to fire. This time Dubovsky, Franzkevich Dedok and threw incendiary mixture in the House of Trade Unions. Police these actions are not linked to each other and generally did not bother on that basis.
The situation changed only after four months when Vetkin and Olinevich threw "Molotov cocktail" into the territory of the Russian Embassy in Belarus and even posted a video on the Internet. Police immediately launched and arrested several suspects. Then those same Olinevich and Dubovskii to cause even more publicity, Sept. 6, 2010 held a rally on the street. Akrestsin 36, where the insulator Minsk police.
Originally against arsonists was prosecuted under the article on hooliganism. However, following an investigation of the charge was changed to st.218 Part 2 and Part 3 of the Criminal Code of Belarus (intentional destruction or damage of property, committed by an organized group agulnanebyaspechnym way). Sanction this Article provides for up to 12 years in prison. "
Human rights activist Anastasia Marinkina does not agree with the thesis publication. In an interview, she stated Freedom:
Marinkina: Timeline, which allows itself to use the author is a little frightening: it's random people, the phrase "imaginary anarchists." Why this author's awareness of the political views of these people — the unknown.
According to the author, the people who are on the case, put up new charges on multiple counts of arson. I figured out the situation today, especially with regard to at least two people on this list — Igor Olinevich and Nicholas Dziadok. And these people new charges have not yet been laid. I know that in fact preparing a resolution where the charges will be extended, but in fact none of these allegations have not yet filed.
Olinevich charged with action near the General Staff of the Republic of Belarus 19 September 2009, as well as in the attack on the Russian Embassy on the night of August 31, 2010. Nicholas Dziadok yet formally charged only in the attack on the General Staff, Maxim Vetkina — in the attack on the Russian embassy, Alexander Franckevica — that he was filming the video attack on a police station in Soligorsk, which is also strange is mentioned in the article. As for Eugene Selivonchyk, it is also charged with assault on a police station in Soligorsk, but he is on the loose.
I also do not like the tone of the article is that these people were doing these crimes. But there is a presumption of innocence, guilt person determined by the court. As far as the court will be fair in this situation — it is difficult to say. We are seeing a definite political motivation of this case, which was reflected in the fact that in the beginning people were arrested not because they were involved in the crime, but because they have certain political views.
Radio Liberty: According to your data, or the suspects admitted their guilt?
MarinkinaMaxim Vetkin admits to having participated in the attack on the Russian embassy, but he argues that the Molotov cocktails, which he called, did not explode. Alexander Franzkevich admits he shot the video attack on a police station in Soligorsk, there really is a question whether the offense shooting something on video. Nicholas Dedok concedes nothing, he refuses to testify. Igor Olinevich admits to having participated in the action at the General Staff, but for him it was a completely peaceful protest that did not contain the offense, and with him it is hard to disagree.