Dading at the last moment refused to pass check on the lie detector
Activist Ildar Dading, was convicted for violating the rules of holding rallies, refused to check on the lie detector. He did not explain his decision, and stated that “there will be nothing to do.” Meanwhile, the wife Dading Anastasia Zotova reported that this information is not true.
Activist Ildar Dading, was convicted for violating the rules of holding rallies, refused to check on the lie detector test, despite earlier given consent to the procedure. On Friday, November 11, RIA Novosti reported the press-Secretary UFSIN for the Republic of Karelia Vitaly Fefelov.
“At the last moment, when a specialist with polygraph has already deployed its equipment, Dading refused to be tested”, — said the representative of the service. According to him, the convict did not mention the reasons that made this decision, and stated that “there will be nothing to do.”
Meanwhile, the wife Dading Anastasia Zotova in his Twitter wrote that the information about the refusal of her husband to undergo the polygraph test is not true. According to her lawyer Alex lipcer “wrote a statement to the Dading was interrogated only in the presence of a lawyer.”
Read also
the head of the colony left the post in connection with charges in the beating of the Dading
Dading agreed to be tested on a lie detector on 3 November. On the same day, the Commissioner for human rights in Russia Tatyana Moskalkova said on the feasibility of its transfer to another colony.
2 Nov activist in the colony was visited by independent doctors of Segezhskaya Central district hospital. They are not found on his body traces of a beating, and the condition was assessed as satisfactory. In this case, before the lawyer Dading had reported the complaints of his client to the beatings by the members of the colony. Beatings, he said, began after an inmate went on a hunger strike.
Dading was found guilty of numerous violations during rallies and sentenced to three years in a penal colony in December 2015. At that time, it was the first criminal case under article 212.1, envisaging responsibility for a public event.