Report on human rights violations in the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic
June 2026
Human Rights Defender Hava Beshtoeva
An analysis of open sources for June 2026, including media reports, online resources, and statements by private individuals, indicates the persistence of a pattern of violations of human rights and freedoms by the authorities and law enforcement of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic. These violations are primarily associated with the politically motivated distortion of historical reality, ongoing low-intensity colonialism, the criminalisation of religious practice, the persecution of citizens for political activity, repression and judicial falsification, as well as infringements of the right to a fair trial. The documented incidents underscore the continued need for further efforts to protect human rights in the republic.
The Children’s Rights Ombudsman of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic issued an appeal to parents and confirmed that five minors were being held in pre-trial detention
Amina Badrakova advised parents to check their children’s smartphones.
“This is very serious. Check your children’s smartphones. These days, you need to stay connected with your children and simply talk to them. I visit the pre-trial detention centre every month. Five teenagers are currently being held there. They became involved in extremely serious criminal cases specifically through the digital environment. You should see these children. They are children who have lost their way. They only understand what they have done after they end up there. They are psychologically distressed children whose lives are only just beginning,” she said.
Residents of the republic expressed outrage that children were being imprisoned for activities conducted online, voicing their objections en masse in the comments under the relevant post.
https://www.instagram.com/reels/DY_400lNVst
Five residents of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic were charged with discrediting the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation
Liability for “discrediting” the Armed Forces was introduced on 4 March 2022. Since then, residents of the Russian Federation, including those living in the North Caucasian and Southern Federal Districts, have been prosecuted under Article 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation. The provision establishes fines for individuals ranging from 30,000 to 100,000 roubles, while a repeat offence within one year may result in criminal prosecution.
- Zaur Bizhoev was found guilty of “discrediting” the Armed Forces. Law enforcement officers drew an administrative offence report concerning the alleged discrediting of the Armed Forces and referred the case to court. The Nalchik City Court found Bizhoev guilty and imposed a fine, according to the case record published on the court’s website. However, the case materials do not specify the amount of the fine or provide any further details about the proceedings.
https://nalchiksky–kbr.sudrf.ru
https://www.kavkaz-uzel.eu/articles/423953
- Sabina Balkarova was found guilty of “discrediting” the Armed Forces. Law enforcement officers in Kabardino-Balkaria drew up an administrative offence report against her concerning the alleged discrediting of the Armed Forces and referred the case to court. The Nalchik City Court found Balkarova guilty and imposed a fine, according to the case record published on the court’s website. However, the case materials do not specify the amount of the fine or provide any further details about the her case.
https://nalchiksky–kbr.sudrf.ru
https://www.kavkaz-uzel.eu/articles/424118
- Marina Yermakova was found guilty of “discrediting” the Armed Forces. According to the case materials, law enforcement officers in Nalchik drew up an administrative offence report against her concerning the alleged discrediting of the Armed Forces and referred the case to court. The Nalchik City Court found Yermakova guilty and imposed a fine, according to the case record published on the court’s website.
https://nalchiksky–kbr.sudrf.ru
https://www.kavkaz-uzel.eu/articles/424472
- Islam Abazov was found guilty of “discrediting” the Armed Forces. According to the authorities’ account, Abazov, a resident of the Prokhladnensky District, recorded a video containing statements that law enforcement officers deemed to constitute discrediting of the Armed Forces. They drew up an administrative offence report against him and referred the case to court.
https://nalchiksky–kbr.sudrf.ru
https://www.kavkaz-uzel.eu/articles/424499
- Alibek S. In the Chegemsky District, a court fined Alibek S., an inmate at Correctional Colony No. 1 in Kamenka, under the provision of the Code of Administrative Offences concerning the “discrediting” of the Armed Forces. According to the administrative offence report, on 8 April, Ministry of Defence personnel were conducting “recruitment activities encouraging individuals to enlist to military service in order to participate in the special military operation in Ukraine.” In the presence of the other prisoners and Ministry of Defence personnel, Alibek S. stated that “signing a contract to participate in the special military operation is so-called haram’ and that they would be killed.”
The court classified his conduct as public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the Armed Forces od the Russian Federation. He was fined 30,000 roubles.
- Sosruko Kantsaliev is reportedly “in the special military operation zone.” Law enforcement officers prepared administrative materials alleging the “discrediting” of the Armed Forces and referred the case to court. However, the Nalchik City Court returned the case to the police for a third time because the administrative offence report had been drawn up in Kantsaliev’s absence.
The court had previously returned the case to the police twice because the circumstances of the alleged offence had not been described in sufficient detail. A Ministry of Internal Affairs officer told the court that law enforcement could not establish Kantsaliev’s whereabouts. He did not reside at his registered address and could not be located at the address identified as his actual place of residence, according to the case record published on the Nalchik City Court’s website. “He is probably in the special military operation zone,” the case materials state.
The court ultimately returned the case against Sosruko Kantsaliev to law enforcement for a third time, explaining that the report should have been drawn up in his presence and that Kantsaliev or his representative should have been given an opportunity to review it.
https://nalchiksky–kbr.sudrf.ru
https://www.kavkaz-uzel.eu/articles/424528
Human rights defenders opposed amendments to the Constitution of Kabardino-Balkaria
On 10 June 2026, the Parliament of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic upheld a prosecutorial objection requiring the removal from the republic’s Constitution of provisions guaranteeing the territorial integrity and inviolability of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, the preservation of its statehood, and the status of the head of the republic as the “head of the state,” including the authority to safeguard the republic’s security and territorial integrity.
The Human Rights Centre of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic published a collective statement opposing the removal from the republic’s Constitution of provisions concerning territorial integrity, statehood, and the status of the head of the republic as the guarantor of those principles.
“We, the undersigned, express our concern over the intention to remove from the Constitution of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic provisions enshrining the principles of territorial integrity and inviolability, as well as the status of the head of the republic as the guarantor of its statehood,” the document states.
The statement was signed by public figures, human rights defenders, and representatives of academia, culture, and politics. Its authors consider the dismantling of such constitutional provisions to be part of a continuing erosion of the status of the national republics.
“The intention to remove these provisions from the Constitution of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic is not an isolated incident, but part of a systemic effort by the federal centre to dismantle the special status of the republics within the Russian Federation, a strategy that we have observed over the past 25 years,” the statement notes.
The signatories also warned of the possible consequences of such decisions:
“The country is undergoing a gradual process of unitarisation, which effectively contradicts the principles of federalism and threatens the security and integrity of the Federation itself. Such ill-considered steps, which infringe upon the national interests of its peoples, will inevitably lead to an increase in separatist sentiment.”
Human rights defenders stated that removing from the Constitution of Kabardino-Balkaria provisions guaranteeing the republic’s territorial integrity and inviolability, as well as the powers of the head of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic to preserve its territorial integrity, places the republic’s future at risk.
“On 3 June 2026, the Parliament of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic agreed to consider a protest submitted by the republic’s prosecutor’s office at the end of March this year. The protest concerns the removal of parts 2 and 3 of Article 5, parts 1 and 2 of Article 78, and part 1 of Article 80 of the Constitution of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic. We believe that the decision adopted by parliament is profoundly misguided and poses a danger to the future of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic as a constituent entity of the Russian Federation. We insist that the constitutional guarantees of the republic’s statehood and territorial integrity be preserved. The protest lodged by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic disregards express provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. In particular, Article 5(2) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states: “A republic (state) shall have its own constitution and legislation.” This means that the Russian Constitution itself recognises a republic as a state. Accordingly, the inclusion in the Constitution itself recognises a republic as a state. Accordingly, the inclusion in the Constitution of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic of the concepts of “statehood,” “head of state,” and “territorial integrity” is not only permissible, but also necessary for the development of federal relations,” the human rights defenders emphasised.
The supervisory authority’s assertion that safeguarding the security and territorial integrity of the state falls exclusively within the powers of the President of the Russian Federation amounts to a substitution of concepts. The President of the Russian Federation safeguards the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation as a single federal state. However, this does not preclude constituent entities of the Federation from enshrining in their own constitutions guarantees of territorial integrity as an integral part of the unified state, they argued.
Should the provision on the inviolability of the republic’s territory be removed from its fundamental law, the federal centre would gain a legal basis for changing the borders of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic unilaterally, without taking into account the views of its multi-ethnic population.
“The removal from the Constitution of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic of provisions enshrining the principle of territorial integrity is the most destructive aspect of the proposed amendments. Should the republic’s fundamental law no longer contain a provision guaranteeing the inviolability of its territory, the federal centre would acquire a legal basis for altering the borders of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic unilaterally, without regard for the views of its multi-ethnic population. Such a development could have the following consequences: the transfer to neighbouring constituent entities of the Russian Federation of territories where Kabardians, Balkars, and other peoples have lived for centuries; the abolition or redrawing of historically established national districts under the pretext of serving the “interests of the Federation”; and the loss of the republic’s last constitutional safeguard against arbitrary changes to its territorial structure at the discretion of the federal centre,” the authors of the statement emphasised, noting that this concerns “the very existence of the republic as a national-territorial community.”
They state that the treaty-based model of federalism established in 1992, which underpins the Constitution of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, is being systematically dismantled. “We call for this process to be stopped while there is still an opportunity to do so. The country is undergoing a gradual process of unitarisation, which effectively contradicts the principles of federalism and threatens the security and integrity of the Federation itself. Such ill-considered steps, which infringe upon the national interests of its people, will inevitably lead to an increase in separatist sentiment, which is clearly not in the interests of the Russian state,” the statement reads.
According to its authors, given that Kabardino-Balkaria is a republic with two titular peoples, the constitutional formula of “statehood, territorial integrity, and the head of the republic as a guarantor” has for decades served as the foundation of inter-ethnic harmony.
“The removal of these symbols can only be perceived as the federal centre’s abandonment of the guarantees given to the peoples of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic when the Federation Treaty was signed, and as a signal that the republic’s views concerning its own territory no longer matter. We are not calling for confrontation with the federal centre. Rather, we demand the preservation of the minimum constitutional guarantees that allow us to be not merely a republic on paper, but a fully fledged constituent entity of the Federation, as provided for in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. We categorically oppose the removal from the Constitution of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic of key provisions concerning statehood and territorial integrity,” the statement reads.
The authors of the document noted that preserving the constitutional provisions challenged by the prosecutor’s office is a necessary condition for implementing the principles of federalism, and called on members of parliament not to uphold the protest submitted by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic.
The statement was signed by Marks Shakhmurzov, Chair of the Kabardino-Balkarian branch of the Russian Association of Victims of Political Repression; Khakim Kuchmezov, Chair of the Kabardino-Balkarian branch of the Yabloko party; Valery Khatazhukov, Chair of the Kabardino-Balkarian Regional Human Rights Centre; Muzarib Bzhakhov, Honoured Architect of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic; public figure Ismel Meshev; Zaurbek Kozhev, Candidate of Historical Sciences; artist Zaudin Tokov; public figures Mukhamed Berkhamov and Azamat Shormanov;
It should be noted that on 27 October 2022, the Parliament of Dagestan adopted amendments to the republic’s Constitution, including provisions that removed the obligation of the head of the republic to uphold Dagestan’s territorial integrity.
The debate over the constitutional amendments in Dagestan took place in a tense atmosphere marked by mutual accusations from both opponents of the changes and the authorities. On 25 October 2022, Sergei Melikov, who headed Dagestan at the time, criticised activists opposing the amendments, stating that “certain individuals who call themselves civic activists and claim to care about the integrity of the republic are themselves creating the conditions for division among the people of Dagestan.”
The removal from the Constitution of Kabardino-Balkaria of provision guaranteeing the republic’s territorial integrity and inviolability could give the federal centre the ability to alter the republic’s borders unilaterally, without taking into account the views of the its authorities or its established historical circumstances.
The authorities have not yet issued an official response to the appeal by human rights defenders opposing the amendments to the Constitution of Kabardino-Balkaria.
A working group is first expected to be established in response to the regional prosecutor’s objection, which called for the republic’s Constitution to be brought into conformity with federal law. The group will include representatives of the Head of Kabardino-Balkaria, the prosecutor’s office, and the regional office of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. As the republic’s prosecutor, Khabarov, stated: “The Prosecutor General’s Office instructed the Prosecutor’s Office of Kabardino-Balkaria to take prosecutorial action to bring the unconstitutional provisions of Kabardino-Balkaria into conformity with the Constitution of Russia.”
The adoption of these amendments would give the federal centre the ability to alter the borders of the republics unilaterally at its own discretion, without taking into account their views or established historical circumstances.
https://memorialcenter.org/ru/news/-kbr-vystupili-protiv-popravok-v-konstitucziyu-respubliki
Faruk Shogen, Chair of the Circassian Democratic Party of Turkey, also opposed the proposed amendments and appealed to the authorities of the republic.
In letters addressed to the Executive Office of the President of the Russian Federation, the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, the Head of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, Kazbek Kokov, and the Parliament of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, he expressed concern about the proposed changes and called for the preservation of key constitutional provisions that form part of the historical identity of the Kabardian and Balkar peoples and serve as guarantees of stability and federal balance.
https://zapravakbr.ru/ne-dopustit-peresmotra-klyuchevykh-osn/
More than forty North Caucasian civil society organisations from various countries also appealed to the leadership and parliament of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, calling for the preservation of the constitutional provisions on territorial inviolability.
“For us, these republics are not merely administrative units. They are institutional custodians of our people’s historical memory, political existence, cultural continuity, and connection to their historical homeland.
For this reason, we do not regard the proposal to repeal the constitutional provisions guaranteeing the territorial integrity, inviolability, and statehood of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic as a purely technical constitutional and legal initiative.
As is well known, the policy of centralisation pursued consistently in the Russian Federation over the past twenty-five years has been accompanied by a gradual erosion of the political, administrative, and constitutional status of the republics within the Federation.”
“The effective nullification of the provisions of the 1992 Federation Treaty, the abolition of popular elections for the heads of the republics, the weakening of the role of national languages in public life, and the systematic elimination of institutions, powers, and titles symbolising the statehood of the republics have been the principal stages of this process. Today, such fundamental constitutional principles as “territorial integrity,” “territorial inviolability”, “statehood” and the status of the head of the republic as the guarantor of these values are themselves being reconsidered. This indicates that the process has entered a new and critically important stage,” they wrote in an appeal to the Head of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, K.V. Kokov; the Chair of the Parliament of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, T.B. Egorova; and members of the Parliament of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic.
They called on them to “reject the initiative of the prosecutor’s office providing for the removal from the Constitution of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic of constitutional guarantees of its statehood, security, territorial integrity, and territorial inviolability; ensure the preservation in the Constitution of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic of its constitutional status and the guarantees of its territorial integrity and inviolability; prevent the adoption of decisions capable of weakening the republic’s constitutional position within the Russian Federation; and fulfil the historical responsibility you bear before future generations.”
The educational project “Russian Caucasus” prompted a negative reaction in the region
“Russian Caucasus” is a large-scale educational project launched in the North Caucasian Federal District. Its stated aim is “to strengthen inter-ethnic unity and promote historical heritage.”
The project is being organised by the Office of the Presidential Plenipotentiaty Representative in the North Caucasian Federal District, the Mashuk Knowledge Centre, and the Russian Znanie Society. The initiative was announced at a press conference in Pyatigorsk by Andrei Karpov, head of the Department for the Implementation of Public Projects within the Office of the Presidential Plenipotentiary Representative in the North Caucasian Federal District.
The project envisages a series of lectures on the history of the Russian Caucasus, prominent political figures who played a significant role in the region’s integration into Russia, and the protection of the interests of its peoples.
Reports about the need to establish a “unified system of values” and an “all-Russian civic identity” in the North Caucasus prompted heated discussion on social media.
In his podcast, Circassian activist and Circassian Media coordinator Aidamir Kazanokov observed that the “Russian Caucasus” project, discussions about revising the “hierarchy of values,” amendments to the Constitution of Kabardino-Balkaria, and the continuing security-service campaigns are becoming increasingly difficult to view as separate developments. He examined them as elements of a single process and sought to address the following question: why is the state now simultaneously intensifying its ideological efforts, continuing to dismantle the remaining elements of republican autonomy, and expanding repressive practices against various forms of civic self-organisation?
Terminal Fargiev, a prisoner living with AIDS and a severe form of tuberculosis, was denied release from the penal colony
On 5 June 2025, the Nalchik City Court sentenced Fargiev to three years in a high-security penal colony for threatening to use violence against an officer of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Prokhladny. One month later, the AIDS Centre issued a medical certificate stating that Fargiev was medically unfit to serve his sentence in a penal colony.
According to the case materials, he has tuberculosis involving pulmonary tissue destruction and stage 4B HIV infection, which is characterised by severe secondary illnesses. Fargiev did not participate in the appeal hearing because he was receiving treatment at a rehabilitation centre in Krasnodar.
The Nalchik court declined to reconsider the ruling and upheld the custodial sentence imposed on Fargiev, who has a category II disability, according to the case materials published on the court’s website.
The defence has lawful grounds to challenge the decision of the Supreme Court of Kabardino-Balkaria to keep local resident Temirlan Fargiev in custody, as his case shows indications of violations of the law and of his human rights.
A court decides whether to release a prisoner on medical grounds by considering the circumstances as a whole. The one factor it is required to take into account is the conclusion of a properly constituted medical commission that the person is unable to continue serving the sentence because they suffer from an illness included in the list approved by Government Resolution No. 54, “On the Medical Examination of Convicted Persons Recommended for Release from Serving a Sentence on Ground of Illness.”
According to the court rulling, although the illnesses cited by Fargiev are included in this list, no medical commission was convened in the prescribed manner, since a certificate issued by the AIDS Centre does not constitute a commission’s decision. Fargiev may therefore seek to have such a commission convened.
The court’s refusal to alter Fargiev’s sentence violates his right to health protection and adequate medical care. https://vs–kbr.sudrf.ru/modules.php?name=sud_delo&srv_num=1&name_op=doc&number=34055384&delo_id=4&new=4&text_number=1
Ten residents of Kabardino-Balkaria were detained and labelled an “extremist community.”
According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, a 68-year-old resident of the Baksansky District and his associates exerted physical and psychological pressure on other local residents, forcing them to observe religious rules.
Investigators allege that in 2019 the 68-year-old man, who held “radical” religious views, decided to gather a group of like-minded individuals around him. They allegedly compelled local residents to comply with religious rules.
Law enforcement officers detained the alleged founder and nine active members of the purported extremist community. The founder was charged under Article 282.1(1) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, “Creation of an Extremist Community,” which carries a maximum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment. The nine alleged active members were charged under Article 282.1(2), “Participation in an Extremist Community,” which carries a maximum sentence of six years’ imprisonment.
We were able to contact local residents who claim that the case was fabricated. They believe that the security services are using it to purge the religious segment of the population, which they regard as a potential threat to the political order in the context of ongoing political developments. They consider this especially apparent given that the case concerns events alleged to have occurred seven years ago.
The residents maintain that the defendants exerted no pressure on the local population. They argue that ordinary discussions about religion are now being interpreted by the authorities as extremism.
https://t.me/mvd_kabardino_balkaria/23973
Seventeen people were convicted in Kabardino-Balkaria in the “Sharia patrol” case
The Chereksky District Court of Kabardino-Balkaria sentenced the alleged organiser in the case concerning the so-called “Sharia patrol” to four years and three months’ imprisonment.
According to the court materials, in 2023 and 2024 members of an alleged community organised so-called “Sharia patrols,” during which they identified people suspected of consuming alcohol or drugs, or of engaging in other conduct that conflicted with their religious views.
The court found the alleged organiser of the “Sharia patrol” guilty of creating an extremist community and sentenced him to four years and three months in a general-regime penal colony. He was also prohibited from two years from engaging in activities involving the management of, or participation in, religious civil society organisations.
The remaining 16 defendants were found guilty of participating in an extremist community and received prison sentences ranging from two years and one month to two years and ten months in general-regime penal colonies.
https://www.interfax.ru/russia/1095241
The Caucasian Knot cited activists who described the “Sharia patrol” cases in Kabardino-Balkaria as fabricated. They stated that human rights defenders had documented no actual activity by so-called “Sharia patrols” in the republic and linked the emergence of such criminal cases to efforts by law enforcement agencies to create the appearance of effective work.
Zaur Shokuev, a former member of the Public Monitoring Commission of Kabardino-Balkaria, said that he himself lived in Baksan and frequently travelled to settlements in the Baksansky District, but could not recall single such incident during those years.
“Interest in Islam among young people in Kabardino-Balkaria has always been strong, and this trend has positive aspects, including the principled opposition of religious young people to drugs,” said Tamara Gerieva, a representative of the Council of Elders of the Balkar People. She noted that she knew nothing about the activities of the so-called “Sharia patrols,” whose alleged members have been accused of violent offences.
“If young people are being drawn into drugs, something must be done to save them. But our police and prosecutor’s office have no time for young people. They are constantly persecuting activists, particularly the Council of Elders of the Balkar People. Meanwhile, the number of drug stashes and couriers is increasing. If some young people took it upon themselves to combat such phenomena, why not? Why should they be prosecuted for it?” she said.
Valery Khatazhukov, head of the Human Rights Centre of Kabardino-Balkaria, agreed that there had been a visible increase in the number of practising Muslims in the republic.
In his view, the cases concerning the so-called “Sharia patrols” are highly likely to belong to the category of cases initiated and investigated by law enforcement agencies in order to demonstrate activity.
“There is a certain degree of inflation. They present it as preventive work and demonstrate that they are supposedly doing their job. They need this for internal departmental purposes. I have absolutely no doubt about that, although I do not know all the details and nuances. This “patrol” case is not a pressing problem and does not fit at all within the republic’s current agenda. Far more significant is the detention by law enforcement officers of 48 Muslims in Nalchik and Nartan,” Khatazhukov explained.
In May 2025, 48 people were detained during a law enforcement operation in Nalchik and Nartan. Their relatives alleged in a complaint to human rights defenders that officers had planted SIM cards during searches of their homes and fabricated cases accusing them of participation in a terrorist organisation. At least several of those arrested told their lawyers that they had been tortured. The defendants’ relatives are seeking a meeting with the Head of Kabardino-Balkaria.
https://www.kavkaz-uzel.eu/articles/412568
A court of cassation again overturned the acquittal of Kabardino-Balkarian lawyer Diana Tsipinova in a case concerning an alleged assault on a law enforcement officer
The Deputy Prosecutor General filed a cassation appeal against the second acquittal of lawyer Diana Tsipinova, maintaining that she was guilty of assaulting a police officer. The defence argued that the prosecutor’s office was disputing findings of fact established by the lower courts, which falls outside the scope of cassation review.
On 20 February, the Supreme Court of Kabardino-Balkaria rejected the prosecutor’s request for a further review of the case against Tsipinova, who had been charged with assaulting a law enforcement officer, and upheld her second acquittal.
On 25 June 2026, after hearing the parties’ arguments, the Fifth General Jurisdiction Court of Cassation granted the cassation submission filed by the Prosecutor General’s Office and set aside both the acquittal and the appellate ruling. The criminal case against Diana Tsipinova was remitted to the court of first instance for a new trial, according to Advokatskaya Gazeta.
Tsipinova’s case has become an example of the prosecutor’s office abusing its rights to appeal. Unlike the defence, the prosecution can initiate repeated cycles of judicial review until a conviction is secured or all procedural avenues have been exhausted. Lawyers argue that the prosecutor’s office has exploited this imbalance in Tsipinova’s case.
It its earlier objections to the prosecution’s cassation appeal, the defence noted that Diana Tsipinova’s return to the police station to retrieve her telephone could not be regarded as unlawful. The device had not been lawfully seized and was of financial and other value to her, including because its memory contained information protected by legal professional privilege.
The police had no grounds to prevent Tsipinova from accessing her property. Consequently, Timur Nagoev’s use of physical force against the lawyer, who posed no threat to the life or health of members of the public or police officers and whose actions could not have resulted in other consequences, failed to comply with the requirements of Article 19 of the Law on Police.
The defence emphasised that the court had reasonably concluded that Diana Tsipinova might not have realised that Timur Nagoev was a public official, since his appearance, including his clothing, and his conduct were not consistent with those of a police officer.
At trial, the prosecution also failed to present evidence that Nagoev had identified himself to Tsipinova as a police officer before using force against her. On the contrary, the video footage showed that he did not inform the lawyers who had arrived that he held the rank of deputy head of the police department, that he was on 24-hour duty, or that force could be used in the event of non-compliance.
Tsipinova was also unable to see the details of his clothing because it was night-time and because of Nagoev’s position relative to her.
The defence also considered the allegation that the judgment contained contradictions to be unfounded. An analysis of the judgment shows that it addressed different incidents and periods of time. In the first instance, the court considered Diana Tsipinova’s return to the Ministry of Internal Affairs building to retrieve her mobile phone, which had not been lawfully seized. In the second, it examined the actions of the lawyers, including Tsipinova, after they had been denied access to their client.
“The author of the cassation submission failed to take account of the chronology of the circumstances of the events and therefore mistakenly identified a contradiction in the court’s findings,” the defence stated in its objections.
“However, the court of cassation sided with the prosecution, whose arguments are not supported by the factual circumstances of the criminal case. The defence intends to continue seeking justice. Once the reasoning in the cassation ruling has been studied in detail, a further cassation appeal will be prepared for submission to the Judicial Chamber for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court,” Tsipinova’s lawyer said.
In May 2020, Diana Tsipinova was one of three lawyers who volunteered to provide legal assistance to their colleague Ratmir Zhilokov after he was detained in Nartkala. They arrived at the police station but were unable to secure access to Zhilokov for 40 minutes. The officers objected to the lawyers filming the incident and forcibly removed them from the building.
The use of force against lawyers in Kabardino-Balkaria and their subsequent criminal prosecution have been regarded by the professional legal community as an extraordinary development, although not an isolated one. Violations of the right to legal representation pose a potential threat to every citizen.
On 7 July 2023, after hearing the case for the first time, the Urvansky District Court found that Diana Tsipinova’s actions did not constitute a criminal offence and acquitted her. The Supreme Court of Kabardino-Balkaria upheld the judgment, but the court of cassation in Pyatigorsk granted the prosecution’s application and remitted the case for a new trial.
Tsipinova’s lawyer stated that the cassation ruling had a pronounced prosecutorial bias and that the court had exceeded its authority by assessing the evidence and its reliability.
On 1 December 2025, the Urvansky District Court, which reheard the case, again acquitted Tsipinova. The prosecution had sought a sentence of two and a half years in an open-type penal colony.
The prosecutor’s office challenged the second acquittal as well and requested that the case be remitted for another retrial. The appellate court, the Supreme Court of Kabardino-Balkaria, reviewed video footage from the incident at the police station and again upheld the acquittal. Lawyers noted that courts very rarely side with the defence and generally do so only where the violations are particularly egregious.
https://fparf.ru/news/law-chambers/zashchita-namerena-prodolzhit-otstaivanie-spravedlivosti
In June 2026, the Nalchik Garrison Military Court sentenced 17 people to terms of imprisonment for unauthorised absence from their military units during the mobilisation period*:
In particular:
- Ramazan Aidemirov, who, according to the court, twice absented himself without valid reason from military service at a unit in North Ossetia, “on 24 August 2024 and 12 May 2025, in both cases during the mobilisation period,” and “remained at his place of residence until 18 February 2025 on the first occasion and 16 March on the second.”
According to the report, on both occasions the serviceman remained absent from his unit for several months and was taken into custody only after voluntarily surrendering to law enforcement officers.
Aidemirov was sentenced to six years in a general-regime penal colony for the combined offences.
- Alim Khuranov was found guilty under Article 337(5) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the Nalchik Garrison Military Court reported on its VKontakte page. According to the court, on 17 February 2026, during the mobilisation period, Khuranov “failed, without valid reason, to report for duty at the designated time the temporary deployment site of his military unit.”
On 31 March 2026, Khuranov voluntarily reported to his military unit in Ingushetia. “From 17 February to 31 March, Khuranov spent his time as he saw fit at his place of residence,” the court’s press service stated.
The court found him guilty and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment in a general-regime penal colony.
- Islam Zazoev was found guilty of unauthorised absence from his place of service for more than ten days but no more than one month, the Nalchik Garrison Military Court reported on its VKontakte page. According to the court, on 20 February 2026, during the mobilisation period, Zazoev “failed, without valid reason, to report for duty at his military unit at the designated time.”
On 6 March, Zazoev voluntarily reported to the military investigation department in the village of Troitskaya, Ingushetia. “From 20 February to 6 March 2026, Zazoev spent his time as the saw fit at his place of residence,” the court’s press service stated.
Zazoev was found guilty and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment in a general-regime penal colony.
- Yevgeny Solovyov was found guilty under Article 337(5) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court’s press service reported on its VKontakte page on 9 June. According to the investigation, Solovyov failed, without valid reason, to report to his military unit on 18 March 2025. Police officers located him in Nalchik on 2 April 2026, meaning that for more than a year he had “spent his time as he saw fit at his place of residence.”
The court sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment in a general-regime penal colony.
- Aslan Nagoev was found guilty under Article 337(5) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court’s press service reported on its VKontakte page on 11 June. According to the court, Nagoev failed, without valid reason, to report to his military unit in Kabardino-Balkaria on 16 January. On 26 March, he voluntarily returned to the unit. “From 16 January to 26 March, Nagoev spent his time as he saw fit and at his place of residence,” the court stated.
The court sentenced Nagoev to five years’ imprisonment in a general-regime penal colony.
- Martyn Natov was found guilty of evading military service. According to the case materials, on 15 January 2026 Natov failed to report at the designated time to his military unit stationed in Kabardino-Balkaria. On 6 April, he reported to the military investigation department. According to the investigation, from 15 January to 6 April, Natov spent his time as he saw fit at his place of residence.
The Nalchik Garrison Military Court found Martyn Natov guilty under Article 337(5) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, “Unauthorised Abandonment of a Military Unit or Place of Service,” and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment in a general-regime penal colony, the court’s press service reported on its VKontakte page.
- Lev Sidorov was found guilty under Article 337(3.1) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to a post on the Nalchik Garrison Military Court’s VKontakte page. According to the case materials, on 26 February 2026, Sidorov failed, without valid reason, to report for duty at the military contract recruitment centre in Nalchik before being sent to a military unit in the Rostov Region. He eventually reported to the recruitment centre on 18 March.
The court sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment.
- Stanislav Yemelyanov was sentenced by the military court in Nalchik to 20 years’ imprisonment after being found guilty of unauthorised absence from his military unit, theft and drug trafficking. According to the case materials, serviceman Stanislav Yemelyanov evaded military service from 27 August 2024 until 11 February 2025. In January 2025, he stole another person’s property. According to the investigation, in order to take revenge on another individual who had previously accused him in connection with a missing item of jewellery, Yemelyanov set fire to the person’s car. In February 2025, he purchased a large quantity of drugs online and placed them in five concealed locations for subsequent sale. He was detained by police while doing so, the press service of the Nalchik Garrison Military Court reported today on its VKontakte page.
Yemelyanov had an unspent conviction for a particularly serious offence and had not completed the sentence imposed in that case. Taking this into account, the court found him guilty of unauthorised absence from his military unit, theft, destruction of another person’s property, and drug trafficking, and sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment in a special-regime penal colony, the statement said.
No comments on the judgment or the investigators’ account have been received from Stanislav Yemelyanov or his representatives.
- Timur Babgoev was charged with two counts of evading military service during the mobilisation period. Article 337(5) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for a sentence of five to ten years’ imprisonment. According to the prosecution, on 1 August, Babgoev left the temporary deployment site of his military without authorisation and returned home, where he remained until 15 October 2025. A police officer found him at his place of residence. Babgoev was required to report to his military unit on 17 October, but remained at home until early May. He reported voluntarily to the military investigation department in Nalchik only on 6 May 2026, the press service of the Nalchik Garrison Military Court stated on its VKontakte page.
At trial, Babgoev pleaded guilty and expressed remorse. The court also took into account that in 2022 the Nalchik City Court had given him a three-year suspended sentence, with a three-year probationary period, for large-scale drug trafficking. At the time he left his unit, the suspended sentence had not yet expired. The court ultimately sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment in a general-regime penal colony.
- Alberd Khapov was found guilty under Article 337(3.1) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court’s press service reported on its VKontakte page on 18 June. According to the court, Khapov failed, without valid reason, to report to his military unit on 5 March. On 2 April, he was admitted to a hospital in Nalchik and later voluntarily reported to the city’s military investigation department. “From 5 March to 2 April, Khapov spent his time as he saw fit at his place of residence,” the court stated on its VKontakte page.
The court sentenced Khapov to one year’s imprisonment in a general-regime penal colony.
- Aleksander Semenyak was found guilty of theft and unauthorised absence from his military unit. According to the case materials, serviceman Alexander Semenyak was absent from duty from 3 to 8 June 2025, and on 6 June 2025 he stole another person’s property, which the owner valued at 43,200 roubles.
The Nalchik Garrison Military Court found Semenyak guilty of unauthorised absence from his military unit and theft, and sentenced him to one year and eight months’ imprisonment in a general-regime penal colony, the court’s press service reported on its VKontakte page.
- Said Beshtoev was found guilty of unauthorised absence from his military unit. According to the case materials, on 3 December 2025 serviceman Said Beshtoev left his place of service without authorisation, departing from his unit’s temporary deployment site, and remained at his place of residence until 15 April 2026. On 15 April, he reported to the military investigation department in Nalchik.
The Nalchik Garrison Military Court found him guilty of unauthorised absence from his military unit and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment in a general-regime penal colony, the court’s press service reported on its VKontakte page.
- Aleksander Grakov was found guilty of unauthorised absence from his military unit. According to the case materials, serviceman Alexander Grakov failed to report to his unit on 17 October 2023. On 16 April 2026, a police officer located him in Mozdok. The investigation alleges that from 17 October 2023 until 16 April 2026, Grakov remained at his place of residence and spent his time as he saw fit.
The Nalchik Garrison Military Court found him guilty of unauthorised absence from his military unit and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment in a general-regime penal colony, the court’s press service reported on its VKontakte page.
- Sergei Monetov, who signed a contract with the Ministry of Defence while serving a prison sentence, was found guilty under Article 337(3.2) and Article 337(6) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court’s press service reported on its VKontakte page. The court established that Monetov, age 31, entered military service in 2024 after signing a contract while imprisoned for serious offences. On that basis, Monetov, who had multiple serious convictions, was granted conditional release. According to the court, on 7 February and 23 March 2026, “in both cases during the mobilisation period,” Monetov failed to report to his military unit within the required time and later left his place of service without authorisation. “On 22 March 2026, Monetov voluntarily reported to a military unit stationed in Kabardino-Balkaria, and on 25 April he was located by military police officers in Prokhladny,” the statement said.
Taking the combined judgments into account, the court sentenced Monetov to 11 years’ imprisonment in a high-security penal colony.
- Bai-Ali Barakhoev was found guilty of failing to report for duty for more than one month. According to the case materials, serviceman Bai-Ali Barakhoev failed to report to his military unit stationed in Ingushetia on 21 October 2024 and again on 30 June 2025, and remained at his place of residence. The Nalchik Garrison Military Court found Barakhoev guilty of failing to report for duty for more than one month and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment in a general-regime penal colony, the court’s press service reported today on its VKontakte page.
- Akhmed Shamurzaev was found guilty of evading military service under Article 337(5) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The provision carries a sentence of five to ten years’ imprisonment. According to the case materials, on 23 October 2025, “during the mobilisation period,” he failed, without valid reason, to report to his military unit at the designated time, the court’s press service reported today on its VKontakte page. On 6 April 2026, police officers searching for Shamurzaev in connection with his evasion of military service located him in Mozdok. From 23 October 2025 until 6 April 2026, he “spent his time as he saw fit and at his place of residence,” the court stated.
The Nalchik Garrison Military Court found Shamurzaev guilty of failing to report for duty for more than one month and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment in a general-regime penal colony.
- Aleksander Ilyin was found guilty of being absent from duty for four months. According to the case materials, serviceman Alexander Ilyin failed to report for duty at the designated time on 17 December 2024. Police officers located him in Mozdok on 16 April 2025. The investigation alleges that throughout this period Ilyin spent his time as he saw fit, including at his place of residence.
The Nalchik Garrison Military Court found Alexander Ilyin guilty of failing to report for duty within the required time and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment in a general-regime penal colony, the court’s press service reported today on its VKontakte page.
https://vk.com/public215822488
In total, in June 2026 alone, 17 people in Kabardino-Balkaria received custodial sentences for unauthorised absence from their military units during the mobilisation period.*
On 21 September 2022, Vladimir Putin announced a partial mobilisation, and on 28 October of the same year the defence minister reported to the president that it had been completed. However, no corresponding presidential decree was issued. Putin’s press secretary subsequently stated that legal experts had concluded that a presidential decree was not required to bring the partial mobilisation to an end.
It is important to note that all of the incidents described above occurred well after 28 October 2022, that is, after the partial mobilisation had been declared complete.
On 24 September 2022, Article 337 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was amended to introduce paragraphs 2.1, 3.1, and 5, covering unauthorised absence from a military unit or place of service during the mobilisation period. The amendments provide for sentences of up to 10 years’ imprisonment. The tightening of the law following the announcement of mobilisation resulted in harsher sentences for absence from military units.
As of the end of June 2026, at least 417 servicemen from Kabardino-Balkaria had been officially confirmed killed since the start of the Russia’s “military operation” in Ukraine.
In June 2026, it became known that the following servicemen would not return from Ukraine:
- Alexei Bagishev (Prokhladny)
- Vyacheslav Astafyev (Prokhladny)
- Zamir Kokayev (Prokhladny)
- Zaur Kokov (Prokhladny)
- Sergei Bavin (Prokhladny)
- Igor Litvinenko (Prokhladny)
- Alexei Yurin (Prokhladny)
- Sergei Khaustov (Prokhladny)
- Islam Musalov (Prokhladny)
- Viktor Trukhachev (Prokhladny)
- Aslan Shantukov (Prokhladny)
- Igor Bagryanov (Prokhladny)
- Sergei Zaustov (Prokhladny)
- Dmitry Baigozin (Prokhladny)
- Denis Ladynsky (Prokhladny)
- Nikolai Shapovalov (Prokhladny)
- Andrei Lebedev (Prokhladny)
- Muradin Psanukov (the village of Svetlovodskoye, Zolsky District)
As of the end of June 2026, at least 4,645 servicemen from the North Caucasus Federal District and 4,705 servicemen from the Southern Federal District had been officially confirmed killed in Russia’s “military operation” in Ukraine. Since the start of the operation, government and law enforcement representatives have acknowledged the deaths of 9,350 servicemen from the southern Russian Federation and the republics of the North Caucasus.
As before, Dagestan accounted for the largest number of confirmed deaths among servicemen from the North Caucasus Federal District, with 2,022. The deaths of 956 servicemen from Stavropol Territory, 589 from North Ossetia, 417 from Kabardino-Balkaria, 265 from Chechnya, 198 from Karachay-Cherkessia and 198, from Ingushetia were also confirmed. The Chechen authorities published the names of 242 of those killed, while Ramzan Kadyrov reported the deaths of a further 23 servicemen on 27 October 2022 without naming them.
A total of 4,705 servicemen from the Southern Federal District were officially confirmed killed in the military operation. Among the district’s regions, Volgograd Region recorded the highest number of confirmed deaths, at 1,810. The deaths of 911 servicemen from Rostov Region, 863 from Krasnodar Territory, 748 from Astrakhan Region, 234 from Kalmykia, and 139 from Adygea were also officially confirmed.
Activists against the “Special military operation”
Many national activists have spoken out against the participation of their peoples in the invasion of Ukraine. One of the first to do so was prominent Circassian activist Ibrahim Yaganov, who stated that “this is not our war.” In March 2026, Aidamir Kazanokov expressed a similar view:
“Circassians are not allowed to exist as a people, but they may be used as expendable material.
In Nalchik, Kabardino-Balkaria, Circassians are prohibited from holding rallies, marches, or engaging in any form of collective self-organisation. We are not allowed to exist as a people in our homeland. We cannot hold Adyghe Dzhegu, our traditional festivities; we cannot properly mark 14 March, Circassian Language Day; we cannot celebrate 25 April, Circassian Flag Day; we cannot honour, on 20 May, those who died for the freedom of Circassia; and on 21 May, we cannot march to commemorate the end of the Russo-Circassian War of 1763-1864
Yet under the same national, ideological, and religious rhetoric, we are permitted to go and fight in someone else’s war. We may die for the interests of the state that destroyed our country, dispersed our people, and continues to prevent us from restoring our historical memory and developing our own culture.
The question remains: why are we not allowed to live as a people, but are allowed to die as a resource?”
https://t.me/The_Circassian_Times/14514
He also observed: “Calls to join volunteer battalions have become increasingly frequent in recent months. Newspapers, advertisements for contract military service, and interviews with frontline soldiers create the impression that young people are expected to become even more willing to go to war.
The commander of the Elbrus volunteer unit urges others to follow him and speaks of the “comfortable conditions” at the front. When a combat zone is described as “a sanatorium with a religious orientation,” the situation begins to feel absurd. Halal food and prayer rooms are appropriate conditions for daily life, but can they really serve as an argument for taking part in an extremely grave military conflict?
A national community, its language, and its faith should unite and preserve people, not serve as attractive packaging for drawing people into a combat zone.”
https://t.me/The_Circassian_Times/14515
Conclusion:
The events in the June 2026 report on Kabardino-Balkaria illustrate a persistent pattern of systematic and continuing violations of fundamental human rights. A particularly alarming aspect of this repression is the growing pressure placed on national and religious activists, as well as on individuals who take an active civic position. This pressure must be viewed in the context of an enduring policy of cultural colonialism, which the authorities are attempting to legitimise through legislation.