Voina’s Oleg Vorotnikov reports:

The German TV network ZDF has obtained accreditation for the July 8th court hearing. However, the crew informed me today that they were prohibited from filming or photographing during the hearing by judge Dvoryanchikov.

We also have news from Strasbourg:

Defense attorney Svetlana Sidorkina’s complaint of July 6th regarding the case of Taisiya Osipova has been accepted by European Court of Human Rights. The complaint was filed under application number 41366/11.

The complaint has been classified as urgent according to the Court’s urgency policy: Urgent  applications (in particular risk to life or health of the applicant, other circumstances linked to the personal or  family situation of the applicant, particularly where the well-being of a child is at issue, application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court).

Leonid Nikolaev’s complaint to European Court of Human Rights, submitted in February, has been registered and filed under case number 21051/11, according to a letter from Strasbourg received by Leonid Nikolaev’s attorney Dmitri Dinze.

In his complaint Leonid Nikolaev accuses Russian authorities of violating his right to freedom and personal security (article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

Voina activists Leonid Nikolaev and Oleg Vorotnikov were arrested on November 15th, 2010 in connection with the art action Palace Revolution during which several police vehicles were overturned.

Leonid Nikolaev complains of unlawful detention, unlawful extension of detention and a violation of his right to a timely appeal process. During the three months that Nikolaev spent in detention, his appeal on the original arrest decision had not been reviewed by an apellate court. Arrest appeals must be reviewed within one month according to Strasbourg court practice.

Nikolaev also points out in his complaint that pre-trial detention is an extreme measure. It can only be used if there is significant evidence of the suspect’s involvement in the crime as well as the possibility that the suspect might try to obstruct the investigation and/or flee from justice. Since Leonid Nikolaev had declined to give testimony (utilizing his constitutional right to remain silent), there had not been sufficient evidence of his participation in the crime. Likewise, the prosecution had failed to prove that Nikolaev could flee or try to influence witnesses in the event of his release. Effectively, the prosecution’s entire case was based on information collected from blogs and Wikipedia. Not a single witness had named Nikolaev as a participant of Palace Revolution. The video footage distributed on the internet shows a group of more than two people overturning the cars, in which the individual participants are not identifiable due to hoods covering their faces.