The lawyer for Elena Blinovskaya, Natalya Salnikova, announced that the defense plans to appeal the court’s decision to keep the blogger in pretrial detention until April 26. The update was reported by RIA News and reflected in the official statements from the defense team. Salnikova underscored the belief that women should not be imprisoned in such cases and contended that this kind of preventive measure should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. She added that there appears to be no justification for keeping Blinovskaya under these terms, emphasizing her view that the current situation does not warrant prolonged detention.
In a development reported the day prior, a Moscow court modified the pretrial measure for Blinovskaya, ordering ongoing detention through late April. Blinovskaya had appeared before the court on January 22 to face charges. Investigators cited a violation of house arrest conditions as the reason for tightening the measure, noting that she attended a gathering described as a party with about 15 attendees. An important witness at the event was reportedly present, and Blinovskaya was prohibited from contacting this person. If convicted on all charges, the blogger could face a lengthy prison term, potentially up to 16 years behind bars, according to the prosecutors and local media accounts.
Investigators identified multiple alleged violations connected to Blinovskaya, including alleged participation in the illegal circulation of means of payment. The authorities referenced Article 187 of the Russian Criminal Code in relation to these alleged activities, outlining the legal framework behind the accusations and the possible penalties if convicted. The case has drawn attention to the handling of preventive measures and the conditions attached to house arrest while the investigation proceeds, with observers noting the potential implications for press freedom and the treatment of online activity under current enforcement practices.
Earlier remarks from involved parties indicated confusion about certain scheduling decisions in the broader case. While the defense has argued against the necessity of continued detention, others connected to the proceedings have signaled a willingness to scrutinize the reasons behind planned events and cancellations tied to the blogger’s activities. The ongoing proceedings, the outcomes of the appeal, and the implications for future criminal cases involving online content remain a focal point for legal analysts and press alike. The situation continues to unfold as authorities proceed with the investigation and the defense prepares its arguments for the next court hearing, aiming to establish grounds for release or the modification of the current preventive measures. This case serves as a notable example of how court-ordered preventive actions intersect with debates over digital expression and accountability in the country.