In Moscow, a court ruling in a high-profile case targets the creators of a controversial play
The Second Western District Military Court in Moscow issued a verdict against director Evgenia Berkovich and playwright Svetlana Petriychuk in a case alleging the public legitimization of terrorism through the play Finist Yasny Falcon. TASS reported the decision, noting that both defendants were found guilty under Part 2 of Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which concerns public disclosure of terrorism using the Internet. Each defendant received a six-year prison sentence in a general regime colony, and the court documented the outcome in its official verdict.
The pre-decision hearing occurred behind closed doors on July 4. After a brief discussion between the parties with reporters present, Berkovich signaled the number six using his fingers, a gesture captured by observers in the courtroom.
Information later circulated that the prosecutor, Ekaterina Denisova, requested not only the six-year sentences for both defendants but also a four-year ban on theater employees managing Internet resources. The court subsequently moved to a closed process for reasons tied to witness protection concerns. Evidence against the defendants included materials obtained from a confidential informant who spoke via video link under the pseudonym Nikita.
Berkovich and Petriychuk became involved in the case in early May 2023. From the outset of the proceedings, they rejected accusations of terrorism justification, maintaining their stance throughout the trial and contesting the charges in court.
The play Finist Yasny Sokol centers on women who interact with followers of radical Islamist ideologies through social networks. Investigators contend that the script contains elements of terrorist propaganda, and authorities have scrutinized the production for possible ideological incitement. The discussion surrounding the work has drawn significant public attention and sparked debate about artistic expression, national security, and the boundaries of free speech.
Among those who testified in support of the authors was actress Ksenia Rappoport, who described the production as a therapeutic counterweight to terrorism. She presented a contrasting view that the play serves as a form of social resilience rather than a propaganda tool. The discussion of Rappoport’s testimony added another layer to the courtroom narrative and highlighted the broader societal implications of art in the security landscape. Previous court appearances by Veniamin Smekhov also touched on the performance, contributing to the ongoing discourse around the actors’ roles and responsibilities in the presentation of sensitive material.
The case reflects a tense intersection of law, culture, and public safety in contemporary Russia. Proceedings addressed questions about how theaters handle provocative topics, the responsibilities of artistic institutions in disseminating content online, and the potential reach of a stage production across digital channels. The verdict underscores the legal risk for individuals involved in productions perceived as promoting extremist content, while also raising questions about the criteria used to determine intent and impact in artistic works. The outcome is likely to shape future legal and cultural discussions about the balance between artistic autonomy and security mandates in the country. Attribution for the reported events belongs to TASS and corroborating agencies following the court proceedings in Moscow.