The 235th Garrison Military Court in Moscow issued an in absentia arrest against Konstantin Nemichev and Sergei Velichko, two commanders associated with the Ukrainian nationalist battalion known as Azov, which is designated as an extremist group by Russia. The decision follows claims that the two men were involved in torturing and severely killing Russian prisoners of war. The announcement references information from the court’s press service and is carried by TASS in relation to the court’s official communications.
The court’s brief statement notes that Nemichev and Velichko were chosen as a measure of restraint in the form of detention. The press message highlights that the detention will be maintained for a period of two months, counted from the moment of detention or extradition, whichever occurs first.
Observers note that this matter originates from a criminal case opened by Russian authorities concerning ill treatment of Russian soldiers captured in Ukraine. The case has drawn attention to the conduct of combatants linked to the Azov battalion and the legal processes used to address alleged abuses in wartime settings.
In related developments, Russia’s Ministry of Internal Affairs announced a reward of one billion rubles for information that leads to the arrest of the two Ukrainian battalion commanders accused of torturing Russian troops. The offer underscores the seriousness with which authorities are pursuing allegations of war crimes and the cooperation expected from the public in resolving such cases.
International observers and legal experts track cases like this as part of broader discussions about the treatment of prisoners of war, accountability for armed groups, and the enforcement of international humanitarian law. While the details of the accusations are still unfolding, the Moscow court’s decision to proceed in absentia reflects a legal mechanism used when suspects are not present for trial substitutional measures while ensuring that the judicial process continues uninterrupted. The development is reported as part of ongoing efforts to document and respond to alleged abuses in the conflict zone, with potential implications for bilateral and international responses to such allegations.
The case also highlights how different jurisdictions address suspected war crimes and the role of national courts in applying applicable rules to conduct by irregular armed formations. As investigations progress, official statements from Russian authorities emphasize due process, while also signaling a resolve to pursue accountability in accordance with domestic law and international standards. The situation remains dynamic, with updates anticipated as more information becomes available from the court’s press office and from law enforcement authorities involved in the inquiry.