Examinations: what the case rests on
The key forensic examinations of case No. 12202007703001265: what they actually established, what defects the defense found in them, and which questions the investigation and the court refused to put to the experts. All wording follows the case file and the verdict, with page or case-file sheet references.
The full list of refusals — in the Denied examinations section.
Examination of the GoIP GSM gateway and the Onlainsim service data
The computer-technical examination of the GSM gateway and Onlainsim's replies are the key link in the case against Tyazhelykh: the gateway and a rented number allegedly tied him to the organizers. The examination itself confirmed that the number is assigned by an algorithm automatically and randomly, and that a reseller can neither choose the client nor influence the assignment.
Defects and contradictions
- — The court accepted the examination's finding of random automatic number assignment as reliable, but failed to draw the only legal consequence — the absence of intent to hand over that specific number. verdict p.207 ↗
- — How the organizers learned about Tyazhelykh's SIM card is not established by the case file at all; the court declared this «legally irrelevant». verdict p.216 ↗
Questions that were denied
- — Поставить эксперту дополнительный вопрос по GSM-шлюзу (ходатайство защиты Тяжелых; следователь Куницин М.А. отказал). vol.49 p.46 ↗
- — Провести повторную экспертизу GoIP-GSM-шлюза и следственный эксперимент с участием Тяжелых; получить у ООО «Онлайнсим» сведения о принадлежности IP-адреса 188.120.242.7 (полный отказ). vol.51 p.112 ↗
- — Признать ответы ООО «Онлайнсим» вещественными доказательствами и направить их экспертам СЭЦ СК России для учёта при экспертизе GSM-шлюза (отказ в этой части). vol.107 p.99 ↗
- — Допросить экспертов Рединой А.А. и Савина И.А.; провести следственный эксперимент по покупке и аренде номеров на сайте «Онлайнсим» с участием Тяжелых (отказ суда). vol.130 p.26 ↗
Computer-technical examinations of the Samsung phone and laptop
Under examination No. SETs 113/3-739/22 (vol. 42), a satirical video file was found in the Samsung Galaxy S9 phone image and presented by the prosecution as evidence of involvement. Tyazhelykh's Samsung laptop was examined by expert Savin (report No. SETs 113/3-313/23).
Defects and contradictions
- — The video was presented as evidence, yet its creation/modification dates, full file-system path, the way it appeared on the device (downloaded/received via messenger) and its cryptographic hash were never established — although the examination assignment explicitly required the «creation and modification date» and the methodology required the path and SHA-1. verdict p.94 ↗
Questions that were denied
- — Провести дополнительную экспертизу ноутбука Samsung, осмотреть данные из п. 9 заключения эксперта № СЭЦ 113/3-313/23 и допросить эксперта Савина И.А. в присутствии защиты (полный отказ). vol.51 p.115 ↗
- — Провести дополнительную компьютерно-техническую экспертизу ноутбука Samsung MZ-7KE128 по датам создания файлов (полный отказ). vol.51 p.148 ↗
- — Провести в АО «Лаборатория Касперского» комплексную компьютерно-техническую экспертизу изъятого оборудования — GSM-шлюза GoIP 32, ноутбука Samsung и др. (полный отказ). vol.51 p.170 ↗
- — Ознакомиться с оптическими дисками с информацией, полученной в ходе судебных экспертиз, и снять с них копии (полный отказ). vol.47 p.139 ↗
Explosives examination No. 4/12 of 06.10.2023 (pallet-jack swabs)
Swabs Nos. 2–4, taken on 26.11.2022 during the inspection of a forklift (pallet jack), showed trace amounts of a hexogen-containing explosive. This report was used as proof that 22 tonnes of explosives had been stored at the Azatyan brothers' base.
Defects and contradictions
- — The swabs were taken almost seven weeks after unloading, from a pallet jack that, per witness Dzheroyan's testimony, was specially brought to the base by van — its origin and «cleanliness» were never established; swab No. 1 showed nothing at all. A quantity of 10⁻⁹ g is the method's detection limit, typical of accidental cross-contamination. verdict p.82 ↗
Questions that were denied
- — Провести взрывотехнические экспертизы (ходатайство Антипова О.А. от 21.12.2023, постановление 25.12.2023 — отказ полный). vol.49 p.81 ↗
Comprehensive psychological-linguistic examination No. 3/501 (Terchanyan's utterances)
The examination studied driver Terchanyan's utterances: it found neither signs that he understood there were foreign objects in the cargo, nor any anxiety connected with danger to his life. The expert only caveated that «an unambiguous conclusion on the absence of awareness… is not possible».
Defects and contradictions
- — The absence of awareness signs was turned against the defendant: the expert's methodological caveat («absence of awareness cannot be proven») was presented as a doubt in the prosecution's favor, although a defendant is not obliged to prove innocence (Art. 14 CCP). In its final assessment (p. 213) the court asserts that Terchanyan «was aware» of the IED — contrary to the only study of his speech. verdict p.45 ↗
Questions that were denied
- — Вызвать и допросить эксперта Аркадьеву (защита Терчаняна; отказ суда). vol.130 p.219 ↗
Linguistic examinations of the correspondence (never appointed)
Never conducted: the defendants' intent is derived from WhatsApp and Telegram chats and voice messages, yet no linguistic examination of this correspondence was ever appointed.
Defects and contradictions
- — The court states as an established fact that Solomko told Zlob about unloading and storing specifically an IED, while all examined evidence — the correspondence, participants' testimony, call records — refers exclusively to «construction film». verdict p.7 ↗
Questions that were denied
- — Провести филолого-лингвистические судебные экспертизы переписки и голосовых сообщений из телефонов Антипова, Былина и Злоба (полный отказ). vol.49 p.81 ↗
- — Назначить лингвистическую экспертизу и комплексную психолого-физиологическую экспертизу с полиграфом в отношении Соломко (отказ суда). vol.129 p.86 ↗
- — Повторно: назначить лингвистическую судебную экспертизу и комплексную психолого-психофизиологическую экспертизу Соломко с полиграфом (повторный отказ суда). vol.130 p.172 ↗
Psychological examinations and psychophysiological (polygraph) studies
The court-ordered psychological examinations of the Azatyan brothers assessed their «behavior in the incriminated act». Polygraph psychophysiological studies of several defendants were conducted, but the court neither requisitioned nor examined their results.
Defects and contradictions
- — The formula «behavior in the act incriminated to him» is repeated verbatim in the reports on both Azatyan brothers: the experts presume the crime as a given — before any court decision — violating the presumption of innocence (Art. 49 of the Constitution). verdict p.205 ↗
Questions that were denied
- — Провести психофизиологическое исследование с использованием полиграфа в отношении Соломко Р.И. (полный отказ). vol.98 p.67 ↗
- — Провести психофизиологическое исследование с использованием полиграфа в отношении Злоба В.В. (полный отказ). vol.96 p.90 ↗
- — Ознакомиться с результатами психофизиологического исследования Соломко Р.И. и снять с них копии (полный отказ). vol.113 p.18 ↗
- — Истребовать результаты психофизиологических исследований, проведённых в отношении подсудимых и, по позиции защиты, свидетельствующих об их невиновности (суд признал доводы необоснованными). verdict p.212 ↗
Study of the cargo X-ray images (customs inspection)
In the study of Terchanyan's cargo X-ray images, two of three participants detected an inhomogeneity in the cargo compartment — and only after special image-processing tools were applied. Before that, the cargo had twice passed Armenian customs X-ray inspection and been cleared.
Defects and contradictions
- — One of three customs officers failed to see the inhomogeneity even in the experiment with special image processing; professionals with equipment cleared the cargo twice. The court's conclusion that the driver «was aware» of the concealed IED is refuted by this objective data. verdict p.51 ↗
Defense specialists' reports and the defense's own examination (Sokolov, SUDTEKHEXPERT)
The defense conducted its own examination — report of ANO EKTs SUDTEKHEXPERT No. 920-7-77-72 of 13.06.2024 (notarially commissioned) — and submitted specialist Sokolov's report No. 1280-13-77-141 of 28.08.2025. The investigation refused to admit the former; the court rejected the latter.
Defects and contradictions
- — The defense specialist's report, inconvenient for the prosecution, was reclassified by the court as a «document» (Art. 84 CCP) instead of a specialist's report (Art. 80 CCP) and stripped of evidentiary force; no repeat or additional examination was appointed. verdict p.215 ↗
Questions that were denied
- — Приобщить к делу оригинал заключения эксперта АНО ЭКЦ «СУДТЕХЭКСПЕРТ» № 920-7-77-72 от 13.06.2024 и назначить комплексную компьютерно-техническую экспертизу (полный отказ). vol.115 p.237 ↗
- — Допросить прибывшего в суд по инициативе защиты специалиста Соколова А.А. и приобщить его заключение от 28.08.2025 № 1280-13-77-141 (суд отверг заключение и признал довод о допросе необоснованным). verdict p.214 ↗
Other examinations: the defense's access to materials
For the construction-technical, photo/video and computer-technical examinations the investigation denied the defense access to materials, digital media and appendices to the experts' reports, as well as the right to make copies.
Questions that were denied
- — Ознакомиться с материалами, представленными экспертам для проведения строительно-технической судебной экспертизы (защита Азатьяна А.С.; отказ частичный). vol.47 p.92 ↗
- — Ознакомиться с цифровыми носителями к фото-видеоэкспертизам (защита Азатьяна Г.С.; полный отказ). vol.48 p.65 ↗
- — Ознакомиться с приложениями к заключениям судебных экспертиз, с которыми обвиняемый был ознакомлен (Азатьян Г.С.; полный отказ). vol.48 p.34 ↗
- — Ознакомиться с цифровыми носителями с информацией, полученной в ходе компьютерно-технических экспертиз (защита Антипова О.А.; полный отказ). vol.49 p.51 ↗
The lists of denied questions are given in Russian as in the original case file.