Unanswered questions
Questions the investigation and the court never answered: key links of the prosecution case remain unproven, while defense motions to verify them were denied. Each question is tied to a page of the Southern District Military Court verdict of 27.11.2025 or to a case-file sheet.
- 01
How did the attack organizers learn about Tyazhelykh's SIM card?
The court admitted that the link between the organizers and Tyazhelykh was not established by the case file at all — and declared this circumstance «legally irrelevant».
verdict p.216 ↗ - 02
Who chose the phone number if it is assigned by a random algorithm?
Onlainsim's reply and the forensic examination confirmed: the number is assigned by an algorithm automatically and randomly; a reseller cannot pick the client or influence the assignment. The court accepted these findings as reliable — and still convicted Tyazhelykh of deliberately handing over the number.
verdict p.207 ↗ - 03
What did Solomko tell Zlob: about an IED or about construction film?
The verdict states as an established fact that Solomko told Zlob about unloading and storing an IED. All examined evidence — WhatsApp and Telegram chats, testimony, call records — refers exclusively to «construction film».
verdict p.7 ↗ - 04
How much did the pallets weigh: 22.77 tonnes or 500–600 kg?
Three workers who personally unloaded and loaded the pallets put the weight at 500–600 kg — roughly 12–13 tonnes instead of 22.77 tonnes gross per the waybill. The court rejected their testimony by citing the forklift's specifications which, by the court's own data (pp. 81–82), confirm the witnesses rather than refute them.
verdict p.210 ↗ - 05
What do nanograms of hexogen on a pallet jack seized seven weeks later prove?
Swabs were taken on 26.11.2022 — almost seven weeks after unloading — from a pallet jack that, per witness Dzheroyan's testimony, was specially brought to the base; swab No. 1 showed nothing at all. A quantity of 10⁻⁹ g — the method's detection limit, typical of cross-contamination — was presented as proof of storing 22 tonnes of explosives.
verdict p.82 ↗ - 06
Why did customs clear the cargo twice, while the driver «had to know» about the IED?
Terchanyan's cargo twice passed Armenian customs X-ray inspection and was cleared. In a later study of the images, one of three customs officers failed to see any anomaly even after special image processing — yet the court held that the driver «was aware» of the concealed IED.
verdict p.51 ↗ - 07
Where was Bylin on October 6, 2022?
On page 8 of the verdict Bylin performed his «criminal role» while «on the territory of the Republic of Crimea and Belgorod region»; on page 100 the call records underlying the verdict place him on the same day in Krasnodar Krai.
verdict p.100 ↗ - 08
Why was the «IED» stored openly for a day — on asphalt by a dumpster?
Per witness testimony, 22 pallets were rolled to the trailer edge, lowered to the ground and stacked in a single row on the asphalt near a dumpster on the base; they were handled by regular staff who knew nothing of any «conspiracy». The court gave these circumstances no assessment.
verdict p.83 ↗ - 09
How can one belong to an organized group without knowing its members?
The court admitted the defendants might not have known each other or been aware of other members' actions — and treated this not as doubt about the group's existence but as a «feature» of its operation that «does not refute» each one's membership.
verdict p.217 ↗ - 10
Why were Onlainsim's replies on the IP address ownership not passed to the experts?
Tyazhelykh's defense asked to admit Onlainsim's replies as material evidence and forward them to the experts for the GSM gateway examination. The investigator refused in this part.
vol.107 p.99 ↗ - 11
Why was an independent examination at Kaspersky Lab denied?
After a series of refusals of examinations at the investigation's location, the defense asked for a comprehensive computer-technical examination of the seized equipment (GoIP 32 GSM gateway, Samsung laptop, etc.) at an independent organization — Kaspersky Lab. Full refusal.
vol.51 p.170 ↗ - 12
Why was the defense never shown the discs with examination materials?
From June to December 2023 the investigator issued a series of rulings denying all defendants' lawyers access to the discs and digital media containing the examination data, and to making copies of them.
vol.47 p.139 ↗ - 13
Why were defendants denied polygraph tests, and the results of those already conducted never requisitioned?
The investigation refused polygraph examinations for Solomko and Zlob, and the court refused to requisition the results of psychophysiological examinations of the defendants which, in the defense's view, attest to their innocence — the arguments were called «unfounded».
verdict p.212 ↗ - 14
Why did the court refuse to question the specialists and experts brought by the defense?
The court systematically refused to summon and question defense specialists (Sokolov, Potemkina, Averyanov and others) and experts (Savin, Redina, Arkadyeva). Specialist Sokolov, who appeared in court at the defense's initiative, was not questioned, and his report of 28.08.2025 was rejected.
verdict p.214 ↗ - 15
Why was no linguistic examination of the correspondence — on which intent is built — ever appointed?
The defendants' intent is derived from chats and voice messages, yet the investigation refused philological-linguistic examinations of the correspondence from Antipov's, Bylin's and Zlob's phones, and the court twice refused a linguistic examination concerning Solomko.
vol.49 p.81 ↗