A Moscow court refused to terminate the contracts of conscripts with the Ministry of Defense, despite forged signatures.
Arseniy Tolkachev and Bogdan Khalturin provided the court with the results of an independent examination, which confirmed the fact that their signatures for contract service were forged. Nevertheless, Московский The garrison military court found the contracts valid.
What the Moscow Garrison Military Court did not take into account
The court also ignored the soldiers' claims that the agreements were forced through torture. The court did not order a psychiatric examination, an electroencephalogram, or a polygraph test, and refused to question witnesses.
"The main result of going to court is that all the servicemen are alive from the moment the contract was signed, and the opportunity to continue the appeal," commented in the "Association of Russian Lawyers for Human Rights".
A similar claim by another serviceman, Dmitry Medvedev, is scheduled to be heard in the Moscow Garrison Military Court on November 6.
How the persecution of conscripts began
The persecution of conscripts began in May 2026, when a group of 38 conscripts were transferred from Moscow region to the military unit in Kursk regionThe recruits were housed in a "shed without a toilet or shower" and told that they would only receive normal living conditions after signing a contract.
On May 18, 2026, conscripts were required to sign documents, told "Window." After a collective refusal, the soldiers were forced to run around in gas masks in 35-degree heat for six hours. Commanders threw smoke bombs at their feet, hurled sticks and stones at the conscripts, fired blanks, and detonated stun grenades. At least 13 men are known to have broken their guard and agreed to the terms.
At the end of May, conscripts were taken out through Voronezh to the territory of the so-called "LPR." Bogdan Khalturin's mother managed to intercept the group in Voronezh and obtain a notarized power of attorney from the four men to represent their interests in court and regulatory agencies.
However, earlier complaints from human rights activists and relatives demanding that the unit's commanders be held accountable for abuse of power and torture were rejected with the argument that the officers' actions were "within the law."
