News
Moscow’s Tushinsky District Court sentenced 68-year-old pediatrician Nadezhda Buyanova to five and a half years in prison earlier today, having found her guilty of spreading “fake” information about the Russian army, independent publication Mediazona reported from the courtroom. Prior to the verdict, a state prosecutor had requested a six-year sentence.
Buyanova, born in the western Ukrainian city of Lviv, was reported to the authorities by a patient, leading to an investigation and, ultimately, to the pediatrician’s arrest. Buyanova maintained her innocence, denying any wrongdoing — and no direct evidence was presented to substantiate her guilt. The sole potential witness — a seven-year-old child — does not appear to have been present when the doctor is said to have made disparaging remarks about the Russian military.
The accuser, Anastasia Akinshina, who attended a pediatric appointment with her son, claimed that Buyanova referred to her late husband, a Russian soldier who was killed in Ukraine, as a “legitimate target” for the Ukrainian army. Akinshina also alleged that Buyanova said “Russia is to blame for everything.” Initially, Akinshina told the court that her son had not been in the room during the conversation, but she later changed her testimony, claiming he had stayed with his mother and the doctor the whole time.
The seven-year-old boy testified against the doctor in a hearing over the summer, alleging that she had said that “Russia is an aggressor country, and Russia kills peaceful people in Ukraine.”
Mediazona previously reported that Buyanova’s lawyer, Oscar Cherdzhiev, argued that the child was incapable of comprehending or articulating terms such as “aggressor country,” “legitimate target,” or “special military operation,” making his testimony inadmissible as evidence.
According to Akinshina, who shared a story about her complaint against Buyanova on social media earlier this year, the conflict began when her son started “acting out” during the appointment, prompting the pediatrician to ask what was wrong. Akinshina allegedly responded that her son's behavior was related to his father's death, after which the doctor supposedly made the incriminating remarks. Following the appointment, Akinshina filed a police report. There is still no direct evidence to support the accusation that Buyanova made the remarks attributed to her.
In early February, officers from the Russian Investigative Committee raided Buyanova's apartment, tearing up carpets, removing wallpaper, and overturning furniture. A court initially opted not to arrest Buyanova, instead prohibiting her from “using means of communication” — such as the internet — to speak to other people, including witnesses in the case. However, exceptions were made to allow the pediatrician to maintain contact with investigators, defense attorneys, and the prosecutor. In April, the judge reversed the initial decision and ordered that Buyanova be placed in pretrial detention. The stricter conditions were reportedly imposed due to allegations that she had traveled to another region without notifying the authorities.
According to Buyanova, she “never even came close” to saying the words attributed to her. Her lawyer, Oscar Cherdzhiev, noted that the doctor merely pointed out a “behavioral disorder” in Akinshina’s son, which the mother interpreted in her own way, portraying the child as “ill.” Buyanova requested that recordings of the conversation be reviewed, as medical facilities in Moscow have audio recording systems for quality control — though it is unclear if any recording was made on that particular day.
Apart from Akinshina’s testimony, there appears to be no evidence to support the claims against the pediatrician.
Nadezhda Buyanova’s final statement in court
The following is an excerpt from Nadezhda Buyanova’s last statement in court, made moments before Judge Olga Fedina announced her sentence of five and a half years in prison.
“Akinshina constantly changed her testimony. I am not 80 years old [and thereby am not prone] to forget and get confused. During the face-to-face meeting, she said the child was not present — he had left. This was recorded in my presence. Then, when the initial confrontation ended, [Akinshina] asked, 'May I be excused?' — 'Yes, you may leave.' Soon after, my lawyer, Oscar Astemirovich Cherdzhiev, left, and he had some conversation with [investigator] Bocharov regarding a copy of the confrontation record. They left. And then, after a while, she came back into the office. She walked in and sat in the secretary’s seat, acting as if she were at home — relaxed, calm, as if she were familiar with everything, showing no sense of decorum or restraint. Meanwhile, the secretary sat at Bocharov's desk and began typing something.
I immediately realized they were up to something dishonest, but I chose to remain silent. Then Bocharov quietly approached and began dictating and prompting them, saying, 'The door was open, and others heard as well.' Those were his words. I became anxious. When they took me to the detention center and I kept playing it back in my mind, I worried whether Oscar Astemirovich had taken a copy of the meeting record.
The next day, before going into the courtroom, I was led to a room where a man was sitting — no documents, no name given, he just said, 'My name is Evgeny. I work in counter-extremism. Do you have any requests?' I shared this story with him, including the part about the door. [He said]: 'Alright.' The court session began, and I saw Oscar Astemirovich already there. I told him about it, and he said, 'No, I took the copy.' He added, 'You do understand why they did this, don’t you?' He then explained, 'They changed the last page of the meeting record. They rewrote everything.'
I treated that child for three years and knew what kind of child he was. Not every adult can construct their speech the way the boy supposedly did in 'his' testimony. And this was a seven-year-old child with poor academic performance in the first grade.
Can we talk about Akinshina's sound mental state when she couldn’t even specify the date of the clinic visit during the trial and constantly changed her testimony? She holds a grudge against the world because her son lost his father. Yes, it is painful and sad. But at the age of seven, one will have few memories of a father.
The investigation does not want to admit that it has no evidence. They simply don’t have it. So, they concocted this so-called 'interrogation' of the child at home. Perfectly convenient. A home setting, the mother in the next room, and a psychologist they randomly found in Moscow.
In conclusion, I do not admit any guilt and consider myself innocent. I ask the court to acquit me.”