4 December 2024
On the trial of pediatrician Nadezhda Buyanova, which has had an unprecedented impact on the medical community. And letters from Novaya gazeta readers
by Zoya Svetova
Source: Novaya gazeta
Over the past two and a half years, we have witnessed completely unimaginable criminal cases brought under the infamous law on ‘fake news about the Russian army’ and other new politically repressive articles of the Russian Criminal Code. We have seen defendants of all ages: from underage teenagers to elderly, gray-haired men and women. It seems that the Russian Leviathan is everywhere acting with a vengeance. It’s as if it snatches people up from different strata of society just to frighten everyone, and to show that no one will escape “justice” if they do not sit in silence.
This time, Nadezhda Buyanova, a 68-year-old pediatrician, was really in the thick of it. Being rather small in stature, her white-white gray hair is cut short, and she holds herself modestly and with amazing dignity.
How can you send a person to prison for a single phrase?
In a one-and-a-half-minute video distributed on the Internet, people in white coats appear one after another: some young, some slightly older – surgeons, cardiologists, therapists.
They were recording a video message to President Vladimir Putin. What was their goal? They were making an appeal for common sense and justice. It wasn’t even mercy they were asking for. They tell President Putin all about the treatment of Nadezhda Buyanova. These doctors, just like many other of their colleagues living in Russia, have for many months been defending their colleague who was sent to prison on the basis of a denunciation. This reached the head of the Investigative Committee, Aleksandr Bastrykin, who publicly stated the need for this criminal case, which is unique in its total lack of evidence, to be prosecuted.
This is an excerpt from the appeal of doctors to President Vladimir Putin, published after the conviction of Nadezhda Buyanova:
“Vladimir Vladimirovich!
The court has sentenced this 68-year-old doctor and pediatrician to five and a half years in prison. We have closely followed the court proceedings and it has been obvious to us that Nadezhda Fedorovina’s guilt was not proven. No evidence was provided at all that she had actually said what had been attributed to her, except for the word of the plaintiff Akinshina, who was confused in her own testimony, constantly changing the details and contradicting herself. But even if we were to ignore the unsubstantiated accusations and assume that Nadezhda Fedorovna really did say these words, how can you send a woman who as a doctor has been treating children her ENTIRE LIFE to prison for ONE SINGLE PHRASE!? What’s more, all this is happening in a country where the government decrees are releasing murderers, rapists and robbers en masse, who after their release only continue to kill, rape and steal…”
She was accused and sentenced to a cruel amount of time in prison for allegedly saying a seditious phrase, although she denies having said anything like that. The conviction was based on a denunciation by the mother of a seven-year-old patient whose father died during the Special Military Operation. This case has already been dubbed the new “doctors’ case.” Colleagues stood up for Dr. Buyanova immediately after her detention, before she was remanded in custody, but rather under a “ban on certain actions.” However, the charges against her were soon tightened, and the court subsequently sent her to a pre-trial detention centre.
Some of those who signed the first letter in Buyanova’s defense had their homes searched, and some were taken away for interrogation. After this, many doctors left Russia, fearing further reprisals. It’s clear that the government is afraid of any solidarity movements, especially that of doctors. There have been known cases when, after doctors spoke out in defence of one or another of their colleagues, the outcome of a criminal case was successfully changed.
This happened, for example, with the case of hematologist Elena Misiurina, sentenced in January 2028 to two years in a penal colony for “a medical error which led to a patient’s death”, despite the fact that Misiurina was not guilty of this, and the sentence was overturned in the court of cassation, and the case was dismissed for lack of evidence, largely due to a considerable campaign in support of the doctor.
You may say that those were completely different times in the past. That may be so, but the government does not forget anything – especially their defeats and the victories of civil society.
Motivated by political and national hatred
“Nadezhda Federovna Buyanova publicly disseminated knowingly false information under the guise of reliable messages, containing information on the use of the Armed forces of the Russian Federation for the purposes of defending the interests of the Russian Federation and its citizens, upholding international peace and security, motivated by political and national hatred. […] A citizen of the Russian Federation, N. F. Buyanova was informed that on 24.02.22, Russian Federation armed forces conducted a special military operation outside of the Russian Federation aimed at denazification and demilitarization of the political regime in Ukraine. Thus, N. F. Buyanova was aware that the circumstances for conducting the special military operation (hereinafter ‘SMO’) were of exceptional social significance, in connection with which, the dissemination of information about alleged violations of the above provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation by the armed forces of the Russian Federation, as well as generally accepted norms and principles of international humanitarian law will cause widespread public outcry and rejection in society, and she wished for such consequences to occur. […] On 31.01.24, from around 16:16 through 16:32, while at her workplace in office 114 of Branch No. 1 of the State Budgetary Healthcare Institution City Clinical Hospital No. 140 of the Moscow Health Department, N. F. Buyanova, in full knowledge that the information she was disseminating was untrue, supplied A. V. Akinshina and F. F. Nikolaev with information, which, under the guise of being reliable, contained deliberately false information in the form of statements about the murder of civilians by the armed forces of the Russian Federation during a special military operation and about an attack on Ukraine.”
When you read the lines of this indictment, it would seem that instead of examining the seven-year-old patient, Nadezhda Buyanova in fact entered into a lengthy conversation with his mother, Anastasia Akinshina, on political issues, expressing opinions fundamentally contrary to the position of the Russian Ministry of Defence.
In fact, no lengthy discussion whatsoever did occur. According to Anastasia Akinshina, both during the investigation and at the trial, her ex-husband was contracted to go and fight in the Special Military Operation and is now listed as missing. When her seven-year-old learned of his father’s possible death, he began behaving badly at school. She took him to the paediatrician to be examined, as he had a sore eye. She also had to bring her youngest daughter with her to the clinic, having been unable to find anyone to leave her with.
At the appointment the boy began to act up, and Nadezhda Buyanova asked what was the matter with him. His mother told her about his father having been killed, to which the paediatrician allegedly said something which according to the state, she should not have. Akinshina was so struck by these words that she in turn told the doctor her thoughts on the subject, but at this point the boy was no longer in the examination room, his mother having asked her son to leave the room when the conversation began.
It’s true that when interviewed for a second time, Akinshina amended her testimony claiming that the child had heard the words of the paediatrician and what she had said about his father. Akinshina also changed her testimony in court. Commenting on this to Novaya gazeta, the lawyer Leonid Soloviev said the following:
“Her testimony was very inconsistent, casting doubt over its credibility. For example, when the boy behaved badly, Buyanova allegedly asked her ‘why is he behaving like that?’ In response to my questions, Akinshina initially said that the boy pressed against her and became despondent and lethargic. Meanwhile, just ten minutes after the first interview, when I repeated this question in another format she replied, ‘I immediately told my son to leave, and he did so immediately.’ Besides that, in the first interview, and even during the trial, she claimed that during the doctor’s appointment the door was left open. Then, during the second interview, she said that the door had been closed. Why did she change her testimony? Allegedly she was in a state of shock. This raised no questions with either the investigator or the police officers – procedural documents were filled out in detail, in a calm and collected manner. Akinshina stuck to her initial testimony for several days. She claimed she had ‘been in a catatonic state and lost [her] appetite.’ Nonetheless, her day continued as normal, she dropped off her children, and didn’t visit the doctors or the psychologists.”
While speaking at the trial, lawyer Leonid Soloviev drew the judge’s attention to the bias of Anastasia Akinshina in respect of paediatrician Buyanova:
“Akinshina said that after she realised that Buyanova was from Lviv, she had it all worked out. People from western Ukraine hate Russians, she considers herself to be Russian.”
Testimony of Fedor Fedorovich
The second piece of evidence forming the basis of the accusation is the testimony of a seven-year-old boy. During the trial, he was given the pseudonym “Fedor Fedorovich Nikolaev.” The defence team for Buyanova requested that he be summoned to court, as the child is the key witness. The rationale was that if he was not present during the conversation between his mother and the pediatrician, then the alleged crime does not exist.
The court declined this request and instead read out the boy’s testimony given during the investigation:
“On January 31, 2024, I went to the clinic with my mom to see the doctor because my eye hurt. While at the doctor’s office, I started getting distracted and misbehaving. During my mom’s conversation with the doctor, the doctor asked my mom why I was behaving poorly. Mom said that our dad was killed in the SMO (Special Military Operation). Then the doctor said to my mom that dad was (…) [we cannot publish this fragment verbatim] and that Russia (…) because Russia is (…). Hearing this upset me very much because it seemed that my dad was killed for (…). I don’t agree with this; my dad went to the SMO to protect me, my mom, and our country. After this, my mum told me to leave the room; she was very upset. Then we went to another doctor, where she repeated what the first doctor had said.”
Buyanova’s defence team asked the court to dismiss this testimony as inadmissible evidence, arguing that it had been obtained unlawfully.
Defence attorney Leonid Solovyov explained:
“Firstly, for the boy to be questioned by an FSB officer — and he was questioned by an FSB officer — there should have been an official assignment for this. This assignment appears in the case file significantly later than the interrogation itself. Investigator Ratnikov stated that the boy’s interrogation took place around 6 March. But Akinshina claims it happened a few days after her first interrogation, that is, after 2 February. The date on the boy’s interrogation record is 6 February, but the assignment was issued by Ratnikov on 5 March. This discrepancy in dates has not been resolved and renders the interrogation both inadmissible and unreliable.
This is critical because it marks the start of the fabrications. This isn’t just speculation on our part (that something might have been added to the protocol); it is explicitly reflected in the documents: first, the boy was interrogated, then the protocol of the interrogation appeared, and only afterward came the assignment. This sequence is already unlawful.
Furthermore, according to the Criminal Procedure Code, everything in the protocol must be recorded verbatim, including every question posed by the investigators. The dialogue from the interrogation should be documented exactly as it occurred. But in the transcript of the boy’s interrogation, everything is recorded as continuous text.
For instance, the operative allegedly asked the boy, ‘What can you tell us about your visit to Dr. Buyanova?’ and the boy supposedly delivered three uninterrupted paragraphs of detailed narration, including phrases that form the basis of the accusation. Meanwhile, the psychologist — the only person involved in the process whom we were allowed to question in court (we were denied the opportunity to question the operative) — stated: ‘There were questions, several questions, and the boy answered them.’ This alone indicates discrepancies in how the testimony was recorded.
The requirement that all questions and answers be recorded verbatim is not just a bureaucratic detail; it is crucial for ensuring that people’s answers align with the questions they were asked.”
A forensic expert, the linguist Elena Novozhilova, who is familiar with the materials of the Buyanova case, told Novaya that the testimony of “Fedor Fedorovich” may have been edited during the investigation.
Additionally, during the trial, both the boy’s mother and the psychologist testified that several individuals from the Investigative Committee were present during the interrogation. However, their names and positions are not listed in the interrogation record.
Buyanova’s defence
Nadezhda Buyanova claimed both during the investigation and at her trial that she did not say such phrases either in the presence of the boy or alone with Akinshina.
I ask the lawyer Soloviev:
“Do I understand correctly that the defence’s position is that Buyanova said nothing at all about the boy’s father and his participation in the Special Military Operation? And if nothing was said, then why did Akinshina suddenly write a denunciation of Buyanova?”
He answers:
“There was a conversation between them. What kind of conversation? We don’t know. The important thing is what happened afterwards. Maybe there were these phrases, but they were said without the boy present. Unfortunately, we don’t know that. I can only say that there was a personal dialogue between them. And these words were not said in front of the boy. I can say this for sure, 100%, given the way the investigation went on, the way it tried to prove that the conversation was in public. This simply confirms my position.”
Leonid Soloviev goes on to explain:
“Even if we accept the fact that she said something, and maybe even these phrases that are recorded in the protocols, then even in this case there is absolutely no crime here. One can write and say anything to a person except some insults. And even ‘insulting’ someone is an administrative-law offence – not criminal”.
During the oral arguments, the prosecutor asked that Buyanova be sentenced to six years in a general regime penal colony (!) for the alleged conversation. Such terms are usually asked for crimes of violence.
Lawyer Soloviev asked the court to acquit his client on account of the absence of a crime in her actions.
In an interview with Novaya gazeta Leonid Soloviev said that Nadezhda Buyanova was shocked by the sentence named by the prosecutor. And that even though she was prepared for a harsh sentence. The doctor understood, the lawyer says, that if she had pleaded guilty, the sentence could have been less. But she did not consider that option, saying: “I’m right, it didn’t happen. Why would I admit to something that didn’t happen?”
“I have connections to three Slavic peoples.”
Buyanova’s final speech at her trial was imbued with a sense of dignity and confidence in her rightness. It was a story about life, about why “political and national hatred, which was attributed to her in the indictment” is alien to Nadezhda Fedorovna. She said:
“I was born in 1956 in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, in the city of Lviv, I grew up there. Ukraine was part of the USSR. The principle of the Soviet Union was the friendship of the peoples of its 15 constituent republics. Mutual assistance and mutual respect. This friendship – well, a little pathos, but that’s how it was – this friendship was glorified in poems, sung in songs, sounded as the leitmotif and anthem of the Soviet Union. We were taught that Russian is the language of international communication. I myself came from a Russian-speaking family and graduated from a Russian-speaking school. From the second grade I studied the language of the republic where I lived, i.e. Ukrainian. My father, Fedor Sergeevich Buyanov, was Russian by nationality – so it is stated in his documents. My mother was Belarusian, born in Belarus. For more than 30 years I have lived and worked in Russia. It hurts to read what is written in the indictment. These unfair, offensive words: ‘On the grounds of political and national hatred.’ What kind of national hatred can I feel on the basis of the above?! It’s absurd!
Hatred is too deep and strong a feeling, it is self-destructive for a person. These feelings are not inherent in me as a human being or as a doctor. Medics provide help regardless of the nationality of the patient.
Mercy, humanity – without these moral values you have no place in medicine. I have connections to three Slavic peoples: Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian. (Sighs.) And what should I do, what choice should I make? I studied, I worked, I talked, I made friends with Ukrainians. Or should I make myself angry in some way? As citizen Akinshina has done? It’s impossible. I can’t… and I don’t want to. How can you say about the entire Ukrainian nation that they hate the Russian world?”
In the same final speech Nadezhda Buyanova said very important words about the attitude of managers in the health service and authorities to the profession of doctor:
“…Our profession, the profession of doctor, has always been respected. Recently, this respect has begun to disappear. Consequently, the attitude began to change. If before there was a doctor and a patient, now there is a servant and a client. That’s what we were told directly at staff meetings: “Humble yourself. And us.” They can slander us, medical professionals, insult us, call us goodness knows what words. We cannot defend ourselves, our managers do not want to hear any explanations, conflicts are not resolved”.
Addressing the judge Olga Fedina, Nadezhda Buyanova asked to be acquitted of the charges:
“In conclusion, I want to say that I do not recognize my guilt and I believe that I am innocent. I have brought benefit to society, as I have a certain kind of knowledge. I have gained experience. I worked in accordance with my conscience. Doctors sometimes write to me and ask why I am so patient with mothers and so on, why am I so outwardly calm? And I answer that I do not want to be like other doctors. I encountered a different attitude on the part of doctors to someone close to me and I decided that I would never be like these doctors who burst in there… Although they are tired, they work there into the night, they fall asleep there, it’s all so understandable. I ask the court to take into account my age and the state of my health. And I ask the court to take into account my profession, to which I have given 40 years of my life. And therefore I ask the court to acquit me. That’s what I wanted to say.”
A Judge for High-Profile Cases
The 68-year-old paediatrician’s sentence was the last which judge Olga Fedina handed down in the Tushino district court. Before being appointed to the court in April 2008 by presidential decree, she had been a magistrate. The Buyanova Case began in May 2024, and in September, with three months to go until the final sentence, a new order came from the Russian president: Olga Fedina was to be transferred to Moscow City Court.
On the face of it the appointment was well-deserved; for six years she had worked on high-profile cases. For example, it was Olga Fedina who handled the case of the banker Vladimir Gudkov, who had fled to Morocco with 7m roubles. The state prosecutor asked for a nine-year sentence in absentia for large-scale fraud. Fedina gave seven years and an 800,000 rouble fine.
She also convicted the leader of the infamous “Kuzya God” cult. The prosecution requested eight years in prison for large-scale fraud. Judge Olga Fedina took pity on him, and sentenced him to six years.
In both cases she reduced the prosecution’s requested sentence by two years, which is a lot to a person serving time in prison.
Two instances do not constitute a trend, but nevertheless in the Buyanova case the prosecution requested six years in prison, and judge Olga Fedina only reduced the sentence by six months. Does this point to a wider trend – “no mercy for political prisoners, but we’ll take it easier on fraudsters and cultists”?
In any case, Nadezhda Fedorovna Buyanova has not had a good time in prison. Soon after she was remanded in custody, she was sent 25kg of salt, which meant she was not allowed to receive further deliveries for the month.
Lawyers admitted that the delivery was sent by an individual, known to have been a witness of the search of Buyanova’s flat. The defence did not manage to find out the reason for such a needlessly unpleasant act: the judge did not grant permission for the person to be called to trial.
The trial lasted from May until November. The prison transfer process is a torturous one for any detainee: in the detention centre they are woken up in pre-dawn darkness, and are collected and returned after the hearings late at night, along with all of the other convicts in Moscow’s courts.
These are the tribulations which 68-year-old Nadezhda Fedorovna Buyanova has had to put up with: a woman who dedicated her entire life to healing sick children.
She has no children of her own, and of her closest relatives only her sister remains.
Soon after Buyanova’s arrest, a Telegram channel was created to enable wellwishers to contribute towards her costly legal defence and to provide parcels of food and other necessities for her in detention. The channel’s administrator regularly provides updates on how the donations are being spent.
It is possible and vital for people write to Nadezhda Fedorovna in Moscow’s Pechatniki prison before her sentence comes into force and she is sent to a penal colony. Lawyers are estimating that her appeal will be heard in early 2025.
You can write to her via FSIN-letter, an online service, or by sending a letter directly to her at the following postal address:
109383, г. Москва, ул. Шоссейная, д. 92, ФКУ СИЗО-6 УФСИН, Буяновой Надежде Федоровне, 29.03.1956 г.р.
“Where does she get her inner strength and spirit from, her courage and compassion?”
We publish letters from Novaya gazeta‘s readers to Doctor Nadezhda Buyanova.
In November, pediatrician Nadezhda Buyanova was given a simply monstrous sentence. We suggested that our readers offer moral support to the doctor and write to her with their well-wishes. Nobody remained apathetic to the vicious prison term and the absurd prosecution. Dozens of letters were sent to us with very moving words, and several people offered their aid. We are publishing letters from contributors, which we will pass on to Nadezhda Fedorovna in the near future.
“Nadezhda Fedorovna, hello. Unfortunately, there are no words to express the emotions that overwhelm me in connection with your sentence, and I cannot speak and write beautifully. You and I belong to the same generation, and this speaks volumes — we think the same way, I read your final statement. I do not agree with the official statistics about support of what is happening among those 65+; I do not see this among my friends. I have been living “in a bubble” for nearly three years myself now, so as not to go crazy or fall into despair. But your “case” shows that this is not salvation either, that this can happen to anyone “for nothing.” I wish you strength, health, and most importantly, a speedy end to this nightmare. All the best to you. With great respect, Valentina.”
“Dear, beautiful Nadezhda Fedorovna, hello! My name is also Nadezhda. And, to tell you the truth, I don’t really like my name. Its “karma” is too heavy, as they say nowadays. “An unknown star is shining” — this is about us. One must have a lot of strength to shine. “Hope dies last” — this is also a huge responsibility: to be the last straw to cling to. Not all are up to the task. But I try with all my strength to do justice to the name I was given. And to look for role models. One of these examples for me now is you. I will not tell you how much my soul ached for you all the while this monstrous, unfair, absolutely Kafkaesque affair went on! I think that everyone is writing to you about this now. But I read your final statement and thought, “Where does this woman get so much inner strength and light, where does she get so much courage and mercy?” I admire you, I pray to all the gods that you will survive the hardest times without loss of health. Physical and mental. Strength to you, dear Nadezhda Fedorovna! I embrace you with all my heart. With great respect, Nadezhda.”
“Dear Nadezhda! A doctor remains a doctor! It is within your power! I’m sure your patients think of you, and if they don’t, the most important thing is that you know: your job is one of the most essential. I work in culture. A favorite saying of my colleagues, when something goes wrong, is: thank God, we’re not doctors! Well, that won’t wash in your case. And this makes me feel ashamed before people in important professions. All I can say is — thank you. Strength and patience to you as you await a good decision, and most importantly, to walk free. Ivan.”
The remaining letters from our readers will be published in the December issue of Novaya gazeta. Zhurnal. The November issue can be purchased in our partners’ online store.
*Entered by the authorities of the Russian Federation in the register of “foreign agents.”
Translated by Dominic Reed, Nathalie Wilson, James Lofthouse, Simon Cosgrove, Friedrich Berg and Alyssa Rider
