Russian Court Rules It Was Unlawful to Bar Wife and Public Defender of Imprisoned Activist From Harp Colony

A Russian court in Lyubertsy has ruled that prison officials acted unlawfully when they denied entry to Elena Gorban, the wife and designated public defender of imprisoned activist Azat Miftakhov, to a penal colony in the settlement of Harp. According to media reports, the Lyubertsy city court ordered the colony to allow Gorban to visit her husband within ten days, a decision the couple and their supporters welcomed as a necessary corrective to the colony’s actions.

Gorban travelled to the colony shortly after Miftakhov said he had been subjected to beatings and other ill-treatment there, but was prevented from seeing him. Lawyers for Miftakhov told the court that the repeated refusals to admit Gorban appeared designed to prevent documentation of the prisoner’s injuries. Defense counsel Курьянов argued that the stated explanations did not justify barring a public defender: "Алар, имеш, киләсе көннәрдә килергә бернинди киртә булмаган дип яза. Әмма бу дөреслеккә туры килми. Киләсе тапкыр килгәндә дә аны кертмәделәр. Колониядә Еленаның җәмәгать яклаучысы буларак күрсәтелгән мәхкәмә карары бар иде. Мин аның яклаучы сыйфатында кимендә 30 тапкыр килүен санадым инде," he told reporters.

Prison authorities initially told Gorban and her legal team that Miftakhov was in quarantine and had not yet been assigned to a unit, which they said prevented visits. Counsel rejected that defence, saying quarantine rules did not bar meetings with a designated public defender. The Lyubertsy ruling sided with the defence, finding the refusal unlawful and ordering the colony to arrange the meeting within ten days.

Miftakhov himself has described a pattern of preventive measures and punitive responses by prison staff. He said that in any facility where he was placed he was promptly put on a "prophylactic" list, and in a message to supporters said his ordeal was drawing to a close: "Тәмуг булды, әмма ул тәмуг артта калды. Бу — сезнең ярдәм белән! Бу авыр вакытларда миңа хатлар язган һәм мәхкәмәләргә килгән һәркемгә зур рәхмәт!" He also reported that officials had begun an official inspection of the cells where he said he was beaten and that those rooms underwent rapid repairs and had furnishings removed.

The case follows serious allegations Miftakhov levelled after his transfer to IK-18 "Полярная сова" in the Harp settlement on April 21. He says he was subjected to electric shocks, struck on the heels with a wooden mallet, and threatened with rape; he named specific prison officers whom he accused of participating in the humiliations. Investigative outlet The Insider later identified two Federal Penitentiary Service (FSIN) officers mentioned by Miftakhov: Mikhail Sobolev, from Tyumen, and Pavel Kiselev, from Sverdlovsk. According to published accounts, Sobolev was allegedly involved in beatings and threats, while Kiselev was present in the room where Miftakhov says he received electric shocks.

Last week a court in Labytangi also found that the state failed to provide protection to Miftakhov after the alleged punishments, declaring that omission unlawful. The Lyubertsy ruling adds to judicial scrutiny of how prison authorities have handled both Miftakhov’s transfer and the treatment he reported. Human rights lawyers and activists say access by relatives and independent legal representatives is a vital mechanism to document abuses in custody and to secure timely medical and legal assistance when detainees report mistreatment.

Miftakhov, a long‑standing political prisoner, has been in custody for about eight years. He was initially sentenced to six years on hooliganism charges and later detained again on September 4, 2023, after leaving colony IK‑17 in Kirov region’s Omutninsk. More recently he was convicted in a case for "justifying terrorism" and given a term of 2.5 years, portions of which involve confinement under strict regime conditions.

The Lyubertsy court’s order obliges the Harp colony to admit Gorban for a meeting within ten days, but it remains to be seen whether prison authorities will comply promptly and whether further investigations into the alleged abuse will follow. Rights groups say court decisions ordering access and condemning the failure to protect prisoners are important steps, but lasting accountability requires transparent investigations and disciplinary or criminal proceedings against staff responsible for alleged torture and ill‑treatment.