The court heard the appeal in Murdiev's case without notifying his mother and lawyers

A Moscow court heard the appeal in the case of Chechen teenager Muslim Murdiyev without notifying his mother and primary lawyers. The family learned of the hearing only several days later, after the appeal had been rejected.

As reported by  the "Caucasian Knot," a Moscow court  sentenced  ninth-grader Roman (Muslim) Murdiev to one year and 11 months in prison on September 29. Murdiev was charged with disturbing the peace and using violence (Article 213 of the Russian Criminal Code) following a fight in which the teenager, according to him, stood up for a 12-year-old boy he knew. His defense maintains Murdiev's innocence.

On November 25, the First Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction in Moscow considered the appeal of Chechen teenager Muslim Murdiev, who is in custody, without notifying his legal representative – his mother – and his main lawyers, relatives of the convicted man told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent on December 6 .

The family only learned of the hearing on November 28, three days after it took place. According to the relatives, the court failed to promptly notify the teenager's mother or defense attorneys of the date and time of the hearing, despite Murdiev being a minor.

We learned about the meeting after the fact. No one refused to participate.

Relatives claim that the court summoned child protection authorities instead of a legal representative, and Murdiyev himself participated in the hearing via video link from the pretrial detention center. Furthermore, according to the relatives, the court informed the teenager that his mother allegedly refused to attend the hearing. The relatives call this claim false. "We learned about the hearing after the fact. No one refused to participate. We were simply not notified," the "Freedom to Muslim" Telegram channel reported.

The family later received a notice of the court hearing by mail. According to the information on the envelope and the notice, the letter was mailed on November 25, 2025, the day of the hearing. It arrived at the Russian Post office on November 28, and the notification of receipt was delivered to the addressees on December 1. The family received the letter itself only on December 2, after the appeal was heard.

Murdiev's relatives pointed out that such actions violate Part 4 of Article 231 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code, which requires that the parties be notified of the place, date, and time of the court hearing at least five days before it begins. They believe that the appeal hearing violated the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and constitutional guarantees of the right to defense, particularly given the defendant's minor age.

This is the second case, this time at least they brought guardianship

"This is the second incident, and this time they at least brought in guardianship. On April 17, 2025, Muslim sat alone at a court hearing. This was also appealed to the Moscow City Court, but the ruling remained unchanged. The court ruled that everything was legal,"  Murdiev's uncle told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent .

The court hearing, held on November 25, considered an appeal against the Moscow City Court's ruling of July 2, 2025, which extended Murdiev's house arrest until July 26, 2025. In the appeal, Murdiev's defense argues that the extension of his pretrial detention is unlawful and formal. They point out that the court, citing Article 107 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code, did not specify the restrictions and prohibitions imposed and did not specify the instances in which he is permitted to leave his residence, including for walks or to attend school.

According to the applicant, this decision makes house arrest excessive and non-individualized, despite the legal requirement to take into account the personal circumstances of the accused, including his age and living conditions.

The complaint places special emphasis on the issue of equal treatment of the defendants in the case. Murdiev points out that on June 30, 2025, the same court granted other defendants in the same criminal case permission to take walks and receive education, while he was denied similar benefits without explanation. He considers this difference in approach a gross violation of the principle of equality of participants in the proceedings.

Furthermore, the complaint highlights the excessive length of the pretrial detention measure. Murdiev notes that he has been under house arrest continuously since December 27, 2023, and that the total period exceeds 18 months, with the actual period exceeding 19 months. He believes this exceeds the permissible time limit, even for the investigation of particularly serious crimes. Therefore, he asked the appellate court to overturn the Moscow City Court's ruling extending his house arrest in its entirety.

He was under house arrest for 22 months. The legal maximum is 12 months. The case was reviewed and dismissed.

As stated in the case file on the website of the First Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction, the judge presiding over the appeal hearing upheld the decision to extend Murdiev's house arrest, which he had contested. "On November 25, they reviewed an old appeal from July 3, 2025, which they had lost and then found. The appeal was against the unlawful extension of his house arrest beyond the maximum term. He had been under house arrest for 22 months. By law, the maximum term is 12 months. They reviewed it and dismissed it," a relative of Murdiev told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent .

As a reminder, the defense and family insist that Muslim Murdiyev did not initiate the conflict and was standing up for the younger teenager. According to them, the case was marred from the very beginning by violations of procedural guarantees, denials of defense motions, and disregard for evidence presented by the lawyers.

Murdiev's lawyers previously alleged pressure on the teenager, restrictions on his right to a defense, and a disproportionate preventive measure. The defense also pointed out that, under similar circumstances, other defendants in the case, not originally from the North Caucasus, were removed from the indictment and served as witnesses.

Murdiev's case had previously sparked widespread public outcry, with human rights activists and relatives calling the trial a show trial and  pointing to possible ethnic bias .

* Meta (which owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp) is banned in Russia.