The Final Statement
‘It is the prosecution that says a person should spend eight years in prison for saying something they should not have said. And the other side, Your Honour, is the defence. It is the side that people are drawn to. And not only people from the new territories: people from Crimea wrote to me, from Simferopol, where they are in a difficult situation, where hostilities are taking place, but they practice Zen Buddhism.’
Good afternoon, Your Honour. Good afternoon, respected judges, respected guests. Thank you for the opportunity to address the court, although at a very high cost.
This is the beginning of my activity in Russia as a Buddhist priest – I am on my way to ordination. And I would like to begin with what the law is, with the fact that the law is a set of certain rules of conduct. And rules of conduct concern the body, speech, and the mind. The body gives rise to actions, speech gives rise to words, and the mind gives rise to thoughts.
And the law should be a set of rules for the body, aimed against thieves, murderers, and rapists. More precisely, against theft, murder, and violence, because Buddhism teaches that there is no sinful nature in human beings. On the contrary, there is the wonderful Buddha nature in our hearts. But actions – yes, actions can harm other people, and therefore a law is required, a state is required that ensures that no one kills, no one robs, no one rapes. And such rules (we have encountered them) exist as rules for monastics and for laypeople, related to the body, speech, and mind.
It must be said that when I wrote this publication, which we are discussing today and discussed previously, consisting of five sentences, I followed the rules related to speech that are known not only in Russia but throughout the world. They are quite strict, and I would like experts, of course, to read them just as carefully.
And I must say here that one cannot demand from laypeople the same level of discipline regarding speech that is followed by one of the strictest monastic traditions known to human civilization. That is, if you want publications to be even stricter than the rules I followed when writing this, then this is impossible to implement. People will still speak and will make mistakes more often than monastics. And why should the law monitor precisely the rules for the body, our actions, rather than interfere with the mind, rather than prosecute those who think differently? Because we have different traditions represented in Russia, and people living in Russia believe in different things. We have people who follow paganism, who believe in polytheism. I have met not only Russian and Slavic pagans, but also those who believe in Hinduism and Egyptian gods. There are also people who, with equally deep faith, believe in monotheism, that there is only one God who has revealed himself. You will not change these people’s consciousness by applying these laws and bringing them to the level of the Inquisition. They will continue to believe anyway. There are atheists who believe that there is no God, who do not believe in any gods at all. And these are also deep convictions based on Soviet culture and reflected in Soviet literature.
That is, people in Russia have different views. These beliefs lead them to different assessments of what is happening. And these different assessments lead to different speech. People speak differently as well. Trying to regulate what a person says through legislation is wrong; it will not work. It will only increase social tension and fuel interfaith hostility. Even if you build a Ministry of Defence cathedral, it will be an Orthodox cathedral, but not everyone among us is Orthodox. And introducing such discipline, where everyone must believe only what a particular government agency says, that all of this is absolute truth…
But when different beliefs, different views, assessments of circumstances, and different speech lead to some bad actions, when a person begins to steal, begins to kill, begins to rape people, then the state should intervene. And one should be judged not for believing in something wrong or saying something wrong, but for the fact that one’s beliefs, one’s views, one’s words led to violence, led to a crime. But this Article 207.3 is precisely about judging words. That is, it deals with something the state should not be dealing with, and something even traditions should not be dealing with. Even when something begins to happen within traditions – when Catholics begin burning those who believe incorrectly in God or do not believe in God – this is wrong, this should not happen. Although, it has sometimes happened in history.
Judging people for their views, for their motives, is also wrong. This is precisely part two of Article 207.3, when the sentence differs depending on whether you hate or do not love someone. This is a person’s private matter. When it comes to actions, and a person takes a weapon and begins killing those around them, that is when the state should intervene. But judging someone for words, even when you fully follow the rules…
I would like to remind you how we arrived at 2025. Our country, our state, is celebrating the 80th anniversary of Victory this year. The Victory of the Soviet Union and our allied countries over German fascism. And some people now… there is such a point of view that this Victory should be understood as meaning that we must every century or every few decades bomb Berlin or commit some other acts of violence. But if we turn to the history of our country and look at what our grandfathers actually did, as it is said today: after they defeated and destroyed Nazi Germany, they gathered together with our other allies and thought about how to ensure that fascism would never again exist in the world.
It was not an instruction that we, their grandchildren, must march on Berlin. Bomb, I don’t know, not Berlin but, perhaps, Kyiv or someone else. They gathered and adopted these rules. How many rules are there? Thirty articles – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And our ancestors, fighters against fascism, did this in 1948. That is, just a few years after victory, the victors, under the leadership of Comrade Stalin, under the leadership of other countries that helped us, some more, some less, discussed together and adopted a document that suited everyone. And now our responsibility, since 1948, is not to dress up in costumes of airplanes or tanks, not to imitate what our ancestors did once – they already did it, they already won. Our task, so that their victory remains and takes root, is to follow these rules. In every country. In every country! In Berlin, in Kyiv, and in Moscow as well. And our responsibility as Russian citizens is to follow these rules in the city of Moscow. And to ensure that other Russian cities also follow these rules, so that these human rights are respected in new territories, if there are any. In general, human rights exist so that fascism does not raise its head in any country. And fascism is precisely about judging people…
That is what Hitler did in Germany: exterminating people because of their nationality and beliefs. What was done in the Soviet Union before 1945, before the Victory – we also had terrible years of repression. But when we saw what all this led to, this approach – judging people for speech, judging people for their views – when we saw where it led, when we understood all the horrors of Nazi Germany, even Comrade Stalin, who is credited with all these repressions (although it is still a question who carried them out; there was class struggle, and one must be a specialist to discuss it), even Comrade Stalin agreed to follow these rules. And I propose that these rules be followed.
And they are followed; reports are made at the level of the United Nations, and comparisons are made. If this case is judged for words, this crystal-clear case, by the way, it will also appear in all reports that such things are happening in Russia. And when this Universal Declaration was adopted, when Soviet people gathered, the Soviet Union, which we are said to inherit, and other countries also gathered, the allies: England (the United Kingdom), the United States – everyone gathered and adopted this declaration. All traditions participated there. Including the Buddhist tradition, countries such as India and Japan… All countries. And countries with other beliefs: Japan fought on Germany’s side, and they had to admit their mistakes. Admit that people cannot be judged for words, that there must be freedom of speech.
I am interested now specifically in freedom of speech. Why? Because, as I have already said, I teach information technology and argue that freedom of speech allows all the resources our country has to be directed towards developing domestic technologies: creating better computers, creating our own microprocessors, creating our own communication systems. But if the direction of our state’s development is shifted towards banning freedom of speech, then we have to create blacklists, block things… That is, spend resources not on developing technologies, but on developing this kind of violence against our fellow citizens.
And since we do not develop our own technologies, we have to use imported solutions. That is, purchase foreign devices either from China or America and then add restrictions to them to limit freedom of speech. And it seems that now, in 2025, those people who created Roskomnadzor and other measures think that once we paid for and created these systems restricting freedom of speech, and legally supported restrictions on freedom of speech, that is enough. But no! Technologies develop. There will be a new generation of foreign computers because we will not be able to develop our own – we are spending money elsewhere. And we will have to rewrite this entire system for new computers, new microchips, and spend money pointlessly every time, wasting the budget instead of following what our ancestors wrote precisely within the framework of the fight against fascism and observing these simple rules, namely Article 19 – the freedom to seek, receive, and disseminate information and ideas by any means and regardless of state borders. This is the seed from which the internet grew.
We can search the internet for information: for example, about what happened in Kherson on 24 December 2022, and I searched for this. We can receive this information and then distribute information. Well, I decided not to distribute the information that I saw there: I simply saw these corpses on the streets of Kherson and wrote about the corpses. You impose restrictions on the distribution of information – fine, I follow these restrictions, I deleted all these materials. But objectively: either we recognise freedom of speech and, in that case, show that we are fighting fascism and continuing the work of our ancestors who left us this legacy, or all the money goes nowhere, other countries overtake us, and Russia will face a sad fate.
So now the main thing is not to allow fascism in our own countries. And when we sort this out, when human rights declarations are observed in Russia, then we can say: we comply, but why, in neighbouring countries, why there… why are they not observed in Iran?
After the declaration, a pact was adopted, which included the Soviet Union, and on this basis the Constitution was written. It turns out that freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, which I mentioned in my closing statement, are not only theoretically important (the fight against fascism), but are also practically present in our legislation. I remind you that the Constitution has priority over both Russian laws and international laws. This is a very important document. So I ask that it be applied, and I will insist on this if necessary.
The declaration did not say that we must force everyone through violence to support freedom of speech or freedom of assembly – no. It says here, in the preamble, that humanity approaches this declaration gradually, that humanity moves forward gradually, including Russia: ‘By teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms.’ And I am precisely engaged in teaching and education. I explain why freedom of speech is important, that it is not a whim. I do not receive any grants or anything like that. It is equally important because when we invented matches, we should not fight fire, but learn to live in a world where everyone can light a cigarette or cook food. And fighting freedom of speech is like fighting technology. This happened when MP3 players were released: there was a revolt by those who produced vinyl records, they wanted somehow to stop progress. But progress cannot be stopped, and the internet exists.
And here we are now standing at a crossroads. What I do: I founded a school where I teach all these things, including why freedom of speech is so important, why it is so important to develop domestic microchips and processors. I spoke about this even before all these sanctions were introduced. Everyone laughed at me, including the military laughed: ‘Ha-ha-ha! Why do we need our own processors? We can order them from Taiwan.’ Well, order them now. They did not listen to me. And while doing all of this, teaching what I am dedicating my speech to now – technology, programming, hacker technologies, computer security – I do this from Moscow, from Russia. I do this without any grants. I have earned international recognition and reputation. People come to me from different countries. I am also invited to various conferences, where I speak. People study with me. My teaching methods are used all over the world. And some of my students say that this hacker teaching that I represent and have developed, after searching for the Zen tradition for a long time, finding it, bringing it to Russia, and practising it, is, as some of my students say, a soft power.
I oppose such use because I try not to use it as power; I am against violence and do not cooperate with Russian law enforcement agencies, as far as this is possible in the Russian Federation and even slightly beyond this limit. And I can say that if I cooperated with law enforcement agencies, everything would have been completely different. I do not cooperate precisely so that people who allow such words against me and my teaching are not imprisoned, so that they are treated normally. That is why I do not cooperate with the Federal Security Service or with other institutions. Because I know how they treat those who oppose them. Nevertheless, yes, some people want to use this as a way for people to be drawn towards Russia and our Russian culture.
And here a question arises. There are now international calls for peace, which I experienced back in 2022, but they were not followed then, and now they are being made, including in Russia, calling for peace. The map of Russia is expanding, something may perhaps be recognised, new territories have already appeared in our Constitution. And the question arises, Your Honour: what are we bringing to these new territories? What law are we bringing to these new territories? What culture? This case is taking place in Moscow, right? A Russian person was seized right here in Moscow, in the city, for a publication on the internet, on social media, and has been kept behind bars for a year. So is this the culture we want on new territories? Is this what we are bringing there? So that a Russian person does not feel safe where Russia has arrived? So that they are afraid to say something online? Is that what we want? Or are we protecting Russian people? Can we protect a Russian person, a Muscovite, in Moscow, the city where I was born, where Russian people live? If we treat Russians this way in Moscow, then how will Russians be treated in Luhansk, Donetsk, and Mariupol? Will they be protected more there than in Moscow? And if a person is not Russian? If a person is Ukrainian or Jewish? What then? Will we persecute them too? Will we violate human rights?
It is the prosecution that says that a person should spend eight years in prison for saying something wrong. And the other side, Your Honour, is the defence. It is the side that people are drawn to. And not only people from the new territories: people from Crimea wrote to me, from Simferopol, where they are in a difficult situation, where hostilities are taking place, but they practise Zen Buddhism. They are interested in taking the bodhisattva vow, following it, including observing the rules of speech. Including being law-abiding, even if you create laws they do not like, so that they still follow even those laws. To verify their speech as carefully as I verified this speech. You will not find violations if you conduct an honest examination; you will not find violations of your legislation in these five sentences.
And these five sentences are now being read all over the world. In English-speaking countries, they are read in English, exactly as I wrote them. And everyone asks the question: where? The question I wanted to ask the prosecution now, but my lawyer warned me that during closing arguments, unfortunately, I do not have the technical opportunity to ask such a question to the respected prosecutor. Where in these five sentences is the false information? Where? All the information has been carefully verified. I remember how I wrote these five sentences. I knew what laws we have in the Russian Federation. And I wrote everything honestly and carefully. With the precision of a Zen Buddhist monk, which you will not find anywhere else in Russia. Any other person – however many millions we have, one hundred and forty? – everyone else would write with less precision.
Your experts, when reading it, did not notice many things, wrote standard phrases, simply copying them. But now the whole world is looking at this case, looking at what I wrote, reading your laws – the laws of the Russian Federation. And most importantly, they are reading these human rights, and comparing: where? Where do our ancestors honour victory over fascism and where are we working to ensure that fascism does not exist, and where have we not yet managed to do this?
And yes, defending this result of Victory, from 1941 to 1945 we fought to achieve this document. Yes, we do not have to walk into bullets, but we have to take risks. Risk our careers, yes? Risk our freedom. Go to the bunks at Matrosskaya Tishina or to prison beds, yes? Excuse me. And meditate there, instead of meditating at an altar. Yes, we have to. And our ancestors had to do even more – walk into bullets so that fascism would not exist, including in Russia, because Russia had followers of Hitler. And in Russia there were people who, for religious beliefs, for example, cooperated with those who wanted to judge people for words, for nationality. So this protection of human rights, this thing, it is now…
The question is: whom are we helping? Are we helping Russian culture? When I remember from the very beginning, from the first minute when I created hacker education, I formed both an ethical code and an assessment system from scratch. At first, I had only the experience of Japanese martial arts before me, and later I gained access to tradition, receiving support from teachers. And what? Are we losing all this? Is Russia losing this? Is Russia giving everything over to criminals? To Matrosskaya Tishina? Whom should we give way to? Should we give way to culture or to representatives of law enforcement agencies who, in violation of the Constitution and human rights, have initiated this public reprisal against a Russian citizen in front of all humanity? What are we bringing with weapons right now? Ask yourself this question. This endless war and hostility? Suffering for the sake of suffering? Or are we bringing something that Russian people are actually working on, creating?
I was engaged in educational activities in the Soviet Union, under Brezhnev, when I studied all of this and helped others study. I worked in Russia, under Gorbachev, under Yeltsin, and under the early Putin. And now they come and say: no, we will imprison a teacher and freedom of speech… You will not abolish freedom of speech because of this! It is a law of nature. The modern technological level of development is such that the internet exists. It is simply a waste of budgetary resources. And when we bring something from the past, from what Russia was like before the adoption of this declaration, that is, before the Great Victory, when we bring something from 1937, bring something from pre-revolutionary Russia, remember that there was a Victory. Remember its lessons. Remember this declaration, so as not to become the opposite of what our ancestors fought against. Because they left us this testament, which is ours.
Your Honour, I did not put you before this choice, but you chose the position of being a judge yourself. And you are making a decision on behalf of Russia, on behalf of the Russian Federation. Here, choose – before you are two sides. Before you are the security-oriented decisions that exist, in violation of everything else, and before you is Russian culture. Moreover, it is universally recognised, recognised throughout the world. There is little of this preserved. I have not damaged relations with any country, neither with desirable nor undesirable countries, as they are called now. Everywhere I am respected, they know me as an honest person. And they know how difficult human rights are to achieve! How difficult these human rights are to achieve in Berlin, in Tokyo, and everywhere, throughout the world. And in Moscow too, they are difficult to achieve! So choose which side you are on. Without using force, I help people respect Russian culture and learn from us. And I do not consider this a crime. I have nothing more to add.
25 June 2025.
Preobrazhensky District Court, Moscow, Russia.
Source: Ilya Vasilyev’s support group.
More information: ‘Memorial PZK‘.
Photo: Ilya Vasilyev’s support group.