On April 15, 2025, the Nagatinsky District Court in Moscow sentenced four Russian journalists—Antonina Favorskaya, Artyom Kriger, Konstantin Gabov, and Sergey Karelin—to five and a half years in prison each on charges of “participating in an extremist organization.” The prosecution alleged that the journalists were involved with the Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK) and the NavalnyLIVE YouTube channel, both founded or inspired by the late opposition leader Alexei Navalny and officially designated as “extremist” by Russian authorities in 2021. All four journalists denied the charges, maintaining that they were prosecuted solely for their professional work: documenting court proceedings, exposing government abuses, and adhering to core principles of journalistic integrity. The trial began in October 2024 and was conducted behind closed doors, a move that has been roundly criticized by international observers and human rights groups for its lack of transparency.
Favorskaya and Kriger were affiliated with SOTAvision, an independent Russian outlet known for its coverage of protests and political trials. Gabov and Karelin worked as freelancers and contributed to international media organizations, including Reuters and the Associated Press. (Reuters, for its part, stated that there was no evidence linking Gabov’s charges to his freelance work with them.) Previously, Gabov and Karelin had also collaborated with Deutsche Welle—whose Moscow bureau was shuttered by Russian authorities in 2022—further showing the escalating dangers that foreign-affiliated journalists face in Russia.
All four journalists have been designated as political prisoners by the Russian human rights group Memorial. They are emblematic of a generation of Russian reporters who persist in their mission to inform the public, despite an environment where investigative and critical journalism has been aggressively curtailed. Since the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, authorities have dramatically tightened laws against “extremism” and the dissemination of “false information,” effectively criminalizing independent reporting on state actions, the war, and alleged government corruption. Even simply declaring “No to war” can be punished as “discrediting the military,” revealing the breadth of the government’s repressive legal arsenal.
In their final statements to the court, the journalists emphasized the importance of continuing to report from within Russia, even under increasingly adverse conditions. Gabov insisted that covering the country’s events and problems from the inside remained both necessary and possible, despite the dangers. Karelin, in a deeply personal address, appealed for understanding of the hardship his imprisonment would impose on his family—including his elderly parents, a 101-year-old grandfather, and a young daughter who had once delighted in the stories he brought home from his reporting trips. Kriger declared that he was being punished solely for performing his duties as an honest and independent journalist. Favorskaya likewise underscored that their work—observing court hearings, verifying facts, and offering critical but factual analysis—did not constitute extremism but rather the basic practice of journalism.
The convictions, delivered behind closed doors in a Moscow courtroom, represent more than a mere legal punishment; they are a symbolic blow meant to deter and silence those who question state narratives. The journalists were accused of creating or contributing materials to FBK’s YouTube channel—work that authorities claim amounts to extremist activities. In reality, their coverage largely focused on legal processes, political trials, and the documentation of everyday injustices. Human rights organizations argue that the Kremlin’s true aim is to delegitimize any form of independent inquiry, in effect branding credible journalistic work as a national security threat.
Although the Kremlin has largely succeeded in dismantling or forcing into exile many independent outlets, a handful of courageous journalists continue to operate from within Russia. These individuals strive to expose systemic corruption, social inequality, and the moral costs of the ongoing war, often at great personal risk. The sentences handed down to Favorskaya, Kriger, Gabov, and Karelin lay bare the peril of choosing integrity over propaganda: five and a half years in prison under charges so nebulous that they can be adapted to almost any form of dissent.
From prison, the journalists have tried to sustain their optimism, sending out carefully censored letters of thanks and resolve. Some recalled their work for Deutsche Welle and international news agencies with humor and pride, a testament to their enduring commitment to the ideals of free expression and accurate reporting. Their messages reveal not only the psychological toll of their incarceration but also a steadfast refusal to renounce their vocation or submit to the Kremlin’s intimidation tactics.
The trial and imprisonment of these four journalists coincide with a broader trend of intensifying state repression. Since 2022, the Russian government has effectively outlawed significant sections of independent media by branding them as “undesirable organizations,” imposing crippling fines, and threatening reporters with prosecution under a panoply of criminal statutes. As a result, many journalists have fled abroad, while those who stay operate under constant surveillance and the looming threat of arrest.
The convictions thus serve a dual purpose for the Kremlin. On one hand, they incarcerate individuals deemed threatening for their professional integrity and refusal to echo official narratives. On the other hand, they issue a stark warning to anyone else who might dare question the official line: any deviation from state-sanctioned content risks being labeled as extremism. By painting these journalists as criminals, the Russian government not only retroactively discredits their work but also sows fear among others who might otherwise continue to investigate state corruption, military actions, and the day-to-day realities of life under authoritarian rule.
Yet, the story of Favorskaya, Kriger, Gabov, and Karelin carries deeper significance. Their willingness to uphold the principles of accurate, critical journalism—despite knowing the likely consequences—demonstrates the enduring power of truth and the resilience of the human spirit. They believe that reporting from within Russia, even under harrowing conditions, is necessary to ensure the world bears witness to abuses of power and to remind fellow Russians that not everyone has capitulated to fear. Their legal teams have announced plans to appeal, arguing that the charges lack merit and are politically motivated.
As the journalists begin their sentences, their plight resonates as a poignant reminder of what is at stake in the global battle for press freedom. In present-day Russia, the simple act of documenting reality has been recast as a seditious offense, punishable by years behind bars. Nonetheless, these four journalists—and the small but determined community of independent reporters who remain—stand as a testament to the unwavering pursuit of truth in the face of state oppression. Their trial, conviction, and continued efforts to appeal serve as an urgent call for international solidarity and a sober warning about the fragility of free expression wherever authoritarianism takes hold.
Gros News 
Leave a comment