The circuit court said it agreed with the Harju District Court's ruling convicting Aivo Peterson and Dmitri Rootsi of treason and Andrey Andronov of anti-Estonian activity as a foreign national, but it reclassified Peterson's and Rootsi's actions in creating a civil defense unit.

The circuit court reclassified the creation of the civil defense unit as preparatory activity for establishing an organization directed against Estonia's constitutional order and sentenced them to five and three years in prison, respectively, for that offense. Peterson's final sentence came to 16 years in prison, Rootsi's to 10 years.

In all other respects, the district court's ruling remained unchanged, including the sentence imposed on Andronov of 11 years, five months and 23 days in prison.

All of the defendants and the Prosecutor's Office appealed the district court's ruling to the circuit court.

The court partially granted the prosecutor's appeal. The appeals filed by Peterson's attorney, Rootsi's attorney and Andronov and his attorney were dismissed.

The circuit court also partially granted motions by Andronov's attorney and Peterson's attorney to determine and reimburse legal costs. The court set attorney Kristina Isokoski's fee at €1,323 and ordered Andronov to pay that amount to the Republic of Estonia. The court ordered the Republic of Estonia to pay Peterson €1,885. The remaining legal costs must be borne by the defendant.

The ruling has not entered into force and may still be appealed to the Supreme Court of Estonia.

According to the charges, Estonian citizens Peterson and Rootsi knowingly and systematically assisted Russia and people acting on behalf of Russian authorities between October 2022 and March 10, 2023, following instructions received from Russia, in nonviolent activity directed against the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Estonia.

The defendants allegedly participated in a deliberate influence campaign aimed at creating a political organization in Estonia that supported Russian foreign and security policy narratives and propaganda messages. According to the charges, the organization was intended to give Russia an opportunity to threaten Estonia's constitutional order, interfere in Estonian domestic politics and influence foreign policy.

All of the defendants denied the charges.

The trial began in November 2023.

The district court's ruling

In its ruling last December, the district court found it proven that Aivo Peterson and Dmitri Rootsi assisted the Russian Federation in influence operations directed against Estonia.

Through Rootsi, Peterson was informed at the Russian state level that there was interest in meeting and cooperating with a political party that wanted to change Estonia's current political course. Peterson agreed and the two continued to act with that understanding. Rootsi was issued a power of attorney and a meeting with politicians in Russia was planned.

The county court found that the Russian Federation's actions described above were dangerous to Estonia because, if the party had been established and entered the Riigikogu, it would have created an opportunity to covertly influence decision-making in Estonian politics.

In the same episode, Peterson and Rootsi were also accused of treason for creating a civil defense organization.

The county court found that the civil defense organization was to be created immediately after the registration of the political party Koos. In Peterson's view, it was to be nationwide, modeled on charitable organizations in the Donbas region, provide assistance to people in crisis situations and, in the event of a power vacuum, take on self-defense functions.

The organization was to include representatives of defense structures, meaning people with firearms permits.

At the same time, the district court found that the creation of the civil defense organization was Peterson's own initiative. It was based on his belief that, if Russian aggression expanded, no one would want to remain in power.

Because the district court found that Peterson and Rootsi had not received instructions from Russia to create such an organization, it did not consider that activity to constitute assisting a foreign enemy.

The allegations against Peterson and Rootsi that they aligned the policy positions of the Koos movement with Russian foreign and security policy positions also were not proven. The court said the evidence showed that the movement's core positions had been adopted at a March 2022 meeting and had remained largely unchanged over time.

Russia-organized press trips to occupied territories in Ukraine

In the charges concerning cooperation between Aivo Peterson and Andrey Andronov, the district court found that Russia organizes and finances press trips at the state level for foreigners whose views are favorable to Russia to visit occupied areas of Ukraine. The purpose is for participants to create and share posts for audiences in their home countries carrying messages favorable to Russia.

The evidence showed that Andronov, together with the other people named in the indictment, handled the organizational side of the press trips. As part of those arrangements, Peterson traveled through Russia to Russian-occupied areas of eastern Ukraine where he made video recordings with Andronov and posted them on social media.

Before the press trip, Peterson met with the organizers. At that meeting, they agreed that Peterson would make posts during the trip designed to frighten viewers about the spread of the war, encourage Western and Estonian audiences to stop supporting Ukraine and make viewers doubt NATO and Estonia's ability to defend itself.

At the meeting, it was explicitly stated that the posts were meant to serve as a counterweight to the information campaign against Russia — in other words, they were intended to support Russian state interests.

At the meeting, Peterson also discussed with the organizers that he would take part in the press trip as a politician and future chairman of a political party. In return, Peterson was promised reimbursement for travel-related expenses, a per diem allowance and assurances of safety in Russia. Those promises were fulfilled.

The district court found that Peterson's posts during the press trip followed the line agreed on at the meeting. He also took part in several Russian propaganda programs. In those programs, he again followed the previously agreed messaging. He also emphasized in both his social media posts and the propaganda programs that he was running in the parliamentary election.

One purpose of the messages, agreed on before the press trip in both tone and direction, was to increase the number of people in Estonia and neighboring countries who oppose NATO and the European Union. The court noted that this serves Russia's interests because Russian state documents describe NATO as hostile to Russia.

In the court's view, such press trips are dangerous to Estonia because prearranged posts and media appearances of that kind make it possible to manipulate people's political choices and, against the backdrop of fear of war, create or deepen divisions between different groups in society. The court also said it cannot be ruled out that such Russian information operations could help people with views favorable to Russia gain entry into politics.

Court: Peterson hoped to benefit should Russian aggression spill over to Estonia

In the district court's view, Aivo Peterson committed two acts of treason. The court said these were not isolated violations. His motive for establishing a cooperative relationship with Russia was to gain a political advantage if Russian aggression were to spread to Estonia and, in the case of the press trip, also to promote himself politically.

In the press trip episode, the court took into account that the tone and direction of the messages agreed upon with Russian representatives before the trip were largely the same as the views Peterson had publicly expressed in Estonia before leaving for the trip.

In the court's view, Dmitri Rootsi committed one act of treason. His assistance also was not accidental. The court said he was motivated by business considerations because the creation of a political party oriented toward cooperation with Russia would have increased opportunities for his planned business activities in Estonia.

Despite Peterson's and Rootsi's assistance, however, the planned cooperation with Russian politicians never materialized because the registration of the party was delayed in Estonia due to incomplete registration documents, and in early 2023 Peterson was occupied with taking part in the press trip.

Further assistance was prevented in both cases by their arrests at the border. As a result, the court said their role in helping initiate dialogue with Russia remained relatively limited.

The district court also took into account in assessing Peterson's and Rootsi's guilt that the creation of the civil defense organization had not been directed by Russia and that the policy positions of the Koos movement had not been changed under Russian influence.

As an aggravating factor, the court considered Peterson's and Rootsi's cooperation with each other. In Peterson's case, it also took into account that he received financial compensation and other benefits from Russia for participating in the press trip.

The court noted that Rootsi and Peterson had no prior criminal records. However, Peterson had previous contact with law enforcement in August 2022 over statements he made at a gathering opposing the removal of the tank monument. At the time, he was detained under the Law Enforcement Act to prevent a possible anti-state offense.

In determining the degree of guilt of Andrey Andronov, the county court took into account that he had engaged in active and purposeful conduct lasting more than six months. It also considered that he had previously been punished for both criminal and misdemeanor offenses.

For all of the defendants, the district court took into account that the offenses against the state were committed essentially in Russia's interests and at a time when that country is waging a war of aggression in Europe.

Defender invoked Peterson's right to free speech

Aivo Peterson's attorney argued in district court that the treason charges impermissibly restricted Peterson's freedom of expression.

The court disagreed, saying that freedom of expression is guaranteed by the constitution and may be restricted only in very limited circumstances. One such exceptional circumstance is the need to protect other important fundamental rights and values, such as Estonia's security, independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and constitutional order. The criminal offense of treason is intended to protect those values, the court said, and limiting freedom of expression for that purpose is therefore lawful.

Peterson's attorney also argued that the posts and views Peterson expressed in Ukraine and Russia were the same as those he had previously expressed in Estonia.

The court said that, in light of the legal definition of treason and the circumstances of the case, it was not important whether Peterson's messages changed during the press trip. His messages could have remained similar to or even identical with what he had said previously.

The court emphasized that Peterson's earlier posts and appearances in video programs were what convinced Russia that he held views favorable to it and was therefore suitable for the press trip.

Messages and posts made before cooperating with Russia are protected by the freedoms of expression and opinion guaranteed by the constitution, the court said. However, the evidence showed that Peterson cooperated with Russia in connection with the press trips and therefore restricting his freedom of expression in that context was justified.

Dmitri Rootsi's attorney argued that the case could amount to a voluntary abandonment of an attempted act of treason and that the court should instead consider the lesser offense of maintaining relations against the Republic of Estonia.

The court disagreed. It noted that as late as March 6, 2023, Ruslan Krõlov, whom the court considers to be acting on behalf of a foreign enemy, urged Rootsi to speed up the registration of the party and Rootsi in turn promised to raise the issue at a meeting.

The evidence also showed that Rootsi planned to meet with Peterson after voting in the 2023 Riigikogu election. That meeting did not take place for reasons beyond Rootsi's control, because both he and Peterson were taken into custody.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!