We call for a ban on “carousel arrests”

In October 2025, a court in St Petersburg handed down administrative arrests to members of the band Stoptime: singer Diana Loginova (Naoko), drummer Vladislav Leontyev, and guitarist Alexander Orlov. Videos of Stoptime’s street performances had gone viral online, featuring covers of Pornofilmy, Monetochka, and Noize MC. The street musicians were accused of disrupting public order by organising a “mass simultaneous gathering of citizens”, which allegedly resulted in social disorder.

After serving their terms, the musicians were not released. Instead, they were taken directly from the detention facilities to court on 27 October:

• ● Singer Naoko was fined 30,000 roubles under the article on “discrediting” the army and received a further 13 days of administrative arrest under two charges — petty hooliganism and, once again, organising a gathering of people. On 10 November, she was detained again as she was leaving the detention facility.
• ● Guitarist Alexander Orlov was arrested again and given a further 13 days, also on charges of organising “simultaneous presence”. Like Naoko, he was detained on 10 November immediately after completing his second consecutive administrative arrest, as he was leaving the detention facility.
• ● Drummer Vladislav Leontyev оwas given 12 days of arrest under the same charge of organising a crowd in a public place. After serving his term, he was released.

On 1 November in Perm, police officers detained musician Yekaterina Ostasheva for performing at a concert in support of Stoptime. She was given 60 hours of community service for organising a gathering of people, and seven days of administrative arrest for refusing a medical examination. On 8 November, instead of being released, she was taken to a police station, where a report was filed accusing her of disobeying a police officer’s lawful order. She was kept at the station until Monday, 10 November. The court then again placed Yekaterina under administrative arrest, this time for 15 days.

The back-to-back administrative arrests imposed on members of Stoptime and other street musicians are far from the first instance of this kind of legal abuse. Moreover, in recent years the so-called “carousel” arrests have routinely been used as a precursor to opening a criminal case under a serious article. OVD-Info is aware of at least 58 such cases, though the real number is much higher. One such “carousel” ended in tragedy — Rostov activist and musician Anatoly Berezikov diedin a detention facility while serving his third consecutive administrative arrest.

“Carousel” arrests give law enforcement free rein and allow them to:

• ● Keep a detainee in fear, uncertain when they will be released, since reports of public disorder or other formal violations can be drawn up indefinitely without any evidential basis, relying solely on the imagination of police officers;
• ● Effectively detain a person before a criminal case is even opened;
• ● Illegally gain extra time to formulate charges or to falsify evidence for initiating a case;
• ● Obtain a confession of a crime unlawfully, including through torture or threats.

Thus, repeated consecutive administrative arrests are a pseudo-legal tool used by the authorities to subject the victim to isolation conditions and severe psychological pressure. Furthermore, when “carousel” arrests precede criminal prosecution, the time spent in such detention does not count toward the prison term when sentencing.

Moreover, pretrial detention in criminal cases is strictly regulated by law. To impose pretrial detention, it is necessary not only to establish the fact of a crime but also to prove that the individual is involved in its commission and may 1) abscond from the investigation or trial, 2) continue to engage in criminal activity, or 3) threaten participants in criminal proceedings or otherwise obstruct the proceedings (Article 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code). The law sets limits on the period of pretrial detention, preventing the isolation of an individual solely for the reason “it is convenient for the investigation.”

At the same time, the law does not limit the sequential imposition of arrests in administrative cases, which is very convenient for law enforcement agencies. “Carousel” arrests violate international law and are an example of arbitrary detention, as they impede the exercise of rights and freedoms guaranteed in Articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as Articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This form of detention violates the requirements of justification and necessity, and also contains elements of inadmissibility, injustice, unpredictability, and lack of due process.

This petition is a demand to authorities and officials to use real powers and resources to combat such abuses.

We demand:

• 1. from the Prosecutor General’s Office — to conduct an investigation into the actions of law enforcement officers for abuse of law and human rights violations during arbitrary detention in cases of administrative offenses against Diana Loginova, Alexander Orlov, Vladislav Leontyev, and Yekaterina Ostasheva.


• 2. from the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation — o conduct an investigation into the circumstances of human rights violations during arbitrary detention in cases of administrative offenses against Diana Loginova, Alexander Orlov, Vladislav Leontyev and Yekaterina Ostasheva.


• 3. from State Duma deputies — to introduce to the State Duma a bill amending the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses by adding paragraph 2.2 to Article 3.9. “Administrative Arrest” as follows: “The exceptional nature of a case in which the purpose of an administrative penalty can only be achieved by imposing administrative arrest must be substantiated. The decision to impose administrative arrest must include and document the information on the basis of which a conclusion has been reached regarding the identity of the person being held liable and the impossibility of imposing an alternative punishment in accordance with the sanction of a specific article, as well as the damage caused to interests protected by law.”