Russia’s legal system continues to sink deeper into degradation: today, to accuse someone of “treason,” it is increasingly enough not to prove the transfer of secret information, but merely the fact of possessing it — even without evidence of damage, intent, or contact with a foreign side. The logic of such an approach is absurd: it is as if a person were accused of murder simply for possessing an alleged weapon. Courts are increasingly turning not into places where truth is established, but into mechanisms of intimidation, where the presumption of innocence is replaced by a presumption of suspicion.

This decline is especially vividly illustrated by the case of Maria Bontsler. According to journalist Konstantin Rozhkov, numerous expert examinations failed to confirm any transfer of “super-secret” information. In essence, the accusation boils down to the claim that Maria Bontsler merely “had the opportunity” to pass information on. In other words, a person is effectively being prosecuted not for an action, but for the potential ability to commit one.

At the same time, the ill Maria Bontsler continues to be held in pre-trial detention, and authorities refuse to transfer her to house arrest despite her health problems and the need for a special diet. According to Rozhkov, thanks to concerned supporters, around eight thousand rubles were collected for her prison account — enough to cover about a month of food. In such conditions, even a small donation becomes not only material assistance, but also a sign that a person has not been forgotten or abandoned by society.

Maria Bontsler has serious dietary restrictions, making it especially important that she be able to purchase necessary food and hygiene products from the prison store. Assistance can be sent through ZT.ru by selecting “Kaliningrad Region” → “SIZO-1 Kaliningrad” and entering the recipient’s details: Maria Vladimirovna Bontsler, born in 1960.

Everything about this case creates the impression not of justice, but of demonstrative intimidation: the process itself becomes more important than evidence, and conviction more important than the search for truth. At this rate, the next “logical” step for the system may be the complete closure of court proceedings from public view, because the bias and prosecutorial nature of these trials are already obvious even to many who once justified the system. When absurdity becomes the norm, public trials cease to be a source of legitimacy for the authorities and instead become a dangerous reminder of how far the country has drifted from the very concept of justice.