Video 3 - Omission of Key Evidence from the Recording

This annex documents an episode with two components verifiable separately: what was said to have happened and what the record contains.

The scene, according to the sources

• During the hearing, the presiding judge attributes to Apolozan a verbal protest and then leaves the courtroom.
• In the available audio of that moment, the attributed protest does not appear.
• Coinciding with the episode, the record shows another cut of almost 6 minutes — the sequence documents it over the session of 31 January 2019, with the system's own time markers (around 10:29).

The two absences and their logic

The first absence — the protest the audio does not capture — affects the very basis of the treatment given to the accused in that episode. The second — the almost 6 minutes with no record — makes it impossible to verify what happened during the lapse. Taken together: the fact invoked is not in the record, and the record ceases to exist precisely when it could disprove or confirm it.

The pattern it belongs to

It is the third documented incident in this trial's record: the 11 minutes of the staged opening (A.18), this cut of almost 6 minutes, and the missing stretches of the taking of evidence (A.22). The 2023 forensic report examines them as a whole and concludes repeated alteration of the material (A.33). Article 743 of the Criminal Procedure Act — which entrusts the integrity of the record to the electronic signature and to public faith — is the yardstick against which to measure each one.

Is there an ordinary explanation?

A protest may fall outside a microphone; a recording may drop. The concurrence of both, in the same episode, within a record with other incidents all directed in the same sense, is what the expert report (A.33) assesses — and rules out — as chance.

How to verify it

Press "See the sequence": the system's time markers show the jump. Then look for the protest in the audio prior to the episode. Both checks fit within a single playback.