Nika Novak
Biography
A resident of Chita, a journalist. She held anti-Ukrainian views, supported the unrecognized republics of Donbas, and after the start of the full-scale invasion criticized opponents of the war. However, later she spoke out critically against the actions of the authorities of Zabaykalsky Krai for their public support of the war. In the spring of 2023, she was detained allegedly on the basis of a wanted notice; afterward, she discovered a screen video-streaming program on her phone. On 29 November 2023, Novak was detained by unknown individuals; during the detention, a clump of hair was torn out of her head.
A resident of Chita, a journalist. She held anti-Ukrainian views, supported the unrecognized republics of Donbas, and after the start of the full-scale invasion criticized opponents of the war. However, later she spoke out critically against the actions of the authorities of Zabaykalsky Krai for their public support of the war. In the spring of 2023, she was detained allegedly on the basis of a wanted notice; afterward, she discovered a screen video-streaming program on her phone. On 29 November 2023, Novak was detained by unknown individuals; during the detention, a clump of hair was torn out of her head. On the same day, an inspection of the journalist’s home was conducted and her equipment was seized. She was released later that day. On 25 December 2023, Novak was detained again and taken to Moscow, where she was placed in custody on charges of confidential cooperation with a foreign organization. The grounds for the charges were her cooperation with the outlet “Sibir.Realii.” On 26 November 2024, a court in Chita sentenced her to 4 years’ imprisonment in a general-regime penal colony.
At the end of November 2025, the prison administration reported that Novak had “departed for another institution.” However, on 10 December it became known that the prisoner had not been transferred anywhere. For three weeks, letters from her relatives were not delivered to her, and her letters to relatives were not sent. It emerged that the message about another institution was contained in a reply to a letter that had mistakenly been sent not to the penal colony, but to a pre-trial detention centre.