Monitoring of criminal proceedings of I.A. Bliznyuk, A.O. Golovkin, Yu.M. Khlapovsky (hearing on 11/19/2020)
On November 19, 2020, in the Ordzhonikidze District Court of Kharkov, a hearing was held in case No. 644/192/18 on charges of I.A. Bliznyuk, A.O. Golovkin, Yu.M. Khlapovsky, who are accused of abducting people, cruel torture, they were engaged in extortion (part 1 of article 255, part 3 of article 146, part 4 of article 189, part 1 of article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The court session began with an examination of the video recordings of the investigative experiments.
Then they moved on to the study of written evidence.
As written evidence, the prosecutor submitted a decision to appoint a group of prosecutors. To which the defense side asked the prosecutor a question: what confirms such evidence?
In the last report on the case of I. A. Bliznyuk, A.O. Golovkin, and Yu. M. Khlapovsky, the observer drew attention to the fact that the prosecutor haphazardly and unreasonably submits evidence. For example, at the hearing on October 15, 2020, an expert opinion was submitted that it was A.O. Golovkin who used his car. The defense side stated that it does not dispute this circumstance. The court noted that the inclusion of the expert opinion was meaningless, since this circumstance was not disputed by any of the parties.
The judges of the Ordzhonikidze District Court of Kharkov drew attention to the fact that in criminal proceedings evidence must be examined to confirm or refute the accusation. The accused have been in custody for more than three years, while the prosecutor submits evidence devoid of meaning.
Thus, the prosecutor, according to the court, piles up the case with unnecessary evidence.
The ECtHR often considered cases of violation of reasonable time limits in cases against Ukraine and indicated that those accused in criminal proceedings should have the right to have the proceedings in their case carried out with particular care, especially in the case of any restriction of freedom for a period until the end of the proceedings (“Doroshenko v. Ukraine ”, para. 41).
The International Society for Human Rights believes that special care in the case of I.A. Bliznyuk, A.O. Golovkin, Yu.M. Khlapovsky should be manifested in the balance and reasonableness of the procedural actions of the prosecutor.
The provisions of Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights indicate that accused persons cannot remain in uncertain about their fate for too long (“Nakhmanovich v. Russia”, para. 89, “Ivanov v. Ukraine”, para. 71).
According to the ECtHR, “by requiring the consideration of cases within a ‘reasonable time’, the Convention emphasizes the importance of administering justice without delay, which may jeopardize its effectiveness and credibility” (“Vernillo v. France”, para. 38).
In the case of I.A. Bliznyuk, A.O. Golovkin and Yu.M. Khlapovsky for the second session in a row, the prosecutor proposes to examine evidence that does not help the court in moving forward in the consideration of the case. Such actions have a negative impact on the time frame for the consideration of the case and jeopardize the effectiveness of justice. Judges explain to the prosecutor the norms of the criminal procedural legislation, strive to consider the case in accordance with the standards of the Convention on reasonable time limits.
The next court hearing is scheduled for November 25, 2020. Observers from the ISHR will continue to monitor the criminal proceeding.