Monitoring of the case of Nazar Dubensky (hearing on 08.19.2020)
On August 19, 2020, the Horodotskiy District Court of the Lvov Region considered the case in criminal proceedings number 12013150270000066 on charges of Nazar Vasilyevich Dubensky in the commission of: premeditated murder, that is, in the commission of a crime under Article 115, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine; illegal seizure of a vehicle, that is, in the commission of a crime under Article 289, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine; deliberate destruction or damage to property, committed by arson, explosion or other socially dangerous means, or causing property damage on an especially large scale, or resulted in the death of people or other grave consequences, that is, in the commission of a crime under Article 194, Part 2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Criminal proceedings on charges of N.V. Dubensky considered single-handedly by judge Peretyatko O.V. The International Society for Human Rights is starting to monitor this case.
The course of the hearing. Prosecutor A. Begun, in a petition of 08.14.2020, and at the hearing, asked to extend the accused’s detention period for 60 days, without determining the amount of bail, arguing that the elected for Dubensky N.V. measure of restraint in the form of detention ends on 08.23.2020, and the risks established by the investigating judge when choosing a measure of restraint during the pre-trial investigation did not disappear. In addition, the prosecutor noted that Dubensky N.V. is accused of committing a criminal offense, which is particularly serious and for which punishment is imprisonment for a term of seven to fifteen years. The evidence that gives grounds to suspect him of committing a crime, according to the prosecutor, is weighty, admissible and obtained in accordance with the procedure established by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
As the European Court has repeatedly noted in its decisions, raising the issue of extending a measure of restraint should include not only the risks that existed at the time of the selection of the measure of restraint, but also new risks that may affect in any way the circumstances referred to by the prosecutor (“Buryaga v. Ukraine” para. 69). The ECtHR has often found a violation of paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Convention in cases where domestic courts continued detention, relying mainly on the gravity of the charges and using formulaic language, without even considering specific facts or the possibility of applying alternative measures (“Kharchenko v. Ukraine”, paras. 80-81; “Tretyakov v. Ukraine” para. 59).
According to the information provided to the court by the prosecution, Dubensky H.V. is not married, has no children, has no parents, does not work, his age and state of health allows to apply to him a measure of restraint related to imprisonment. In addition, the accused fled from the scene of the crime, hid the traces of the crime by destroying material evidence, is aware of the possible punishment if he is found guilty, therefore, he can hide from the pre-trial investigation authorities and the court, unlawfully influence victims, witnesses by persuasion and intimidation, can persuade them to change the testimony they provide, otherwise hinder the trial of criminal proceedings. The prosecutor also noted that the suspicion, in his opinion, is justified.
The defendant’s lawyer A.A. Shnitsar objected to the prosecutor’s petition, arguing mainly by the fact that such a petition was unfounded, not supported by the evidence specified in Article 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. According to the defense, the accusation of a particularly grave crime is not grounds for detention, in addition, not a single piece of evidence in support of the guilt of N.V. Dubensky in the commission of the incriminated crimes, the prosecution has not been indicated in the petition. The lawyer asked to choose a measure of restraint not related to detention.
The accused Dubensky N.V. speaking in support of the position of his defender, he indicated that he has a permanent place of residence, lives with his parents. He noted that there was no evidence confirming his guilt in the case, and asked to apply to him a measure of restraint not related to imprisonment, namely house arrest or bail.
The injured Pak V.D. and his representative Vasilkevich V.M. asked to satisfy the prosecutor’s motion.
Having heard the prosecutor, defense counsel, the accused, the victim and his representative, having studied the petition, the court decided to continue the measure of restraint in the form of detention for up to 60 days without determining the amount of bail.
The next hearing is scheduled for 10.12.2020 at 2:30 pm. Experts from the International Society for Human Rights continue to monitor this trial.