04/10/2020, in the Lychakivsky district court of the city of Lviv, the case was examined in criminal proceedings No. 12018140000000196 on charges:
- Lozinsky Igor Nikolaevich in incitement to commit a crime under Part 5 of Art. 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (the appropriation, embezzlement of property or the seizure of it by abuse of official position were committed in especially large amounts or by an organized group); as well as in official forgery (part 1 of article 366 of the Criminal Code) committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy;
- Koshevarov Evgeny Vasilievich and Piven Vadim Stepanovich in committing crimes under Part 5 of Art. 191 and part 1 of the article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine;
- Zatvorsky Roman Bogdanovich committing a crime, under Part 1 Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The criminal proceedings are examined collectively, composed of three judges: Nor N.V., Gritsko G.G., Strepko N.L.
The International Society for Human Rights begins monitoring this case.
The course of the hearing. At the hearing on April 10 the prosecutor Krishtanovich S.S. filed a motion to extend to the accused Piven Vadim Stepanovich a measure of restraint in the form of a house arrest at night from 00:00 to 06:00 am, with the assignment of the duties stipulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure: to arrive at the court and to the prosecutor upon request, to deposit his passport (passports) for traveling abroad, other documents giving the right to leave Ukraine and enter Ukraine, not to leave the place of residence at a time determined by the court, to refrain from communicating with witnesses in criminal proceedings. The prosecutor arguing that the accused could try to hide from the court, illegally influence witnesses, commit another criminal offense, or continue to engage in criminal activities, asked the court to grant his request.
According to the lawyer Ivanov O.A., by extending the measure of restraint to V. Piven, the court will violate Article 5 of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
It should be noted that in the case of “Navalny v. Russia”, the applicant complained of house arrest, because this type of measure of restraint was unnecessary and masterful. The ECtHR emphasized that the national court did not show any signs that the accused intended to evade the investigation; on the contrary, he was present at all the necessary investigative actions.
It is important to note that the prosecutor’s petition did not indicate any new circumstances for extending the measure of restraint to the accused Piven V. S. The risks to which the prosecutor refers were based solely on his assumptions.
ISHR experts have repeatedly focused on the fact that the severity of the alleged crime and the severity of the possible punishment cannot justify the risk of escape or hiding from justice.
The prosecutor also filed a motion to extend the measure of restraint of Yevgeny Vasilyevich Koshevarov. Considering that E. Koshevarov is on bail, the prosecution requested an extension of the following duties: to arrive at the court and to the prosecutor upon request, to deposit his passport (s) with the relevant state authorities for travel abroad, other documents giving the right to leave Ukraine and enter Ukraine, not leave the city of Lviv without the permission of the prosecutor or the court, refrain from communicating with witnesses in criminal proceedings, other employees of the Sambir communal enterprise “United”, officials of the Sambir city council and the Department of Development and Operation of Housing and Public Utilities LOGA, motivating such request by the same risks as in the first application.
In respect of I. Lozinsky a similar request was made (in the form of a personal obligation).
It should be noted that in this criminal proceeding the prosecutor submits a request for an extension of the measure of restraint in respect of the three accused, citing the same risks. However, the prosecution asks the court to apply different measures of restraint to each accused. The danger that the accused will create obstacles to the proper conduct of the trial cannot be assessed abstractly, but must be supported by factual evidence (“Bekchiev v. Moldova”, para. 59).
The defense objected to satisfying the prosecutor’s motives, arguing that the prosecutor did not take sufficient risks to consider that the accused would hide from the court and put pressure on witnesses, and asked the court to choose milder measures of restraint for the accused in the form of a personal obligation based on case law of the ECtHR. The defendants Lozinsky I.N., Koshevarov E.V., Piven V.S. also supported the opinion of their defenders.
Despite the arguments of the lawyers, the prosecutor’s requests were granted.
The next session is scheduled for 05/28/2020 at 11:00 am.
Given the gravity of the crime, as well as the existence of possible violations of the right to a fair trial in this trial, ISHR will continue to monitor this case.