Monitoring the trial of Vladimir Bick (brief information about the court hearing on 20.11.17)

On November 20, 2017 a regular court hearing was held on the case of Vladimir Bick, Ex-head of the Department for Counterintelligence Protection of the interests of State in the sphere of information security of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), who is accused of high treason via assisting a foreign state and its representatives to conduct subversive activities against Ukraine (transfer of information compromising the Maidan). Experts of the International Society for Human Rights continue monitoring this legal process.

Upon the court hearing on 13.10.2017, during which the court had ruled to change a preventive measure for Vladimir Bick from detention to house arrest, in the process there has appeared a new prosecutor.  Straight away, the prosecution filed a petition requesting a preventive measure change (considering that the accused must be sent back to a Pre-Detention Centre). According to the prosecutor, general Bick cannot remain under house arrest due to the following: 1) the executive authorities do not have a special ankle bracelet detecting whereabouts of the accused; 2) the Ukrainian authorities do not control certain parts of the state border, this circumstance can be used for escaping from the country abroad; 3) Vladimir Bick can exercise pressure on witnesses. In the course of the court hearings the representative of the prosecution stated that general Bick at large could influence the witnesses, since their evidence in court are conflicting with the evidence earlier provided by them in writing. The lawyers of the accused stated that it was not the case and the evidence by the witnesses coincided, and assumed that the new prosecutor did not manage to familiarize herself with the materials of the case. The court refused to satisfy the petition, having left the accused under a 24-hour house arrest.

Experts of the International Society for Human Rights underline more than once that according to the European Convention on Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (for instance, in the case “Kharchenko v. Ukraine”) the continued detention can be only justified when those actions are of a certain public interest, which, in spite of the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respecting an individual freedom. Inability of the state authorities to provide the necessary technical means (an ankle bracelet) and to ensure control over the whole state border can hardly be regarded as the matter of such public interest.

International Society for Human Rights will continue monitoring and checking details of this legal process. The next court hearing will be held on November 27, 2017. Previous materials can be viewed here.

Expert council of ISHR