Monitoring of the case of Sorokin Sergey Vladimirovich, Sorokin Vladimir Viktorovich (session on April 30, 2020)
04/30/2020, in the Shevchenkovsky District Court of the city of Lvov, a criminal case was examined in case number 12019140090003025 on charges of Sorokin Sergey Vladimirovich and Sorokin Vladimir Viktorovich of committing a crime under Part 4 of Art. 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (robbery aimed at seizing property on a large or especially large scale or committed by an organized group, or combined with causing grievous bodily harm).
The criminal proceedings are examined collectively, composed of three judges: Baeva A.I., Eder P.T., Glinskaya D.B. The trial in this case was scheduled for 2:30 pm and began 30 minutes late. The International Society for Human Rights begins monitoring this case.
The course of the hearing.
At the hearing the prosecutor Petlyovany D. I. filed a motion to extend to the accused Sorokin Sergey and Sorokin Vladimir measures of restraint in the form of detention for 60 days, referring to the risks under paragraphs 1, 3, 5 of Part 1 of Art. 177 Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine. The prosecutor argued that the defendants could try to hide from the court, illegally influence witnesses, commit another criminal offense, or continue to engage in criminal activity, hi asked the court to satisfy request without the possibility of making a bail.
The representative of the victim, lawyer Golen I.R. supported the request of the prosecutor.
The lawyer of the accused Sorokin S.V. – Dolya R. B. objected to the request of the prosecutor, paying attention to the fact that the risks referred to by the prosecutor for the extension of the measure of restraint are the same as those cited by the prosecution for the election of such a measure. According to attorney Dolya R.B., in order to extend the previously selected measure of restraint to the accused, the risks indicated by the prosecutor must be substantiated and supported by evidence. He considers that there are no grounds for extending the measure of restraint in the form of detention.
As the European Court has repeatedly noted in its decisions, when raising the question of extending a measure of restraint, not only the risks that existed at the time the measure of restraint was taken should be given, but also new risks that could affect in any way the circumstances referred to by the prosecutor.
According to paragraph 3 of Art. 5 of the Convention after a certain period of time, the mere existence of a reasonable suspicion does not justify the deprivation of liberty, and the courts must give other reasons for the extension of detention (“Borisenko v. Ukraine”, para. 50). Moreover, these grounds must be clearly indicated by the national courts (“Eloev v. Ukraine” para. 60, “Kharchenko v. Ukraine” para. 80).
The lawyer of the accused Sorokin V.V. – Zhivko O. B. also objected to the petition of the prosecutor. The defense counsel believes that in his application the prosecutor relies on his own assumptions, without citing any arguments or facts.
The ECtHR often found a violation of paragraph 3 of Art. 5 of the Convention in cases where national courts continued detention of the accused, referring mainly to the gravity of the charges and using “standard” language, without even considering specific facts or the possibility of alternative measures (“Kharchenko v. Ukraine”, pp. 80-81; “Tretyakov v. Ukraine ”para. 59).
Defendants Sorokin S.V. and Sorokin V.V. supported the opinion of their defenders.
The court, having conferred, decided to satisfy the prosecutor’s request by extending the detention for 60 days.
The next hearing is scheduled for 06/18/2020 at 2:30 pm. The International Society for Human Rights will continue to monitor this trial.