search  
print
02.07.2013

Court rejects criminal investigation over Lutsenko’s detention

   

In spite of the European Court of Human Rights judgment from July 2012 a Kyiv court has rejected the application from former Interior Minister Yury Lutsenko to reinstate the criminal investigation against officials who ordered his detention.  The ruling was announced on Monday 1 July in the Svyatoshynsky District Court of the Kyiv oblast. 

Lutsenko had asked for criminal proceedings to be reinstated against First Deputy Prosecutor General Renat Kuzmin, the Prosecutor General’s Office investigator Serhiy Voichenko and the judges of the Pechersky District Court and Kyiv Court of Appeal judges who initiated Lutsenko’s detention and remand in custody

The ruling on Monday asserts that the European Court of Human Rights judgment does not refer to specific officials, and only to Ukraine as the respondent. It further states that the ECHR judgment is based on value categories and it is the State that was ordered to implement it, not specific individuals.

The court also claims that the infringements cited in Lutsenko’s application were not significant.

The ruling may be appealed in the Kyiv Court of Appeal. and Lutsenko’s lawyer, Ihor Fomin, has confirmed that they will be appealing.

On 3 July 2012 the Court in Strasbourg announced its judgment in the case of Yury Lutsenko v. Ukraine. The Court  “held unanimously, that there had been: two violations of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of Mr Lutsenko’s arrest and ensuing detention; a violation of Article 5 § 2 (right to be informed of the reasons for one’s arrest); two violations of Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) on account of both his arrest and his pre-trial detention; a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to challenge the lawfulness of one’s detention); and a violation of Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) in conjunction with Article 5”

The Court held in particular: that Mr Lutsenko’s arrest had been arbitrary; that no valid reasons had been given for his detention; that he had not been duly informed of the reasons for his detention; and, that the lawfulness of his arrest and detention had not been properly reviewed.

The Court also found that, given that the prosecutors had referred to Mr Lutsenko’s communication with the media as one of the reasons for his arrest, his right to liberty had been restricted for other reasons than those permissible under Article 5.”

The judgement in full can be read here: #{"itemid":["001-112013"]}

 

Recommend this post
X




forgot the password

registration

X

X

send me a new password


on top