war crimes in Ukraine

The Tribunal for Putin (T4P) global initiative was set up in response to the all-out war launched by Russia against Ukraine in February 2022.

Court refuses to release Tax Code protester under Deputies’ guarantee

20.04.2011    source:
The Pechersky District Court in Kyiv has rejected an application to release Tax Code protester, Serhiy Kostyakov, under Deputy guarantee, and say this demonstrates the politically motivated nature of the prosecution


The Pechersky District Court in Kyiv has rejected an application from National Deputies of the Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defence to release participant in the Tax Code protests in November and early December 2010, Serhiy Kostyakov, under their guarantee.

Six National Deputies were present at the court hearing and stated in their addresses to the court that the case was political and the use of remand in custody unwarranted.

They mentioned too that Kostakov is no threat to society, and that he has a small daughter and retired parents at home whom he supports.

According to one of the Deputies, Andriy Parubiy, despite the fact that the bank - the party which allegedly suffered in this case, did not object to his being released on this guarantee, the Prosecutor’s Office submitted the issue to the court, and Judge Tarasyuk decided to reject the application.

Parubiy is convinced that this ruling from the Pechersky District Court confirms that the judicial system is serving as an instrument of the current regime for punishment and intimidation.

“The judge, despite his oath, was guided in his ruling not by the law, but by the political orders of the current regime”, Parubiy asserted.

As reported here earlier, Serhiy Kostakov has been held in custody in the Lukyanivsk SIZO No. 13 since 1 December 2010.  He is accused under Article 296 of hooliganism. It is claimed that on 22 November he damaged a car driving along a street which the protesters had blocked. The bizarre thing is not even the fact that Kostakov is charged with single-handedly causing the damage. The main unique feature is the lack of any proof aside from the assertion of the car’s driver. The latter did not initially recognize Kostakov among over 200 people, but only “recalled” (or more likely invented this at the instigation of the investigator) a week later.

The point is that the witness-driver according to the angle at which the car was placed, could not have seen Kostakov. 

 Share this