A regular hearing in the case concerning Odrex clinic doctors Vitaliy Rusakov and Maryna Bielotserkovska took place today at the Kyiv District Court of Odesa. The medics are accused of medical negligence which, according to the investigation, could have caused the death of businessman Adnan Kivan, UNN reports.
During today's court hearing, the defense of doctor Rusakov presented its objections to the prosecution's evidence. The court began hearing the defense's arguments at previous hearings, but at the latest one, held on September 4, Rusakov's lawyer filed a motion to recuse the judge. After consideration, the motion was denied, but this prolonged the court proceedings, as instead of examining the evidence, the court had to spend time on procedural matters.
The next court hearing is scheduled for tomorrow, September 10, and the court is expected to hear the objections of Maryna Bielotserkovska's defense.
The court is currently at one of the key stages of the proceedings – the examination of evidence. It is during this stage that the court must assess the medical documentation, the findings of forensic medical examinations, clinical protocols, and other materials on which the charges are based.
Rusakov and Bielotserkovska are accused under Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine – improper performance of professional duties by medical workers. According to the investigation, after the operation, the medics may have failed to prescribe Adnan Kivan the necessary antibacterial therapy and may have responded improperly to postoperative complications. According to the findings of the forensic medical examination, this could have led to the development of sepsis and the patient's death. The accused do not admit their guilt.
Actions of the defense and the time factor in the case of the Odrex doctors
The trial, which has already lasted more than seven months, has been accompanied by numerous attempts to delay the proceedings; in particular, hearings did not take place because of lawyers' nonappearance. It was repeatedly postponed because of procedural motions by the defense. The defendants' lawyers also filed motions to recuse judges, initiated a change of venue, and requested that the indictment be returned to the prosecutor. As a result, after the proceedings were transferred from the Primorsky District Court to the Kyiv District Court of Odesa, the preparatory proceedings had to be conducted again, and when the court finally moved on to consideration of the merits of the case, the defense lawyers began ignoring the hearings.
Doctor Rusakov is also actively pressuring the judge, in particular by publishing memes featuring his photograph. And when the court extended his suspension from his position at the Odrex clinic so that he could not communicate with witnesses, Rusakov appealed to his patients, urging them to complain to the High Council of Justice because they could not get an appointment with him. Large numbers of identical complaints may create psychological pressure on the judge, even if they subsequently prove unfounded. In such a case, the judge is forced to spend time explaining and responding to each appeal.
Lawyers interviewed by UNN did not rule out that the combination of such procedural actions could be a defense tactic aimed at having the case closed because the statute of limitations expires. In particular, Denys Neviadomskyi, president of the All-Ukrainian Association of Retired Judges, emphasized that every unjustified postponement of a trial brings the criminal proceedings closer to dismissal on the grounds that the statute of limitations has expired, which would make it impossible to establish justice in the case concerning Adnan Kivan's death.
The time factor plays a significant role in this case. Since Adnan Kivan died at the end of October 2024 and the charges were brought under Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the three-year statute of limitations prescribed for such cases expires in autumn 2027. By that time, the verdict must not only have been issued by the court of first instance but must also have entered into force.
Thus, the defense's constant procedural "maneuvers" may raise the question of whether a fair court decision will be issued or whether the case will be closed upon the expiry of the prescribed time limits.