The panel of judges of the Supreme Court, which considered the case of former MP Oleksandr Shepelev, accused of contract killings, high treason and other crimes, and changed his sentence and tried to release him in the case of bribery and escape from the pre-trial detention center, significantly exceeded its authority and committed unacceptable violations. In particular, there were no legal grounds for taking into account the period of his stay in the pre-trial detention center in other cases, and the fact of his stay in the Russian detention center cannot be verified at all. This opinion was expressed in an exclusive commentary to UNN by Nadiya Chukhraeva, a lawyer, partner of Jurisvest Law Firm.
The Supreme Court panel decided to close one of the episodes of the case, which concerned bribery, due to, in their opinion, insufficient evidence. Chukhrayeva emphasized that in this case, Supreme Court judges Vyacheslav Marynych, Volodymyr Korol and Alla Makarovets went beyond their authority.
"Yes, in this case, we do see an excess of the cassation court's powers, since, according to the CPC of Ukraine, the cassation court has no right to examine evidence, establish and recognize as proven circumstances that were not established in the appealed court decision. However, the panel reassessed the circumstances, which, according to the procedural law, was not authorized," Chukhraeva emphasized.
Due to the closure of the bribery cases, the former MP's property will not be confiscated.
At the same time, the judges significantly reduced Shepelev's sentence, counting the period of his stay in the Russian pre-trial detention center from March 19, 2015 to July 8, 2016. At that time, Russian law enforcement officers detained him following an extradition request from Ukraine. While the issue of his extradition to Ukraine was allegedly being resolved, Shepelev actively cooperated with the Russian Federal Security Service and was supposed to be held in a pre-trial detention center. A year later, Russia still refused to extradite the fugitive MP to Ukrainian justice, citing threats to its own national security.
According to the lawyer, the judges did not have the right to count Shepeleva's stay in the pre-trial detention center as part of the sentence, the authenticity of which cannot be confirmed in any way.
"In general, it is not clear on what grounds the time spent in the Russian pre-trial detention center was counted, since the CPC of Ukraine clearly states that this rule can only be applied to persons who have been officially extradited. Analyzing this case, it appears that the extradition request was not executed, and therefore there are no legal grounds for applying both the CPC and the Savchenko law... Indeed, in today's conditions it is simply unrealistic to obtain additional confirmation of the fact and duration of Shepelev's detention in the Russian detention center. In addition, we should not forget that the former MP escaped from custody in Ukraine and was hiding in the aggressor state, while cooperating with them, which, in fact, led to the opening of criminal proceedings on the fact of his treason," Chukhraeva said.
She also added that in the case of counting the period of Shepelev's alleged stay in the Russian pre-trial detention center as part of the sentence served, the Supreme Court judges also had no right to apply the Savchenko law to the former MP - an agent of the Russian Federal Security Service.
The panel of the Supreme Court used this law to count his stay in the pre-trial detention center on charges in other cases as part of his sentence. Thus, according to the decision of the cassation instance, Shepelev has fully served his sentence under the verdict of the Desnianskyi District Court of Kyiv of August 7, 2020.
"The 'Savchenko law', which the judges applied in making this decision, clearly states that the period of pre-trial detention is credited to the sentence only within the same criminal proceedings. Therefore, it is not known on what grounds the Supreme Court judges counted the period of detention in custody as part of the investigation of other crimes towards Shepelev's sentence," Chukhraeva emphasized.
According to her, the cassation court should check the correctness of the application of substantive and procedural law and legal assessment of circumstances by the courts of first instance and appeal. However, in the case of Shepelev's case, if the court has already gone beyond its powers, then, logically, the judges should have checked the period of his detention before applying the Savchenko law.
"Analyzing this case, it appears that the extradition request was not fulfilled, and therefore there are no legal grounds for applying both the CPC and the Savchenko law," the lawyer emphasized.
Earlier it became known that prosecutor Victoria Orshavska filed a complaint with the HCJ against Supreme Court judges Korol V.V., Marynych V.K. and Markovets A.M., who considered the cassation in Shepelev's case, and on July 6, 2023, changed the sentence of the courts of previous instances and almost released Shepelev.
According to the automatic distribution, the appeal in Shepelev's case will be considered by the first-ever judge-member of the HCJ who is fighting on the front against Russia, Olena Kovbiy
Shepelev, as it turned out, was valuable to Russia because he was an agent of the Russian special services. This is evidenced by documents written by him. In particular, an explanatory note to the director of the FSB.
This is also confirmed by his active position on justifying Russia's aggression and annexation of Crimea, which he expressed during his communication with FSB representatives.
Experts interviewed by UNNhave previously questioned the objectivity of the Supreme Court's decision, speaking frankly about the corruption component. In particular, according to Mykhailo Zhernakov, Chairman of the Board of the DEJURE Foundation, judges of the Supreme Court could have received a monetary reward for such a decision.
Political analyst Oleksandr Kochetkov believesthat the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) should check the integrity of the judges who made such a decision in the Shepelev case.