The Supreme Court's ruling in the case of the escape from custody of former FSB agent Alexander Shepelev, accused of a series of contract killings and high treason, will not become a model, but it can serve as a beacon for judges in other cases. When it is convenient for them. This opinion was expressed in an exclusive commentary to UNN by lawyer, executive director of the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union Oleksandr Pavlichenko.
As reported, the Supreme Court panel changed Shepelev's sentence in the case of escape from custody and tried to release him.
It (the decision - ed.) can become a lighthouse when it is convenient for execution and when the judge hesitates. Firstly, he must be familiar with it, and secondly, the judge and his position, who will be making the decision, must have some hesitation, not be convinced that he is making the right decision. So, when he has this hesitation, and he looks at the arguments of different parties, including the arguments of the Supreme Court, it can work for him
At the same time, he said, the specifics of Ukrainian judicial proceedings are that there is no clear study of the Supreme Court's decisions. "One should not expect that one or more decisions of the Supreme Court will lead to a model of decision-making or how to interpret, say, a particular provision in a category of cases. This is also somewhat related to a certain politicization of decisions made by courts of different instances. Unfortunately, we have this issue here. Therefore, we will say that it all depends on the time, place and participants in the process when this decision is made," Pavlichenko said.
He added that the Supreme Court makes decisions for the present and in the context of a particular situation, rather than to set a precedent that will work in 5 or 10 years.
Recall
Judges Viacheslav Marynych, Volodymyr Korol and Alla Makarovets decided to close one of the episodes of the case, which concerned bribery, due to what they considered insufficient evidence. As a result, the property of the former MP will not be confiscated under this episode . Although, according to experts interviewed by UNN, the Supreme Court judges did not have the right to directly examine any evidence.
In addition, the judges counted the period of Shepelev's stay in the Russian pre-trial detention center as part of the sentence. He was detained in Russia following an extradition request from Ukraine. A year later, Russia refused to extradite the fugitive ex-MP to Ukraine, citing threats to its own national security. It turned out that Shepelev was valuable to Russia because he was an FSB agent and a game player.
The Supreme Court panel also used the Savchenko law and counted Shepeleva's stay in the pre-trial detention center on charges in other cases as part of his sentence.
The prosecutor appealed the actions of the Supreme Court judges to the HCJ.
According to the automatic distribution, the complaint in Shepelev's case will be considered by the first ever HCJ member judge who fought at the front against Russia, Olena Kovbiy.
Experts interviewed by UNNsay that the judges went in clear violation of the law and could have been interested in making such a decision.