The Human Rights Center "Viasna" asked a student EE "Viciebsk State Academy of Veterinary Medicine" Paul Roslyakov that during oral questioning on the fact of theft of property had been beaten by operational staff in the Department of Internal Affairs of Oktyabrsky district of Viciebsk administration. To initiate criminal proceedings and prosecution of law enforcement officers on the audit of this fact the applicant was denied.
Thus, the second investigator of the investigative department of the Viciebsk city department of the Investigative Committee of the Republic of Belarus, Senior Lieutenant of Justice Maryankov A., who carried out the inspection, found that no evidence pointing to the fact of Roslyakov against P. unlawful actions by police that evidence quickly Commissioner S. Grigoriev, surveyed, and the victim Migunov D. do not contradict each other, and a statement of wounding P. Roslyakov made in order to evade responsibility for committing theft.
In turn, Paul Roslyakov argues that the findings of the investigator to the evaluation of the evidence obtained is incorrect, the order is granted prematurely and is subject to cancellation:
"In his statement, and during the interview I said that the September 1, 2015 during the trial about theft of property Migunov D. d room ATS administration Oktyabrsky district of Viciebsk Police officers dealt me some blows: in the left ear, etc. the chest, cheeks and ears in order to obtain recognition of a crime – writes in his mourning Attorney Paul Roslyakov Viciebsk. – My explanation is supported by the findings of a forensic medical examination: expert found that during my examination in the time period from 14:00 to 14:30 September 2, 2015 revealed injuries as bruising on the left ear, on the front surface of the chest, are formed is not reduced than two traumatic effects up to the day before the examination of the expert."
Re forensic examination established that damage are classified as minor bodily. According to experts, localization of lesions not typical for their preparation in the fall from his own height on a flat surface.
This explanation operative S. Grigoriev, given to them during the inspection, it follows that at the time of the survey have any visible injuries to the applicant no, but the fact of causing their P. Roslyakov police officers denied.
The applicant draws attention to the fact that the justification for the decision to refuse to initiate criminal proceedings is necessary Explanations of the person interested in the outcome of the case – D. Migunov who accused Paul Roslyakov stealing property:
"Migunov D. drew attention to the fact that he was present at my establishments survey – "preliminary conversations", which was held by the police officer S. Grigoriev, and I behaved illogically – I began to tell that do struggle, the whole conversation comes down to it, He imitated the methods of struggle, after which fell to the floor.
I believe that these and other explanations Migunova D. should have been critically evaluated Since contradict my statement concluded forensic examinations, which, in turn, confirms my explanation and virtually eliminate this method of injury, who described Migunov – by drop to the surface.
If there is contradiction, the investigator Maryankov A. has not resulted in the decision of arguments, according to which he took some and rejected other evidence."
The lawyer of the HRC "Viasna" Paul Sapelka considers that the applicant: there is no reason to stipulate a police officer in the commission of a crime, Because he had previously met him were not, and the results of investigations into allegations D. Migunov objective does not depend on the results of investigation of the facts to use S.P. Roslyakov abuse. Especially because he is the result of the treatment of committing a crime themselves agreed.
spring96.org
