Viktor Bugaev, a former prisoner from Dubrovno Vitebsk region, leaving no attempt to challenge the verdict by which served his sentence, trying to find in his criminal case ends that local law enforcement officers tried to hide so that is not the truth surfaced.
As previously reported, the Human Rights Center "Viasna", when, during a re-acquaintance with the criminal case former prisoner wished to view the videotape, which, as stated in the verdict, was viewed during the trial, it was found that a videotape to the court never received. Neither the case or otherwise. So it was that the judge said about this function while recording on the phone Victor Bugaeva. So he was forced to perplex the Investigative Committee of the new issue - whether in this situation of a criminal offense.
The verdict of the court concluded caused Victor Bugaeva based, including, on the testimony of the witness D. Sereda. However, the hearing was not the last, so the court only declared his testimony. Interrogation of the witness at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings carried out by the investigator using the video.
As it turned out, video tapes questioning that the court did not act, and neither do the "successor" of the investigative department of the police department - in Dubrovno district department of the Investigative Committee. And since Dubrovno ROSC began operations from 01.01.2012, then ask him, according to A. Timoshenko, who is temporarily acting as chief Dubrovensky ROSC nothing. Acting head of department on work with the citizens of the Investigative Committee Vladimir Zhukovsky carefully offered the former prisoner contact with the appropriate treatment in the criminal prosecution authority, who led a preliminary investigation of the case. Here are just a body - the investigator Dubrovensky police department has completed its work at the same time, when, instead of the police investigation was conducted by the investigating committee.
In this case, any basis for checking the Investigation Committee does not see. Was recorded, which according to the rules of articles 193 and 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Belarus were to be stored in a criminal case and at the end of the preliminary investigation to seal - and lost. A case before anyone asked.
Court of this too is not worried - he did not get this video. Judge goes, announced a witness and not concerned about the lack of video recording. Well, it just is not surprising - there still is not happening: recently decided Bugaev make a copy of the criminal case, and there is not enough sheets.
After the sheet is 311 306 immediately and it would be good if it disappeared some boring spravochki-supporting - so no, a simple analysis leads to the conclusion that disappeared at least a cassation appeal the defense-lawyer. Interestingly, the judgment and leadership of the Investigative Committee also does not find grounds to respond? Or opinion of counsel as a result of re-examination of the case are not interesting?
As previously mentioned situation when acting police chief Stanislav Stepanko sent to the IR-17, where he was serving sentence Bugaev, information that does not correspond to reality. This episode once again become subject to review at the request of a former prisoner, the results of which in July 2014 Head of USC in the Vitebsk region V. Shaluhin reported that as a result of a check from 10.11.2011, held Goosby MIA, violations in the actions of S. Stepankovo not detected.
But here's a quote from this conclusion: "In this information really contains an invalid expression in terms of your belonging to an organized criminal group... At the same time, raise the question of attracting Stepankovo ??SS to disciplinary action is currently impractical due to the expiration of the respective terms...". Is not this a violation?
By the way, S. Stepanko claimed that he had sent to the colony only information available to the police station Dubrovno. Maybe so, but in the criminal case is characteristic of Bugaev, which in 2008 was head of the NFS Dubrovensky police department, according to which he lives with his family, is registered as an individual entrepreneur, most recently brought to administrative responsibility for two years before that (in 2006) for the implementation of one bottle of vodka produced in Russia. From then took data on Bugaev's criminal plans and intentions Stanislav Stepanko?
spring96.org
