Приговор при свечах / Judgment in candlelight - Владимир Анатольевич Арсентьев

accounts were received by the investigation in contravention of the law, particularly Knyazev and Bednyakov’s right to defense. In doing so, the investigation authorities violated Articles 46, 47, and 49 of the CPC RSFSR that prescribe that a defense counsel must be involved in any criminal case carrying a death penalty.

Knyazev and Bednyakov were suspected of such a crime when they both were subjected to investigation procedures in the absence of personal attorneys, given that they had an obvious conflict of interests. According to the same requirements of the law of criminal procedure, the investigator and prosecutor were obliged to provide a defense counsel for Knyazev and one for Bednyakov. However, even later, in gross violation of the right to defense Knyazev and Bednyakov were assigned the same lawyer, Shtern, who defended both Knyazev and Bednyakov before their case was referred to court.

Besides, the investigation ignored Knyazev’s statement that he was “afraid that his testimony would be disclosed.” The judicial board considers this fact as forced refusal to have a defense counsel, which led to the violation of Knyazev’s right to defense.

Moreover, the investigation never actually provided or offered a lawyer to either Knyazev or Bednyakov for about one and a half years. The motive behind Bednyakov’s refusal to have a counsel cannot be deemed true by the court, because Bednyakov refuted it by claiming he needed a different counsel due to a conflict of interests with Knyazev. Bednyakov particularly stated that he could not personally avail of a lawyer’s services because of his financial situation. That also resulted in the violation of Bednyakov’s right to defense.

For that reason, the judicial board deems Knyazev and Bednyakov’s testimony null and void, deeming it flawed evidence in support of the defendants’ charges.

The preliminary investigation and the prosecution failed to bring forward any other evidence to the guilt of the defendants.

Thus, the evidence to the guilt of every defendant in each of the attributed offenses, presented by the pre-trial investigation, examined in court, and described above, is unreliable. No one questions the events described in the documents provided to the court; nevertheless, the defendants’ involvement in those events was not proven. For this reason, the defendants shall be acquitted in accordance with Article 208 of the CPC RSFSR, as all possibilities to collect additional evidence with regard to the defendants were exhausted, which was established at trial.

Based on all of the above, the judicial board delivered the following verdict:

Porokhov shall be acquitted on the charges under Art. 209 Sect. 1; Art. 105 Sect. 2 Items A, V, D, E, Zh, Z, K, and N; Art. 30 Sect. 3; Art. 105 Sect. 2 Items A, B, V, D, E, Zh, Z, K, and N; Art. 119; Art. 163 Sect. 3 Items A, B, and V; Art. 158 Sect. 3 Item A; Art. 167 Sect. 1; Art. 167 Sect. 2; and Art. 222 Sect. 3 of the CC RF due to lack of evidence to his participation in the offenses.

Pervushin, Perov, Sergeyev, Moiseyev, and Bragin shall each be acquitted on the charges under Art. 209 Sect. 2; Art. 105 Sect. 2 Items A, V, D, E, Zh, Z, K, and N; Art. 30 Sect. 3; Art. 105 Sect. 2 Items A, B, V, D, E, Zh, Z, K, and N; Art. 119; Art. 167 Sect. 1; Art. 167 Sect. 2; and Art. 222 Sect. 3 of the CC RF due to lack of evidence to their participation in the offenses.

Bednyakov shall be acquitted on the charges under Art. 167 Sect. 2 and Art. 222 Sect. 2 of the CC RF due to lack of evidence to his participation in the offenses.

Knyazev shall be acquitted on the charge under Art. 222 Sect. 2 of the CC RF and on the count of aiding to commit a crime under Art. 33 Sect. 5 and Art. 167 Sect. 2 of the CC RF due to lack of evidence to his participation in the offenses.

As for pre-trial restrictions for Porokhov, Pervushin, Perov, Sergeyev, and Moiseyev, their detention shall be terminated, and each shall be promptly released from custody in the courtroom.

As for pre-trial restrictions for Bragin, Bednyakov, and Knyazev, their travel restrictions shall be terminated.

The verdict can be appealed or protested against by any participant of the proceedings before the Judicial Board on Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation via the provincial court of the city of N within seven days from the verdict’s pronouncement.

The state prosecuting attorney disagreed with the judgment and filed a cassation appeal, asking to overturn the sentence and requesting a retrial. She considered the verdict unfounded because the court found some of the evaluated evidence flawed and other evidence insufficient to recognize the legitimacy of the charges.

As seen from the cassation ruling,[257] the Judicial Board on Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation reviewed the criminal case file, discussed the arguments in the cassation appeal and the objections presented against that appeal, and found the court verdict lawful and reasonable.[258]

According to Art. 314 of the CPC RSFSR, in force at the time of the criminal proceedings, the descriptive section of the verdict of acquittal contains the nature of the charges; the facts of the case as determined by the court; and the evidence of the defendants’ innocence, including the court’s detailed motivation to reject the accusatory evidence.

The court of first instance fully complied with the legal requirements outlined above, and the cassation appeal contains no convincing arguments as to any violations committed by the court in this regard.

Overall, the cassation appeal may be essentially summarized as challenging the court’s assessment of the evidence and suggesting a different approach.

The position suggested is mainly based on the factual data obtained during the preliminary investigation, and it technically ignores the results of the judicial investigation. Besides, the accuracy of the minutes is challenged, which is inadmissible per se, as all comments to the minutes of the court proceedings were