""

" (2)"


(2)

 

14.04.2010

 

   Here is the summary of the case.

   On  8  January 2009 during the mass protest by lay drivers the Head of
   the  Regional (Sverdlovsk oblast) Traffic Police Department Uriy Demin
   parked  his  car  on  zebra  crossing  in  violation of traffic rules.
   Representatives  of mass media, including a free lance journalist Uriy
   Basok,  started  to  videoing  and photographing it. When Basok took a
   photo of Uriy Demin, the latter jumped on Basok, hit his face breaking
   the photo camera (see video).

   After  some  news  about  the attack in the media, a criminal case was
   initiated  and investigated under Part 1 of Article 167 and Clause "a"
   of  Part  3 of Article 286 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
   Basok    was    recognized    as    a   victim   (text   of   the   CC
   [2]http://www.russian-criminal-code.com/).

     * Article 167. Wilful Destruction or Damage of Property



   Wilful destruction or damage of other people's property, if these acts
   involved the infliction of considerable damage, shall be punishable by
   a  fine  in the amount of 50 to 100 minimum wages, or in the amount of
   the  wage or salary, or any other income of the convicted person for a
   period of up to one month, or by compulsory works for a term of 100 to
   120 hours, or by corrective labour for a term of up to one year, or by
   arrest  for a term up to three months,or by deprivation of liberty for
   a term of up to two years.

     * Article 286. Exceeding Official Powers

   1.  Commission by an official of actions which transcend the limits of
   his powers and which involve a substantial violation of the rights and
   lawful   interests   of   individuals   or   organizations,   or   the
   legally-protected interests of society and the State,
   shall  be  punishable  by  a  fine in the amount of 100 to 200 minimum
   wages,  or in the amount of the wage or salary, or any other income of
   the  convicted  person  for  a  period  of  one  to  two months, or by
   disqualification  to  hold specified offices or to engage in specified
   activities  for a term of up to five years, or by arrest for a term of
   four  to  six months, or by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to
   four years.
   2.  The  same deed, committed by a person holding a government post of
   the  Russian  Federation  or  a  government  post  of a subject of the
   Russian Federation, or by the head of a local self-government body,
   shall  be  punishable  by  a  fine in the amount of 500 to 800 minimum
   wages,  or in the amount of the wage or salary, or any other income of
   the  convicted  person  for  a  period  of five to eight months, or by
   deprivation  of  liberty  for  a  term  of  up  to  seven  years, with
   disqualification  to  hold specified offices or to engage in specified
   activities  for  a  term  of  up  to  three  years,  or  without  such
   disqualification.
   3.  Deeds  stipulated  by the first or second part of this Article, if
   they have been committed:
       a) with the use of violence or with the threat of its use;
       b) with the use of arms or special means;
       c) with the infliction of grave consequences,
   shall  be punishable by deprivation of liberty for three to ten years,
   with  disqualification  to  hold  specified  offices  or  to engage in
   specified activities for a term of up to three years.

   It  took  a long time for this case to be investigated and transferred
   (with  great  difficulties)  to  the district court. During the second
   hearing  the  victim and his representative asked the court to dismiss
   the  prosecutor  due  to  his  biabiliousness towards the accused. The
   appeal was dismissed by the judge.

   On  21  December  2009  before  the end of the hearing of the case the
   prosecutor withdraw charges based on Clause 2 Part 1 Article 24 of the
   Russian Criminal Procedure Code
   [3]http://www.legislationline.org/download/action/download/id/1698/fil
   e/3a4a5e98a67c25d4fe5eb5170513.htm/preview).

   Article  24.  Grounds  for  Refusal to Institute a Criminal Case or to
   Terminate a Criminal Case

   1.  A  criminal  case cannot be instituted, and or instituted criminal
   case shall be subject to termination on the following grounds:

   1) absence of the event of a crime;

   2) absence of the corpus delicti in the act;

   3) expiry of the deadlines for criminal prosecution;

   4) death of the suspect or of the accused, with the exception of cases
   when  the  proceedings  on  the  criminal  case  are necessary for the
   rehabilitation of the deceased;

   5)  absence  of  the victim's application, if the criminal case may be
   instituted  only  upon  his  application,  with the exception of cases
   envisaged by the fourth part of Article 20 of the present Code;

   6)  lack  of  a  court statement as to the availability of elements of
   crime  in  the actions of one of the persons mentioned in Items 1, 3 -
   5,  9  and  10 of Part 1 of Article 448 of the present Code or lack of
   the   consent   of   the  Federation  Council,  the  State  Duma,  the
   Constitutional  Court  of  the  Russian  Federation, the qualification
   college  of  judges  respectively to the opening of a criminal case or
   prosecution  as the accused of one of the persons mentioned in Items 1
   and 3-5 of Part 1 of Article 448 of the present Code.

   2.  The  criminal  case shall be subject to termination on the ground,
   envisaged  by  Item  2  of  the  first  part  of  this Article, if the
   criminality  and  punishability  of  the  action in question have been
   eliminated by the new criminal law before the sentence came into legal
   force.

   3.  The  termination  of  a  criminal  case  shall entail simultaneous
   cessation of the criminal prosecution.

   4.  A  criminal  case  shall be subject to termination in the event of
   terminating  a  criminal  prosecution  in  respect  of all suspects or
   accused persons, save for the instances provided for by Item 1 of Part
   One of Article 27 of this Code.

   Despite  the objection of the victim and his representative, the judge
   automatically  dismissed  the  case under Part 7 of Article 246 of the
   Criminal Procedure Code.

   Article 246. Participation of the Public Prosecutor

   1.  The  participation  of  the  public  prosecutor  in  the  judicial
   proceedings shall be obligatory.

   In  conformity  with  Federal Law No. 177-FZ of December 18, 2001, the
   second  part  of  Article  246  of  the present Code shall be put into
   operation   as   from   January   1,  2003.  Untill  January  1,  2003
   participation  in  judicial  proceedings  by the public prosecutor was
   obligatory  only  when dealing with criminal cases by a court with the
   participation  of  jurors, and also with all criminal cases considered
   by  the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, by the Supreme Courts
   of  the  Republics,  by  the  territorial  and regional courts, by the
   courts  of  the  cities  of  federal  importance, by the courts of the
   autonomous region and of autonomous areas, and by the district (naval)
   military courts.

   2.  Participation  of the public prosecutor shall be obligatory in the
   judicial  proceedings  on  criminal  cases  of  the  public and of the
   private-public prosecution.

   3.  On  criminal  cases  of  the private prosecution the charge in the
   judicial proceedings shall be supported by the victim.

   4.   The  public  prosecution  may  be  supported  by  several  public
   prosecutors.   If  in  the  course  of  the  judicial  proceedings  it
   transpires  that the further participation of the public prosecutor is
   impossible,  he may be replaced. The court shall give time for the new
   public  prosecutor,  who  has  joined the judicial proceedings, to get
   acquainted  with  the  criminal  case materials and to prepare for the
   participation  in  the judicial proceedings. Replacement of the public
   prosecutor shall not entail a repetition of the actions that have been
   performed by this time in the course of the judicial proceedings. Upon
   the   public   prosecutor's   petition,   the  court  may  repeat  the
   interrogations  of  the witnesses, the victims and the experts, or the
   other judicial actions.

   5. The public prosecutor shall submit the proof and take part in their
   study,  express his own opinion on the merits of the charge and on the
   other  questions,  arising  in the course of the judicial proceedings,
   and  submit  proposals  to the court concerning the application of the
   criminal law and the administration of a punishment to the defendant.

   6.  The  prosecutor  shall  either  file  or  support the civil claim,
   brought  on  the  criminal  case,  if  this is required to protect the
   rights of the citizens and of the public or the state interests.

   7.  If in the course of the judicial proceedings the public prosecutor
   arrives  at  the  conclusion that the submitted proof does not confirm
   the charge brought against the defendant, he shall renounce the charge
   and  explain to the court the motives of the renouncement. The full or
   a  partial  renunciation  of  the accusation on the part of the public
   prosecutor  in the course of the judicial proceedings shall entail the
   termination  of the criminal case or of the criminal prosecution fully
   or  in  the  corresponding  part thereof on the grounds, stipulated by
   Items  1 and 2 of the first part of Article 24 and by Items 1 and 2 of
   the first part of Article 27 of the present Code.

   8.  The  public  prosecutor  may  also  modify  the charge towards its
   mitigation  before  the court departs to the retiring room for passing
   the sentence, by way of:

   1)  removing  the signs of the crime, aggravating the punishment, from
   the legal classification of the act;

   2)  excluding  from  the  charge  a reference to a certain norm of the
   Criminal  Code  of  the  Russian Federation, if the defendant's act is
   stipulated  by  another  norm  of  the  Criminal  Code  of the Russian
   Federation,  the  violation  of  which  was incriminated to him in the
   conclusion of guilt or in the bill of indictment;

   3)  re-qualification  of  the  act  in conformity with the norm of the
   Criminal   Code   of  the  Russian  Federation,  envisaging  a  milder
   punishment.

   9.  Revising  a  court  ruling or resolution on terminating a criminal
   case  on  account  of  the  renunciation  of  the charge by the public
   prosecutor  shall  be  admissible only if there appear or are revealed
   new circumstances in conformity with Chapter 49 of the present Code.

   10.   Termination  of  a  criminal  case  on  account  of  the  public
   prosecutor's  renunciation of the charge, the same as his changing the
   charge, shall not interfere with the subsequent filing and considering
   a civil claim by way of the civil court proceedings.

   This  decision  of  21 December 2009 was upheld by the decision of the
   court of cassation (Sverdlovsk oblast court) of 3 February 2010.

   To answer your questions:

    1. Two available videos of the attack
       [4]http://www.sutyajnik.ru/video/demin2.mpg
       [5]http://www.sutyajnik.ru/video/demin3.avi
    2. The  criminal case was instituted due to the information about the
       crime received through mass media.
    3. Almost  all  witnesses were heard (there were 2 witnesses and some
       documents left to consider).
    4. the  defendant  was represented by two advocates. The victim -- by
       one.
    


, , :

.      


:

  Diaspora*

:

:

:

(? ? ? OpenID?)

e-mail ( , - ):

:

( -):

        

 

 

15.05.2015. "" .