On April 29 in Krasnodar territorial court appeal of a decision on order of the pre-trial detention of Mikhail Valentinovich Savva took place.
Professor Savva was represented by lawyers Marina Dubrovina and Andrey Savchenko. The wife and daughter of human rights defender came to the court session. Savva himself also was present at the session.
The court staff announced that only lawyer Savchenko’s complaint was received. Lawyer Dubrovina informed the court that she had also sent an appeal – she submitted a text of the complaint and a receipt of the dispatch from Krasnodar main post office. It was found out that for two weeks the lawyer’s complaint wasn’t brought from Octyabrskiy district court to еру territorial court, though the distance between them is not more than 1 kilometer. The court added the complaint together with the post receipt, a chairperson briefly read the text.
During the court session lawyer Dubrovina in order to ground her complaint said that the trial had no proof that Savva could put pressure upon witnesses or prevent trial in any way. These are just assumptions of an investigator which are not confirmed and of probabilistic matter, Dubrovina stated.
Besides, she stressed that the human rights defender was a prominent scientist and a public figure and interceded for adding personal references to case material: of Kuban’ University professor Alexander Faktorovich, member of public council under Valentina Makarenko, Krasnodar region governor and Alexander Sungurov, president of “Strategy”Humanitarian and Politological Centre, Saint Petersburg. Also an appeal from human rights defenders in defense of Mikhail Savva was passed on to the court.
The prosecutor practically didn’t object to Savva’s lawyer and had no arguments to justify the necessity of human rights defender’s arrest, just ordinary mentioned that pre-trial restrictions were chosen “on a legal and reasonable basis”. The prosecuting official asked to dismiss lawyers’ appeals.
Person under investigation Savva in his speech said that there was no evidence of his guilt so there was no basis for such strict pre-trial restrictions. Also he stated that on April 27 when he was in SIZO operatives came and were questioning him for four hours without a lawyer. Savva didn’t refuse to give his statement to them under the threat of physical violence.
The judges left for the consultation room for three minutes and after that announced the resolutive part of a judgment: to dismiss the complaint. Lawyer Marina Dubrovina believes that the court decision was prepared in advance.
“The judge was reading the decision out loud: “Judicial board of Krasnodar territorial court made the decision to accept the Order of Octyabrskiy district court and dismiss the appeal of lawyer Savchenko…”, then he looked at me and added: “…of lawyers Savchenko, Dubrovina.” This means that there wasn’t my name in the text of the decision which had been already written for the beginning of the trial and correction was to be done orally during reading, – she thinks.
Appeals on personal surety the court has also dismissed. “Unfortunately, in spite of the amount of signatures and references, “Krasnodar justice” stayed unchanging”, – Dubrovin commented on the result of the trial.
At the moment questioning on professor Savva’s case continues.
On April 30 questioning took place from 11.00 am till 1.30 pm and then from 2.30 pm till 6.00 pm. On May 6 questioning was started again. Another lawyer intervened on behalf of M.V.Savva – M.V.Trussov, a member of Public Council under the kray governor.
Moreover, the investigator informed Marina Dubrovina, that another criminal case under p.1 of Article 159, RF Penal Code had been commenced against professor Savva by Karassun district interrogation, Krasnodar and that cases would be combined and investigation continue by FSB investigative agency.
Article 159. Fraud
1. Fraud, i.e. theft of someone else’s property or acquisition of a right to someone else’s property by deception or breach of confidence, –
it is punished by a penalty at the rate to hundred twenty thousand rubles or at a rate of a salary or other income of the condemned for the period within one year, or by obligatory works for a period up to hundred and eighty hours, or corrective works for a period up to one year, or by the arrest for a period up to four months, or by imprisonment for a period up to two years.