Court refuses to close Kirovles case against Navalny
The opposition leader’s defense had requested to dismiss the case, based on the verdict made by the European Court of Human Rights.
Kirov’s Leninsky district court overruled the appeal of the lawyers defending Aleksey Navalny and Petr Ofitserov, who had asked to terminate the proceedings.
The defense had requested to dismiss the case, based on the verdict made by the European Court of Human Rights that had found some violations in the procedure.
"The violations ECHR revealed are irremediable. If the court starts considering the case now, it is sure to commit the same violations. Mr. Ofitserov was convicted for actions that are indistinguishable from business-related ones, you can’t just make the things up", the Mediazona quoted Navalny’s attorney Svetlana Davydova.
However, despite the arguments made by the party of defense, the court decided that it was premature to consider the motion to terminate the proceedings.
From the early morning, the police cordoned off the Leninsky Court on Kirov’s Spasskaya Street. 4 police cars, a service dog car and about 15 MIA officers were keeping a vigil near the building, the Interfax wrote. So far there has been no pickets or other excesses supporting the defendants.
As previously reported by the CrimeRussia, on November 16, the Presidium of the Russian Supreme Court overturned the guilty verdict against Navalny and former Vyatka Forest CEO Petr Ofitserov and passed the case for reconsideration to the Kirov’s court. Aleksey Navalny believes that the Supreme Court offends against the ECHR that had revealed a violation of the right to a fair trial in the Kirovles case.
As our readers may remember, in July 2013, the Leninsky District Court sentenced Navalny and Ofitserov to 5 and 4 years in prison respectively on charges of embezzlement from Kirovles Company. Later, the prosecution appealed the sentence, and in October the court replaced the sentence with a suspended one.
The court believes that Anzhela Maria Tsapok could have made the money to buy the house and the expensive car by legal means, since she owned a firm. The court still refused to lift the attachment from her 6 million dollars.