Defense considers suspicion of 'Holosiyivsky shooter' groundless – attorney
KYIV. July 26 (Interfax-Ukraine) – The defense considers groundless the suspicion of Ivan Martyniuk, who on July 7 wounded a policeman and two civilians in Holosiyivsky district of Kyiv, and also asks the State Bureau of Investigations (SBI) to recognize him as a victim.
"At the moment, Ivan Martyniuk is being held in custody, since the most severe measure of restraint was chosen against him, detention for a period of 60 days. Regarding the suspicion itself, as well as its justification. The defense believes that the suspicion is not substantiated," she said. Martyniuk's attorney Tetiana Okhrymchuk at a press conference at Interfax-Ukraine on Monday.
According to her, there is no evidence in the materials of the criminal proceedings held in Holosiyivsky department of the National Police regarding the legality of the actions of the police officers who arrived at the call on July 7.
"Any procedural action, namely such as a search or inspection of housing, according to the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code, obliges the police officer to have the decision of the investigating judge for a search or inspection. This is clearly spelled out in the Criminal Procedure Code, Article 223. But at the request of Ivan Martyniuk to show this decision, to present it, the police officers did not provide such a document," the attorney said.
"There are no decisions to search or inspect this premises. That is, it is obvious that the police officers did not have any legal rights to be present, enter or carry out any procedural investigative actions in this property," she said.
According to her, there are signs of a crime in the actions of the police officers, which are qualified under Part 2 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal entry into a home by an official). In this regard, Okhrymchuk has already filed a statement with the SBI.
At the same time, the attorney drew attention to the failure to provide video recordings from the chest cameras with video recording of the relevant police officers.
"The defense side comes to the conclusion that these police officers were simply not under their official powers, and therefore the actions that qualify under Article 348 in relation to Ivan Martyniuk are obviously untrue and do not fall under this qualification," Ohrymchuk said.
In addition, the defense side filed a statement with the SBI to recognize Martyniuk as a victim in this criminal proceeding, since, in particular, the right to the inviolability of the home was violated.