On Monday the Moscow City Court will consider two rulings passed this summer, on resuming criminal proceedings and extending detention

Today the judges of the Moscow City Court intended to examine the appeal against the extension of Vasily Aleksanyan’s detention in custody until 23 October by his lawyers. That decision was taken by the Simonovsky district court in Moscow on 18 July 2008. However, the defence lawyers petitioned for another formal complaint to be examined first: this objected to the ruling of Judge Korneyeva on 14 July that the criminal proceedings against Mr Aleksanyan could be resumed.

“We want to establish the lawful sequence in which these matters should be examined,” declared attorney Yelena Lvova today in court. “First it must be established whether it is lawful or unlawful to resume proceedings against Mr Aleksanyan and only then consider, with in the framework of that resumed case, what should be the measure of restraint.”

In Yelena Lvova’s vivid words: “These two decisions are closely related, like two fruit from the same poisoned tree.” The defence lawyers went on to explain that if the first judicial decision was rescinded “this would mean that the 18 July ruling was unlawful.”

In February 2008 the collegium of judges at the Simonovsky district court decided to halt the criminal proceedings against Mr Aleksanyan until he had completed his course of medical treatment. On 14 July Judge Korneyeva decreed that the proceedings might be resumed. This should also have been a collegial decision, and not taken by one judge alone. The prosecution and defence were not involved in reaching this decision, although such an omission makes it unlawful. Finally, as Vasily Aleksanyan’s lawyers comment, their client was very far from completing his course of treatment.

Without a ruling that the proceedings be resumed, it is impossible to hold hearings concerning the measure of restraint. When, nevertheless, custody was extended for Aleksanyan the proceedings were once again halted, and, once again, Judge Korneyeva took part in reaching that decision.

It was only during the hearings about the extension of their client’s detention in custody that the lawyers learned of the existence of the decree of 14 July. “When we asked on 18 July for clarification as to the grounds on which the case is being heard today, we were invited to acquaint ourselves with the case documentation and there we saw the 14 July decree already sewn into the file,” attorney Gevorg Dangyan recounted.

Prosecutor Vlasov opposed the separate consideration of each appeal: “I consider that the two cases can be examined as part of one and same court proceeding. There is no necessity, in my view, to examine them separately. There is one case and one issue to be resolved.” The defence lawyers objected that appeals concerning two separate judicial acts should be examined at two separate court hearings.

After listening to the two sides, the collegium of judges at the Moscow City Court decided to defer hearings into the appeals lodged by Mr Aleksanyan’s defence lawyers until Monday at 3 pm, Moscow Time, in court No 231. The appeals will be considered separately.

Vasily Aleksanyan’s current state of health

“His condition has not fundamentally altered. It was and remains grave,” says his lawyer Yelena Lvova. “His HIV treatment is proceeding with periodic difficulties and the treatment for lymphoma, courses of chemotherapy, is also not easy. Vasily still faces a lengthy period of medical treatment.”