Ingodinsky court upholds in part Lebedev complaint about falsification of Open Russia criminal case

The Ingodinsky district court in Chita, examining for a fourth time the complaint of Lebedev’s attorneys about instances of falsification of the Open Russia criminal case, partially upheld their demands.

However, this concerned only one of four points, reports an Interfax-Siberia correspondent: “to acknowledge as unlawful and expunge the violation caused the actions of the investigator that led to Lebedev not being notified that deadlines for the investigation had been prolonged”.

On examining the other points raised by the defence lawyers the court shared the opinion of the prosecution which asserted that Platon Lebedev’s constitutional rights had not been infringed.

The defence noted that for two years Lebedev was not acquainted with the materials of the new criminal case. “I was brought to Chita in December 2006 because of the Open Russia case and questioned there. Then the case vanished. This is sheer nonsense,” Lebedev himself commented.

The defence attorneys consider that the investigators have intentionally concealed the work they were doing so as to obstruct access to justice. They therefore demanded that the decree concerning the instigation of the case be declared unlawful and a reprimand be issued to the investigator.

Platon Lebedev also requested that his right to compensation for the psychological stress thereby inflicted be recognised and set at 1 million roubles. “Courts in Cyprus and Switzerland warned the Prosecutor General's office that misleading the court is a serious offence. The prosecutor’s office thereupon withdrew its formal requests to those countries,” Lebedev said earlier, during the course of the hearing.

Defence attorney Alexei Miroshnichenko offer the clarification that “those requests were linked to the movement of funds and were indicated by the prosecutor’s office in its decree opening the criminal case concerning one episode involving the Open Russia foundation. The allegations were not confirmed.”

It is the fourth time that the Ingodinsky district court has ruled on this complaint. The demands of the defence have three times been rejected but each time the Chita Region Court has referred the complaint back for a repeat examination.

(Interfax, 31.07.2008)