The court did not accept the measures requested by the Prosecutor’s Office to keep the detained protesters in custody

Five duty officers from the Sofia District Court (SCC) on Saturday reviewed the detention measures of some of those arrested during the so-called Great Popular Uprising on Wednesday. In general, the court rejected the position of the prosecution, reduced or even rejected the stricter measures requested by it.

All those detained by the police in the September 2 protest were released today by the court, except for one who remains in custody for “recurrence of the crime,” reported bTV. All the others were released without measure or on bail.

Relatives of the detainees organized a protest in front of the Sofia District Court, demanding their release. According to the protesters, the real perpetrators of the excesses of September 2 are not in custody.

I support “all those who are against the GERB. If it cannot be peaceful, in the end the party will become aggressive, brutal. I think that about 200 were arrested and some nonsense was said, 60 demonstrated criminally, and now they are is considering the measure of 20 here. ” Where did the other 40 go? ”One of them told BNR.

The statement made by SDVR director Hadjiev that there are 30 people who are from “Vazrazhdane” and they all have criminal records is a lie. We have advised people, when they are released, to file libel lawsuits against them as they are decent Bulgarian citizens without any criminal record. None of them have been arrested, “Vazrazhdane leader Kostadin Kostadinov told BNR.

The SRS did not agree to the request of the District Attorney to impose the most severe measure of preventive detention against Rosen Milenov. Milenov has been charged pursuant to art. 325 of the Penal Code for vandalism, because during the protest he climbed onto the roof of a police car, from which he chanted through a megaphone “Resignation, garbage!”, “Mutri, out!”, “If you have to enter by force and force them. We will sweep! “.

The court commented on the question whether these actions could be classified as vandalism within the meaning of art. 325, para. 2 of the Penal Code. In the case at hand, it is a permitted civil protest, which implies a slightly more radical means of expression and a way of exercising the right to express one’s opinion, the court quoted BTA as saying. The requirement is that these means and methods are not disproportionate to the purpose of the protest and the actions of the authorities, as well as that they do not endanger the health or life of others present.

According to the court, there is no argument to qualify the expressions as vandalism, along with the charge of the accused in the car, which was unprotected at the time in question. According to judge Milenov, the accused committed the acts described in his participation. However, the court found that there was no reasonable suspicion of a general crime in the case and left the accused without pre-trial detention. The decision can be appealed.

The SRS filed a petition against Plamen Stoyanov against the coercion measure. The man was charged with two counts of causing minor bodily harm to a police officer during the performance of his duties or in relation to him and of vandalism accompanied by resistance against a public authority.

The court held that a reasonable assumption could be made about the first count. Regarding the second act, the magistrate indicated that the man had been removed from the meeting and that he had been arrested and handcuffed. It is completely normal for the detainee to have a more reactive response by restricting their right to move, the judge commented, adding that this natural reaction cannot be dressed in a pattern of vandalism.

He also stated that the two acts for which Stoyanov was accused were not serious within the meaning of the Penal Code. The defendant has not been convicted, has an established identity and a permanent address, there is no danger of flight, the judge said. According to him, any measure heavier than a subscription is unfounded. The decision is not final and can be protested.