[ad_1]
May 14, 15:36
Igor Ponochovny heads the prosecution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea
Recently hateful ex “The prosecutor of the occupied RF Crimea, Natalya Poklonskaya, gave an interview to journalist Dmitry Gordon, which sparked much discussion and criticism in Ukraine.
Radio NV discovered by the prosecutor of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Igor Ponochovny, that his department was thinking about Poklonskaya’s statements and how they could help the Ukrainian side hold her accountable.
– What interested the prosecution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea information that the old call “Fiscal” Natalia Poklonskaya?
– In fact, she did not say anything new in the interview, but only in addition as a representative of the occupation authorities confirmed the facts on which we are conducting a pre-trial investigation. <...> [Ранее] she released somewhat inaccurate information that she did not know why she was responsible for. But in this interview, she, in principle, refuted this, because she herself confirmed that she wrote a corresponding Facebook post that could be called up for questioning in Crimea and the like. Therefore, Poklonskaya in terms of fulfilling its right of defense (here we’re just talking more about procedural issues) confirmed that he now has an opportunity to effectively defend himself, therefore his speech on appealing to the European Court of Human Rights after that makes no sense.
– Will the participation of additional materials, in particular the interview with Natalia Poklonskaia, help an early investigation of this case?
– In an interview, she provided no evidence as such. Your interview cannot be used as direct evidence of any criminal act. she is bigger “Spoken” for the procedural consolidation of your state and the risks that could have occurred due to the breach of your right of defense. If we are talking about an absent investigation and an absent conviction, then a person can always say that he was not notified that criminal proceedings were being carried out against him and that he could not defend himself effectively. So Poklonskaya would really have the right to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights and talk about it.
And therefore, she provided false information, for example, that her lawyers were not authorized to criminal proceedings, it is completely false, since she hired a law firm, this is not free assistance, and they constantly participate in all hearings. to consider various requests Investigators who take place during the criminal process become familiar with the criminal process. In this interview, Poklonskaya confirmed once again that he was aware that an investigation was being carried out against him and that he could effectively defend himself.
– That is, is this person duly notified of the suspicion?
– In our opinion, yes. On the issue of conviction in absentia, we cannot talk about proper notification, but about taking all possible steps for proper notification. That is, by all possible means of communication, we send you a suspicious message, even on social networks, we send you a summons, your lawyers sent everything.
Furthermore, she was deceiving that nothing was officially shipped. But in fact, we appealed through the Prosecutor General of Ukraine to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation with a request for international legal assistance, we asked him to deliver a notice of suspicion, a summons to call the prosecutor’s office of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. But the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office replied that the implementation of this request “Damage the sovereignty of the Russian Federation. “
– What additional difficulties are caused by the fact that Natalia Poklonskaya is now a deputy of the Russian State Duma? Will he be able to serve his sentence in Ukraine?
– Absolutely none, since war criminals do not care what status they have in the occupying country. At the time the crime was committed, she was a representative of the occupation authority, representative of the occupation law enforcement agencies. In other words, for us she was neither a “Crimean prosecutor” nor a deputy of the Russian Federation, because “Prosecutor of Crimea “was illegally appointed. The” Office of the Prosecutor of the Republic of Crimea “, in principle, was created illegally, that is, these are legally insignificant bodies that do not have jurisdiction. Therefore, she, as an ordinary citizen of Ukraine is responsible in accordance with Ukrainian law.
– Do you see any crime or violation in the very fact of the publication of an interview with that person?
“Absolutely not.” For me, something was strange when many criticized about “why should criminals be interviewed?” But as you can see, the Crimean prosecutor’s office, for example, learned something useful from this interview and stopped the possible consequences that would have happened if Mrs. Poklonskaya had not confirmed that she was aware of the suspicions and criminal prosecution in her against in Ukraine. That is, from the point of view of the prosecutor, I can say that for us this interview was somewhat useful.
