Valery LEVANEUSKI - personal site  
June 13th, 2007. Posted in News from Belarus

« Main page

The State Office of Public Prosecutor considers, that on case about the insult of the president of Belarus as the victim is not necessary

Under the complaint to a verdict of court concerning the leader of entrepreneurs the next answer, this time from Office of Public Prosecutor of Belarus has come. Apparently from the answer of the assistant to the general public prosecutor of Belarus A.V.Ivanovski absence of the victim on case about the insult of the president of Belarus is not the basis for a cancelling of a verdict. And as to the withdrawn property, there is no answer in essence. From concrete direct questions the assistant to the General public prosecutor has evaded.

In the answer of the public prosecutor to Valery Levaneuski supervising complaint there is no reference to a concrete sheet of seven-languid criminal case which would explain a position of the public prosecutor at a summer residence of the answer that speaks about absence of the bases for confiscation of prophetic Levaneuski’s family and his attraction to the criminal liability.

Under the law the public prosecutor should give reasoned answer to the supervising complaint, but apparently such answer in the near future is not expected, that proves political underlying reason of a verdict.

Below we bring the text of the supervising complaint to a verdict and the answer from the State Office of Public Prosecutor.

To the general public prosecutor of Belarus


Levaneuski Valery Stanislavovich’s,


On a verdict of court of Lenin area of Grodno from September, 7th, 2004 and on definition of judicial board on criminal cases of the Grodno regional court from October, 19th, 2004

By way of supervision

By verdict of court of Lenin area of Grodno from September, 7th, 2004 Levaneuski V.S is recognized guilty of the public insult of the President of Belarus, connected with charge in fulfillment of grave crime and on the basis of p. 2 item 368 of Criminal Code of Belarus to him are appointed punishment in the form of two years of imprisonment with serving punishment in a corrective colony of the common mode.

By definition of judicial board on criminal cases of the Grodno regional court from October, 19th, 2004 a verdict concerning Levaneuski V.S. is left without change, and cassation complaints – without satisfaction.

Chairman of the Grodno regional court and chairman of the Supreme Court of Belarus have not found the bases for protest of judicial decisions.

The public prosecutor of the Grodno area has left my complaint also without satisfaction.

With decisions taken place on the present criminal case it do not agree, I consider their illegal and unreasonable, a subject a cancelling.

During carrying out of preliminary and judicial investigation repeatedly, more than 20 times it has have been broken the remedial law. Each such infringement of this law attracts a cancelling of a verdict.

In the present complaint I shall stop on two infringements which by me it was repeatedly declared also which till now are not resolved in essence.

1. Absence of definition of investigation or court about the victim on business

2. Unreasonable confiscation of property by court.

It is connected, first of all that supervising instances including regional Office of Public Prosecutor, are engaged in formal replies and formally approach to consideration of my complaints, giving unmotivated and evasive answers. Each of essential infringements of the remedial law attracts a cancelling of a verdict, but these infringements are not noticed, how I understand, on political grounds.

The court of the first instance was established, that by Levaneuski Valery Stanislavovich, in common in Vasilev Alexander Aleksandrovich, giving out itself for heads National Strike Committee of Belarus, since January, 2004, deliberately, began to be engaged in the vigorous activity on destabilization of a political situation in mountains. Grodno, spending active work among entrepreneurs on the organization and carrying out on May, 01st, 2004 in Grodno of the not authorized meeting of entrepreneurs for which have called in constantly distributed on territories of the Grodno area bulletins ” Entrepreneurs” and leaflets.

In April, 2004 they in common again have prepared a leaflet with an appeal “Come! On May, 1st is your day! We wait for All of you on May, 1st, 2004 at 10.30 on Lenin’s Area in Grodno”, having placed on a face sheet of the given leaflet the text, and on the back – a poem “The Account on municipal services” or leaflet, received from the unstated person named Nikolay, and edited by them in common which maintenance correlates a described situation in the text of a poem, with the concrete official – the President of Belarus and has obviously offensive character which has expressed in humiliation of honor and advantage of the President of Belarus, connected with charge in fulfillment ostensibly grave crime, abusing authority of the official borrowing responsible position, the entailed causing of essential harm to the rights and legitimate interests of the citizens, expressed in illegal use of public funds.

The given leaflet them in common, with the purpose of public distribution, has been produced by computer – copy way and then duplicated in rented by Levaneuski V.S. an apartment to the address of: Grodno, street …., on a photocopier “RICOH Priport jr 1010″ in quantity not less than 5.000 pieces.

In the end of April, 2004 they in common, by means of the persons involved for compensation, publicly distributed the specified leaflets in public places of mountains. Grodno, including, in markets “Skidelsky” and “Southern”, and also on a residence of citizens: Gorky street, 73; street Tereshkovoj, 29; street Dzerzhinskogo,123; street of Limoges,14, 16, 18; street Dombrovskogo, 13; Hindu highway 4, a building 1; street of the Soviet Frontier guards, 94; street Kabjaka, 4, a building 1,side street Southern, 12 and in other public places.

1. The verdict of court is decided with essential infringements criminally – the remedial legislation and is a subject to a cancelling, in connection with absence of the victim on case.

The victim is the unique participant of the criminal trial who has directly suffered from a crime, in connection with what maintenance of protection of his rights and legitimate interests gets special value in criminal trial.

It is necessary to consider, that the insult is always addressed to the concrete person and that on sense item 49 of procedural criminal code the physical person to whom directly the crime causes physical, property or moral harm can admit to victims only.

The person admits to victims irrespective of its citizenship, age, a physical or mental condition and other data about the person, from an establishment of the person who have committed a crime, legitimacy of behavior of the victim. The recognition criminally-remedial law is not stipulated by victim of the representative of the legal person, as the legal person to whom by a crime or socially dangerous act deranged it is harmed, realizes the rights by presentation of the civil suit.
The decision on recognition of the person should be accepted by victim immediately on an establishment to it of the bases that is the important guarantee of maintenance of duly access of the victim to justice, realizations of the procedural rights by it and performance of duties.

The body leading criminal trial is obliged to explain suffered its rights and duties, and also to give an opportunity for submission of the statement of claim about compensation of harm.

The victim gets corresponding procedural rights and performs the duties certain by the law only after body of criminal prosecution or the judge will bear the decision, and court – definition about it’s recognition those.

The decision (definition) about a recognition is born by victim concerning each person to whom by a crime it is harmed.

In conformity from item 7 of the law of Belarus “About the President of Belarus”:

“The president possesses inviolability; his honor and advantage are protected by the law. The public insult of the President or slander concerning it him, including, with use of a press or other mass media, attract the responsibility established by the law”.

Criminal case about the public insult of the President or slander concerning him, including, with use of a press or other mass media, is raised by way of, stipulated by criminally-remedial code of Belarus”.

According to the theory of criminal law victim on criminal case on charge of the person { in fulfillment of the crime stipulated item 368 of Criminal Code of Belarus, is the President of Belarus.

Besides observance of the general requirements to registration of remedial decisions the decision (definition) about a recognition victim should contain without fail data on what harm (or some its kinds) is caused by criminal acts.

The person recognized to victims, is notified on it by the announcement of the decision (definition), of what the mark in the decision (the report of judicial session), or by delivery of a copy of the decision (definition) is done.

At purpose and preparation of proceeding on the acted criminal case the court has been obliged to check up, whether the person to whom by a crime it is harmed, is recognized as victim, whether their procedural rights and duties are explained to him and whether the body of criminal prosecution had been provided appropriate conditions for their realization.

In cases when the victim has been limited in realization of the rights stipulated by the law (for example, it is not notified on the ending of preliminary investigation and to him access to materials of a case has not been provided, the petition of the victim for the admission of the representative is unreasonably rejected), the judge (court) takes necessary measures to elimination of the admitted infringements.

During proceeding the court is obliged not only to explain to suffered, his lawful or other representative their rights fixed accordingly items 50, 57, 59 of criminally-remedial code, but also to create the conditions stipulated by criminally-remedial legislation providing named participants of process an opportunity to represent the proof, to declare petitions, to express opinion concerning reasons and petitions of other participants of process, to take part in interrogation accused, other victims, witnesses.

With a view of a possibility of the appeal of a verdict the victim who did not participate in judicial session, should be in writing informed on a taken place verdict with an explanation of the right to reception of its copy, the order and term of the appeal.

Apparently from the above-stated, the body of preliminary investigation has been obliged to bea the decision about a recognition victim A.Lukashenka, and court to take necessary measures to elimination of the admitted infringements and protection of the rights of A.Lukashenka.

During preliminary investigation and proceeding I repeatedly orally and in writing declared petitions for observance of procedural rights of the President of Belarus A.Lukashenka and a recognition him as a victim. But each time received unmotivated refusals.

Deprivation or constraint of the rights of the victim guaranteed by the law by judicial consideration of criminal case is essential infringement of criminally-remedial law which attracts a cancelling of judgments taken place on case.
Bodies of criminal prosecution (preliminary investigation and court) have actually recognized as the actions absence of the victim in the given criminal case.

Refusal of investigation and court to bear the decision (definition) about a recognition victim on business about the insult does senseless criminal prosecution and excludes manufacture on criminal case and conducts to a cancelling of a verdict.

2) According to p.6 item 61of Criminal Code Belarus the court has illegally applied special confiscation concerning material evidences:
The multiple copying device « RICOH Priport jr 1010 »,
Photocopiers « XEROX 5815 », « XEROX Docuprint №32 »;
The printer « НР DESRJET 350 »;
Cartridge from the multiplying device;
Notebook «Mitac» together with the adapter and the computer mouse in a box; the typographical equipment in a box and a suitcase; the copier « Canon FC 220 »; two computer system blocks; the printer « Epson FX-1170 » in a box; two printers of the jet printer « DeskJet 350 »; twenty packs of the paper, four boxes with the subjects withdrawn in an apartment of Levaneuski V.S., sealed up by seal of Management of KGB;
Ten boxes with the withdrawn subjects in the rented by Levaneuski V.S. an apartment, sealed up by seal of Management of KGB; a polyethylene package with the withdrawn leaflets and the master-tapes; the diplomat sealed up by seal of Management of KGB; 24 packages which have been sealed up by of Management of KGB with subjects withdrawn during a search which are directly connected with a crime having turned them in the income of the state.

As the judge, on my question on has declared what attitude to a case a subject confiscations have the withdrawn things: “These things concern to business because there were at you houses”.

Many subjects, by virtue of the physical properties could not concern business. For example: the diplomat, laser disks, my correspondence with various bodies, my accounting documents.

The most part of things in general at all was not listed. Things have unloaded in boxes and have decided these boxes to confiscate. What to understand fewer than 10 boxes with Levaneuski’s subjects which are confiscated on a verdict, vessels not clearly. A number of things withdrawn at my place and confiscated by court at all do not take place anywhere under the document.

2. Investigation and in the further court degrees of deterioration and costs have refused to make properly issued inventory withdrawn during a search and the confiscated things, with the instruction of their distinctive properties. I repeatedly declared written petitions to the inspector of Office of Public Prosecutor Tonkevich A.S., and then to Judge Demchenko D.V. necessity of drawing up of such detailed distain. But all my petitions have remained without appropriate consideration.

3. All the withdrawn things by virtue of the law (“About marriage and family”, Civil Code) are in common acquired property with mine wife. Besides with me live and full age children who conducted joint facilities with me lived and some withdrawn things belonged to them personally or as the joint property. P.6 item 61 of Criminal Code of Belarus allows confiscating only personal things condemned. The spouse and children submitted corresponding complaints to cassation instance, but all of them have remained without due consideration.

4. In computers on hard disks there was my unique development of the software which was my intellectual property. Programs have been developed by me for their subsequent realization according to the current legislation. Any decision on confiscation of my intellectual property it was not accepted, but not looking at it the given intellectual property has been confiscated also to me not returned. The sum of my losses from confiscation and has according to the most conservative estimates made destructions of my intellectual property for me about 200 million rubles.

Apparently from the above-stated, confiscation of property is lead by court illegally, without the bases and with essential infringement of the remedial law.

The note: judge Demchenko, any more does not work in court, he has been convicted, they said, is caught red-handed at reception or transfer of a bribe in 11 thousand US dollars. Concerning him the Republican Office of Public Prosecutor has excited criminal case, but, on unknown persons to me to the reasons, it he has avoided the responsibility, has left “back” number court and works in other place. The given fact speaks about possible corruption of the judge and the going removal of an illegal judgment.

On the basis of stated, being supervised item .404, 408-410, p.2 p.1 item.412 of criminally-remedial code of Belarus, I ask:

To bring the protest on taken place judgments on the given criminal case for:

1 Cancelling of a verdict of court of Lenin area of Grodno from September, 7th, 2004 and definitions of judicial board on criminal cases of the Grodno regional court from October, 19th, 2004 and phase-out on criminal case;

2. Return illegally confiscated from me and my family of things (or their costs);

3. Indemnifications to me of loss of the means connected with confiscation and destruction of my intellectual property.

The note:

If my complaint is not a subject to satisfaction I ask to give reasoned answer referring to the remedial law why you consider, that manufacture on criminal case about the insult of the President of Belarus can be spent without removal of the decision (definition) about a recognition victim of the President of Belarus. And why things which had no attitude to criminal case about the insult of the president of Belarus have been confiscated from my family.

The attachment:

1. Copies of a verdict of court of Lenin area of Grodno from September, 7th, 2004 and definition of judicial board on criminal cases of the Grodno regional court from the October, 19th 2004, certified when due hereunder court on 8 sheets.

2. Copies of the answer from Office of Public Prosecutor of the Grodno area from 4/15/2007 №12–57/2006

3. A copy of the receipt on payment of the state tax at a rate of one base size.

4/13/2007 V.S.Levaneuski

The answer from Office of Public Prosecutor of Belarus:

I inform, that your supervising complaint to a verdict of court of Lenin area of Grodno from 9/7/2004 and the subsequent decisions on business is considered in republican Office of Public Prosecutor with check of criminal case.

The reasons stated in the complaint about essential infringements of criminally-remedial law, unreasonable confiscation by court of property are insolvent.

Your fault in the public insult of the President of Belarus, connected to charge in fulfillment of grave crime, proves to be true indications of witnesses Zatsepinoj L.I., Sljusarenko V.A., Moiseeva A.G., Tulja V.I., the conclusion philological-linguistic examination about the offensive character of the leaflet made by you humiliating honor and advantage of the President of Belarus.

The accused Vasilev A.A. during preliminary investigation has specified that the text of the leaflet transferred for distribution has been edited by him together with you.

During carrying out of searches in a place of your residence, in an apartment rented by you 12 units of computer and multiplying technical equipment, account materials to it, electronic data carriers, copies of leaflets with a poem of offensive character are withdrawn. Their survey established initial, intermediate and final variants of the text of a leaflet on electronic and paper carriers, including with hand-written notes. The conclusions of material engineering examinations also it is judicial-technical expert appraisal documents it is established, that withdrawn from you it is computer – the multiplying technical equipment and account materials have been used for manufacturing and duplication of leaflets.

During preliminary investigation you did not deny the fact of a belonging to you is computer – copy technical equipment.

The court investigated all the circumstances important for the correct sanction of case, and it gives an appropriate estimation. Your actions are correctly qualified on p.2 item.368 of Criminal Code of Belarus.

Punishment to you is appointed in view of a degree of public danger of a crime and data about the person.

Special confiscation of property under the circumstances of fulfillment of a crime established by court is applied according to p.б item 61of Criminal Code is reasoned.
Reasons of your complaint about essential infringements of criminally-remedial law are based on any interpretation of the law.
The infringements of criminally-remedial law attracting a cancelling of taken place judgments; by consideration of case it is not admitted.

The bases for protest of judicial decisions taken place on business it is not established.

The attachment: on 9 sheets.

The assistant to the General public prosecutor of Belarus A.V. Ivanovoski

« | »

Note: Translated by means of machine translation. The original text in Russian is on a site or