Valery LEVANEUSKI - personal site  
June 14th, 2007. Posted in News from Belarus

« Main page

What sense in courts, if they cannot explain and motivate the decisions accepted by them?

Courts refuse to explain on a verdict concerning Valery Levaneuski. The juicy situation has developed in courts of the Grodno area concerning a verdict of court Lenin area of no on charge of the leader of businessmen in the so-called insult of the president. We shall remind, that the Committee of state security in May, 2004 on demand of the public prosecutor of the Grodno area have raised criminal case concerning one of leaders of opposition for “the insult of the president of Belarus”. Valery Levaneuski has been taken under the guard. Charge on behalf of not the obscure public prosecutor – Panasjuk E.R.’s state accused has demanded the maximal term of the imprisonment stipulated by the law with special confiscation of property.

During long time Valery tries to achieve explanations from public prosecutors and courts on a verdict. For example, what attitude to business about the insult of the president the numerous things confiscated from Levaneuski’s family have? Or, why on case nobody is recognized suffered (the strangeness has put consists that on case nobody is recognized as victim). For whose account the trip to Austria president and his security has been organized? We shall remind that in a basis of a verdict that circumstance, that is necessary:

” … So by court it is established, that in the text of a leaflet it is specified, that “the President” ostensibly, abusing the position, uses in the personal purposes of money of tax bearers which are compelled to live in misery. The given statement is available on a leaflet in the text of an appeal to come on meeting on May, 1st, 2004 “Come and tell, that you against that for yours the account “SOMEONE” went to Austria to have a rest, ski, live happily!”. The given appeal, in opinion of court, specifies that composers of a leaflet deliberately under a word « SOMEONE » mean the President of Belarus and specify that he abuses the service position and due to tax bearers goes on rest …”.

But all the mass-media of that time confirm, that such trip to Austria was also what or official refutations on this question were not. The question till now is open. Valery Levaneuski in conversation with the representative of embassy of Austria in Moscow has specified that circumstance, that official state visit at this time from Belarus to Austria of the first persons was not. Why the court did not begin to find out circumstances of case remains “riddle”. And how is a presumption of innocence? The most important question: whether there went actually to Austria the President or not, and for whose account – has remained is not considered by court.

The vicious circle turns out. In a verdict the court has written any nonsense, supervising instances speak, that a verdict correct, but anybody wishes to explain nothing.

For example, on one of last applications for a summer residence of explanations on a verdict of court:

About a summer residence of explanations on a verdict of court
(Regarding confiscation of computers and office equipment)

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 items 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.

According to p.6 item.61 of Criminal Code of Belarus the court has 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″; a 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; 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. 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 seal 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.

By virtue of p.6 item.61 special confiscation consists in compulsory gratuitous withdrawal in the property of the state of instruments and means of fulfillment of the crime, belonging condemned; the things withdrawn from a turn; the property got criminal by, and also subjects which are directly connected with a crime if they are not a subject to return to the suffered or other person.

From the text of a verdict of court follows, that is direct with a crime the isograph “RICOH Proport ir 1010″ on which leaflets in quantity not less than 5.000 pieces are produced is connected only. Participation of other confiscated things and subjects in a verdict does not stipulate.

As judge Demchenko has declared during judicial session, on my question on what attitude to case a subject confiscations have the withdrawn things: “These things concern to case because there were at you houses”. Such answer does not arrange me and is not stipulated by the remedial law.

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

In this connection I have asked court of Lenin’s area of Grodno to give me corresponding explanations on a verdict of court and to explain me how are directly connected with a crime about the insult of the president of Belarus:

1. A photocopier “XEROX 5815″,
2. A photocopier “XEROX Docuprint №32″;
3. The printer “НР DESRJET 350″;
4. Notebook “Mitac”
5. The adapter and the computer mouse in a box from notebook «Mitac»
6. The copier “Canon FC 220″;
7. Two computer system blocks
8. The printer “Epson FX-1170″ in a box
9. Two printers
10. The jet printer “DeskJet 350″;

In what their participation in a crime consist, and it is confirmed by what documents.

The answer №2937 from 4/26/2007 is received, from which follows that chairman of court Lenin’s area evades from a giving of explanations on my application.

Earlier I repeatedly addressed in court with the request to give out to me a copy of the inventory of the things confiscated from me since on court much from confiscated did not look round at all, but my request till now is not executed.

In connection with the above-stated I ask:

1.To explain me, on everyone confiscated on a verdict of court to a subject, the given subject has what attitude to a crime and as it is directly connected with a crime.

2. To send in my address the detailed inventory confiscated on a verdict of court at me things

The appendix: a copy of the answer №2937 from 4/26/2007

Yours faithfully

5/15/2007 V.S.Levaneuski

The answer №1663/1 signed by Chairman Grodno court A.A.Grishkevich is received:

On your application I inform, that in conformity with ст.36 the Code of Belarus about judicial system and the status of judges the competence of regional court does not include a summer residence of explanations on a verdict of court.

In conformity with item 408 of procedural criminal code you have the right to the reference with the supervising complaint to judicial decisions.

The competence of regional court also does not include dispatch of documents from the case considered by regional court on the first instance.

Earlier on the similar request the similar answer-formal reply №2937 from Lecko V.G. – chairman of court of Lenin’s area of Grodno has been received..

What sense in courts if they cannot explain and motivate the decisions accepted by them?

Valery Levonevsky has addressed with this question in the Ministry of Justice of Belarus and to Chairman of the Supreme Court of Belarus.


« | »

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