Russia’s offshore energy projects in the ArcticBusiness & Economy March 28, 19:33
US chess chief: No plot to oust current FIDE head, but it ‘would be good for the game’Sport March 28, 18:27
Putin-Rouhani meeting round-upWorld March 28, 18:23
Request for referendum against iconic Petersburg cathedral's transfer to church approvedSociety & Culture March 28, 18:13
US diplomat says Washington is pleased with Arctic cooperation with MoscowWorld March 28, 18:11
Russia, Iran express support for Damascus’ efforts to combat terrorismWorld March 28, 17:46
Finance Ministry to serve up VAT refund to foreign buyers of alcohol in RussiaBusiness & Economy March 28, 17:44
Top ten most expensive items sold by Sotheby'sSociety & Culture March 28, 17:25
Russia’s future spacecraft to be equipped with fully isolated toilet cabinScience & Space March 28, 17:03
KIROV, October 16. (ITAR-TASS). — Prosecutors asked to recognize the legality of the sentence to Alexei Navalny and Petr Ofitserov that were found guilty of embezzlement at Kirovles enterprise. This was announced today by the prosecution’s spokesperson at the Kirov regional court.
“We believe that the arguments of the convicted and their defense shall not be acknowledged,” the prosecutor said in court. She added that the sentence by Lenin District Court of Kirov was “legitimate and justified” and could not be canceled.
The prosecutor noted that the prosecution would present a more specified stand at the stage of oral arguments.
The defense of Alexei Navalny and Petr Ofitserov asked the court to schedule a financial, economic, accounting and merchandising expertise. A petition was stated during the hearing at the Kirov Oblast Court.
According to the convicted and their lawyers, these studies have to answer a range of questions, the most important of which is the adequacy of the Kirovles prices to market average.
The advocates also ask the court to interrogate several witnesses.
The prosecution took these petitions negatively. The prosecutors said that the case already included expert reports and there were no reasons to doubt the opinion of the experts.
The prosecutors also saw no need in interrogation of witnesses since “a number of statements was examined by the court of the first instance”.
Alexei Navalny, however, refused to take part in oral arguments on complaint against the guilty verdict regarding the embezzlement of Kirovles property.
“I refuse to participate in the oral statements since I believe that it has no sense after the refusal to run expert analysis and interrogate the witnesses,” he said.
Earlier, at the hearing of the Kirov Region court the oppositionist claimed that a proper consideration of the case couldn’t be accomplished without these examinations.
"In this case it cannot be any different outcome as a complete discharge for me and Ofitserov that is mainly an outman in this case,” Navalny said.
Sentence to Navalny and Ofitserov
Oppositionist Navalny and ex-CEO of Vyatskaya Lesnaya Kompaniya (Vyatka Wood Company) Ofitserov were sentenced by the Lenin District Court of Kirov to 5 and 4 years in general regime penal colony accordingly and fined 500,000 rubles each.
Navalny and Ofitserov were taken into custody in the courtroom and placed in a detention center of Kirov. But on the following day, the Kirov regional court, by prosecutor’s citation, released them on bail until the sentence comes into force. One of the arguments in favor of the release of Alexei Navalny was the fact that he was running for mayor of Moscow, and thus he didn’t intend to hide.
Navalny's lawyer Olga Mikhailova began her presentation by stating that Lenin District Court of Kirov Judge Sergei Blinov largely copied the indictment instead of an independent analysis of the sentencing.
“Some of the pages in the sentence are the same as in the indictment. Even the witnesses’ statements except for the first five. It turns out that the court simply copied the indictment and called it sentence,” the lawyer said.
She also noted the formal, according to the defense, approach of the court to resolve the question of the defendants’ guilt, the numerous refusals to satisfy petitions of the defense, which are essential in the case, as well as violation of “the right for defense and a fair trial, as stipulated by Russian law and the European Convention”.
“In this regard, we have already filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights,” the lawyer said.