The administration of the Perm IK-10 was obliged to allow a psychologist to Stomakhin

The judge of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Yekaterinburg Olga Polyakova ordered the IK-10 administration of a strict regime within the city of the City of the Chusova Perm Territory to allow the Politzek to Boris Stomakhin of the Yekaterinburg psychologist Dmitry Halyapin. About the decision on the administrative lawsuit of Stomakhin and Khalapin on Thursday, the Interregional Center for Human Rights reports .

The interests of the plaintiffs were represented by lawyer Roman Kachanov. As the “human rights activists of the Urals” clarify , he indicated that part 6.1 of Article 12 of the Criminal Executive Code (fundamental rights of convicts) secures the right of concluded not only FSINS, but also civilian psychologists. Halyapin himself noted that the actions of the IK-10 administration violate his right to engage in professional activities.

Stomakhin filed a statement on the admission of Halyapin in March 2016. However, when the psychologist arrived in the colony on April 19, 2016, he was not allowed to Politzek.

A lawsuit was filed to the IK-10 administration. On July 27, the judge of the same Oktyabrsky district court of Yekaterinburg Elena Petrovskaya announced that the lawsuit was partially satisfied . In the decision of the IK-10, the decision of the IK-10 was considered illegal, but the requirements for the FSINCES to ensure the meeting of the Politzek with a psychologist was not contained.

However, when Kachanov received the text of the decision on his hands, there was no phrase to recognize the actions of the jailers illegal in it. The lawyer filed a petition with the Petrovskaya to correct the error. On October 24, the judge rejected the petition, saying that it was not a mistake in the text of the decision, but her reservation when the text is announced at the hearing.

At the same time, the IK-10 administration, despite the fact that in the text of Petrovskaya’s decision in the claims to the FSINESS, was refused, filed an appeal to the Sverdlovsk regional court.

I appealed the text of the solution and Kachanov. He also filed a complaint about the determination of Petrovskaya about the refusal to correct the error.

On December 8, the College of the Regional Court as part of Tatyana Soboleva (presiding), Alla Kolpakova and Dmitry Gylke canceled the decision of Petrovskaya and issued a new one, which satisfied both claims, in which, firstly, she recognized the actions of the FSINIVSIVS illegal, and secondly, obliged them to ensure the meeting of Stomakhin with Khalapin.

On December 27, Khalapin repeatedly arrived in IK-10, however, despite the decision of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court, he was again not allowed to Politzek. The FSINOVTS said that Stomakhin had not yet had the time for the next short -term date: the political prisoner has the right to such dates every six months. Meanwhile, according to the law, psychological assistance is equated with legal and psychologists, as well as on lawyers, restrictions do not apply. Kachanov, who accompanied Khalapin, pointed to this to the FSINITS, but they ignored the arguments of the lawyer.

After that, a new lawsuit was filed in court. Judge Polyakova, as well as earlier, Sverdlovsk Regional Court, satisfied both claims of the applicants.

In the near future, Khalapin intends to go to IK-10 again. If the administration this time does not allow him to Stomakhin, human rights activists do not exclude that they will submit an application to the bailiffs demanding to open the case against the FSINESS under article 315 of the Criminal Code (failure to fulfill the court decision), which provides for up to two years of the colony.

In connection with her refusal to correct the text of the July decision, the lawyer Kachanov filed a complaint to the chairman of the Oktyabrsky District Court, Alexander Evladova, to the judge of Petrovskaya. In March of this year, human rights activists published the response of Yevladovaya dated February 6, which reported that Petrovskaya resigned. The reason for the resignation was not explained.