Translated material
Irkutsk: The case of torture will listen to the court that justified the witness
The criminal case of the torture of a resident of the Usol-Sibirsky Marina Ruzaeva in the city police department will be considered by the court, who previously justified the investigator of the UK, who supposedly falsified evidence in the same case. The regional court did not satisfy the plaintiff’s claim to transfer the meeting to another city. However, the verdict to the employee of the Investigative Committee was canceled, and the materials were sent for a new consideration.
According to Taiga.info, at the meeting at the request of the Ruzaeva, the judge did not allow the interests of the victim of the lawyer of the Public Verdict Foundation Evgeny Kulichkov. The reason was the absence of a "warrant or power of attorney." However, the defender claims that he could be in the process on the oral statement of Marina Ruzaeva.
Marina Ruzaeva has been trying to hold the police who tortured her in the site for four years. She claims that she was beaten for five and a half hours in the Usolsky police department with the use of a stamper, forcing to confess to the murder of a neighbor. The human rights activists of Irkutsk with great difficulty managed to get a criminal case against Major Denis Samoilov and the operatives Alexander Korbut and Stanislav Golchenko from the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Usolya-Sibirsky. Two of them still work in the Usolya police, and Major Samoilov “with honors” retired.
On May 14, the Irkutsk Regional Court abolished the acquittal to the investigator of the city of Usol-Sibirskoye Sergey Lysykh, previously recognized as innocent in falsification of the criminal case of the torture of Marina Ruzaeva in the police. Previously, the prosecutor’s prosecutor’s justified verdict called “illegal and unreasonable”, since falsification (the fact recognized the bald person at a court session) of such important investigative documents as a protocol of inspection of material evidence and a protocol of inspection of the premises, cannot be evaluated as “misconduct”. Due to the investigator’s forgery, the falsified protocols were excluded from the list of permissible evidence in the “grave” case.