Second Pre-hearing in Denisova's Case Took Place in Krasnodar
On March 24, 2010 at the second pre-hearing the senior assistant of the district prosecutor Zhanna Karpenko was supposed to present an answer to the defence motion. During the first pre-hearing the defence councel asked for the elimination of criminal charges because of the absence of the document, which annuls an order to dismiss criminal complaint. All of a sudden, it turned out at the pre-hearing that such a document had showed up in the criminal case. Then the defence councel asked to return the criminal case to the prosecutor in order to eliminate serious mistakes in the indictment: the second criminal case on article 273 of the Criminal Code of Russia was not initiated, the place and time of the “crime” are not stated, the invited for the seizure specialist Bektashev was the representative of the firm “SPEKTR”, which had filed a complaint against Denisova.
In order to clarify the place of the “crime” Karpenko summoned Gasparyan, the agent of Economic Crimes Department, and one of the witnesses of seizure. The witness described the premises, where police had seized the computers. Gasparyan had to answer more questions. Why did he perform the seizure at Frunze, 15 if he had been sent to Lenina,4? Gasparyan replied that he saw no street sign, but since family name Denisova coincided with the name in his complaint he decided that he had come at the right place. Why did he allow specialist Bektashev to be at the place if he was the representative of the firm “SPEKTR” which was interested in the case? Gasparyan replied that “well, yes, it turned out that he is no specialist”, but added that Bektashev did not examine the computers as they were not switched on. Denisova reminded that Bektashev studied CD and DVD disks and consulted police agents whether to seize them or not. Gasparyan said he did not remember it and was not responsible for the actions of the seizure participants.
Though not invited to the pre-hearing the aggrieved party LLC “RESPEKT” did show up. According to the criminal case documents this company represents Microsoft and Corel in the south of Russia. Noteworthy that powers of attorney were issued not to LLC “RESPEKT”, as a company, but its head Mr. Ivut', as a natural person. Mr. Ivut' submitted a renewed power of attorney issued by Corel corporation on February 9, 2010. This document proved again that the Act on recognition Mr. Ivut' as an aggrieved party and the Act of the questioning of the aggrieved party performed on January 15, 2010 were unlawful.
The senior assistant of the prosecutor Karpenko submitted certificates which state, that summoned experts of Interregional NGO “Soyuz Criminalistov” (“Union of Criminalists”) failed to show up because of the leave of absence of Mr. Voevodin and business trip of Mr. Pleten. Noteworthy, the letterhead of the presented documents says LLC “Soyuz Criminalistov” and the stamp says Interregional NGO “Soyuz Criminalistov”, thus making the documents not valid. It brings up new questions about this institution credibility.
The prosecuting party will have to present its arguments about the expertize validity at the next pre-hearing. The judge appointed it on March 29, 2010 at 11 a.m. Moscow time.
A round table “Civil Society and Authorities of Krasnodar krai: Mutual Openness or Confrontation?” simultaneously took place in Krasnodar. Participants of the round table demanded from Krasnodar krai Prosecutor to withdraw the indictment from the court.