A 46-year-old man suspected of murder has been detained for three years in violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states that the accused cannot be detained for more than one year. During this time, the court must issue either a guilty verdict or an acquittal. This was reported by human rights activists of the Jalal-Abad organization “Justice”.
According to investigators, on July 6, 2019, the suspect was drinking alcohol with his friend. A fight broke out between the men, resulting in the latter dying from his injuries. The investigation claims that the suspect tried to pass off the incident as an accident.
In June 2020, the Suzak District Court sentenced the man to 15 years in prison. In February 2021, the Jalal-Abad Regional Court changed the sentence and imposed a sentence of 11 years in prison. In June of the same year, by a decision of the Supreme Court, both sentences of lower instances were canceled and the case was sent for a new trial to the court of the first instance.
“The Suzak District Court, when re-examining the case, sentenced him to 14 years in prison. On July 18, 2022, the Jalal-Abad Regional Court upheld this verdict. Now the case will again be considered in the Supreme Court,” said human rights activists.
Human rights activists draw attention to Article 303 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Kyrgyzstan. The 4th part of this article states: “Extension of the period of application of a measure of restraint in the form of detention for more than one year is not allowed. Upon the expiration of the specified period, the accused, who is being held in custody, is subject to immediate release by the administration of the place of detention with the notification of the prosecutor.”
The lawyer of the Jalal-Abad human rights organization “Justice” Utkir Jabbarov is surprised that judges refer to definitions that are not in the law and keep the accused in custody for three years.
“Judges have the right to apply a measure of restraint only in accordance with the norms regulated by the criminal procedure law and have no right to go beyond them. If you can’t fulfill your obligations on time and pass a guilty verdict, then release,” Jabbarov is indignant.
Throughout the entire proceedings, the lawyer, in order to avoid violating the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure, several times petitioned for a change in the measure of restraint, unrelated to detention, but was not heard.
According to the lawyers, the judges, due to the re-examination of this case, treat it like a new one, and, as it is fashionable to say now, “zeroed out” its terms. And the fact that the accused has been in custody for three years and this is a gross violation of the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure is of no concern to anyone.
“The judges refer to the penal code, that is, they apply the same rules to the accused as to the convict, although these rules should be applied only after the conviction has entered into force. And any justification for detention must be legal, not arbitrary,” the defenders concluded.
