Autukhovich appeals against extention of preventive supervision

The former political prisoner failed to appear in the court on August 6 because of the state of health. Therefore, he asks to reverse a court decision of Vaukavysk on extention of the preventive supervision and related restrictions, and to refer materials of the case for further review.

Mikalai Autukhovich considers the decision of Vaukavysk region illegal, unfounded, violating his rights and legal interests. He claims to reverse the decision on following grounds:

"Early on August 6 I was taken by an ambulance, I had a hypertensive crisis. It was a valid reason for my absence in the court. I informed Judge Yakimovich Y. Y. about it and asked to postpone the hearing unless my recovery. Besides, my representative filed a request to postpone the case consideration because of above mentioned valid reasons.

However, contrary to Article 4022, para 6, CrPC of the Republic of Belarus that provides for the mandatory presence of a person in respect of whom the preventive supervision is extended, the judge wrongly dismissed the application and considered the case without my participation, thereby violated my rights under applicable law (para. 10, 11, 12, 13, Art. 4022, CrPC).

Considered a case without Autukhovich, the court de facto deprived him of a possibility to give explanations on the case, submit objections and petitions make questions to a representative of the Department of Corrections, and attach other documents to materials of the case.

As well as being subject to remission in case of the absence of the accused, unless it is provided under Article 294 CrPC, grounds for extension of preventive supervision are doubtful:

"In his decision judge Yakimovich indicates that all penalties are valid and stresses a number of violations. He was informed that more than a year I had had no violations of preventive supervision. As well as he knew that violations of traffic rules could not be a ground for extention of the preventive supervision. As soon as the court, inter alia, took into consideration traffic rules violations, the court's decision is generally illegal and is subject to revocation".

Thus, according to Autukhovich, all above mentioned circumstances indicate violations of current law by Vaukavysk court that caused gross infringement of his rights and freedoms.