Riot Policemen Failed to Explain Why They Did not Comply with the Law

The leader of the civil initiative "Against Lawlessness in Courts and Prosecutor's Office" was able to prove in court that the case against her was conducted with violations.

Earlier, the Court of Tsentralny district of Minsk considered an administrative case against Tamara Syarhei, who was charged under Article 23.34 of the administrative code (participation in unauthorized mass event). On March 31 she together with other activists of the civil initiative "Against Lawlessness in Courts and Prosecutor's Office" came out to protest in the Svaboda Square, Salidarnasts reports.

-I managed to prove in court that the case should send back for revision to correct violations, Tamara Syarhei informed.

She demonstrated that one of the most important stages of the administrative case - preparation- had been completely ignored.

-I had a right to know what I was accused of, provide explanations, submit petitions, write a complaint, etc. The summons of the duty officer Anton Zubtsou informed that the preparation of administrative case was completed", Tamara Syarhei explained.

At the trial the leader of the civil initiative "Against Lawlessness in Courts and Prosecutor's Office" also interviewed two witnesses - Aliaksandr Sakolchyk, Commander of the Minsk riot police, and Dzmitry Labkou, platoon commander of the riot police.

-First, the protocols enclosed to materials of the case are exactly the same! In my view, it proves they've been forged. Second, I asked Sakolchyk and Labkou. The law on internal affairs implies suppression of an administrative offence, if one is revealed. So, why did they not do it, if they saw me? Why did no one came to us and warn? I cannot decipher their answer. It was an abracadabra, they, apparently, did not know what to say. They know how to comply with orders, not with the law, she said.

After a three-hour trial, the judge decided to send the case against the activist for revision. Although, according to Tamara Syarhei, there were grounds to recognize the protocol void and to stop the administrative case.