The trial on our complaint about the obligation of the investigator to return the property seized from the gunsmith-restorer Denys Dubrovsky has ended.
I must say, the complete surrender of the police system to common sense did not happen in court, the complaint was partially satisfied: the investigator was obliged to return the weapon. They refused to return the items that were directly specified in the search warrant.
Thus, the court ordered the investigator to return:
- the object looks like a toz-66 rifle,
- a firearm for a homemade smooth-bore shotgun,
- P.Z.S. for a smooth-bore shotgun Izh-5,
- p.s.s. for a homemade cut-off musket,
- p.s.s. for automatic weapon NR85A1,
- two p.s.s. for magazines for the said weapons,
- p.s.s. for IZH60 air rifle,
- four p.s.s. on the saber,
- four p.s.s. on the knife,
- eleven p.s.s. on knives in sheaths,
- One hundred and six p.s.s. on the ammunition capsule.
Our position was simple – in this criminal proceeding the property may have two legal regimes of restriction: either temporarily seized or arrested.
Temporarily seized property must be returned to the owner, if it is not seized within the established term or such property is not considered withdrawn from circulation in accordance with the law. The investigator did not file a petition for arrest. Thus, he showed inaction, the consequence of which is the immediate return of the seized property.
However, the court decided to cover up such a mistake of the investigator and somewhat expanded the interpretation of Part 2 of Art. 236 of the CPC, although it ordered the return of the main weapons.
But another thing is interesting: the judge, probably for the first time in Ukraine, was not afraid to openly declare one, but very important position on things that were traditionally considered to be withdrawn from circulation. The text of the ruling states that weapons or objects similar to weapons, which the court ordered the investigator to return, are not things withdrawn by law from circulation. Although below the text, the judge notes that the weapon can be a tool for committing a crime under Art. 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Therefore, for our struggle for the right to armed protection, only the phrase of the court that weapons are not things withdrawn from circulation is enough to consider such a decision a #victory.
The participation of the Association’s lawyers took place within the initiatives of legal struggle for equal right to armed protection.
Author: Vitaliy Kolomiets
Attorneys at law “Orekhovskyi and Kolomiets”