The Judge of the Shevchenko District Court of Kyiv, Vladimir Bugil, gave false testimony to a Ministry of Internal Affairs investigator, on the basis of which a criminal case was brought against a lawyer of "Road Control", Victor Smaliy. Because of Bugil’s lies, lawyer Smaliy has spent two months sitting in jail, and tomorrow, February 6, 2014, in the Dniprovskiy District Court the process begins to consider the fraudulent "crimes."



On photo: advocate Victor Smaliy who is the threat for Ukrainian corrupt judicial system

According to official documents, Victor Smaliy has been charged under Part 2 of Article 15 of Part 2 of Article 377 ( from 3 to 7 year imprisonment) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine – committing a crime - namely, intentional infliction of minor bodily harm on a judge in connection with his official duties. The basis of the charges is the assertion that Smaliy tore Judge Bugil’s robe after the announcement of his decision assigning journalist "DK" Andrew Dzyndzya to jail.

An investigation was conducted to "recreate events", but without the participation of Victor Smaliy. Testimony by the "witnesses to the crime" were recorded on video. A copy of the recording was received by the defense after the investigation. In the video you can see how Judge Vladimir Bugil, after being warned about knowingly giving false testimony, deliberately slandered Smaliy. So, Bugil said Smaliy grabbed his arm with his left hand and swung his right hand to strike.



Court militiaman Bogdan Linden, generally stated that Victor made a fist of his right hand and with all his might wanted to hit Bugil on the head. Linden testified that he applied the methods of unarmed combat and "gripped" Smaliy’s hand to prevent strokes. "It was a deliberate action," - said the court militiaman. Similar testimony was essentially given by the court workers Anatoly Tverdohleb, Yuri Kozyura, and Artem Abdulin. In their stories, they showed "how Smaliy would have punched Bugil in the head."

However, this evidence is completely contrary to a video made by one of those present at the hearing. This video has not been published anywhere before. A copy of the recording was given by an investigator in the Interior Ministry as part of the "disclosure of evidence" only after he was falsely convicted. Neither the MVD nor the prosecutors can make any adjustments to his charge to account for this video.

RECORDING that includes the "attack" and false testimony of judge Bugil:



So, as you can see:
- Victor Smaliy did not grab the sleeve of Judge Bugil with his left hand.
- there was no right hand held high in a fist to strike.
- court militiaman Bogdan Linden was not at that spot, nor did he "stop Smaliy’s arm before impact."
- other testimonies were false when "witnesses" said that at the time of the action near Judge Bugil there was no one present except Smaliy.

Investigator Olga Kuzmin has repeatedly emphasized the fact that "Smaliy was alone near Judge Bugil and no one else could have pushed him." However, the video clearly shows that Smaliy kept his hands behind his back, and at that time several deputies were already next to him. Furthermore, prior to the shoving, two employees of court militia initially blocked Viktor Smaliy, so he a priori could not "grab the judge’s left sleeve, and then raise his right hand high to strike a blow to the head."
"According to the accusations of Dec 7, 2013, Smaliy, grabbed Buhil’s sleeve with his right hand, tearing it away, and then began to threaten the judge with physical violence, trying to cause him bodily harm, but he was prevented from doing so … "- comments Smaliy’s defender Alisa Dorogaya about the first official “accusations”.

FIRST OPTION CHARGES:




"Later, on Dec 23, 2013, after interrogation and the experiments which were conducted with victims and witnesses as part of the prosecution, the prosecutor of Kyiv changed the accusations by 180 degrees, namely "acting intentionally with his left hand grabbed Judge Buhil’s robe by the left sleeve, which the latter was wearing, and then pulled hard, tearing it so ... Smaliy continued his criminal actions by expressing death threats to Judge Buhil and attempting violence by gathering his right hand in a fist, and trying to inflict a blow to the head area of the latter, i.e., causing him beatings and injuries "- comments Smaliy’s defender Alica Dorogaya about the second version of the official “accusations

SECOND OPTION CHARGES:



"In the video of the investigative experiments conducted by investigator Kuzmin, the victim and witnesses show how Smaliy "grabbed the judge's robe and raised his hand to hit Judge Bugil in the head." However, the video of the actual events shows that Smaliy stands with his hands behind his back, does nothing, and does not speak. Court militiaman has enough of it and calls for help on the radio. Then, quite inexplicably, he physically knocks Smaliy over. And most importantly, the "victim" Judge Bugil stands and just looks at it all, "- said the defender.

Road Control lawyer, Viktor Smaliy has been held in SIZO or remand prison since Dec 9 despite charges which seem clearly trumped up, and even if true would not warrant the measures against him

The case is dragging on with the Kyiv Court of Appeal on Friday having rejected an application to have the case heard (as it’s supposed to be) according to territorial jurisdiction and returned it to the Dniprovsk District Court in Kyiv.

As reported, Smaliy was taken into custody in the courtroom where he had been defending Road Control journalist Andriy Dzyndzya. The latter had been arrested and accused of being responsible for the bulldozer commandeered and used in disturbances on Bankova St on Dec 1 2013. The charges against Dzyndzya who had been at the demonstration in his capacity as a journalist were widely seen as persecution and aroused considerable protest. He has now been released under the first so-called ‘amnesty law’. His lawyer has not, although the charges against him seemed - and seem - deliberately aimed at sending a message to lawyers defending peaceful protesters, as well as part of a general campaign against the civic watchdog Road Control which regularly uncovers infringements by the traffic police.

The charges arose from an incident after Judge Volodymyr Buhil announced that he was remanding Dzyndzya in custody for 2 months. There was protest in the courtroom, and an incident which Buhil decided to treat as Smaliy attempting to murder him.

The charge appears to have been mellowed since then, and is now attempting to deliberately inflict minor bodily injuries on a judge carrying out his official duties (Article 15 § 2 – an attempt and 377 § 2 – inflicting minor or medium seriousness injuries on a judge) . The said ‘offence’ is difficult to verbalize and it is no easier to understand how it could have been used to keep a man in detention for over two months with no end in sight.

Road Control asserts that Smaliy is supposed to have ripped the judge’s robe after the latter read out his ruling regarding Dzyndzya. It says that Buhil misled the investigators. They provide a video in which testimony is given by supposed ‘witnesses’ but without Smaliy being present.

Buhil claims that Smaliy grabbed his arm with his left hand and raised his right hand as though to strike the judge.

Court police officer Bohdan Linden went even further, asserting that Smaliy had positively made a fist and then raised it as though to hit Buhil on the head. Linden said that he had intervened and grabbed Smaliy’s hand. Three court officials gave similar testimony.

Judging by the last scene on the video available here roadcontrol.org.ua none of this bears any relation to the truth.

It all happens so quickly that it is difficult to say what is going on, however it is clear that the testimony given was false, since:

Smaliy didn’t grab Buhil’s sleeve with his left hand, nor did he raise his right hand to strike;

Linden was not there at all;

The claim made by other supposed witnesses that nobody else except Smaliy was near the judge is also manifestly not correct.

The video has been handed to the court and even if it is unclear what did take place, it is entirely evident what the ‘testimony’ given is worth.

Thus far this has had no impact on the court and this shameful case continues.

Halya Coynash