Page 35 - Report on the infringement of rights and guarantees of attorneys in Ukraine

FAILURE TO ALLOW DEFENCE COUNSEL TO BE PRESENT AT A SEARCH

ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE ADDRESSED BAR SELF-GOVERNMENT BODIES
ON THIS MATTER:
Vira Todorenko, Mykhailo Korotiuk, Serhii Vesnin, Ruslan Kapran,
Nadiia Brattseva, Roman Chyshynskyi, Mykola Potapov, Roman Vasylyshyn,
Lesia Dubchak

ABUSE OF THE INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC DEFENDERS

attempts are being made to replace contract attorneys (chosen by the client) with public
defenders, based on the decisions (rulings) of investigators, prosecutors, investigating
judges or court pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine ;
57
investigators fail to not explain the right to choose an attorney;
there is no possibility to invite an attorney who a detained person wants to be his/her
defence counsel;
it is not possible to contact an attorney and invite him/her to provide legal aid.
a contract attorney is not allowed to see a client without any grounds; in spite of this fact,
public defenders starts to provide legal aid ;
58
the practice of "unexpected" court hearings is used, which are not reported to the
contract attorneys of an accused, which is subsequently used by a court as an excuse to
invite a public defenders.

Serhii Vilkov
attorney of Stanislav Denysiuk, former chairman of the State Tax Administration
in Kharkiv Region

On 6 November 2017, attorneys of Stanislav Denysiuk were informed about a hearing two
hours before the commencement. Despite the untimely notification, the attorneys arrived in
court and expected a hearing to be held before the end of the business day, and it was only
after the departure of attorneys and representatives of the public that the judge and
representatives of the prosecutor's office appeared in the courtroom. At the request of the
suspect to call for his attorneys, the court offered him the use of the services of the public
defender .
59

Valentyn Rybin
attorney of Yevgenii Mefiodov, one of the participants in the case on the events
of 2 May 2014 in Odesa
On 11 October 2017, the defence was expecting a verdict, but a new charge was brought
against the defendant. Due to the absence of an attorney (according to the official version,
he could not be contacted, although the attorney claims that he received no calls or other
messages), for the time of hearing, the accused was appointed a defence counsel from the
system of the public defenders. At the same time, the court ignored Ye. Mefiodov’s request to
hold a court hearing only with the participation of his official attorney . Representatives of the
ISHR point out that the threat of substituting a defence counsel is higher if the official attorney
of a defendant resides in another city or court hearings are held during non-working hours
(late at night or at night) .
61

35