News
By the Supreme Court’s order, the acquittal of Artjom Suvorov the former deputy mayor of Tartu entered into force
A.Suvorov’s defendant Aivar Pilv: ,,By imitating a crime as an act of provocation was a clear violation of law and court practice’’
On the 29th of January 2020 the Supreme Court dismissed with an order South District Prosecutor’s cassation against judgement to annul the positive judgement for the former deputy mayor of Tartu, Artjom Suvorov. Therefore, the previous acquittal decisions of A. Suvorov entered into force. With Tartu County Court’s 23rd of March 2019 decision as well as with Tartu Circuit Court’s 25th of October 2019 decision A. Suvorov was previously acquitted from the charges under the Penal Code articles 294 (2) subsections 1 & 2, 209 (2) subsection 2 and 25 (1) (2). On the basis of these decisions Ivan Zayats was acquitted as well from the charges under the Penal Code article 298 (1). The county court and circuit court ruled in favour of compensating A. Suvorov’s legal costs in court proceedings paid to the defendant Aivar Pilv from LEADELL Pilv Law Office.
Attorney-at-law Aivar Pilv has previously explained that it is important that in decisions like that it is necessary that the court pointed out general principles in the meaning between proving persons fault and presumption of innocence and thoroughly explained that why the charges against A. Suvorov were unproven. The defendant considers this to be particularly important in the situation where law enforcement authorities involved a crime imitator to the proceeding and the defendant brought out on the basis of the facts established that the acts of the imitator clearly went out of bounds of the limits set to staging a crime. The defendant says that the circuit court’s decision is thoroughly and logically motivated and the prosecutor’s complaints on the county courts decision in the appeal refuted. Aivar Pilv emphasised that the decisions made in the proceeding in question which have entered into force proved the defendants position about an unacceptable act of provocation and a crime imitator’s clear contradiction with the meaning of law and court practice. “Law enforcement bodies must draw the necessary conclusions from the assessments of the limits of permissibility of the staging of a criminal offense given in said criminal case,” the attorney added.
Categories
Subscribe to Leadell's Newsletter
