Information

Information regarding the violation of the law of Ukraine with respect to
the citizen of Ukraine, Hennadiy Olegovych Korban
The Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine is conducting a pre-trial
investigation—№ 12014040670002852 on the Combined Register of pre-trial
investigations for August 15, 2014—based on evidence of a criminal offence which is
dealt with in the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in art. 255 part 1; 28 part 4, 27 part 3,
191 part 5; 28 part 4, 27 part 3, 349; 28 part 4, 27 part 3, 289; 28 part 4, 27 part 3,
and 157 part 3.
Numerous violations of national and international law have occurred during the
course of this pre-trial investigation of the criminal offence referred to above.
With respect to the detention on October 31, 2015
On October 31, 2015 at 8.40 a.m. by Ye. B. Skuba, the senior investigator for
cases of particular importance of the investigative division of the department of
investigation for cases of particular importance of the main investigative division of
the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine Hennadiy Olegovych Korban was
detained in his place of residence in Dnipropetrovsk.
On the videorecording which was displayed on the official website of the
Security Service of Ukraine, investigator Y. B. Skuba, in the presence of M. M.
Makeyev, an investigator in the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine, and some
employees of the 'Alfa' Special Forces personnel of the Security Service of Ukraine,
is shown informing Korban that he is to be detained on suspicion of having

committed crimes referred to in art. 289 and 349 in the Criminal Code of Ukraine,
having abetted the commission of the violations referred to below:
- Korban was not given an explanation of the legal grounds for his detention, nor
his legal rights as a detainee, including the right to protection, whereas, as stated in
art.52, part 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (subsequently referred
to as the CPC) in a case of the commission of a crime of singular gravity, the
participation of defense counsel is mandatory.
- the stipulations in art. 27 of the Constitution of Ukraine were ignored,
according to which no one can be arrested or kept under guard except by legally-
grounded court decision, and only on the basis and in the manner prescribed by law.
Subsequently, in violation of the stipulations in part 1 of art. 210 of the CPC,
according to which the investigator would have been obliged to transport Korban to
the nearest subdivision of the pre-trial investigation office in Dnipropetrovsk, where
the date, the exact time (hour and minute), the transfer of the detainee and other
information were to have been recorded, Korban was taken to the airport by
helicopter and transported to another city (probably to Poltava), from which he was
transported to Kyiv. Through this violation of the stipulations in the art. 42 part 4,
cl. 7, 208 part 4, 213 part 1 and part 2 of the the CPC, Korban was not given an
immediate opportunity to inform his closest relatives of his detention and his current
location.
It was not until 8.37 p.m. that Skuba, the investigator, drafted a protocol
regarding Korban’s detention on the premises of the Prosecutor General’s Office in
Kyiv. In this protocol, the basis for the detention was identified as being cl. 2 of art.
208 of the CPC "… if, immediately following the commission of a crime, there are
indications by a witness, a victim, or a combination of evident signs on the body,
clothing or site that the said person has just committed a crime…"—but these
specific facts and items of information were not identified, which is a direct violation
of national and international law.
2

Thus, according to art. 208 of the CPС, in the absence of a ruling by an
investigating judge, the only cases in which a legally authorized official has the right
to detain an individual suspected of having committed a crime punishable by
imprisonment are the following:
1) if the individual was apprehended while the crime was being
committed or attempted;
2) if, immediately following the commission of a crime, there are
indications by a witness, a victim, or a combination of evident signs on
the body, clothing or site that the said person has just committed a
crime.
According to a copy of an extract from the Combined Register of pre-trial
investigations, information concerning the criminal offences of which Korban was
incriminated were entered in the Register on August 15, 2014 and these precise
offences (according to the report regarding suspicions) occurred within the period
from May 8, 2015 to June 15, 2015.
Under these circumstances, the detention can in no way be considered to have
been carried out “…if, immediately following the commission of a crime, there are
clothing or site that the said person has just committed a crime…”, and is a direct
violation of stipulations in the art. 208 of the CPС and cl. 1 of art. 5 of the
Convention.
According to cl. 1 of art. 5 of the European Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms no one can be deprived of his/her
freedom except in a manner which is prescribed by law.
According to art. 17 of the Law of Ukraine “On the implementation
of decisions and the application of the practices of the European Court of
Human Rights” the courts of Ukraine apply the Convention and the practices of the
European Court as the source of legal authority in their proceedings.
3

According to the practices of the European court, the establishment of accurate
facts regarding the detention, as well as the grounds for that detention, is a necessary
condition for the legality of the detention, for those reasons provided for in art. 5 of
the European Convention.
Korban’s detention, which is at variance with the stipulations in the art. 208 of
the CPC, is thus at the same time a violation of the norms of international law.
In addition to this, contrary to the stipulations in cl. 6, part 3 art. 212 of the
CPC, Skuba, the official responsible for the detainees' stay, did not provide any
immediate medical assistance or the stabilization by medical personnel of any injury
or deteriorating health condition.
It was only when the lawyers arrived at approximately 7.30 p.m. on October
31, 2015 that doctors from the Kyiv Center for Emergency Medical Care and Medical
Disasters were called for Korban, emergency medical treatment was given, and the
diagnosis of a myocardial infarction was given.
Without regard for the doctors’ recommendation that Korban be hospitalized
urgently, the investigative procedures continued and police officers exerted
psychological pressure on the doctors, interrogating them and forbidding them to
provide further medical assistance.
Detention on November 3, 2015
On the night of November 3, 2015 while the Novozavodsky district court in
Chernihiv was examining a petition concerning the preventive detention options for
Korban, he was taken to Chernihiv City Hospital #2 on the recommendation of the
ambulance doctors and was diagnosed with acute hypertenson, post-myocardial
infarction cardiosclerosis, coronary heart disease, and angina pectoris.
The consideration of the latter petition was, in fact, not initiated. Korban’s
defense counsel was not provided with a copy of the petition or the materials which
would have provided the basis for the petition.
4

On November 3, 2015 at 8.42 a.m. Korban was released from custody on the
Novozavodsk district court premises in Chernihiv due to the expiration of his
detention period. Immediately thereafter he was illegally detained by personnel of
the Special Forces “Alfa” division of the Security Service of Ukraine on suspicion of
having committed another offense provided for in part 3 of art. 157 of the Criminal
Code of Ukraine. The detainee was transported away in an unknown direction in the
presence of public representatives, heads of departments and ordinary members of the
UKROP political party, as well as numerous journalists, deputies of Ukraine, and
lawyers.
Again in violation of the stipulations in part 1 of art. 210 of the CPC,
according to which the investigator would have been obliged to transport Korban to
the nearest subdivision of the pre-trial investigation office in Chernihiv where the
date, the exact time (hour and minute), the transfer of the detainee and other
information were to have been recorded. The detainee was transferred to Kyiv and
placed in the department which provides pre-trial investigation (temporary detention
center) of Security Service of Ukraine.
On the same day, at 11.22 p.m. Skuba, the investigator, drew up a pertinent
protocol in which the reason for the detention again specified the cl. in art. 208 of
the CPC “…if, immediately following the commission of a crime, there are
clothing or site that the said person has just committed a crime…"—but these
specific facts and items of information were not identified, which is a direct violation
of national and international law.
According to a copy of an extract from the Combined Register of pre-trial
investigations, information concerning the criminal offences of which Korban was
incriminated were entered in the Register on October 1, 2015 and November 2, 2015
and these precise offences (according to the report regarding suspicions) occurred
within the period from September 30, 2015 to 2.00 p.m on October 31, 2015.
5

In addition to this, during a period of three days (from 8.40 a.m. on October 31,
2015 to 8.42 a.m. on November 3, 2015, Korban remained in custody altogether).
Under these circumstances, the detention can in no way be considered to have
been carried out “…if, immediately following the commission of a crime, there are
clothing or site that the said person has just committed a crime”, and is a direct
violation of stipulations in the art. 208 of the CPC and cl. 1 of art. 5 of the
Convention.
Thus, Skuba, the investigator grossly violated the provisions of art. 29 of the
Constitution of Ukraine, art. 42, 208, 212-213, 221 of the CPC and art. 5 of the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms.
As a result, Korban's illegal detention was a gross violation of his right to
protection, as well as being a violation of the Constitution of Ukraine, of criminal
law, of criminal procedural law, and of international legal legislation, and he was
illegally deprived of his liberty.
Along with this, the study of the materials which were provided by the public
prosecutor in response to the request concerning the selection of a preventive
measure for Korban it was identified as being a violation of the conditions in art. 278
of the CPC, as the detainee was not given the report regarding his being a suspect
with respect to the crime, as provided for in part 3 of art. 157 of the CPC. The
detainee was not informed of his rights, nor was an information provided to clarify
the nature of his rights and duties.
According to the part 2 of art. 278 of the CPC, a written report regarding
suspicions which are held in connection with the detention is to be given to a
suspected detainee no later than twenty-four hours from the time of his detention.
If the said person is not given this report regarding the suspicions within twenty-
four hours from the time of his detention, the detainee must be released immediately.
6

The date and time of the notification regarding reasonable suspicion, and the
legal status of the criminal offence which a person is suspected as having committed,
along with a reference to the pertinent article (and its subsections) within the Law of
Ukraine, are immediately entered by the investigator and the prosecutor into the
Combined Register of pre-trial investigations.
Thus, on November 4, 2015—the time of O. M. Lysak’s and A. Y. Bohdan’s
visit—H. O. Korban, the individual under protection, was being held in custody
illegally.
Regarding the political component of the illegal criminal persecution
Hennadii Olehovych Korban is the head of the political party “Ukrainian
Association (Unity) of Patriots—UKROP” (subsequently referred to as Party), and
belongs to the political council of that same party. The party took an active part in the
regular municipal elections on October 25, 2015 throughout the whole country. The
party thus took an opposing political position in relation to those currently in power
in Ukraine, criticizing the deficiencies of its work and exposing corruption in
government processes.
Korban actively coordinated and guided the work of the party during the period
of the electoral process in the municipal elections of October 25, 2015. In the results
of the elections the party received a significant number of mandates for deputies in
the local councils at all the levels: the party obtained deputorial representation in
almost 15 regional (oblast) councils and 200 district councils. The candidates from
the party also reached the second round of elections for local mayors in
Dnipropetrovsk and in Pavlograd.
The political repression of Korban by the law enforcement agencies just a few
days after the election can be accounted for by the fact of his party having such high
results in the local elections in 2015. The repression was intended to prevent the
effective management of the party during the election process, and to prevent the
7

local deputies from the party from properly exercising their powers. The detention of
the party head also hindered the party from preparing properly for the second round
of the elections of local mayors in Dnipropetrovsk and in Pavlograd.
Thus, it is evident that Korban’s detention was for the purpose of effecting
political persecution by obstructing the activity of the party and its deputies that are
in opposition to the current local council authorities.
Regarding the detention time limits
According to the account given by the pre-trial investigation office,
Korban was detained on October 31, 2015 under criminal proceedings number
№ 12014040670002852, but on November 3, 2015 he was released from custody on
the premises of the Novozavodsky district court in Chernihiv.
Subsequent to that, he was immediately detained under the terms of another
criminal proceeding № 12015040030000917, the information about which is entered
in the Combined Register of pre-trial investigations of October 1, 2015 and October
2, 2015. The contention of the pre-trial investigation office and of Tsokol, the
investigator of Pechersk district court in Kyiv, is that these are two separate
detentions that are not connected with each other, and that both of them are in
accordance with the CPC.
However, these contentions are in contradiction to the actual circumstances of
the case.
According to art. 211 of the CPC, the term of the detention of a person without
any ruling on the part of the investigating judge can’t be more than 24 hours since the
moment of his detention.
According to the part 2 of art. 278 of the CPC, a written report regarding
suspicions which are held in connection with the detention is to be given to a
suspected detainee no later than twenty-four hours from the time of his detention.
8

According to art. 209 of the CPC, a person is considered to be under detention
from the moment when he/she is forcibly or by constraint of an order obliged to
remain next to an authorized agent or in a place indicated by that authorized agent.
These provisions of the CPC are in complete harmony with the practices of the
European Court, especially with the decision of the case “Garkavy vs. Ukraine”
(statement № 25978/07, a decision made on February 18, 2010).
In fact Korban was detained on October 31, 2015 and was discharged only on
November 6, 2015, after he had been chased to his residence, meaning that he was
illegally detained for 7 days which is also a violation of cl. 1, article 5 of the
Convention.
Korban’s release on November 3, 2015 is not seen as genuine, in spite of his
formal release, the public safety officers did not allow him to leave the court room
freely but forced him into a car and took him from the territory of the court.
Moreover, on November 6, 2015, after the investigating judge of the Pechersk
district court of the city of Kyiv, Tsokol, issued orders, and refused to grant a petition
to remand the defendant in custody, he was released in the courtroom.
In the case “Nechyporuk and Jonkalo vs. Ukraine,” the state agencies argued
that the deponent had had two separate periods of detention, one being from May 5,
2004 to May 23, 2004 with the status of an administrative detention and the second
being from May 24, 2004 to May 26, 2004 with the status of a criminal case.
The European Court did not agree with the position of the law enforcement
authorities, stating that it was one continual period of detention and that it was a
violation of not only cl. 1, art. 5 of the Convention, but art. 29 of the Constitution of
Ukraine.
On the proceedings of the application of the illegal detention
On November 4, 2015, at the Pechersk district court of the city of Kyiv, the
investigating judge, Babenko, held a court session on the processing of the
9

application over Korban’s illegal detention that was presented bу his lawyers in
accordance with art. 206 of the CPC.
According to art. 55 of the Constitution of Ukraine, every person is
guaranteed the right to appeal in court against decisions, actions or inactions of state
authorities, local municipal governments and clerks.
According to cl. 6, part 6, art. 42 of the CPC, a suspect has the right to demand a
review of the grounds for his detention.
According to cl. 4, art. 5 of the European Convention for Human Rights
Protection and Fundamental Freedoms, any person who has been deprived of his
liberty as a result of arrest or detention has the right of prompt access to judicial
proceedings in the course of which the court is to determine, without delay, the
legality of the arrest, or detention, and order a release if the detention was illegal.
Art. 13 of the European Convention for Human Rights Protection and
Fundamental Freedoms provides for the right to an effective remedy before national
authorities for violations of rights under the Convention. The inability to obtain a
remedy before a national court for an infringement of a Convention right is thus a
freestanding and separately, an actionable infringement of the Convention.
According to part 2, art. 206 of the CPC, if an investigating judge receives
information from any source about a justified suspicion that within the territorial
borders of the jurisdiction of the court there is a person deprived of his liberty without
a court decision, or that came into legal force, or the person was not discharged on
bail in accordance with the order set by this Code, the court is to make a decision and
compel any state organ, or the official who detained that person to be taken
immediately to the investigating judge to clarify the grounds for the violation of the
person’s liberty.
In the case “Kurt vs. Turkey”, on May 25, 1998, the European Court
of Human Rights underlines that in a democratic society it is essential that
everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. These freedoms are
10

guaranteed by art. 5 of the Convention on Human Rights. Any detention is to be done
not only in accordance with the basic national legal regulations and practices, but to
correspond with the purposes of art. 5, that is to protect a person from any unlawful
acts of the authorities.
The aforementioned legal regulations were ignored by the judge, and the
decision of the case, in contravention of the provisions of part 2, art. 206 of the CPC,
was not delivered, so Korban’s detention was not considered to be illegal and the case
hearing was postponed to the next day.
In addition, the journalists who were in the courtroom noticed that a prosecutor
was texting the investigating judges, giving them illegal orders to notify Korban of a
suspicion and commence legal proceedings immediately. Such orders were unlawful
because 24 hours had passed since Korban's first and the second detention and, under
art. 278 of the CPC, a written notice of suspicion is to be served to a detainee not
later than 24 hours from the time of his detention. If a written notice of suspicion has
not been served to a detainee within 24 hours from the time of his detention, such
person shall be released immediately.
In spite of numerous requests and demands of the court and Korban’s lawyers,
the investigating judges and prosecutors of the Prosecutor General’s Office of
Ukraine presented no documents (record of the trial, notice of suspicion, etc.)
regarding his detention.
Later, on November 6, 2015, Tsokol, an investigating judge of the Pechersk
district court of the city of Kyiv, did not consider the detention of Korban to be
unlawful and his lawyers’ appeals about the illegal detention, presented under art.
206 of the CPC, were unlawfully rejected.
About the court’s decision on the pre-trial restrictions
On November 11, 2015, Tsokol, an investigating judge of the Pechersk district
court of the city of Kyiv, presented an order by which the investigator’s motion on
11

the application of the pre-trial restrictions to Korban were partially satisfied and a
two-month-24-hour house arrest was chosen as a pre-trial restriction.
The decision was made with significant violations of applicable international
legislation.
Thus, article 370 of the CPC stipulates that the court decision must be lawful,
justified and motivated.
The decision of the court is justified, based on objectively clarified
circumstances which are confirmed by the evidence examined during the trial and
assessed by the court in accordance with art. 94 of this Code.
The court, making the appealing decision, took into account only the
prosecutor’s formally grounded arguments which supported the petition, not paying
attention to the obvious that should have placed in doubt the need for the application
of the pre-trial restrictions which had been presented by the defence.
In particular, according to art. 177 of the CPC, the basis for the application of
the pre-trial restrictions of a person is the simultaneous presence of two logically
interconnected factors:
- a reasonable suspicion that the person in respect of whom the interested
person filed the petition on the application of the pre-trial restrictions, committed a
criminal offence, set in part 2 of art. 177 of the CPC;
- the existence of the risks which may give sufficient reasons to an
investigating judge, the court to consider that a suspect may commit acts in
furtherance of an obstruction to ascertain the truth in the case and to avoid an
investigation, or a court action in part 1 of art. 177 of the CPC.
A reasonable suspicion can be considered only as the availability of documents
and circumstances which, at a reasonable and impartial observation, justified
suspicions regarding the involvement of the person, who at the time of consideration
of the petition followed proceedings in court to a specific criminal offense, the
disposition of which is quite clear, precisely defined and correlative to the actual
12

actions of a suspect (cl. 175 of the ECHR Decision in the case “Nechyporuk and
Jonkalo against Ukraine”, 2010).
The petition of the investigator was motivated by the fact that, "..it had
established the sufficiency of the evidence to suspect Korban..."
The court erroneously concluded that the evidence provided by the
prosecution, namely the protocols of witness interrogations, and others obtained
during a pre-judicial investigation, was sufficient justification for the suspicion of
Korban.
Korban had signed no document which the investigator attached to the petition.
Thus, the analysis of these arguments gives reasonable grounds to say that the
evidence which would establish the subjective side of the acts alleged to Korban was
not provided by the prosecution, i.e., there was a lack of evidence or arguments that
would substantiate the criminal nature of Korban, and hence there were no grounds
for the suspicion.
As previously noted, the second cause for the application of pre-trial
restrictions against a person is a risk that can give sufficient reasons to the
investigating judge, the court, to consider that the suspect may commit acts in
furtherance of obfuscation to ascertain the truth in the case and to avoid an
investigation or a court action in part 1 of art. 177 of the CPC.
According to cl. 5, part 1, art. 184 of the CPC, the petition of the investigator
about the application of the pre-trial restriction should contain a statement of the
circumstances under which the investigator and the prosecutor came to the conclusion
about the presence of one or more risks appointed in the petition, and references to
the materials confirm these circumstances.
Taking advantage of friendships or professional ties among the law
enforcement officials and judicial officers brings with it the danger of putting
influence on witnesses, victims, or other as yet unquestioned or unknown witnesses,
or other suspects. The statements of any person, whether it be a victim, a witness, or
13

an accomplice may serve as evidence that there has been a preparation to commit
these acts.
As to Korban’s attempts to use his contacts acquired among acquaintances, law
enforcement officials, judicial bodies and state power agencies officials who are
under his control, can use them to create obstacles to the pre-trial investigation by
destroying evidence, influencing witnesses and victim, etc. In the materials attached
to the petition, there were no data or documents that the suspect or his relatives and
other persons in any manner threatened, bribed or tried to persuade witnesses to give
false testimony. The corresponding explanations of these people are missing.
An obstruction of criminal proceedings in a different manner is not
substantiated, as there are no references to the following: pressure on investigators
and their officials and judicial leaders, to commit acts with the aim of falsifying
evidence.
In turn, it should be noted that in the present petition the investigator does not
provide any justification for the risks determined on the list of part 1, art. 177 of the
CPC, but resorts only to a formal petition, citing only the list of these risks without a
motivation.
The investigator’s motivation that Korban is suspected of committing grave
and extremely serious crimes cannot be a reason for using the most severe application
of pre-trial restrictions in the form of detention, as this position contravenes art. 3 - 5
of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms.
Again, the court did not adequately assess the lack of arguments on the part of
the investigator. The investigator turned to the formal enumeration in the text of
appealed risks identification without citing any argument for even one of them.
According to part 2, art. 177 of the CPC an investigator or a prosecutor has
no right to initiate a pre-trial restriction without some reason provided by the Code.
14

According to the requirements of the criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine,
non-recognition of guilt by a suspect, or an accused, refusal to testify or to give
testimony which contradicts the collected evidence, is not a reason to choose a pre-
trial restriction, as it is a violation of the inalienable procedural rights of the
protection on the part of the criminal investigative body, a prosecutor, or court.
According to cl. 9 of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and
Criminal Cases 04.04.2013 № 511-550 / 0 / 4-13 "On some issues of pre-trial
restriction application during the preliminary investigation and the judicial
proceedings according to the CPC” an exclusive (the only) purpose of applying for
pre-trial restrictions in criminal proceedings is the enforcement of a suspect or an
accused person to perform procedural obligations. The application of such measures
is always associated with the necessity to prevent risks stipulated in art.177 of the
CPC. An investigating judge and the court must take into account that the
investigator and the prosecutor have no right to initiate a pre-trial restriction without
reasons stipulated by art.177 of the CPC. Therefore, if the case for the consideration
of the corresponding petition which is not sustained with the aim and reasons defined
in the CPC, the latter should be rejected.
When deciding on the case, please take into account the practices of the
European Court of Human Rights.
In particular, in the case of "Lutsenko vs. Ukraine" in the final decision of
November 19, 2012, in cl. 62 it was stated: "The Court emphasizes that art. 5 of the
Convention guarantees the fundamental right to liberty and integrity which is most
important in a "democratic society” within the meaning of the Convention. Everyone
has the right to the protection of this right, which means not being confined, and has a
guarantee from an extension of detention, except in cases where such deprivation
occurred under the conditions set out in cl. 1, art. 5 of the Convention.
The list of exceptions, set out in the abovementioned article, is exhaustive and
only a narrow interpretation of them serve the purpose of this enactment, namely to
15

ensure that no one is arbitrarily deprived his liberty (see. The judgment of October
14, 2010 in the case "Hayredinov vs. Ukraine", №38717 / 04, cl. 26. Any arbitrary
detention cannot meet cl. 1, art. 5 of the Convention. In this context, the term
"arbitrariness" is understood larger than the incompatibility to the national law. As a
result, illegal deprivation of liberty according to the domestic law still can be
arbitrary and, thus, break the Convention, in particular, when the public authorities
displayed unfairness or delusion (see the decision of July 9, 2009 in the case "Mooren
vs. Germany", application № 11364/03, cl. 72, 77 and 78, or when such detention
was not necessary according to the particular circumstances (see. the judgment of
February 27, 2007 in the case "Neshtak vs. Slovakia" application №65559 / 01 cl. 74.
Part one of art. 29 of the Constitution of Ukraine stipulates that no one can
be arrested or retained in custody other than pursuant to a substantiated court decision
and only on grounds and in the procedure established by the law.
Also, the investigating judge did not take into account that according to the
European Court of Human Rights decision in the cases "Fox, Campbell and
Hartley vs. the United Kingdom" on August 30, 1990, "Murray to the United
Kingdom" on October 28, 1994, the requirement of a reasonable suspicion involves
the availability of evidence objectively linking the suspect with a particular crime and
they need not be sufficient to provide a conviction, but must be sufficient to justify
further investigation or criminal charges.
Parts 3 and 5 art. 132 the CPC stipulates that when considering the
application of the measures of criminal proceedings, including pre-trial restrictions
(cl. 9, part 2, art. 131 of the CPC), the parties in criminal proceedings should adduce
evidence they refer to an investigating judge.
In consideration of the violations of the current legislation of Ukraine and
international law mentioned above, Korban’s detention and the decision of the
Pechersk district court of the city of Kyiv on the application of pre-trial restrictions
and the denial of the applications in accordance with art. 206 of the CPC, are illegal.
16

Information

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Information

More from Майдан Закордонних Справ

Recently uploaded

Information