European Court of Human Rights rejected Medvedchuk’s appeal
The European Court of Human Rights rejected as "manifestly unfounded" the complaint of MP Viktor Medvedchuk, against whom a number of criminal proceedings are under investigation in Ukraine, in particular under the article on high treason.
This is stated by Censor.NЕТ with reference to Radio Svoboda.
The Court rejected Medvedchuk's complaint, filed in June 2021, in which he claimed that his criminal prosecution was politically motivated, a gross violation of the right to a fair trial, and the absence of "reasonable suspicion" in connection with his house arrest.
The ECHR first noted that the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still at a very early stage, so his complaint of a violation of the right to a fair trial was premature. In addition, the Court noted that with regard to the imposition of house arrest, which Medvedchuk complained about, the Ukrainian courts provided explanations that "do not seem arbitrary or unreasonable".
"In particular, the references to various pieces of evidence in the materials submitted to the court demonstrate that the suspicion that the applicant may have committed treason (by transferring military secrets to another state) was based on sufficient objective elements to be regarded as 'reasonable' within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention (European Convention on Human Rights - ed.)," the decision reads.
The Court considers that Medvedchuk's house arrest was based on a "reasonable suspicion" and was justified by the risk of prejudice to the course of justice under Article 5 of the Convention. "The Court has no reason to believe that the courts made a decision without legal grounds or to doubt their impartiality," the decision reads.
"Although high-ranking Ukrainian officials have publicly stated that the applicant and some of his political allies assisted the Russian authorities in its aggression against Ukraine, and the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine imposed economic sanctions against them in connection with it, which are not the subject of this statement there is no evidence that the applicant's house arrest was accompanied by arbitrariness or was part of the authorities' strategy to obstruct his political activities or "remove him from public life"," the Court added
