What stands behind pressurization of Ramiz Mamedau in penal colony No. 5?

2014 2014-04-11T12:34:57+0300 2014-04-11T13:58:45+0300 en http://spring96.org/files/images/sources/pk-5-ivacevichy.jpg The Human Rights Center “Viasna” The Human Rights Center “Viasna”
The Human Rights Center “Viasna”
PC-5 in Ivatsevichy. Photto taken from postalovsky-a.livejournal.com

PC-5 in Ivatsevichy. Photto taken from postalovsky-a.livejournal.com

The Human Rights Center “Viasna” first learned about the case of Ramiz Mamedau from an interview about the citizens who have been trying to get fair judgments for their relatives. After this, the mother of a youngster sentenced to 24 years of imprisonment, applied to the human rights defenders.

Since 2010, she has been maintaining correspondence with the law enforcement agencies concerning the massive pressurization of her son in the penal colony No. 5 in Ivatsevichy. To her mind, the pressurization is ordered by the Lida and Hrodna law machinery, who are involved in the falsification of the materials of his criminal case.

Ramiz Mamedov was convicted of killing his cousin in Lida. However, neither the court nor the investigation paid attention to the fact Ramiz didn't come to Lida on the day of the murder. Thanks to the efforts of his mother, this case came to the Operational and Analytical Center under the President. OAC concluded that Ramiz wasn't in Lida on the day of the murder and the accusations against him were false. The same conclusion was made by the then Prosecutor General Ryhor Vasilevich, who personally interrogated two alleged witnesses of the accusation. It was quite surprising that one of them was a drug addict and, according to the case materials, even testified under the influence of drugs. However, the court built its accusation on his testimonies. On the basis of the conclusion of the OAC the Supreme Court abolished the verdict and held a new prosecutorial investigation in the case. As a result, in 2013 the Hrodna Regional Court again found Ramiz Mamedov guilty of murder, appointing former punishment. This decision was based on the testimony of the same witnesses.

Halina Mamedava notes that not only Ramiz, but also members of his family were pressurized in connection with the revision of the case. “They also tried to accuse my son of another crime, but didn't succeed in it. He was also beaten in the Hrodna prison. His grandmother, who was summoned to the investigator as a victim in the case, was threatened with imprisonment for false testimony. The elder son was summoned for a “talk”. Now they are trying to accuse Ramiz's father and some witnesses of giving false testimonies.”

The verdict, according to which Ramiz Mameday was sentenced to 24 years and 1 month in maximum security prison, was left in force after the appeal in the Supreme Court.

"Prior to the abolition of the first sentence Ramiz was held in the penal colony No. 5 in Ivatsevichy. After the second trial, I applied to the Corrections Department with the request to send him to another colony, as he had problems with the administration in that one,” says Halina Mamedava. According to her, none of the inspectors, to whom she addressed, didn't see any tendentiousness in the imposition of penalties on the prisoner in order to implement the order of the deputy head of the colony I Khudzinski to put the surname of her son on the list of the people who were to be given at least two penalties a month. “Strangely enough, nobody was surprised with the number of penalties for sleeping in the daytime. The matter is that Ramiz suffered from severe pain due to a duodenal ulcer. Anyone with abdominal pain tries to lie down and curl up..."

Despite the request of the mother, the convict was sent back to the PC 5. As it is stated in the reply of the deputy head of the Corrections Department P. Shakola of September 18, 2013, the place of punishment for Ramiz Mamedau was determined on a common basis in accordance with the legislation in view of his conviction under Article 139 of the Criminal Code and there are no reasons to change this decision.

Upon his arrival in the penal colony, the prisoner again faced with groundless punishments and was soon placed in the cell-type facility for five months. As it became known from the answer of the head of the Corrections Department in the Brest region M. Sukhadolski of November 13, 2013, Ramiz Mamedau received six penalties for two weeks, and was given the status of “malignant violation of the prison regulations” at the sitting of the board of educators of the prison brigade on October 16, 2013. This fact eloquently witnesses the biased attitude of the personnel of the PC 5 to Mr. Mamedau. However, in his answer to Halina Mamedava M. Sukhadolski states: "There weren't discovered any facts of biased attitude towards Your son, prisoner R. Mamedau, on the part of workers of the penal colony No. 5, as well as groundless imposition of penalties.”

Disagreeing with such an answer, Halina Mamedava appealed it to the MIA Corrections Department with the assistance of the human rights defenders. “Who are they trying to convince that R. Mamedau, who came to the PC-5 without any violations and admonitions on October 5, 2013, turned into a “malignant violator of the prison regime” on October 16, 2013... Irrespective of his behavior, my son is given disciplinary punishments. I believe this is a continuation of the conflict between the R. Mamedau and the shift of inspectors who were present during the use of physical force and police gear towards my son on July 26, 2011. After this, R. Mamedau was taken to the Ivatsevichy hospital and was put under a drip. His direction to the PC-5 in Ivatsevichy doesn't correspond to the aims of criminal punishment, because it will not contribute to his correction," reads the appeal.

According to Halina, Ramiz wants to serve his term without any penalties, and work and study at the PC-5. He explains the need to work with the fact that he has an under-aged daughter and he needs to pay alimony. He also needs to compensate the cost of services of a lawyer fro the Hrodna Regional Bar Association. However, he was again denied the opportunity to work and study. That's why in hear appeal Halina Mamedava asks the relevant authorities to put the situation under control and prevent all further attempts of pressurization of her son at the PC-5, an facilitate his employment.

The woman also set out her requests at an audience with the administration of the Corrections Department. According to her, First Deputy Head of the Corrections Department Siarhei Pratsenka promised to contact the administration of the PC-5 in order to solve the situation.

Mrs. Mamedava also filed an inquiry in order to learn the essence of the violations for which the aforementioned penalties were imposed on her son.