Volha Nikalaichyk's case sent for revising again
August 12, the repeated consideration of an administrative case against the civil society activist Volha Nikalaichyk was held at Centraĺny District Court of Minsk.
Back on May 24 the court charged Volna Nikalaichyk and Katsiaryna Sadouskaya with “using obcene language in public” (Art. 17.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses) and “resistance to the police” (Article 23.4 of the CAO) and sentenced the former to 13 days of arrest, whereas the latter was fined almost 11 mln rubles.
Volha Nikalaichyk had been detained on April 29 near the Embassy of the Russian Federation, where she and Katsiaryna Sadouskaya had been held a performance against a visit of the biker club “Night Wolves” in Belarus, known as the “cosmetic bag for Russian bikers”.
Disagreeing with the verdict, the activist appealed the ruling to the Minsk City Court. July 24, Minsk City Court reversed the verdict of the Centraĺny District Court of Minsk. Judge M. Lapko concluded that Centraĺny District Court hadn't fully clarified whether an administrative offense had been committed in that case, whether the defendant had been guilty of it and whether she had been subject to administrative liability.
In particular, it wasn't established whether the citizens towards whom the offense under Art. 17.1 had been allegedly committed, were questioned about it. Moreover, the court pointed at the fact that at the video record, provided by the Embassy of the Russian Federation, Volha Nikalaichyk didn't show any resistance to the police and didn't lie down on the ground. Therefore, Minsk City Court concluded that the verdict of the Centraĺny District Court was premature and sent the case for retrial to the same court.
Today's hearing began at 2.30 p.m. Judge T. Rak read the violation report, after which Volha Nikalaichyk petitioned for the viewing of the video evidence. After the viewing the judge voiced the defects in the violation reports and ruled that the case was to be sent for revising, since neither the precise place of the offense, neither the persons to whom the police had made remarks regarding the offense had been specified in the violation report.