Respublika-kaz.info reports: Two conflicting verdicts in Ablyazov's case
As was reported by respublika-kaz.info on June 3, two court hearings were held in the Ablyazov case. Both pertained to the right of Winston & Strawn LLP lawyers to participate in the trial. The first hearing was held in Lyon, the second in Kiev. According to journalists with the republika-kaz-info news portal, these two courts pronounced two conflicting decisions.
The Appellate Court of Lyon allowed for representatives of Russia and Ukraine to be present during hearings in the Ablyazov extradition trial, however, it decided that these representatives would not have access to the case file nor the possibility of adding anything to it. Russia will be represented by an official from the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, while Ukraine is to be represented by lawyers with a private law firm, Winston & Strawn LLP.
The French court allowed the presence of lawyers from a private firm at the trial based on a document that was rendered null and void by another court in Kiev.
The article also recounts another story from 6 months back. In December 2013, two French lawyers - Gilles Bigot and Guillaume Faure - stated that they represented the Ukrainian side in the Ablyazov trial. They supported this claim by presenting a document signed by a Ukrainian investigator, Maksim Melnik. The document granting the law firm, W&S the right to participate in the trial was later passed on to the French Ministry of Justice by the Ukrainian Embassy in France. However, as respublika-kaz-info reports, this document is invalid under Ukrainian law. The Act on Prosecutor's Office defines very precisely the exact process that has to be observed, should a private law firm's services be used. The General Prosecutor's Office should turn to the MoJ, informing it of the need to employ private law firm's services, and the MoJ should verify the availability of funds for this purpose in the state budget, and identify the amount of funding for such services, which should be followed by a contract being signed with the law firm for the performance of the specified services. In the final step of the process, the General Prosecutor's Office should inform the foreign court in writing about the right of representation during the trial having been granted to this particular law firm.
According to journalists at respublika-kaz-info, it was the “Ilyashev & Partners” law firm, hired by the Kazakh BTA Bank, who asked the Ukrainian General Prosecutor's Office to allow foreign lawyers to participate in the Ablyazov trial. "Ilyashev & Partners" allegedly offered a solution in which these lawyers would not demand any fees from the state budget in return for representing Ukraine in the proceedings.
In the second hearing held on that day, the Pechersk District Court of the city of Kiev decided that in issuing the above-mentioned authorisation, investigator Myelnik was acting against the law, which renders the document itself null and void. The court also decided that the authorisation for Winston & Strawn LLP - submitted through diplomatic channels by the Ukrainian Embassy in France to the French MJ - should be revoked. This verdict has been appealed by BTA Bank.
As respublika-kaz-info points out, on one day, two conflicting verdicts were announced. The French court allowed the presence of lawyers from a private firm at the trial based on a document that was rendered null and void by another court in Kiev. Unless one of these court decisions is changed, any verdict that announced in the extradition trial of Mukhtar Ablyazov will be unlawful.
Read the respublika-kaz-info article.
More about
-
10France has refused to extradite Mukhtar Ablyazov to Russia and Ukraine
dec -
10France has refused to extradite Mukhtar Ablyazov to Russia and Ukraine
dec -
14France to extradite Ablyazov on Moscow's request. Mediapart about his case.
mar -
14France to extradite Ablyazov on Moscow's request. Mediapart about his case.
mar -
26Participant in corruption scandals Vladimir Guzyr prepared conclusions on the ‘lawfulness’ and ‘justification’ of Syrym Shalabayev’s extradition request
feb
Related galleries
-
Ablyazov’s memories: how he dropped out of school and got into business
-
Mukhtar Ablyazov with family
-
Mukhtar Ablyazov: Prison Camp Experience
-
The Italian television channel ‘TG1’ about the kidnapping of Ablyazov’s family members
-
Akorda’s political hostages
Related Publications
- Ukraine assists post-Soviet states with the persecution of political opponents and refugees (.pdf, 12.69 MB)
- The case of Tatiana Paraskevich: Through misuse of the EU's justice system, Kazakhstan's lobbyists seek to have Paraskevich's asylum status revoked (.pdf, 0.32 MB)
- The Open Dialog Foundation welcomes Lithuania’s decision to deny the extradition of Syrym Shalabayev to Kazakhstan or Ukraine (.pdf, 0.33 MB)
- The case of Paraskevich: Ukraine continues to collaborate with Russia and Kazakhstan on attempts to prosecute political refugees (.pdf, 0.14 MB)
- Prominent Russian human rights activists сalled for preventing the extradition of Mukhtar Ablyazov (.pdf, 0.18 MB)
