Often, in our practice, we encounter situations where the actions of the investigation or prosecutor's office formally look \"in accordance with the CPC,\" but their real purpose is far from justice. It can be pressure on business, isolation of an opponent, or a simple order.<\/p>\n
How to prove this ulterior motive?<\/strong><\/p>\n This is where Article 18 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) comes in. This is a real \"silver bullet\" against state arbitrariness, which first shot out loud in Ukraine in the cases of Yuriy Lutsenko and Yulia Tymoshenko.<\/p>\n \ud83d\udccc<\/strong> What does the regulatory framework say?<\/strong><\/p>\n According to Article 18 of the ECHR (\"Limits on the use of restrictions on rights\"<\/em>), the state has no right to apply restrictions on rights for any other purposes than those for which they are provided. In fact, this is a rule prohibiting abuse of power.<\/p>\n An important caveat: Article 18 never works alone. In criminal proceedings, it is almost always used in conjunction with Article 5 of the ECHR (\"The right to liberty and security of person\"<\/em>). That is, the state has the right to restrict your freedom (for example, to place you in a pre-trial detention center), but only for the legitimate purpose of ensuring justice, and not for covert repression.<\/p>\n Lutsenko v. Ukraine (application no. 6492\/11)<\/strong><\/p>\n The ex-minister was detained allegedly because he was \"slow to get acquainted with the case file\" and made statements to the media.<\/p>\n Tymoshenko v. Ukraine (application no. 49872\/11)<\/strong><\/p>\n The applicant was arrested right in the courtroom for \"contempt of court\" and \"obstructing the interrogation of witnesses\".<\/p>\n \ud83d\udcbc<\/strong> How does this work in modern law practice?<\/strong><\/p>\n These decisions are not just legal history, but a working tool for defense in investigative courts. When we see signs of a contractual prosecution, we apply the standard of proof of a \"hidden purpose\":<\/p>\n Article 18 of the ECHR has an extremely high threshold of proof. However, a professionally assembled puzzle of circumstantial evidence, context, and procedural errors of the investigation can destroy even the most high-profile case.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The material was prepared by Attorneys at law \"AxelLegal\"<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n