Cherkasy: Examination of journalist's appeal postponed

Examination of the appeal of journalist Igor Efimov, who was beaten by police in Cherkasy, in February 2014 year, was postponed to 30 March. This is the decision of the Appeal Court of Cherkasy region. The court started a hearing of the journalist complaint against the decision of the Sosnivsky court in Cherkasy on February 16. The Sosnivsky court acquitted the only suspect in the case of beating photographer of the newspaper "Vechirni Cherkasy" Igor Efimov, on December 12, 2016. The National Union of Journalists of Ukraine approached metropolitan association of lawyers "Law Firm "AKTIO" to prepare appeal claim. The National Union of Journalists of Ukraine stated in the notice.

The suspect - Petro Palyvoda presented his position duting the hearing (a the time of the beating - deputy commander of patrol battalion of MIA in Cherkasy region), the prosecutor and the defense also presented their position, on February 16. A journalist of the newspaper "Vechirni Cherkasy" Tatiana Sukhenko, colleague of Igor Efimov, told NUJU that the suspect denied his guilt in the beating of a journalist, arguing that he had not seen anyone was wearing "Press" vest. He also noted that he did not give direct orders to subordinates - the patrol battalion staff. He informed court that he didn't coordinate police action as he was passing internship, and orders came from the commander of the special operation.

At the hearing, the defense of the suspect drew attention to the fact that earlier, beaten journalist did not show much interest in the course of the investigation and did not appear during court hearings, untill now, when the case gained wide media interest and resonance.
Attorneys of Lawyers Association "Law Firm" AKTIO" prepared a legal opinion certifying that the acquittal judgement which Sosnivskiy Court issued on December 12, 2016 - is illegal. They show that Palyvoda was an officer on the day of the crime, and therefore he should be arraign on a criminal charge.

The legal opinion states that Prosecutors of Cherkasy region had to pay court's attention to the discrepancy of the order about internship and current legislation, and to file its exclusion from a number of evidence, but inexplicably they didn't do it.
Lawyers emphasize that the Prosecutor office of Cherkasy region classified Palyvoda actions incorrectly.

All actions demonstrate the desire of the Prosecutor office of Cherkasy region to delay pretrial investigation by maximum in order no to bring to justice responsible persons.