Читать статья по основам права: "Revisiting the issue on the extraterritorial effect of the russian law and the international law" Страница 3

(Назад) (Cкачать работу)

criminal, instead of staying low in the territory controlled by the Ukrainian authorities, went to Russia, where she had never been before, taking an awful chance of detention by Russian law enforcement agencies, which allegedly eventually happened. At the same time, Savchenko was wearing the Ukrainian military uniform, while “voluntarily staying in the territory of the Russian Federation”.arguments suffer from other inconsistencies as well. For example, according to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, presented during the “trial”, Savchenko was adjusting artillery fire near the village of Stukalova Balka. However, during the trial the representatives of the RF IC clarified that she was doing it alone, with a bullet through her hand, climbed onto a smooth steel tube towers unaided, in the rear of the militants, and then she got round them on the other side and was captured. Then the militants, without any reason, released Savchenko [npyceHKoea, 2016].arguments of investigation look frankly unconvincing, even if we admit that the materials, on which they were based, deserve full confidence. On 6 July 2015, Vladimir Markin said, “Investigators calmly led the case to its logical ending, having collected the necessary body of evidence. I can only name the main ones. In the first place, it is the data of a forensic expert examination, which confirmed that Savchenko could have corrected the shell fire near the village of Metalist. Secondly, the results of a ballistic inquiry of shell fragments pulled out of the victims’ bodies, confirming that it was a shell from D-30 howitzers. And thirdly, there are Savchenko’s handwritten records and a detailed map of the area indicating her role in the military actions [73].draw attention to the fact that the opportunity to commit a crime and committing it - are completely different things, the results of ballistic tests do not indicate that Savchenko was involved in the murder of Kornelyuk and Voloshin. In addition, the materials of the case show that handwritten notes have not been confirmed as those of Savchenko and maps relate not to the village of Metalist but to the Ukrainian checkpoint near Vesela Hora, located 10 kilometres away [74].prosecution has ignored the fact that Savchenko was captured by the “militias” one hour before the journalists’ deaths [62]. This is evidenced by billing data, i.e. information from the “defendant’s” and Russian journalists’ phones, connected to their location [Азар, 2016]. However, the court refused to place the alibi defence of Savchenko on file (the billings are simply excluded from the file) and refused to examine the video with Savchenko’s staying in captivity, which would allow to determine the time by shadows and establish whether she was in captivity during the shelling. The court in its decision for some reason and without any elaboration pointed out that attempts to determine the time of detention by using video were untenable.addition, Kornelyuk and Voloshin entered the territory of Ukraine illegally, worked without accreditation, and were in military fatigues, with no protection and no media identification signs [Джанполадова, 2014], respectively, neither Savchenko, nor other participants of hostilities could, without any prior notice, identify them as journalists. The prosecution has not confirmed that Savchenko was aware of their presence in the territory., none of the principal arguments of the prosecution, as the representatives of the investigation themselves put it, are validated.findings of the judgment that “Savchenko’s guilt is confirmed by the testimony of witnesses, the court sees no contradictions in them; militia battalion “Zaria” has no reason to tar character Savchenko” are inconclusive [Ивахненко, 2014]. However, the failure of these findings is more than clear because we are talking about the representatives of the opposing party to an armed conflict, which is already more than sufficient reason for slander.is revealing that all of these contradictions have hardly been awarded the attention of the Russian law doctrine; the same applies to Savchenko case in general (the Russian information cover has basically been allotted to representatives of the investigation), although some of the studies deserve special consideration. The state and state-controlled media, in turn, reproduce the official position, adding “shocking details”, namely, the “membership in the battalion known for looting and violence”, that Savchenko’s “hunger strikes” are nothing else but a gimmick to attract public attention” [73], “the involvement of Savchenko in the torture of the priest” [Ремесло, 2015], “Savchenko’s idea to sell the organs of prisoners” [Балдина, 2014] and the like. The analysis of the above studies suggests that this case was an important Russian propaganda tool to help reinforce the accusations of the “atrocities committed by the Kyiv junta” that have been used and are used for a variety of tasks - from lifting the sanctions imposed against the Russian Federation, to increasing the number of Russian volunteers in the war against Ukraine.a result, the survey carried out by VTslOM in Russia in March 2016, indicated that 45% of respondents believed that “Savchenko is an extreme nationalist who hates Russia”, 18% of respondents expressed the view that “she is just a soldier on duty”, 6% saw her as “a victim of circumstances”. Every second respondent noted that Savchenko should be in prison for as long as the court decides; nobody, not even the president, should interfere with her destiny. Every third suggested that she should be exchanged for Russian citizens imprisoned in Ukraine. Sociologists have noted that Russians are roughly divided into two equal groups: one supports the court’s decision, and the second seldom watches TV and does not follow the events