The complex dispute about the right of acquitted prisoners to rehabilitation set by the constitutional court. He forbade prosecutors to mock yesterday’s suspects and against them to reopen closed cases.
The scandalous dispute which advocates once dubbed the “case of prosecutorial abuse”, began with a criminal case against the Krasnodar businessman. The man was accused of credit fraud. The court of first instance acquitted the businessman. But the appeal, the conviction was overturned and sent the case for retrial. However, a second trial also failed to established the guilt of the suspect. As a result, the case was dismissed for lack of evidence, but for a former prisoner recognized the right to rehabilitation. By law this meant that the acquitted citizen could recover from the state compensation of moral harm and expenses on defenders. However, in practice all has appeared where more difficult. The businessman has the nerve to sue only three years later. To his surprise, the Prosecutor had made a knight’s move and re-opened the ill-fated case. Then not found in the acts of the suspect or any crime, closed the case and then resumed production on it again. The angry owner felt that the behavior of the security forces pure mockery and filed a complaint to the constitutional court. To the high court he was asked to stop the tyranny and finally give him the opportunity to exercise their legitimate right to reparation from illegal criminal prosecution. After a long trial, the constitutional court sided with the poor guy. It held that to reopen a discontinued case, the Prosecutor may, within one year. Now there are time limits in the criminal procedure code no that the constitutional court recognized contradicting the Constitution. To crank out such a procedure will be possible only through court. Moreover, the defendant in this long-running business should provide the opportunity to participate in the hearing.