Sternenko’s case of one cartridge

The Supreme Court overturned the charges against Sergiy Sternenko for possession of a single cartridge due to the insignificance of the act. In addition, the court upheld the decisions of the previous instances regarding the abduction and imprisonment of former MP Serhiy Shcherbych (in the case of Serhiy Sternenko and Ruslan Demchuk).
Sternenko’s lawyers proved that the possession of a single cartridge does not pose such a public danger as provided for in Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal handling of weapons, ammunition or explosives).
At first, the judges refused to broadcast the hearing, allegedly because of the court’s reboot and unwillingness to spend money on online broadcasting. Then lawyer Mykola Orekhovskyi filed a motion to recuse the judges, and his colleagues supported him. After that, the judges changed their minds and gave permission to stream.

“This case is a marker for Ukraine. The state and society have a demand for justice. Ukrainians want changes in the law enforcement system to feel safe. Therefore, the decision in this case will be reflected very loudly in the court practice,”said Sternenko’s lawyer Masi Nayem.

The defense emphasized the Supreme Court’s attention to the violations of previous instances of abduction (the court upheld the decision in this part), namely:

• The judge referred to the victim’s testimony. However, during the trial, it turned out that Serhiy Shcherbych had repeatedly changed his testimony. The lawyers confirmed the contradictions and inconsistencies in his words, but despite this, the judges continued to use the testimony.
• The courts refer to the protocol of the investigative experiment with the victim, which resembles the interrogation protocol in its content. It reflects the same testimony of Serhiy Shcherbych. Such a document is aimed at verifying and clarifying the facts of the case, but this time the investigators simply duplicated the victim’s testimony. Such evidence is inadmissible.
• The courts took into account a table where the investigators distributed unknown phone numbers between Serhii and Ruslan and allegedly established the location of our clients using these phones, which fits the circumstances of the case. However, the investigators did not confirm that the numbers belonged to the defendants, nor did they explain the source of such evidence.
• Shcherbych’s identification of the attackers. The victim repeatedly said that he knew Sternenko and Demchuk and what they looked like. However, an identification is meaningful only if the victim chooses those who were probably the attackers from strangers. In addition, the investigators did not specify in the identification protocol on what grounds the accused were identified, which indicates a formal violation of the provisions of the CPC of Ukraine. Therefore, the identification procedure was inappropriate, and its results cannot be used as evidence.
• The previous instances put the forensic medical examinations in a logical relationship with the attack on Serhiy Shcherbych by our clients, but these examinations only confirm the fact that the victim was injured. They did not investigate the mechanism of such injuries in the circumstances.

WHY ONE CARTRIDGE?

The Court of Appeal found Sternenko guilty of illegal possession of one 5.45 mm cartridge (Part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). However, the court did not investigate whether this cartridge belonged to Sternenko (it was found during a search in an apartment where not only our client lived). It was for one cartridge that Sternenko was sentenced to 3 years in prison with a probationary period of 1 year.

WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?

Unlike the decisions of previous instances, in which political pressure prevails over legality and objectivity, the Supreme Court partially established the truth in this case and recognized that the charge for one cartridge under Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is unlawful and unfounded.

“We all realize the importance of this case for Ukrainian society. During the proceedings, we saw all the problematic issues that an average person faces when dealing with law enforcement. Today, the Supreme Court, whose decisions are relied upon by the best lawyers, has partially provided a proper legal assessment of all the procedural violations committed by the courts of previous instances,”said Ruslan Demchuk’s lawyer Ilya Vorobyov.