Maria Dmitruk, who declared the crime, recognized as the victim in the case
On February 1, the Avtozavodsky District Court (investigating judge Zhanna Krivich) considered the complaint of animal protection Maria Dmitruk against the actions of the investigator of the Kremenchug (district) police station Alexander Bakhmat. The zoodefender appealed against the rulings of the investigator on the refusal to recognize her as a victim and appoint a forensic veterinary examination of the corpses of three dogs brutally torn to pieces in the Vlasovka region near Kremenchug on 1 January. Maria Dmitruk even pointed out experts authorized to conduct such an examination.
Recall, two volunteers on January 1, 5 o’clock prozhulili bodies of dead animals: feared that the slaughterer just notice the traces of the crime, and the police will not be able to properly collect evidence. One of these volunteers, Maria Dmitruk, wrote a statement to the police, and, according to her statement, opened criminal proceedings under Article 209,
But the police soon announced the withdrawal of veterinarians: dogs could be torn apart by other animals.
The investigator Alexander Bakhmat, the applicant Maria Dmitruk (in the photo), her lawyer Valentin Okhmak, came to the court hearing, and animal rights defenders from Vlasovka and Kremenchug came to support them.
Alexander Bakhmat stated in court that he did not see grounds for recognizing Maria Dmitruk as a victim because she did not provide proof of moral damage caused to her, and her statement did not indicate that she cared for dogs that were found dead.
Petitions for investigative actions may be filed by the victims, and since Dmitruk was not recognized as such, she was also denied an examination of the corpses of animals.
By the way, during the trial it turned out that a forensic medical examination was not conducted. In the case there are materials for veterinary research (this is not the same as the examination). And the conclusions of veterinarians are not enough to draw conclusions about the causes of death of dogs, human rights activists say. (By the way, commenting on the situation in this case, the press officer of the Kremenchug police said that “one of the animals, dismembered, is not amenable to research.”
Unlike the zoodefender, he was not aware that the bodies of the dogs are still kept waiting for an examination at the Special Service-Kremenchug Enterprise, where the police handed them over. And the company itself called “Special Center.” At the same time, the investigator claimed that he was conducting an “objective and unbiased” investigation.
At the same time, the lawyer declared violations during the investigation. In particular, that the second witness has not yet been interviewed.
The court granted the complaint to the zoodefender and her lawyer:
- reversed the investigator’s decision on the refusal to recognize Maria Dmitruk as a victim;
- ordered the investigator to re-examine the applicant’s petition for a forensic veterinary examination.
The court did not oblige the investigator to recognize the zoodefender as a victim – Judge Zhanna Krivich explained that under the new Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant is already the injured party. Accordingly, Maria Dmitruk has the right to file motions in the case.
In the process, the judge noted that if the investigator satisfies the petition, this will remove the confrontation between him and representatives of the community that cares about animals. The investigator announced his readiness to appoint an examination.