UOJ journalist's defense seeks recusal of judge because of his bias
The lawyer pointed out in his petition what systematic and deliberate actions of the investigating judge violated the rights of his client Valeriy Stupnitsky.
On August 05, the investigating judge of the Solomenskiy District Court of Kyiv granted the application for recusal of Judge D.M. Kratko in the case of Orthodox journalist Valeriy Stupnitsky.
The defense side filed a motion to recuse the investigating judge because of his apparent bias. The lawyer said that Kratko tried to extend the pre-trial investigation at any cost, committing numerous violations of the criminal procedural law. In particular, on May 29, he received for consideration both a complaint from the defense lawyers about the suspicion report and the prosecution's motion to extend the pre-trial investigation. But the complaint, contrary to the requirements of the CPC, was not even scheduled for judicial consideration. According to the requirements, it should be considered within 72 hours after the court receives the complaint. In turn, the prosecution's motion was scheduled immediately.
In addition, the journalist's defense filed a complaint more than a month ago against the investigator's inaction, which consisted in the investigator's failure to consider the defense counsel's motions. However, due to the inactivity of the investigating judge, the decision on the results of the complaint was not prepared, and there is no information about it in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions.
Because of such inaction of the investigating judge, the defense counsel could not realize his right to appeal against the inaction of the investigator.
The lawyer of the Orthodox journalist says that the investigating judge Kratko deliberately and systematically violates the rights of the suspect V. Stupnitsky, which is evidence of his obvious bias, and which is grounds for recusal.
As reported by the UOJ, Valeriy Stupnitsky reminded the court that the seizures of temples and Bill 8371 were criticized not only by UOJ journalists but also by organizations such as the UN.
