Aleh Vouchak: Political Motives Clearly Seen In Verdict To Avatarau

The court has failed to conclusively prove the guilt of the Belarusian volunteer of the Right Sector.

It was said in an interview to charter97.org by a former investigator of the prosecutor’s office, the head of the human rights organisation Legal Assistance to the Population Aleh Vouchak, as he commented on the verdict delivered today to a volunteer of the Right Sector Taras Avatarau:

– Judging by the speech of the lawyer, whom I personally know, it had not been proved whether the grenade seized from Avatarau was a military one. There are many questions about whether the expert examination had been held accurately or not.

The gun found in his things was a signal pistol. Even if it was a real ball grenade, it is an excessively harsh verdict, considering the quantity of evidence that had been assembled.

So that is why it could be said that the trial had been conceived by the authorities as “intimidating” for other Belarusians: for them not to keep arms, not to go to Ukraine and other “trouble spots” to participate in military actions.

The threshold of conviction under this article is obviously too high in this verdict. And the whole story has remained obscure and confusing: it is hard to understand in view of the results of the court hearing, whether Avatarau had been trafficking all the items found in his things through the border, or not.

The prosecution had no cast iron arguments in favour of the fact that it had been trafficked by Avatarau across the border. That is why Article 228 (Illegal trafficking) was not to be mentioned in the verdict.

And considering the fact that the defendant pleaded guilty, and “cooperated with the investigation,” from the perspective of the practice of the courts in Belarus the verdict was to be milder.

– To your mind, why a rather tough sentence has been delivered?

– It was obviously an “intimidating” trial – aimed at both those Belarusians who want to fight for Ukraine, and at all citizens, just to be on the safe side.

Surely, if a person has a ball grenade on him he should be subjected to the most severe responsibility. It must happen in the framework of legality with no politics involved. Meanwhile, here there is a clear trace of “politics”: the sentence has been made taking into account the fact that Avatarau, in the opinion of the prosecution, represented the Right Sector.

The whole trial has been politicized: they wanted to show that the people who fought on the Right Sector’s side were those who transported “contraband” weapons to Belarus.

– Why didn’t they put Avatarau under court trial for “mercenarism” then?

– The article “mercenarism” demands far more serious proofs. It is necessary to prove that a person really participated in military actions, how he moved across the territory where the war actions were taking place, and which military unit he was part of. There must be play-by-play witnesses and confirmations from the opposite side. Meanwhile, the investigation didn’t bother to organize qualitative collection of proofs under the applied articles. The story with Avatarau’s backpack and its contents, as well as with his transportation and detention remains very unclear.

There are still great doubts about these proofs. Moreover, it is still unclear whether this “grenade” could have possibly exploded: it’s one thing when it’s a moulage, but the real ball grenade is something totally different.