Entrepreneur Announced Indefinite Hunger Strike in Colony

An individual entrepreneur Svyatlana Dvaraninava sentenced to 6.5 years of imprisonment announced an indefinite hunger strike in Homel women colony.

On February 25 S. Dvaraninava found out that the Supreme Court hadn’t granted the appeal of her lawyer against the verdict of the court of Kastrychnitski district of Vitsebsk. She saw no other way to defend her legal rights, and on February 26 S. Dvaraninava announced the 6th hunger strike, BelaPAN informs.

As a cause for such an action S. Dvaraninava said she “protests against gross violation of the criminal legislation and of the Code of penal procedure performed by investigators, prosecutors and courts of Kastrychnitski district and Vitsebsk region during criminal proceedings. By her hunger-strike the businesswoman demands remission of the sentence.

As we have informed, S. Dvaraninava was a co-owner of a limited liability company Aquarius. The company was engaged in wholesale trade and clothing manufacture. The company experienced economic problems. It could not pay for goods received without advance payment. The criminal action was brought up against the businesswoman in 2004 on charges relating Article 209 of the Criminal Code (deceitful practices) and 210 (misappropriation by abuse of power). In 2006 she was sentenced to 8 years of imprisonment. The verdict was challenged by the lawyer, and the case was sent for further investigation. As a result, on August 13, 2007 S. Dvaraninava was sentenced to 6.5 years of imprisonment by the court of Kastrychnitski district of Vitsebsk.

Defence of S. Dvaraninava find the verdict of the court unjust, as one of her lawyers Natalya Tarasiuk said, “it was clear from the case files that Dvaraninava received goods in one firm and gave it to another firm, that is, she had no personal gain”. “Besides, the court hadn’t found facts of cashing out a large sum of money, which could have confirmed the defendant’s culpability”.

As said by N. Tarasiuk, her client could be charged with evasion from fulfillment of obligations on the credit, but not with misappropriation and deceitful practices.