Guzhva's detention as thinly veiled case

Author : Ihor Cherezov

Editor-in-chief of is charged with extortion and bribery, althought these crimes are completely different - lawyer
15:40, 23 June 2017

Read the original text at

Kyrylo Avramenko

Let us look at the situation in the office of Ukraine’s Code of Criminal Procedure says that a search is usually carried out in the daytime and only if there are any immediate investigative actions it might be conducted at night. In this case, there was no need to conduct a search at night. It was due the fears that the media would come and cover it.

All the recorded procedural violations, could be used in court, and they will serve as serious arguments.

I have not seen the suspicions brought against Guzhva (editor-in-chief of, but judging from the information seen in the media, if there was a fact of extortion and getting money by the chief editor, then the moment of transferring money was not fixed. People came to office in a few hours after the alleged transfer of money, and some money was found. Where is the comical picture of detention at the time of receiving a bribe?

Extortion and bribery are different articles. And it is not yet clear which qualifications will be presented to Guzhva (Prosecutor General Lutsenko writes about extortion, - Ed.). Did Guzhva do it alone or with a group of people? In any case, both articles provide for sanction from 5 to 12 years of imprisonment.

Related: Editor-in-chief of outlet detained, office searched

I also do not know whether the search was actually conducted without the sanction of the court, but in principle, this is a fairly common practice. It is possible in case of immediate investigative actions. Relatively speaking, a search is carried out at the place of detention of a person, who is reasonably suspected of committing a crime, and the second, when such a sanction cannot be obtained right now. That is, only for extraordinary circumstances. This usually occurs when detainees are suspected of drug trafficking. That is, when traces of a crime can be destroyed in connection with the long time of receipt of the sanction.

Related: Freedom House recognizes Ukraine’s progress in democracy

I see no reasons to block the domain of After all, the article for which money has been allegedly taken, was not published, because the money was allegedly taken for non-publication. If the article were published, an analysis of the article were made, then it could be assumed that the domain name is blocked (so that the article does not disappear and the crime subject is not concealed). But in this case, there was no any article.

Система Orphus

If you find an error, highlight the desired text and press Ctrl + Enter, to tell about it

see more