The Main Prosecutor’s Office responds to the statement of Court

2013-01-09 17:45:00

 Today, on 9th January, 2013 The court spread the statement, by which it tried to explain completely obscure decisions concerning the case of Irakli Okruashvili.

On the special briefing the Municipal Court of Tbilisi announced that the obligatory assertion for continuing the period of imprisonment was not represented in the case, including the arrest report, therefore, the court did have possibility to count the time of being imprisonment and to discuss about the lawfulness of the continuation of imprisonment, therefore it did not satisfy the intercede of Prosecutor’s Office.
 We announce, that Irakli Okruashvili arrived in Georgia on 20th November, 2012. He was arrested in the time of crossing the state border, whereon a special report was made. It is a long time that the copies of the report are presented in Municipal Court as well as in Appeal Court, where is the case discussion towards Irakli Okruashvili. Therefore appealing to the absence of report is not the argument.
  More, in the briefing the court announced:
 “ The court did not count the argumentation of prosecutor as the new substantial circumstance, that about this case the witnesses had to be questioned and, therefore, did not change the imprisonment of Irakli Okruashvili with the less severe into preventive measure”.
 “ In today’s condition the period of Irakli Okruashvili’s imprisonment is expired and due to the fact that the prosecutor was refused to change imprisonment into mortgage, the accused             I. Okruashvili, on this concrete case of criminal law, would stay not into imprisonment, but without preventive measure:.
 “ The renouncement on already faulted  preventive measure took place in this given occasion”.
 The Accuser could appeal the verdict in the Supreme Court, which had not happened in this concrete occasion.
The Prosecutor’s Office explains that: The usage of preventive measure, to continue its period or changing is the prerogative of the court, though during the making of decisions the court is immobilized by the law. The necessary precondition for the using of preventive measure is the accuser’s intercede, without it  the court is not accredited to receive the decisions of these arrangements.
 It is simple legal matter and it is inevitable why the court is burdening, that the last one does not represent the part and can not burden more the state of the accused, while it is required by the accusers. It is incontestable fact the court burdened more the state of Irakli Okruashvili by his remaining in prison, while this was required by Prosecutor’s Office, which is legal nonsense and does not have any analogue in none of the legal state litigation.
 This happened in the conditions when the both sides of the process ( The Prosecutor’s Office and Defense) required the changing of imprisonment.
 Due to the refuse on preventive measure, the court announced that the period of imprisonment would expire and Irakli Okruashvili would remain without such measure. If the verdict of the court purposed this, it is not professionalism and is directed toward public to mislead them, then it must have abolish the preventive measure itself, which is directly incorporated in Procedure Law.
Concerning appealing in the Supreme Court: We want to explain that the appealing of 4th January’s  court verdict in the Supreme Court by the Prosecutor’s Office side did not have any sense. The appealing of refuse on preventive measure in Supreme Court did not have time because the court announced the refuse on changing of preventive measure on 4th January and the time of Irakli Okraushvili’s imprisonment was expiring on 6th January. So, in this occasion maybe there would be a rough outrage of Precedure Law, which could not be performed by the Prosecutor’s Office.