The quality of the appeal court's consideration of materials on private complaints and appeals about parole
According to the EAIAC, in 2012, the courts reviewed 2,060 materials on parole for private complaints and protests, of which 233 private complaints and protests or 11.3% were satisfied, 1,827 materials or 88.7% were denied satisfaction. These data indicate that the courts of the republic consider the materials on parole of convicted persons mainly in accordance with the requirements of the law. An analysis of the quality of the reviews of the appellate instances shows that, in general, the decisions of the courts of first instance are canceled due to an incorrect assessment of the identity of convicts during parole. By a resolution of the Balkhash City Court of the Karaganda region dated March 01, 2012, the convicted K. was denied parole. The court, refusing to satisfy the petition, motivated by the fact that it considers the sentence served by the convict to be insufficient for parole. In addition, the court is critical of the announced incentives. This court decision was appealed by convicted K. on appeal. On April 17, 2012, the appellate instance of the Karaganda regional Court, having overturned the said resolution, made a new decision to satisfy the petition of the convicted person. At the same time, the board pointed out that the court of first instance did not explain its decision, why it came to the conclusion that it was necessary to refuse to satisfy the petition, moreover, in its decision the court limited itself to listing the provisions of the law, without evaluating the materials submitted by the administration of the institution.
The quality of the appeal court's consideration of materials on private complaints and protests about parole
It follows from the materials of the personal file of convicted K. that during the time of serving his sentence he has 4 rewards for exemplary behavior and conscientious work, has no penalties, actively participates in the public life of the institution and is a participant in an amateur organization, the claim has been settled. In addition, the victim in the O. case indicated in his statement that he was currently K. he has completely forgiven, has no material or moral claims against him, the civil claim has been reimbursed to him, he asked to apply parole to the convicted person. Taking into account all these circumstances, the court of appeal reasonably concluded that the behavior of the convicted person at the time of consideration of the material in court, according to the evidence presented, was exemplary, he fully realized his guilt, firmly embarked on the path of correction, and did not need to serve his sentence in the future, as evidenced by the available incentives, characteristics of the institution administration, lack of penalties, compensation for a civil claim. Another example. By a decision of the Auliekolsky district Court of the Kostanay region dated August 01, 2012, the petition for parole of A., convicted by the sentence of the Kostanay City Court dated March 05, 2010 under Part 1-1 of Article 259 of the Criminal Code to three years in prison, was granted. At the same time, the court was guided by the fact that the convict had the penalties imposed on him before 2011 and were repaid in accordance with the procedure established by law, has five incentives, there is no civil action, although the administration of the institution is characterized as a person who has not embarked on the path of correction. I.O. disagreed with this decision of the court of first instance. The Kostanay Prosecutor's Office for the Supervision of Legality in correctional institutions and protested the decision of the court of first instance. By its decision of September 18, 2012, the Appeals Board overturned the court's decision and issued a new decision, rejecting A.'s request for parole. At the same time, the board motivated its arguments by the fact that the court had not properly carefully studied and investigated the behavior of the convicted person during the entire period of serving his sentence, as well as the nature of the penalties previously imposed on him and the fact that the incentives he received preceded only his last year of serving his sentence, did not take into account the opinion of the institution's administration, which characterizes the convicted person negatively.
Also, when issuing the new decision, the board took into account that after the decision was made by the court of first instance, the convicted person committed a serious violation of the detention regime on August 06 and was subjected to disciplinary punishment in the form of being placed in a punishment cell for a period of fifteen days. Another example. By a decision of the Judicial Board of Appeal for criminal cases of the Zhambyl regional Court of January 26, 2012, at the private protest of a specialized prosecutor, the decision of the Bayzak district Court of December 27, 2011, was annulled, which satisfied the petition of convict A. for parole. It can be seen from the material that, according to the certificate of characteristics issued by the ZhD 158/5 institution, A. did not prove his correction, since he was recognized as a malicious violator of the detention regime for the violation, in addition, he has three penalties, the victim P. categorically disagrees with his parole. In the court of first instance, the representative of the institution, B., as well as the prosecutor involved in the case, K. they asked to refuse to satisfy the petition of the convicted person. In such circumstances, the board of appeal reasonably overturned the decision of the court of first instance and refused A.'s parole.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
