mysanctuaryofpeace

[mysanctuaryofpeace]

Important update on the EU situation. Since this post was written, Queen Elizabeth II has passed, and the UK has succeeded in leaving the EU. Well, not completely. They are still bound by agreements with the EU which discarded the best parts of the alliance and kept the worst parts.

King Charles has replaced the queen, and now we have one more queen left. You guessed it! Today Queen Margrethe II of Denmark announced that on January 14, she will be retiring, and her son Frederik will take over as king.

Please watch and pray, just in case the UK comes back, or another kingdom enters the EU to make the seven kings.

Seven Heads and Ten Horns

Now, I’m not a prophet or a prophecy interpreter, and I don’t claim exclusive knowledge of this subject, but I am very interested in last days prophecy and I enjoy watching the scene for signs of the soon return of Jesus, and speculating about the meaning.  We all know Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 17, but Revelation and Daniel are a little trickier, and there has been much speculation about them.

Revelation 13:1  And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

Revelation 17:9  And here is the mind which hath wisdom.  The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.  10.  And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.  11.  And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.  12.  And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

Daniel 7:7  After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it;and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.

Daniel 7:20 And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.

Daniel 7:24   And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

Many years ago in the height of the Jesus Movement, it was often said that the European Common Market would be the Beast of Revelation.  At that time there were not quite ten member states in the EC, so we were looking forward to the day when it reached 10 members.  While we are not surprised to see the union becoming a political as well as an economic union, we know that there are now 28 member states.  Thus some are now saying that the beast will not be the EU after all, but that the entire world will be divided into ten regions.  Or perhaps the ten-nation core called the Western European Union would be the beast.

Daniel 7:8  I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

I have always held to the EU theory, and especially after moving to Denmark and getting to know the people, I have thought perhaps the three would be Denmark, Sweden and Finland, and that they would join together with Norway to form a Scandinavian Union.  But with Brexit looming, I took a closer look at the political situation.  I decided to try to take the wording in the scriptures more literally instead of figuratively.  In Revelation 17:10 it says “seven kings” and “ten kings”, not “seven states” and “ten states”, or “nations” or “countries” or “members”.  And in Daniel 7:24 it is “ten kings”.  Kings

So, yes, there are indeed 28 member states in the EU. Upon closer examination I realized to my surprise that of those 28, seven are monarchies, and the rest are republics.  Of the seven, one of them, the UK, encompasses four states that are under Queen Elizabeth.  That makes ten states under monarchs.  With Brexit, four of the ten will be out of the EU, but if Scotland has its way, they will be back in.  Thus, three will be out.  Could it be we were right all along?  Did we get diverted and lose sight of what is happening in Europe?

Last time i checked, the seven monarchs in the EU are:

King Philippe of Belgium

Queen Margrethe of Denmark

King Henri of Luxembourg

King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands

King Philipe VI of Spain

King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden

Queen Elizabeth of the UK

Now it says “kings”, not “monarchs”, so I’m thinking maybe that all this could not be completed until Elizabeth and Margrethe are replaced by Charles or William and Frederik respectively.  And if this is a correct interpretation, we will not see a Nexit or a Dexit or an exit of any other of the above mentioned monarchies.  Will we instead see a separation of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from the UK, and actual kings becoming their heads of state before Brexit takes effect?   Seems unlikely, but Brexit also seemed very unlikely.  Trump seemed unlikely.  The advance of the far right political party in Denmark, the Danish People’s Party, seemed unlikely.  Who would have thought border control between EU countries would be reinstated?  This has been a time of upsets and surprises.

Daniel 2:33  His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.

Daniel 2:42  And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.  43.  And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men:  but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

The union of Nebuchadnezzar’s man is fragile, and today we even hear speculations about the EU falling apart.  They will mingle, but they will not cleave.

There are other interpretations out there, but regardless of which one is correct, it is worth watching.

Mark 13:33  Take ye heed, watch and pray:  for ye know not when the time is.

[mysanctuaryofpeace]

Update after Gonzalo Lira's November 10 court date.

DERZHIN REGIONAL SUD M.HARKOV UHWAL

Case No. 638/5519/23

Construction No. 1-kp/638/1372/23

THE HANDAGE OF UKRAINE

08 November 2023 Dzerzhinsky District Court Kharkiv in the composition:

Chairman's judge with participation: secretary of the court session of the prosecutor of the accused defender of the translator -OSOBA_1, -OSOBA_2, -OSOBA_3 , -Lira Lopez Person_4 , -OSOBA_5 , -OSOBA_6 ,

Looking at the court session in the courtroom in m. Kharkiv petition of the prosecutor of the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office of the Prosecutor’s Office_7 on the extension of the preventive measure in the form of detention in criminal proceedings, entered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations No. 22022220000000618 dated April 12, 2022, in respect of the accused

Person_8 , INFORMATION_1, citizen of the Republic of Chile and the Federal Republic of the United States of America, native of m. Los Angeles, California United States of America, married, officially unemployed, who has two children, actually lives at: APRESS_1, previously not convicted,

criminal offences provided for by time. 2 tbsp. 436-2, h. 3 tbsp. 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine,-

INSTALLED:

From June 7, 2023 in the proceedings of the judge of the Dzerzhinsky District Court in the city. Kharkiv Personion_1 is an indictment in criminal proceedings entered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations under No. 22022200000000018 dated April 12, 2022 regarding the Person_8, which is accused of committing criminal offenses provided for in part. 2 tbsp. 436-2, h. 3 tbsp. 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

On September 12, 2023, in a court session, the prosecutor filed a request to extend the preventive measure in the form of detention for a period of 60 days, without determining the pledge.

The complaint is justified by the fact that the prosecution of the criminal offense is accused of committing a criminal offense - a crime provided for in Part 2 of Article 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, that is, in the manufacture and distribution of materials that contain justification, recognition as legitimate, denial of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, initiated in 2014, as well as justification, recognition of the lawful occupation.denial of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, launched in 2014, including by representing the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine as an internal civil conflict, justifying, recognizing the temporary occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine as legitimate, as well as justification, recognition of the temporary occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine, the glorification of persons who carried out the armed aggression of the Russian Federation.

The decision of the Kyiv District Court.Kharkiv dated 01 May 2023 in respect of the OSOBA_8 elected a preventive measure as a state of maintenance under-the-art of 2023 with a determination of the amount of pledge in the amount of 402600, 00 UAH, imposed on a period of two months of duty: arriving at the investigator, prosecutor, court on the first call; Kharkiv without the permission of the investigator, prosecutor or court; to inform the investigator, prosecutor or court about the change of its place of residence at: APRESS_1 ; wear an electronic means by counter.

The decision of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal of May 30, 2023 the decision of the investigating judge of the Kyiv District Court of Kyiv District Court. Kharkiv from May 1, 2023 was left unchanged.

The decision of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of M. Kharkiv dated June 26, 2023 extended the preventive measure in the form of detention, elected against the accused Person_8 for a period until August 24, 2023, with the possibility of applying an alternative preventive measure in the form of collateral, in the amount determined in the decision of the investigating judge of the Kyiv District Court of Kyiv District Court. Kharkiv dated May 1, 2023, revised by the Kharkiv Court of Appeal, namely UAH 402600,00. When making a certain amount of pledge, the DECOB_8 should be released and put on it for a period of two months of duties: to arrive at the investigator, prosecutor, court on the first call; not to withdraw from m. Kharkiv without the permission of the investigator, prosecutor or court; to inform the investigator, prosecutor or court about the change of their place of residence at the address: APRESSA_1 ; wear an electronic means by counter; to deposit a passport to the relevant state authorities for traveling abroad or other documents that provide the right to travel abroad.

The accused were bail, and was released from custody on July 6, 2023.

The decision of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of M. Kharkiv dated August 04, 2023 was returned to the state income and credited to the special fund of the State Budget of Ukraine in the amount of UAH 402600.00, made by the accused on the basis of the decision of the investigating judge of the Kyiv District Court of Ukraine. Kharkiv of May 1, 2023, revised by the Kharkiv Court of Appeal in case No. 953/2692/23. The accused Person_8 , INFORMATION_1, preventive measure in the form of detention for a period of up to October 02, 2023 without determining the size of the pledge.

The decision of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of M. Kharkiv dated August 04, 2023 was left unchanged by the court of appeal.

The decision of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of M. Kharkiv dated September 12, 2023 extended the preventive measure in the form of detention until November 10, 2023.

The prosecutor supported the request, asked to satisfy. He noted that to ensure the proper procedural behavior of the accused is only a preventive measure in the form of detention, the risks have not ceased to exist and have not decreased.

Lira Personba_9 in court against the satisfaction of the petition denied.

The defense of the accused Person_5 in a court hearing against the satisfaction of the petition denied, referred to the fact that the qualification of the prosecution under Part 3rd. 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is unfounded. According to Part 2 p. 32 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is not a repeatable crime consisting of two or more identical criminal acts committed at different times, united by a single criminal intention. Given that the actions that are criminalized should be qualified as an continued crime.The prosecutor has not proven the claimed risks. He asked to apply a preventive measure to the accused in the form of house arrest or detention with the right to make bail.

Deciding the issue of expediency of extending the validity of the preventive measure in the form of detention, the court is guided by the following.

According to the time. 1, 3 of Article 331 of the CPC of Ukraine during the judicial review of the court of the prosecution or defends the right-wing decision to change, to remove or continue the preventive measure of the accused. In the presence of petitions, the court during the trial is obliged to consider the feasibility of extending the preventive measure until the expiration of the two-month period from the date of its application. As a result of the consideration of the issue, the court cancels, changes the preventive measure with its motivated decision or extends its validity for a period that cannot exceed two months. A copy of the decision is handed over to the accused, the prosecutor and sent to the authorized official to the place of imprisonment.

According to Part 2 p. 331 of the CPC of Ukraine, the decision of the court on preventive measure is in the manner prescribed by Chapter 18 of this Code.

According to the time. 4st. 199 of the CPC of Ukraine, the court is obliged to consider a request to extend the period of detention until the expiration of the previous decision in accordance with the rules provided for consideration of petitions for the application of preventive measure.

According to the time. 3 tbsp. 199 of the CPC of Ukraine of Ukraine of the request to extend the term of detention, in addition to the information specified in Article 184 of the Code, should contain: 1) a statement of circumstances that indicate that the stated risk has decreased or novirisms have appeared, which justify the detention of a person in custody; 2) the statement of circumstances that prevent the completion of pre-trial investigation before the end of the previous decision.

Part 5th century. 199 of the CPC of Ukraine is obliged to refuse to extend the period of detention if the prosecutor, the investigator, the investigator, proves that the circumstances specified in part three of this article justify further detention of the suspect, accused in custody.

Thus, the reason for the continuation of the detention of the person is, in particular, the establishment that the stated risk has not decreased or new risks have appeared that justify the detention of the person.

According to the materials of criminal proceedings, the Kyiv District Court.Kharkiv from 01 May 2023 OSOBA_8 elected a preventive measure of detention until 29 June 2023 with the determination of the amount of pledge in the amount of 402600, 00 UAH.

Choosing a term-prevention measure in the form oftaining, the investigating judge is taken into account that the Person should be hidden from the pre-trial investigation or court, destroy, hide or distort any of the things of documents that are of significant importance for establishing the circumstances of criminal offense, commit another criminal offense.

The decision of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal of May 30, 2023 the decision of the investigating judge of the Kyiv District Court of Kyiv District Court. Kharkiv from May 1, 2023 was left unchanged.

The court of appeal at the stage of pre-trial investigation established the validity of suspicion, the presence of the above risks, decided the issue of the legality of the election of an alternative preventive measure by the investigating judge in the form of a pledge and its size.

The accused were bail, and was released from custody on July 6, 2023.

The decision of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of M. Kharkiv dated August 04, 2023 was returned to the state income and credited to the special fund of the State Budget of Ukraine in the amount of UAH 402600.00, made by the accused on the basis of the decision of the investigating judge of the Kyiv District Court of Ukraine. Kharkiv of May 1, 2023, revised by the Kharkiv Court of Appeal in case No. 953/2692/23. The accused Person_8 , INFORMATION_1, preventive measure in the form of detention for a period of up to October 02, 2023 without determining the size of the pledge.

The decision of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of M. Kharkiv dated August 04, 2023 was left unchanged by the decision of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal of September 11, 2023.

According to p.4 2 tbsp. 183 of the CPC of Ukraine a preventive measure in the form of detention cannot be applied, except for a previously non-trial person suspected or accused of committing a crime, for which the law provides for punishment in the form of imprisonment for a period of more than five years.

Lyra Personba_9 is accused of committing a minor and serious crime, for which a sentence of imprisonment for up to five years and imprisonment for a period of five to eight years is provided.

The court established that the Person of the_8 is married, but is in the process of divorce, has two young children in 2014 and 2015, officially unemployed, does not have any disabilities in Ukraine or another state, lives in m. Kharkiv in an apartment that belongs to him on the right to use, in Ukraine lives since 2017, children are citizens of Ukraine, live with their mother in the city. Uzhgorod.

As seen from the conclusions on the application of the norms of law set out, in particular, in the Supreme Court resolutions of 20.06.2019 in case No. 166/313/17, dated 13.08.2020 in case No. 674/1202/19, dated 27.02.2019 in case No. 0503/10653/2012, the awareness of the probability of recognition of the guilt of a person on the charges brought to it and the pressure of the burden of possible punishment is.

According to St. 7-9 of the CPC of Ukraine is applied to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.

In a judgment in W v. Switzerland of 26 January 1993, the European Court of Human Rights indicated that taking into account the severity of the crime has its rational content, since it indicates the degree of social danger of that person and allows for a reasonable degree of probability of his conduct, taking into account that future punishment for a serious crime increases the risk that the suspect may be.

In understanding the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the severity of the prosecution is not an independent basis for keeping a person in custody, but such an accusation, together with other circumstances, increases the risk of escape so much that it cannot be turned away without taking a person into custody. In Iliikov v. Bulgaria No. 33977/96 of 26 July 2001, the ECHR noted that “the severity of the imposed punishment is an essential element in assessing the risks of hiding or re-offing crimes.”

In addition, the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly stressed that the presence of grounds for the detention of a person should be evaluated in each criminal proceedings taking into account his specific circumstances.

Taking into account the identity of the accused Person_8 , the severity of the punishment that threatens him in case of pleading guilty, the absence of an official source of income and any property on the right of ownership, the presence of two citizenships of other countries, the other circumstances of criminal proceedings, the court concludes that at this stage of criminal proceedings the risks of the actions provided for by paragraph. 1, 5 h. 1st century 177 of the CPC of Ukraine, which were the basis for election of the accused preventive measure in the form of detention at the pre-trial investigation stage and referred to by the prosecutor in the request for the continuation of the preventive measure in the form of detention, has not decreased and none of the other, more softer precautions, is unable to prevent them.

Given that the accused has a passport of a US citizen and a passport of a citizen of the Republic of Chile, the presence of two stateships of passports significantly expands the ability of a person to hide abroad, in different countries of the world in order to evade criminal liability.

In accordance with the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the court must ensure not only the rights of the accused, but also high standards of protection of public rights and interests. Ensuring such standards as the European Court of Human Rights emphasizes requires the court to be more strict in assessing violations of society's values.

Given the specific circumstances of the crime, which is incrowned to the accused, namely that he is accused of committing crimes that are classified as crimes against peace, security of mankind and international law and order, the Court considers that there is a public interest in this judicial proceeding, which is the need to protect high standards of protection of the rights and interests of society.

The Court takes into account the fact that the accused, being under the action of a preventive measure in the form of detention with bail, voluntarily sent to the state border of Ukraine with Hungary. While in the Transcarpathian region in the period from July 31, 2023 at August 1, 2023, the accused made a failed attempt to cross the state border at the checkpoint "ChOP" (Tisa).

The accused’s attempt to cross the state border objectively indicates the existence of a risk of hiding from the court, and therefore the claim of the defense party to lack of evidence of such a risk is unjustified.

In deciding the issue of the continuation of the preventive measure, the court takes into account the presence of risks provided for in paragraph 1. 1, 5 h. 1st century 177 of the CPC of Ukraine, as well as assessing the set of circumstances, namely: the weight established by the investigating judge and the court of appeal at the stage of pre-trial investigation of the available evidence of the commission of the OSOBA_8 criminal offenses (the validity of suspicion); the severity of punishment that threatens him in case of being found guilty of serious criminal offense. 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, data on the person of the accused who is not a citizen of Ukraine, can leave the territory of Ukraine without hindrance, has no proper property and official source of income in Ukraine, believes that the application of a softer preventive measure against the OSOB_8 is insufficient to prevent the risks provided for by paragraph. 1, 5 h. 1st century 177 CPC of Ukraine.

Taking into account the above, in order to ensure the performance of the procedural duties imposed on the accused, the prevention of hiding from the court, the court at this stage of the proceedings considers it expedient to extend the validity of the preventive measure in the form of detention in respect of the Person_8, for a period until January 6, 2023.

Also, taking into account the above, the court concludes that there are no grounds for changing the preventive measure chosen against the accused at this stage.

In addition, the court takes into account all the grounds and circumstances provided for in Article. 178 of the CPC of Ukraine, information about the person and the available evidence of the accused’s commission of a criminal offense, the severity of punishment that threatens him in case of pleads and the circumstances provided for in Article. 177, 178 of the CPC of Ukraine, according to which the court has the right not to determine the amount of the pledge.

According to Part 3 p. 183CPC of Ukraine, the court, when deciding on the application of a preventive measure in the form of detention, is obliged to determine the amount of the pledge sufficient to ensure the performance of the obligations provided for by this Code, except in cases provided for by part of the fourth article.

According to Part 4 p. 183 of the CPC of Ukraine, the court, when deciding on the application of a preventive measure in the form of detention, taking into account the grounds and circumstances provided for in Articles 177 and178 of the Code, should determine the legal size of the pledge of criminal proceedings: regarding the crime committed by the use of violence or threat-threatening use;255-255 Criminal Code of Ukraine; especially severe crime of the military of circulation-drugs,psychotropid substances, their analogues or precursors. During the martial law, the investigating judge, the court when deciding on the application of a preventive measure in the form of detention, taking into account the grounds and circumstances provided for in Articles 177 and178 of the Code, has the right not to determine the amount of the pledge in criminal proceedings regarding the crime provided for in Articles 109-114-2,258-258-6,260,262,26,240,240,240,240,240,240,240,240,240,248-258-168-6,260,240,2,2,2,2,2,258-258-6,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4, and the circumstances of the Convention, the criminal,2, the two-54,2, the two-of-the-art of the law is in

The decision of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of M. Kharkiv dated August 04, 2023 established, and the prosecutor proved the presence of circumstances provided for in Part 4 of Article. 183 of the CPC of Ukraine, which is the legal basis for non-determining the amount of pledge in this criminal proceedings. The fact is provided by p. 3 h. 4 p. 183 CPC of Ukraine.

Given the violation of the preventive measure in the form of a pledge, the court concluded that there was no grounds for determining the size of the pledge.

The assessment of these circumstances indicates that the accused violated the duties imposed on him by the decision of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of M. Kharkiv dated June 26, 2023, that is, preventive measures in the form of pledge are not able to ensure the performance of the procedural duties assigned to him.

Considering the request to continue the preventive measure in the form of detention, the court believes that the preventive measure in the form of house arrest will also not be able to prevent the risks proved by the prosecutor.

According to the result of the materials of criminal proceedings investigated, the court concluded that the preventive measures in the form of pledge are not able to ensure the performance of the procedural duties assigned to him.

Given that the case is at the stage of trial and as of the time of consideration of the request by the court documents are attached to the case materials, the court considers the unproven prosecutor to continue the risk of destruction, hiding or distorting any of the things or documents that are essential for establishing the circumstances of a criminal offence.

As for the arguments of the defender and the accused regarding non-condiliation with the qualification of an incriminal criminal offence, at this stage of the trial, these arguments cannot be considered as such as indicating the unsubstantial of the prosecution, the absence of risks established by the court and the presence of grounds for the election of a softer preventive measure.

Issues of incorrect legal qualification of the crime are not subject to resolution before the study of the prosecution documents when considering a request to extend the period of preventive measure. The court is deprived of the opportunity to assess the legal qualifications of the accused's actions during the consideration of this application and at this stage, since these arguments are subject to evaluation by the court after the study of the prosecution documents.

Guided by st. 34, 183, 314, 331, 369-372 of the CPC of Ukraine,-

HWN:

The appeal of the prosecutor of the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office of the Prosecutor’s Office_7 on the extension of the preventive measure in the form of detention in criminal proceedings, entered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations No. 22022220000000618 dated April 12, 2022 regarding the DECOB_8 , INFORMATION_1 that is accused of criminal proceedings. 2 tbsp. 436-2, h. 3 tbsp. 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine - to satisfy.

Continue the preventive measure in the form of detention chosen against the accused Person_8 , INFORMATION_1, for a period up to January 6, 2024, without determining the size of the pledge.

The approval may be appealed in the appellate order by submitting an appeal directly to the court of appeal within five days from the date of its announcement. For the Person_8, the deadline for filing an appeal is calculated from the moment of delivery of a copy of this decision.

The approval is subject to immediate execution after its announcement.

Judge Person_1 Date of decision 07.11.23

[mysanctuaryofpeace]

Gonzalo Lira continued

KHARKIV APPELATIONAL COURD

UHWN

KHARKIV APPELATIONAL COURD

Case No. 638/5519/23 Chairman of Judge I Inststance Person_1

Proceedings No. 11-kp/818/1235/23 Judge Speaker Person_2

Category: Justification, recognition as legitimate, denial of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, glorification of its participants

The X V A L A

IMENEM OF UKRAINE

On September 11, 2023, the panel of judges of the judicial chamber for criminal proceedings of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal consisting of:

Chairman - Person_2,

Judges - Person_3 , Person_4 ,

with the participation of the secretary - Person_5 ,

Prosecutor - Person_6 ,

accused - Lyr Person_7 ,

defender - lawyer Person_8 ,

Translator - Person_9 ,

having considered the open court session in the military.Kharkiv in the videoconferenceapeling complaint of the accused OSOBA_10 lawyer of the Personba_8 on the time of the investigative court of Dzerzhinskydistrict Court.Kharkiv from 04 August 2023,which is satisfied with the appeal of the prosecutor of Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor of the State of Ukraine_610 , INFORMATION_1 in criminal proceedings No22022200000018from 12.04.2022 of committed criminal offenses, predicted by Part 2st.436-2,part 3st 436-2CC of Ukraine,-

INSTALLED:

This decision was chosen to the accused Person_10 , INFORMATION_1, preventive measure in the form of detention for a period until October 02, 2023 without determining the size of the pledge.

Also, this decision was returned to the state income and credited to the special fund of the State Budget of Ukraine a pledge of UAH 402600, made by the accused on the basis of the decision of the investigating judge of the Kyiv District Court. Kharkiv from 01.May 2023.

In the appeal complaint, the defender of the suspected Personba_10 lawyer of the Person should ask the decision of the investigating judge to cancel and decide a new decision. How to leave a preventive measure in the form of a pledge that acted before the cancellation of it by the Dzerzhinsky District Court of M. Kharkov.

In justifying his appeal, the defender considered the decision so that it was adopted without taking into account the objective circumstances of the proceedings, mental and linguistic barriers for adequate perception of the situation by the accused, misunderstanding the latter of the principles of work and activities of law enforcement agencies and the court of Ukraine and such that it is made in violation of the requirements of the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine. He believed that the qualification of the prosecution under Part 3rd. 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is unfounded. He also said that according to Part 2nd. 32 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is not a repeatable crime consisting of two or more committed at different times identical criminal acts united by a single criminal intention. Therefore, he believes that actions that are incriminalized by the Person_10 should be qualified as an continued crime. Along with this, it refers to the illegality of actions of employees of the USBU in the Kharkiv region, namely that the accused was detained two days before the time specified in the detention protocol. In addition, the defender noted that the materials of the proceedings do not contain any evidence that confirms the presence of risks provided for by paragraph. 1, 2, 5 h.1 p. 177 of the CPC of Ukraine, and the prosecutor in the court session did not prove their existence. At the same time, he referred to information characterizing the defendant’s identity, namely that he is a citizen of the United States and the Republic of Chile, not convicted, has a permanent residence in m. Kharkiv, strong social ties, married, has two young children in the maintenance of two young children. He also took into account the presence of mental and language barriers for adequate perception of the situation, misunderstanding of the latter's principles of work and activities of law enforcement agencies and the court, fear for his life and health, which he felt while in custody.

After hearing the report of the presiding judge, the arguments of the defense defense defense_8 and the accused OSOBA_10, who supported the appeal and asked her to satisfy, as well as the explanation of the prosecutor, who denied the satisfaction of the appeal and considered the decision of the court of first instance legal and reasonable, the panel of judges, examining the materials of the proceedings, checking the decision.

In accordance with the requirements of Article 177 of the CPC of Ukraine, the basis for applying a preventive measure is the presence of a reasonable suspicion of committing a criminal offense by a person, as well as the presence of risks that give sufficient grounds to the investigating judge, the court to believe that the suspect, the accused may take the actions provided for by part one of this article, that is: hide from the pre-trial investigation bodies and / or the court;criminal proceedings; prevent criminal proceedings in another way; to commit another criminal offence or to continue a criminal offence in which the suspected is accused.

In addition, when deciding on the election, the continuation of the preventive measure in the form of detention, the court should take into account the circumstances provided for in Article 178 of the CPC of Ukraine, in particular, the severity of a criminal offense, in the commission of which the person and the data that characterize him and may indicate in favor of increasing (decrease) risk of hiding from justice or other methods of improper conduct.

During the appeal, the panel of judges established that the decision of the court of first instance is justified and decided in compliance with these requirements of current and international legislation.

The panel of judges agrees to the conclusions of the court of first instance regarding the existence of the risks provided for in paragraph. p. 1, 2, 5 part 1 of Article 177 of the CPC of Ukraine, since the risk in the context of criminal proceedings is a certain degree of probability that a person will succeed in actions that will prevent the trial or create a threat to society.

In particular, the risk of escape should be assessed in the context of factors related to the nature of a person, his morality, place of residence, type of occupation, property status, family ties and all types of communication with the country in which such a person is subjected to criminal prosecution (Bekchiev v. Moldova ?58). The seriousness of punishment is a revalent circumstance in assessing the risk that the accused may escape ("Idalov v. Russia", "Hartyky v. Poland", "Country v. Germany", "Ilikov v. Bulgaria"), and the presence of criminalism may be grounds for justifying that the accused may commit a new crime ("Selchuk v. Turkey", "Matznetter v. Austria").

By assessing the possibility of the accused to hide from the court, destroy, hide or distort any of the things or documents that are essential to establish the circumstances of a criminal offence, commit another criminal offence or continue the criminal offence in which he is accused, the panel of judges takes into account that there is a certain probability that the latter may be in order to avoid the punishment.

According to information available in the materials of the proceedings, Lyr Personion_7 is accused of committing crimes provided for in the time. 2 st. 436-2, part 3 p. 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, one of which is classified as a serious crime, the sanction of which provides for punishment in the form of imprisonment for a period of 5 to 8 years with confiscation of property or without such that the court of first instance reasonably referred to in its decision.

In the understanding of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the severity of the prosecution is not an independent basis for the detention of a person, but such an accusation, combined with other circumstances, increases the risk of escape so much that it cannot be turned away without taking a person into custody. In Iliyev v. Bulgaria, No. 33977/96 of 26 July 2001, the ECHR noted that “the severity of the imposed punishment is an essential element in assessing the risks of hiding or re-prolectioning crimes.”

In addition, the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly stressed that there is grounds for detention to be assessed in every criminal proceeding, taking into account his specific circumstances.

According to the actual circumstances, the case of ISOBA_10 is not previously convicted, but it is charged with committing, including a serious crime provided for in Part 3 of Article. 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, namely: the production and distribution of materials containing justification, recognition as legitimate, denial of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, launched in 2014, including by presenting the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine as an internal civil conflict, justifying, recognizing the temporary occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine as legitimate, and recognition of the temporary occupation of part of Ukraine.

In view of the above, there are sufficient and objective grounds to believe that there are risks that the accused Person_10 may hide from court, destroy, hide or distort any of the things or documents that are essential to establish the circumstances of a criminal offence, commit another criminal offence or continue the criminal offence in which he is accused.

According to the established practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the detention of a person can be justified if there are real signs of the presence of true public interest, which, despite the presumption of innocence, the principle of respect for personal freedom prevails. Applying a preventive measure in the form of detention, it is necessary to proceed from the fact that the court decision should ensure not only the rights of the suspect, but also high standards of protection of rights and interests of both society and the victim. The definition of such rights, as the European Court of Human Rights emphasizes, requires society to be more strict in assessing the values of society ("Letelier v. France").

In addition, according to the established practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the human right to freedom is fundamental, but not absolute and may be limited in view of public interest.

Given the specific circumstances of the crime, which is incrowned to the suspect, namely that he is accused of committing crimes that are classified as crimes against peace, the security of mankind and international law and order, the panel of judges considers that there is an public interest in this judicial proceeding, which is the need to protect high standards of protection of the rights and interests of society.

Along with this, as the court of first instance correctly noted, the accused has a passport of a US citizen and a passport of a citizen of the Republic of Chile, which expands the ability of a person to hide abroad, in different countries of the world in order to evade criminal liability.

Along with this, the Person_10 is married, but is in the process of divorce, has two young children, is not officially employed, a psychiatrist and a druglogist is not registered, there are no disabilities, any movable and immovable property in Ukraine does not have, lives in m. Kharkiv in an apartment that does not belong to him, that is, has the right to use, in Ukraine lives since 2017, children are citizens of Ukraine, live with their mother in m. Uzhgorod.

Along with this, it should be taken into account that the accused being under the action of a preventive measure in the form of detention with the introduction of collateral, voluntarily headed to the state border of Ukraine with Hungary. Being in the Transcarpathian region in the period from July 31, 2023 at August 1, 2023, the accused made a failed attempt to cross the state border at the checkpoint "ChOP" (Tisa).

Such information, beyond reasonable doubt, refute the accused's claims that he left m. Harle to his family.

Therefore, the accused’s attempt to cross the state border objectively indicates the existence of a risk of hiding from the court, and therefore the claim of the defense party to lack evidence of such a risk is unjustified.

At the same time, in a court session in the court of appeal, the defender said that after making a pledge, he personally explained to the accused the consequences of his violation of the duties assigned to him as a result of a pledge, and therefore the claim of the defense side about the inexplicability of the conditions regarding the more chosen preventive measure is unjustified.

Therefore, taking into account the above information in the panel of judges there is no doubt about the validity and proof of the risks that the prosecutor justified in the court of first instance and in the appeal proceedings, the need to apply such a preventive measure as keeping an ISOBA_11 in custody, since at the time of consideration of the appeal the risks that existed at the time of election of this preventive measure.

In such circumstances, the panel of judges agrees with the correctness of the conclusions of the court of first instance regarding the existence of established risks, and the same as the fact that the Personba_10 may hide from the court, destroy, hide or distort any of the things or documents that are essential to establish the circumstances of a criminal offence, to commit another criminal offence or continue the criminal offence.

Given the circumstances that are significant for this proceedings, according to the panel of judges, the court of first instance decided on the basis of comprehensively clarified circumstances with which the law associates the possibility of applying an exclusive preventive measure in the form of detention, while examining properly all the information available in the materials of the proceedings and gave in the decision the motives for which the relevant decision took.

In such circumstances, the panel of judges sees that the use of other, milder alternative precautions will not be able to ensure the fulfillment of his procedural rights and duties.

Taking into account this, the panel of judges reached a conclusion on the legality and validity of the decision of the court of first instance on the application of a preventive measure in the form of detention in respect of the Personion_10 without determining the amount of the pledge and the absence of any grounds for changing or canceling the decision under the arguments of the appeal of the lawyer of the Personion_8.

Guided by Art.177, 178, 404, 405, Art.407 part3 of paragraph 1, 418, 419 of the CPC of Ukraine, panel of judges,

In X V A L I LA:

The appeal of the defender of the Person should be left without pleasure.

The decision of the investigating judge Dzerzhinsky District Court of M. Kharkiv from August 04 2023 to leave unchanged.

To draw the attention of the prosecutor to the accused Lere Lopez Gonzalo Angel Kintilio on psychological pressure in the conditions of the SIZO, taking into account the presence of open criminal proceedings on the fact of the appeal of the defense party regarding illegal influence.

The decision of the Court of Appeal is not subject to appeal in cassation.

Heading -

Judges :

Date of decision making

10.09.2023

Posted

21.09.2023

[mysanctuaryofpeace]

Ukraine Jailing American Journalist WITH U.S. PERMISSION!

[mysanctuaryofpeace]

Gonzalo Lira court documents in Ukraine

DZERZHIN REGIONAL SUD M.HARKOV

UHWN

Case No. 638/5519/23

Construction No 1-kp/638/1372/23

THE VECHALAYM OF UKRAINE

August 02, 2023 Dzerzhinsky District Court Kharkiv in the composition:

Chairman's judge with participation: Secretary of the Court of the Prosecutor of the Defender -OSOBA_1, -OSOBA_2, -OSOB_3 , -OSOBA_4 ,

Looking at the court session in the courtroom in m. Kharkiv criminal proceedings, entered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations No. 220222200000000018 dated April 12, 2022, on charges:

DISCOUNC_5 , INFORMATION_1, citizen Chile and USA, native of m. Los Angeles, California, United States of America, married, previously unconvicted, officially unemployed, who actually lives at: adRESA_1 ,

In the commission of criminal offences provided for by time. 2 tbsp. 436-2, h. 3 tbsp. 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine,-

INSTALLED:

In the proceedings of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of M. Kharkiv is criminal proceedings No. 22022200000000018 dated April 12, 2023 with an indictment against the DISCO_5 , INFORMATION_1, per part. 2 tbsp. 436-2, h. 3 tbsp. 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The decision of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of M. Kharkiv dated June 26, 2023 criminal proceedings on charges of ISOBA_5 are appointed for trial.

According to the letter of the State Institution “Kharkiv Investigation Prison” dated July 7, 2023, OSON_5 on July 6, 2023, was released on payment of collateral in the amount of UAH 402600.00.

In the court hearing, appointed on August 2, 2023, the accused Person_5 did not arrive, the court did not provide any evidence to confirm the validity of the reason for the absence of the court.

In court session, the court put on the issue of the accused in the next court session.

The Prosecutor in court against the application to the accused in court in connection with the latter's failure to inform the latter about the reasons for non-arrival and the lack of data on the valid reasons for his absence. He noted that the absence of the accused in the court session makes it impossible to hold a court session.

The defender in the court session denied the accused's concern, citing his premature.

In the court session, the prosecutor attached a letter from the Department of the Security Service of Ukraine in the Kharkiv region dated August 1, 2023 No. 70/1-7786 regarding violation of the conditions of the preventive measure, according to which Lira Lopez Gonzalo Angel Kintilio on a BMW motorcycle, numbered number mark No. 1, arbitrarily sent to the state border of Ukraine with Hungary. Being in the Transcarpathian region in the period from July 31, 2023 to August 1, 2023, the above-mentioned person made a failed attempt to cross the state border at the Chop checkpoint (Tisa).

According to p. 1 h. 2 tbsp. 131 of the CPC of Ukraine is one of the types of measures to ensure criminal proceedings is a reason.

According to the time. 2 tbsp. 139 of the CPC of Ukraine if the accused, which was in the procedure established by this Code (in particular, the available confirmation of his receipt of a notice about a call or acquaintance with its content in another way) did not appear without valid reasons or has not reported the reasons for his non-arrival, the accused may be applied to the accused.

According to the time. 1, 3 p. 140 of the CPC of Ukraine is the reason for the forced escort of the person to whom it applies, the person who complies with the decision on the implementation of the drive, to the place of its call at the time specified in the decision. The reason can be applied to the accused.

According to Part 1. 323 of the CPC of Ukraine if the accused, to whom the preventive measure in the form of detention is not applied, did not arrive on call in court session, the court postpones the trial, appoints the date of the new session and takes measures to ensure his arrival in court. The court also has the right to decide on the defendant's pretext.

Taking into account the above, the presence of data in the materials of criminal proceedings regarding the proper notification of the accused about the date, time and place of the court hearing, since he personally participated in the preparatory court hearing and was present when announcing the court's decision on the appointment of criminal proceedings for the trial on August 2, 2023, the lack of data on the reasons for absence in the appointed court hearing, not the absence of evidence.

Guided by St. 140, 142, 143, 323 CPC of Ukraine, court,

SUPPLYED:

Apply the reason to Person_5 , INFORMATION_1, citizen Chile and USA, native of m. Los Angeles, California in the United States of America, married, previously unconvicted, officially unemployed, who actually lives at: APRESSA_1, to participate in the criminal proceedings submitted in the Unified Register of Pre-Tri Investigations under No. 220222200000000018 of April 12, 2022, on his charges of committing criminal offences. 2 tbsp. 436-2, h. 3 tbsp. 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Deliver the case of the Person_5 , INFORMATION_1, to the court session, scheduled for August 22, 2023 for 14 hours. 30 minutes, which will take place in the premises of the Dzerzhinsky District Court in m. Kharkov.

The decision is entrusted to the Department of the Security Service of Ukraine in the Kharkiv region.

Control over the implementation of the decision to put at the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor's Office.

The approval is not subject to appeal.

Judge Person_1Date of decision making01.08.2023Posted in03.08.2023

LINK

[mysanctuaryofpeace]

If I wasn't anti all vaccines before, I am after seeing this video.