From the beggar’s sack and from prison...

In itself, this fact is already a precedent in the Ukrainian (and not only Ukrainian) prison system. Moreover, this is generally the first criminal case under Article 157 of the Criminal Code to have reached court in our country.
It was initiated by the prosecutor’s office back in January of this year, just between the two stages of voting for the future President.
It started when, at a personal reception with the prosecutor, several convicts complained about the head of the colony, who was walking around the units and demanding that they vote only for one candidate. He threatened that otherwise, he would put someone in a disciplinary isolation cell, or send them to a cell, or arrange a ‘masked tactical raid’ — send the riot police onto the territory. Around the same time, agitation by the leadership was also uncovered by SBU officers.
Although there were many complaints, only three convicts agreed to write an official statement. The others were either afraid of complications or simply did not want to deal with law enforcement agencies. They had very little time left before the end of their term, and there was simply no desire to go to the police and attend court hearings once they were free: “We want to forget everything like a bad dream.”
To ensure these three witnesses did not have problems, the prosecutor’s office appealed to the department’s administration with a request to provide them with operational cover. But some time later, the head of the colony absolutely illegally denied one of them the right to a benefit: parole. The prosecutor’s office wrote a protest and demanded that the convict’s documents be submitted for court consideration. The young man was released. Being already free, throughout the spring, while the pre-trial investigation was ongoing, and from May until autumn, when the case had already been transferred to court, he always appeared before both the investigator and at court hearings, and did not retract his words. During this time, the head of the colony resigned from his position (in connection with retirement) and spent time in hospital several times with a nervous breakdown. And due to a deterioration in his health, doctors were considering the issue of transferring him from Group 3 disability to Group 2. Therefore, the defendant could not always be present in court, and hearings were postponed. And only on 1 October was the court able to reach a final decision. As we already mentioned, the former head of the colony was sentenced to three years for obstructing free expression of will in elections through threats, while being an official. The verdict has not yet come into force and, in all likelihood, will be appealed.
But that is not all. Even after the trial, that same witness told a television crew that he had effectively incriminated the head of the colony, that he had been forced to do so by the prosecutor’s office! If this is really the case, he could be prosecuted for giving false testimony, and that carries a year of imprisonment. And since he was released from IC No. 10 not at the end of his term, but on parole, and had not served two years, he faces a return to the colony, but under a stricter regime and for three years. What then is the point of such a statement? Furthermore, as we have been informed, the prosecutor’s office has begun an investigation into this fact, but for the first time in over half a year, the young man did not appear at the prosecutor’s office to provide explanations.