The Barristers Law Firm summarizes the key stage of the high-profile case involving the murder of volunteer Oleksiy Shcherbina

The Barristers Law Firm summarizes the key stage of the high-profile case involving the murder of volunteer Oleksiy Shcherbina.

Thanks to the consistent and principled work of our team of attorneys, led by Barristers partner Andriy Yosipov, we were able to achieve significant results despite legislative restrictions in criminal proceedings that limit victims’ ability to protect their rights.

The verdict partially satisfies the victim’s demands, although certain aspects of the decision will be challenged on appeal.

The court found Viltsanyuk guilty of murder committed out of hooliganism and sentenced him to 13 years in prison. The actions of Ignatenko and Kotyrlo, initially classified under Part 4 of Article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (hooliganism involving the use of weapons), were reclassified under Part 2 of Article 296, which resulted in the exclusion of the fact that weapons were used.

As a result, the defendants were each sentenced to three years in prison. The civil claim filed by the victim was partially granted: the court ordered Viltsanyuk to pay 1.5 million hryvnias in compensation for emotional distress, and Ignatenko and Kotyrlo to pay 250,000 hryvnias each, as well as compensation for the harm caused by the victim’s death.

This case once again highlighted the limited rights of victims in criminal proceedings: Ukrainian law does not grant them the same opportunities as the prosecutor when it comes to determining the charges and gathering evidence.

Due to errors by the prosecutor’s office in setting forth the facts in the indictment— namely, the failure to mention that Kotyrlo used a rubber bullet launcher and Ignatenko’s knowledge of the use of a firearm, the court reclassified their actions from Part 4 to Part 2 of Article 296.

At the same time, thanks to the persistent legal stance of the victims’ attorneys, it was possible to prevent Ignatenko and Kotyrlo from receiving a suspended sentence, which could have resulted from the less serious classification of the charges.

Additionally, the victims’ attorneys initiated new criminal proceedings regarding the possible misleading of the court and refuted the false claims made by the defense. These actions were decisive in rejecting the motion for the defendants’ conditional release and contributed to the imposition of an actual sentence.

Currently, all parties to the proceedings are preparing appeals, as not all aspects of the court’s decision fully meet their expectations.

A new phase of the trial lies ahead, in which the victims’ attorneys will continue to insist on a just sentence for the defendants and full compensation for the damages suffered by the victims.