Riga Regional Court agency LETA informs that the court has received the convict’s side complaint about the rejected request and set the case to be heard in a written process on January 28, 2025.
It is stated in the district court that the court has applied non-custodial security measures to the convicted person and the law provides for the possibility for him to ask the court to evaluate the postponement of the execution of the sentence. The execution of the sentence will not begin until the decision has entered into force, considering the side complaint on the issue of postponement of the execution of the sentence. The court has determined the date of the case consideration, taking into account the workload of the Criminal Court panel of the Riga Regional Court.
It has already been announced that the Supreme Court (AT) refused to initiate cassation proceedings in the case of the attack on the carrier of the Ukrainian flag, which resulted in the entry into force of the regional court’s verdict sentencing Lazarev to two years in prison.
On August 1, Lazarev appealed to the Riga City Court with a request to postpone the execution of the judgment for two months.
Earlier, the court of first instance found Lazarev guilty and sentenced him to conditional imprisonment. The regional court, considering the appeal, annulled the part of the judgment of the Riga city court regarding the imposition of a conditional sentence, thus determining that Lazarev should go to prison. The judgment was appealed to the Court of Appeal, but it refused to initiate cassation proceedings.
Initially, the prosecutor’s office imposed 200 hours of community service on Lazarev for the attack on the young man. It was possible to reach such an agreement because the accused admitted his guilt and paid the moral damage compensation requested by the victim – 6034 euros.
However, the young man’s lawyer appealed the prosecutor’s decision, the General Prosecutor’s Office canceled the prosecutor’s decision on the mentioned punishment and the criminal proceedings were renewed.
On May 20, 2022, a march “For liberation from the Soviet legacy” took place from the Freedom Monument to Uzvaras Park in Pārdaugava. After the march near the place of the event, on Eduardas Smilģa street, Lazarev drove a ”BMW” car. He stopped the vehicle and injured a young man born in 2003 who had a Ukrainian flag wrapped around his shoulders.
Although the “BMW” left the scene after the incident, it was found out that the attacker was Lazarev, born in 1984, who had already been noticed by the police.
The car was later found by the police in the yard of a private house, and its license plates had been changed in order to hide the whereabouts of the perpetrator. The attacker himself was hiding behind the chimney in the attic of his residence.
Police officer Anastasia Tvirko was in the car next to the attacker at the time of the attack. She has been charged with inaction in another case. The policewoman is retired from service.
The Riga city court sentenced the policewoman to a fine of 9,300 euros, but Cvirko appealed the verdict, and now the case is also in the Kurzeme regional court.
Time.news Interview: Legal Ramifications of a High-Profile Case in Latvia
Editor (John Silver): Welcome to Time.news, where we discuss current events with experts in the field. Today, we’re diving into a case that has garnered considerable attention in Latvia—the sentence of Andrei Lazarev for assaulting a young man holding a Ukrainian flag. With us is Dr. Anna Krumova, a legal expert specializing in criminal law and human rights. Welcome, Dr. Krumova.
Dr. Anna Krumova: Thank you, John. It’s a pleasure to be here.
John Silver: Let’s begin with the background. We understand that Lazarev was initially sentenced to conditional imprisonment, which was later changed to a two-year prison sentence by the Riga Regional Court. Can you explain how the legal process evolved from there?
Dr. Krumova: Absolutely. Initially, there was a negotiation where Lazarev accepted a plea deal involving 200 hours of community service due to his admission of guilt and payment of moral damages to the victim. This is quite common in criminal proceedings, particularly if the defendant shows remorse. However, the victim’s lawyer appealed this decision, leading to the prosecutor’s office reassessing the case. This is where it takes a dramatic turn—after the prosecutor’s decision was canceled, Lazarev faced renewed proceedings that culminated in the harsher sentence by the Regional Court.
John Silver: It seems like there were several layers to this case. The Supreme Court refused to initiate cassation proceedings, effectively upholding the Regional Court’s decision. What does this mean for Lazarev’s legal options moving forward?
Dr. Krumova: When the Supreme Court declines to hear a case, it often means that the lower court’s ruling is final. However, Lazarev has filed a complaint to postpone the execution of his sentence. The Riga Regional Court has scheduled the hearing for this written complaint for January 28, 2025. This means he still has a chance to argue for a delay, but the court’s decision will depend on the circumstances he presents.
John Silver: So, it’s not over yet. How does the court’s decision to apply non-custodial security measures affect the situation?
Dr. Krumova: Non-custodial measures indicate that the court is acknowledging certain mitigating factors or circumstances surrounding the defendant, allowing him a chance to avoid immediate imprisonment. It’s crucial for Lazarev as it provides him an opportunity to appeal for postponement without the immediate pressure of incarceration, but this will depend on the court’s assessment of his claims.
John Silver: This case has stirred considerable public interest. From your perspective as a legal expert, what are the implications for criminal law in Latvia, especially concerning hate crimes and offenses motivated by political viewpoints?
Dr. Krumova: This case is particularly pivotal as it reflects Latvia’s stance on political expression and the consequences of hate crimes. Sentencing someone for an offense linked to a political symbol like the Ukrainian flag raises questions about intolerance and the judicial system’s commitment to protecting free expression. It may also set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, emphasizing the fine balance between free speech and the consequences of violent actions stemming from political beliefs.
John Silver: That’s insightful. As we close, what should the public take away from this case?
Dr. Krumova: It’s vital for the public to recognize the importance of legal processes and the role of the judiciary in navigating complex social issues. This case illustrates how the law evolves and responds to societal values, particularly regarding tolerance, justice, and human rights. It’s also a reminder of the significance of advocacy and legal representation in ensuring fair outcomes.
John Silver: Thank you, Dr. Krumova, for your valuable insights into this complex case. We’ll be following its developments closely and appreciate you sharing your expertise with us today.
Dr. Krumova: Thank you for having me, John. It’s crucial to keep these conversations going.
John Silver: That’s it for today’s discussion. We’ll continue to bring you updates on this case and other significant stories. Until next time, stay informed!