"They did not comprehend the extent of their guilt."

Since the moment when three teenagers raped a 14-year-old girl in Transcarpathia in 2021, it took nearly three and a half years until they faced real punishment. The accused twin brothers Vladislav and Rostislav H., along with their friend Mykhailo T., were sentenced to six years in prison on Friday, February 7.

This is the first time the Volovets District Court issued a verdict for minors in March 2023 – they received two years of probation. ZAXID.NET provided detailed coverage of the case. After the perpetrators evaded punishment, Miller Law Firm became involved in the case.

ZAXID.NET spoke with Natalia Baranova, an attorney from Miller Law Firm who represents the victim, about the course of the case, delays, punishments for the offenders, and the conclusions society should draw.

***

Are you satisfied with the verdict? How does the victim and her parents react to it?

We are satisfied with the punishment imposed on the defendants. The victim’s parents and the girl herself are also satisfied. This was our primary goal – to achieve a decision that we believe is fair. The victim wanted real punishment for the offenders, unlike what happened the last time.

Is this the maximum punishment possible in this case?

According to part 2 of Article 153 of the Criminal Code, the punishment ranges from five to seven years. The judge chose six years. It's important to note that the defendants have the right to appeal, which they can file within a month. We believe that the judge objectively assessed the situation and took all circumstances into account.

What is the stance of the defendants? Do they admit guilt? How did they behave in court and how did they react to the verdict?

I cannot comment on their behavior in court because the hearings were closed. I can only say that the court assessed the defendants' behavior and noted that it did not observe genuine remorse or acknowledgment of guilt.

In our opinion, the defendants attempted to artificially mitigate their punishment. However, the court appropriately evaluated this.

Did the victim's side face any pressure?

No, there was no pressure. However, the mere fact of the court proceedings was a moral burden and source of stress for the victim. Although the court allowed her not to attend the hearings due to the risk of retraumatization, she was still in a state of stress. She was anxious every time, especially when hearings were postponed. I mean when there were delays in the process, which we believe was an intentional prolongation.

The girl waited a long time for a decision and was in a state of uncertainty. We hope that this behavior will change in the future.

Tell us about the delays in the case proceedings. How difficult was it for you to work as an attorney under such conditions?

Back in early October 2024, when we were ready for the debates and the conclusion was approaching (at that time we had examined all the evidence and interviewed all witnesses), we encountered actions that we believe were intended to delay the process. In particular, two defendants wanted to mobilize. Their attempt was unsuccessful. Then the defense attorney filed a motion to close the proceedings, claiming that the victim was not appearing for court hearings. The court assessed this, as it had allowed her to be absent from the sessions.

By December, hearings were canceled because the child of one of the defense attorneys was ill. Hearings were postponed also because the lawyers were engaged in other court proceedings or due to their fatigue. There were no hearings because the mother of one of the defendants was hospitalized, and she is the legal representative. Consequently, we could not proceed without her. When a hearing was scheduled for January 10, it was postponed due to the hospitalization of the mother of another defendant. Throughout this prolonged period, in our opinion, there were actions taken to delay the process as much as possible.

Importantly, there was also a risk of the court's powers expiring. In this context, the head of the Volovets court appealed to the High Qualification Commission of Judges regarding the early dismissal of the presiding judge. This also posed a risk to the case, which could have been sent back for a new trial.

Will the defendants appeal?

It's too early to say, as the hearing just took place today, and the judge only read the decision around 14:00. The only thing I can say is that the judge applied a preventive measure of detention against the defendants. We think they will appeal, but we are not completely sure.

How complex or typical is this case in your practice regarding the topic of sexual assaults?

Our position is that there can be no probation in cases of this category. However, there are instances where defendants in sexual assault cases are not held accountable. This fosters impunity. With this example, we want to demonstrate a good precedent that such actions, which deeply humiliate the honor and dignity of victims, cannot go unpunished.

The case has stretched over time since 2021. Are there mechanisms to expedite the consideration of such cases?

This depends individually on the court and on external circumstances that we cannot influence. However, in cases involving minor victims, the case should be prioritized by the court. Yet, there are moments when defendants abuse their procedural rights and artificially create conditions to delay the process. It is very difficult to influence this.

In this case, if we do not include situations involving the recusal of judges or the appointment of expert examinations, the court actually reviewed everything very quickly. However, today’s verdict may not signify the end. We understand that an appeal may occur. The system works such that there are three stages of review. The appellate court can return the case for a new hearing. This is the specificity of the judicial system.

This case has garnered public attention and reaction. In your opinion, would there have been such a verdict and real punishment if there hadn’t been such a reaction?

The court makes decisions based on its own conviction. Here, I think the issue is not in publicity, but in how well all parties in the process operate. Essentially, if the interested victim's side, the prosecutor’s office, and all parties adequately defend their interests, then we can talk about a fair decision. In my perception, the issue is not about publicity but about the quality of work done by the victim's side, the prosecution, and the defense. We performed at a proper level, which is why there is such a verdict.

In your opinion, what should this verdict demonstrate to victims and their offenders?

This case should show victims of sexual violence that they should not be afraid and that it is important to speak out about crimes. It is crucial to understand that the victim is not to blame for what happened to them. Unfortunately, "victim-blaming" is often encountered, where victims are blamed for their appearance, behavior, or other factors, but this cannot justify the crime. It doesn’t matter how much time has passed; such cases should always be discussed. I believe this case serves as an example for girls who fear public condemnation. This case, on the contrary, shows that the victim cannot be condemned by anyone. A conscious society, law enforcement agencies, and the court stand by the victim.

This case exemplifies that the defendants who committed this horrific crime received real punishment. Before this, they may have thought they could evade responsibility and did not realize their guilt. For others, this may serve as a motivating example that will compel them to change their behavior and understand that every crime must inevitably result in accountability.

Everyone who even considers committing a sexual crime must understand the inevitability and inescapability of punishment. This punishment must be real, fair, and proportionate to the severity of the act committed. Only in this way can we ensure justice and protect the rights of victims.