AndSource The court denied Timur Bekmansurov a second examination. The Perm Regional Court has resolved one of the key points of contention in the case of Timur Bekmansurov, accused of attacking Perm University. He refused the defense to satisfy the petition for the appointment of the defendant repeated psychological, psychiatric and narcological examination. The first was carried out in the course of an investigation into a massacre at a university, following which Bekmansurov was declared sane. The defendant's lawyer believes that during its conduct the rights of the principal were violated, and his condition did not allow the shooter to convey to the doctors all the necessary information. In addition, the conclusions of the examination are not consistent with the materials of the interrogations of numerous witnesses in the case of Bekmansurov's personality. As a result, the court considered that the defender did not objectively confirm his arguments, he had no doubts about the legality of the examination.
Lawyer Viktor Pankov applied for a re-examination last Monday. In his opinion, during the initial examination, which was carried out as part of the preliminary investigation, a number of violations were committed, including the rights of Timur Bekmansurov. So, during its conduct in the hospital of the psychiatric hospital No. 6 of St. Petersburg, Bekmansurov's personal belongings, including essentials, were confiscated.
Mr. Pankov, referring to the words of the defendant, stated that during the latter's conversation with the doctors, the convoy officers were nearby, who insulted Timur Bekmansurov and could hear confidential information about his health. The lawyer added that during the examination, a mandatory sexological study in such cases was not carried out. Viktor Pankov also believes that his client suffered and is suffering from a mental disorder, but this was not reflected in the expert opinion.
Moreover, as part of the consideration of the case in court, during the interrogation of witnesses, including the mother of Timur Bekmansurov, new information important for resolving the case was obtained. “In the course of the court hearings, many circumstances were established that were not the subject of an examination,” the lawyer substantiated his position. “The conclusions of the experts contradict them.” drugs and heard voices in my head.
He supported the lawyer's request. Answering the questions of the presiding officer, Timur Bekmansurov said that communication with doctors took place at a time convenient for him, but the presence of FSIN employees at these events embarrassed him. However, the escorts did not have a direct impact on him.
After the court, at the request of the prosecution, behind closed doors interrogated the doctor of hospital No. 6, Alla Gurina, who led the examination.
After this procedural action, the state prosecutor Svetlana Plotnikova asked the court to refuse to satisfy the petition. In her opinion, none of Bekmansurov's procedural rights was violated during the appointment and conduct of the examination. The issues of the regime of his detention during communication with doctors are regulated by the legislation on detention and the internal regulations of the relevant institutions.
“The examination was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the law and the procedure approved by the Ministry of Health,” Ms. Plotnikova believes, “and precisely within the framework of the questions that were posed to the experts.” The state prosecutor believes that during the interrogation of Alla Gurina, no objective reasons why Timur Bekmansurov could not provide the necessary data to the experts were also revealed. “The expert commission was presented with all the documents, including interrogations during the preliminary investigation, no new circumstances were established, no documents about this were presented,” the prosecutor assured the court. refused. He agreed with the prosecutor's arguments that the presence of an escort during the research was necessary to ensure security.
The defense did not challenge the experts, the questions raised were not disputed. The arguments of the lawyer about the incorrect assessment of the mental state of Timur Bekmansurov and the incompleteness of the examination, the court considered unconfirmed. “At this stage, the court sees no doubts about the validity of the examination,” the presiding judge noted.
As the court pointed out, the decision to refuse a repeated examination is not subject to “self-appeal”.
Source