Case № 638/5519/23
Proceedings № 1-kp/638/1372/23
UCHVALAIMENEM OF UKRAINE
December 22, 2023 Dzerzhinsky District Court. Kharkiv in the composition:
Presiding Judge with the participation of: Secretary of the Judicial Session of the Prosecutor of the Defendant Defender of the Translator -PERSON_1, -PERSON_2, -PERSON_3, -Lira Lopez PERSON_4, -PERSON_5, -PERSON_6 ,
considering in court in the courtroom in the city. Kharkiv in videoconference mode of the request of the Prosecutor of the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor's Office PERSON_3 to extend the term of the precautionary measure in the form of detention in criminal proceedings, entered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations for № 2202222000000618 of 12 April 2022, in respect of the accused
PERSON_7, INFORMATION_1, a citizen of the Republic of Chile and the Federal Republic of the United States of America, a native of the city. Los Angeles, California, United States, a married, officially unemployed person who has two children, actually lives at: ADDRESS_1, not previously convicted,
in the commission of criminal offenses under Part 2 of Art. 436-2, Part 3 of Art. 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine,-
INSTALLED:
Since June 7, 2023 in the proceedings of Judge Dzerzhinsky District Court m. Kharkiv PERSON_1 is an indictment in criminal proceedings entered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations under № 22022222000000618 of 12 April 2022 in respect of PERSON_7, who is charged with criminal offenses under Part. 2 st. 436-2, part 3 of Art. 436-2 CC of Ukraine.
On December 22, 2023, at a court hearing, the prosecutor filed a motion to extend the precautionary measure in the form of detention for a period of 60 days, without determining the bail.
The petition is justified by the fact that PERSON_7 is accused of committing a criminal offense - a crime under Part 2 of Article 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, ie in the manufacture and distribution of materials containing acquittal, recognition as lawful, denial of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, which began in 2014, as well as acquittal, recognition as lawful temporary occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine and in the commission of a criminal offense - a crime under Part 3 of Art. 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, ie in the manufacture and dissemination of materials containing acquittal, recognition as lawful, denial of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, which began in 2014, including by presenting the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine as an internal civil conflict,acquittal, recognition of the lawful temporary occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine, as well as justification, recognition as legitimate temporary occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine, glorification of persons who carried out armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, started in 2014, committed again.
By the decision of the Investigative Judge of the Kyiv District Court. Kharkiv from May 2023 in respect of PERSON_7, a precautionary measure in the form of a sub-prime until June 29, 2023 with the determination of the amount of the pledge in the amount of UAH 402,600, UAH 00, imposed for a period of two months's duties: to arrive at the investigator, the prosecutor, the court at the first call; do not leave the city. Kharkiv without the permission of the investigator, prosecutor or court; notify the investigator, prosecutor or court of the change of his place of residence at: ADDRESS_1; wear an electronic means of control.
By the decision of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal of May 30, 2023 of the decision of the Investigative Judge of the Kyiv District Court of the city. Kharkiv from May 1, 2023 was left unchanged.
Uhvala of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of the city. Kharkiv dated June 26, 2023, the precautionary measure in the form of detention, chosen in relation to the accused PERSON_7 for a period until August 24, 2023, was extended, with the possibility of applying an alternative precautionary measure in the form of a pledge, in the amount specified in the decision of the investigating judge of the Kyiv District Court. Kharkiv dated May 1, 2023, revised by the Kharkiv Court of Appeal, namely in the amount of UAH 402,600.00. When making a certain amount of bail PERSON_7 from custody to release and impose on him for a period of two months duties: to arrive at the investigator, the prosecutor, the court on the first call; do not withdraw from m. Kharkiv without the permission of the investigator, prosecutor or court; notify the investigator, prosecutor or court of the change of his place of residence at: ADDRESS_1; wear an electronic means of control;to deposit with the relevant public authorities a passport for travel abroad or other documents that give the right to travel abroad.
The accused were pledged, in connection with which he was released from custody on July 6, 2023.
Uhvala of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of the city. Kharkiv dated August 4, 2023 was transferred to the state income and credited to the special fund of the State Budget of Ukraine a pledge of UAH 402,600.00, made by the accused on the basis of the decision of the Investigative Judge of the Kyiv District Court. Kharkiv of 1 May 2023, as reviewed by the Kharkiv Court of Appeal in № 953/2692/23. Elected to the accused PERSON_7, INFORMATION_1, a precautionary measure in the form of detention for a period until October 2, 2023 without determining the amount of bail.
Approval of the Dzerzhinsky District Court m. Kharkiv of August 4, 2023 was left unchanged by the court of appeal.
Uhvala of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of the city. Kharkiv from November 8, 2023 extended the precautionary measure in the form of detention until January 8, 2024.
The prosecutor supported the request, asked to satisfy. He noted that to ensure the proper procedural behavior of the accused to the conspiracy is only a precautionary measure in the form of detention, the risks of existence have not ceased and have not decreased.
Lira PERSON_8 in court against the satisfaction of the petition objected. Asked by the judge about the possibility of holding a court hearing and considering the petition, given the unsatisfactory state of health of the accused, the accused stated that he wished to take part in the court hearing and insisted on its conduct.
Present at the court hearing of the doctor of the Kharkiv city medical unit № 27 of the State institution "Center for Health Care of the SCVSUkraine" of the branch in the Kharkiv and Luhansk oblasts of PERSON_9 to clarify questions of the court on the state of health of the accused, that the doctors of the medical unit conducted a medical examination of the accused, a diagnosis of « pneumonia, bilateral pneumonia», the accused is provided with necessary and sufficient medical care, supervision of specialists and treatment. The state of health of the accused is unsatisfactory, but does not prevent a court hearing. There are no threats to the life of the accused. The accused does not need hospitalization, the conditions of the medical part of the remand center are appropriate and able to provide the necessary and sufficient treatment of the accused.
The defense counsel of the accused PERSON_5 in the court hearing against the satisfaction of the petition objected, referring to the fact that the qualification of the accusation under Part 3 of Art. 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is unfounded. According to part 2 of Art. 32 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, is not a repeat of an ongoing crime consisting of two or more committed at different times of identical criminal acts, united by a single criminal intent. In view of the fact that the actions charged to the accused should be classified as an ongoing crime. The prosecutor did not prove the stated risks. He requested that a precautionary measure be applied to the accused in the form of house arrest or detention with the right to bail.
Taking into account the opinion of the participants in the trial on the possibility of holding a court hearing in view of the state of health of the accused, providing explanations to the doctor about the state of health of the accused, the court concluded that it was possible to hold a court hearing and consider the prosecutor's request.
In deciding whether to extend the precautionary measure in the form of detention, the court is guided by the following.
According to Part 1, 3 of Article 331 of the CPC of Ukraine, during the judicial review of the petition of the prosecution party or defends the right to decide, to cancel, to elect or to extend the precautionary measure of the accused. In the presence of applications, the court during the trial is obliged to consider the expediency of extending the precautionary measure until the end of the two-month period from the date of its application. According to the results of the consideration of the issue, the court with its motivated decision cancels, changes the precautionary measure or extends its effect for a period not exceeding two months. A copy of the decision is served on the accused, the prosecutor and sent to the authorized official to the place of detention.
According to Part 2 of Art. 331 of the CPC of Ukraine, the decision of the court on the precautionary measure takes place in the manner prescribed by Chapter 18 of this Code.
According to part 4 of the state. 199 of the CPC of Ukraine, the court is obliged to consider a request for extension of detention until the expiration of the previous decision in accordance with the rules provided for consideration of requests for the application of a precautionary measure.
According to Part 3 of Art. 199 of the CPC of Ukraine's request for extension of detention, in addition to the information specified in the article 184 of this Code, must contain: 1) a statement of the circumstances that indicate, that the claimed risk has not decreased or there are new risks that justify the detention of a person; 2) a statement of the circumstances that prevent the completion of the pre-trial investigation before the expiration of the previous detention order.
Part five of the century. 199 of the CPC of Ukraine stipulates that the court is obliged to refuse to extend the term of detention, unless the prosecutor, the investigator, proves that the circumstances specified in part three of this article justify further detention of the suspect, accused in custody.
Thus, the grounds for continuing to detain a person are, in particular, to establish that the claimed risk has not decreased or that there are new risks that justify the detention of a person.
According to the material proceedings of the investigative judge of the Kyiv District Court. Kharkiv from May 1, 2023. PERSON_7, a precautionary measure of the detention was chosen on June 29, 2023 with the determination of the amount of bail in the amount of UAH 402,600.
When choosing a term-precautionary measure in the form of a sub-bar, the investigating judge is informed that the PERSON_7 may be hiding from a judicial investigation or court, destroy, hide or distort any of the documents that are essential to establish the circumstances of the criminal offense.
By the decision of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal of May 30, 2023 of the decision of the Investigative Judge of the Kyiv District Court of the city. Kharkiv from May 1, 2023 was left unchanged.
The Court of Appeal at the stage of the pre-trial investigation established the validity of the suspicion, the presence of the above risks, the issue of the legality of the election of an alternative precautionary measure by the investigating judge in the form of a pledge and its size.
The accused were pledged, in connection with which he was released from custody on July 6, 2023.
Uhvala of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of the city. Kharkiv dated August 4, 2023 was transferred to the state income and credited to the special fund of the State Budget of Ukraine a pledge of UAH 402,600.00, made by the accused on the basis of the decision of the Investigative Judge of the Kyiv District Court. Kharkiv of 1 May 2023, as reviewed by the Kharkiv Court of Appeal in № 953/2692/23. Elected to the accused PERSON_7, INFORMATION_1, a precautionary measure in the form of detention for a period until October 2, 2023 without determining the amount of bail.
Uvalu of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of the city. Kharkiv of August 4, 2023 was left unchanged by the decision of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal of September 11, 2023.
Uhvala of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of the city. Kharkiv from November 8, 2023 extended the precautionary measure in the form of detention until January 8, 2024.
According to paragraph 4 of Part 2 of Art. 183 of the CPC of Ukraine, a precautionary measure in the form of detention may not be applied, except to a previously unconvicted person suspected or accused of committing a crime, for which the law provides for imprisonment for a term exceeding five years.
Lira PERSON_8 is accused of committing a minor and serious crime, for which there is a penalty of imprisonment for up to five years and imprisonment for a term of five to eight years.
The court finds that PERSON_7 is married, but is in the process of divorce, has two minor children in 2014 and 2015, is officially unemployed, the doctor of a psychiatrist and a narcologist is not registered, has no disability, does not have any movable and immovable property in Ukraine or another state, lives in the city. Kharkiv in an apartment that belongs to him on the right of use, has lived in Ukraine since 2017, children are citizens of Ukraine, living with their mother in the city. Uzhgorod.
As can be seen from the conclusions on the application of the rules of law set out, in particular, in the rulings of the Supreme Court of 20.06.2019 in the case № 166/313/17, dated 13.08.2020 in the case № 674/1202/19, of 27.02.2019 in the case № 0503/10653/2012, awareness of the probability of admitting the guilt of a person on the charge and the pressure of the burden of possible serving of a sentence, are the circumstances, indicating the risk of concealment from the court and is grounds for the application and continuation of a precautionary measure in the form of detention.
According to Art. 7-9 of the CPC of Ukraine criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine is applied taking into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.
In its judgment «W v. Switzerland» of 26 January 1993, the European Court of Human Rights stated that the gravity of the crime had its rational meaning, as it indicates the degree of public danger of this person and allows to predict with a sufficiently high degree of probability his behavior, taking into account that future punishment for a serious crime increases the risk that the suspect/the accused may evade the investigation.
In the sense of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the gravity of the charge is not an independent ground for detaining a person, but such an accusation, combined with other circumstances, increases the risk of escape to such an extent, that it is impossible to turn away without taking a person into custody. In «Ilikov v. Bulgaria» №33977/96 of 26 July 2001, the ECtHR stated that « the severity of the sentence provided was an essential element in assessing the risks of concealment or re-offending of crimes ».
In addition, the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly emphasized that the existence of grounds for detention must be assessed in each criminal proceeding, taking into account its specific circumstances.
Taking into account the data on the identity of the accused PERSON_7, the gravity of the punishment that threatens him in case of finding him guilty, the lack of an official source of income and any property on property rights, the presence of two citizenships of other countries, other circumstances of criminal proceedings, the court concludes that at this stage of criminal proceedings the risks of the accused taking the actions provided for in paragraphs 1, 5, Part 1 of Art. 177 of the CCP of Ukraine, which were the grounds for the election of a relatively accused precautionary measure in the form of detention at the pre-trial investigation stage and referred to by the prosecutor in the request for the continuation of the precautionary measure in the form of detention, have not decreased and none of the other, softer precautions can prevent them.
Due to the fact that the accused has a passport of a US citizen and a passport of a citizen of the Republic of Chile, the presence of two citizens of tapasports significantly expands the person's ability to hide abroad, in different countries of the world in order to evade criminal liability.
In addition, the court considers that the risk of concealment from the pre-trial investigation or court has been proven, as after the accused pledged, he violated the conditions of the bail and attempted to cross the border.
Thus, according to the letter of the Office of the Security Service of Ukraine in the Kharkiv region dated August 1, 2023 № 70/1-7786 regarding the violation of the conditions of the precautionary measure, Lira Lopez Gonzalo Angel Quintilio on a BMW motorcycle, license plate NOMER_1, arbitrarily sent to the state border of Ukraine with Hungary. While in the Transcarpathian region from July 31, 2023 to August 1, 2023, the above person made an unsuccessful attempt to cross the state border into the checkpoint «Chop» (Tisa).
At the court hearing, during the settlement of the issue of the election of a precautionary measure and the appeal of a pledge in the income of the state, the accused provided an explanation, according to which he confirmed the fact of violation of his obligation not to leave m. Kharkiv without proper court permission. He noted that he arbitrarily sent to the state border of Ukraine. While in the Transcarpathian region from July 31, 2023 to August 1, 2023, he made an unsuccessful attempt to cross the state border into the checkpoint «Chop».
In view of this, the court considers that the risk of concealment of an organ-trial investigation or a court is fully proven when considering a request for an extension of a precautionary measure. The accused's attempt to cross the state border objectively indicates the existence of a risk of concealment from the court, and therefore the defense's assertion that there is no evidence of such a risk is unfounded.
According to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the court must ensure not only the rights of the accused, but also high standards of protection of public rights and interests. Ensuring such standards, as emphasized by the European Court of Human Rights, requires the court to be more rigorous in assessing violations of society's values.
Given the specific circumstances of the crime charged to the accused, namely that he is accused of committing crimes related to crimes against peace, security of humanity and international law and order, the court considers, that there is a public interest in this proceedings, which is the need to protect high standards of protection of the rights and interests of society.
In deciding on the extension of the precautionary measure, the court takes into account the existence of risks provided for in paragraphs 1, 5, 1 of Art. 177 of the CPC of Ukraine, as well as assessing the set of circumstances, namely: the weight of the established by the investigating judge and the court of appellate instance at the stage of pre-trial investigation of available evidence of committing PERSON_7 criminal offenses (reasonableness of suspicion); the gravity of the punishment that threatens him in case of pleading guilty to a serious criminal offense under Part 3 of Art. 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, data on the identity of the accused, who is not a citizen of Ukraine, can freely leave the territory of Ukraine, does not have proper ownership of property and official source of income in Ukraine, considers that the application of a softer precautionary measure to PERSON_7 is insufficient to prevent risks,provided for item 1, 5 h. 1 tbsp. 177 of the CCP of Ukraine.
In view of the above, in order to ensure the performance of the procedural duties imposed on the accused, to prevent hiding from the court, to commit other criminal offenses, the court at this stage of the proceedings considers it appropriate to extend the term of the precautionary measure in the form of detention in respect of PERSON_7, for a period until 19 February 2024.
Also, taking into account the above, the court concludes that there are no grounds at this stage of the trial to change the precautionary measure chosen in relation to the accused.
In addition, the court takes into account all the grounds and circumstances provided for in Art. 178 of the CPC of Ukraine, information about the person and available evidence about the commission of a criminal offense by the accused, the gravity of the punishment that threatens him in case of guilty plea and the circumstances provided for in Art. 177, 178 of the CPC of Ukraine, according to which the court has the right not to determine the amount of bail.
According to part 3 of Art. 183 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, when deciding on the application of a precautionary measure in the form of detention, is obliged to determine the amount of bail sufficient to ensure the performance of the duties provided by this Code by suspects, accused persons, except in cases, provided by the part of the fourth article.
According to part 4 of Art. 183 of the CPC of Ukraine, in the decision on the application of a precautionary measure in the form of detention, taking into account the grounds and circumstances provided by Articles 177 and 178 of this Code, has the right to determine the amount of bail for criminal proceedings,committed by the use of violence or threatening use; a crime that caused human death; in respect of which the case was already selected, a precautionary measure of the consideration of the pledge was violated by it; in respect of the crime provided for in Articles 255-255 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine; in particular, the serious crime of the uferi of circulatory means,psychotropic substances, similar to precursors. During the martial law, the investigating judge, the court in deciding on the application of a precautionary measure in the form of detention,having regard to the grounds and circumstances provided for in Articles 177ta178 of this Code, has the right not to determine the amount of bail in criminal proceedings in respect of the crime provided for in Articles 109-114-2,258-258-6,260,261,402-405,407,429,437-442 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Uhvala of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of the city. Kharkiv was established on August 4, 2023, and the prosecutor proved the circumstances provided for in Part 4 of Art. 183 of the CPC of Ukraine, which are the legal basis for determining the amount of bail in this criminal proceeding. Namely, the circumstance is provided for in paragraph 3 of Part 4 of Art. 183 of the CCP of Ukraine.
Given the violation of the precautionary measure in the form of a pledge by the accused, the court concluded that there were no grounds for determining the amount of bail.
The assessment of these circumstances indicates that the accused violated the obligations imposed on him by the decision of the Dzerzhinsky District Court. Kharkiv dated June 26, 2023, ie a precautionary measure in the form of a pledge is not able to ensure that the accused perform the procedural duties assigned to him.
Considering the motion to extend the precautionary measure in the form of detention, the court considers that the precautionary measure in the form of house arrest will also not be able to prevent the proven risks by the prosecutor.
As a result of the criminal proceedings examined in the body, the court concluded that the precautionary measure in the form of bail or house arrest was unable to ensure that the accused performed his procedural duties.
Given that the case is at the stage of the trial and as of the time of the court's request, the prosecution documents have been attached to the case file, the court considers the prosecutor unproven to continue the risk of destruction, concealment or distortion of any of the items or documents that are essential to establish the circumstances of the criminal offense.
As for the arguments of the defense counsel and the accused regarding the non-approval of the qualification of an incriminated criminal offense, at this stage of the trial, the evidence can not be regarded as indicating the unfoundedness of the charge, the lack of risks identified by the court and the grounds for choosing a softer precautionary measure.
Issues of incorrect legal qualification of the crime are not subject to resolution before examining the documents of the prosecution when considering a request to extend the term of the precautionary measure. The court is deprived of the opportunity to assess the legal qualifications of the accused's actions during the consideration of this petition and at this stage, as these arguments are subject to assessment by the court after examining the prosecution documents.
In deciding on the satisfaction of the prosecutor's request and the extension of the detention period, the court takes into account the requirements of a reasonable period of detention, considers that it is possible to extend the detention until 19 February 2024, which is in line with the general provisions on reasonable time limits, set out in the legal position of the European Court of Human Rights in the judgment in Harchenko v. Ukraine of 10 February 2011, according to which "the reasonableness of the term of detention cannot be assessed in the abstract. It must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the specifics of the case, the reasons referred to in the decisions of the national courts, the persuasiveness of the applicant's arguments set out in his application for dismissal.Continuation of detention can be justified only in the presence of a specific public interest, which, despite the presumption of innocence, prevails over the principle of respect for individual freedom".
According to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the court must ensure not only the rights of the accused, but also high standards of protection of public rights and interests. Ensuring such standards, as emphasized by the European Court of Human Rights, requires the court to be more rigorous in assessing violations of society's values.
The judgment of the European Court of Justice «Kalashnikov v. Russia» of 15 July 2002 convulsed that any system of compulsory detention was incompatible with the overstatement of the.5Convention of the Protection of the Immaculate of Rights. If the law establishes the presumption of circumstances relating to,there must be, in addition to all, the convincing existence of specific circumstances that have prevailed over the respect for personal freedom.
Thus, the court considers that the defense counsel's arguments regarding the violation of reasonable terms of detention are unfounded.
Persons detained in the remand center are provided with primary treatment and prevention care, which includes medical advice, diagnosis and treatment of the most common diseases, injuries and poisons, preventive measures, sending a sick accused to provide specialized and highly specialized care, given that the issue of providing medical care to the accused in case of unsatisfactory health in the remand center is guaranteed.
The court hearing on the explanations provided by the doctor found that the State Institution «Harkiv Investigation Detention Center » had the appropriate conditions necessary to diagnose, provide the accused with proper treatment and prevent possible complications or exacerbations of the disease.
At the same time, in assessing the data on the unsatisfactory state of health of the accused, the court is guided by the following.
According to. 2 of the CPC of Ukraine The task of criminal proceedings is, including the protection of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the participants in criminal proceedings, to which the accused belongs.
Article 8 of the CPC of Ukraine stipulates that criminal proceedings are conducted with the observance of the principle of the rule of law, according to which man, his rights and freedoms are recognized as the highest values and determine the content and direction of the state.
The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 18 December 2008 in «Uhan v. Ukraine» states that Article 3 of the Convention obliges the State to protect the physical health of persons deprived of their liberty. The court allows that medical care, which is available in the institutions of the penitentiary system, may not always be at the same level as in the best public medical institutions. However, the state must ensure that the health of prisoners is adequately protected, in particular by providing the necessary medical care (see the judgment in Kudla v. Poland). Poland) [GC], N 30210/96, p. 94, ECHR 2000-XI); see also "Hurtado v. Switzerland" (Hurtado v. Switzerland), judgment of 28 January 1994, Series A, N 280-A).
According to Part 5, Part 6, Art. 9 of the CPC of Ukraine, criminal procedural law of Ukraine is applied taking into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. In cases where the provisions of this Code regulate or ambiguously regulate the issue of criminal proceedings, the general principles of criminal proceedings, defined in part 7 of this Code, apply.
Having regard to the above, and guided by the rule of law and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, in order to ensure the right of the accused to receive adequate medical care, the court considers it necessary to instruct the medical part of the DU «Harking remand center » to continue the medical examination of PERSON_7 in order to determine and control the state of health of the latter and to continue its proper treatment, if there is such a need.
Guided by Art. 34, 183, 314, 331, 369-372 of the CPC of Ukraine,-
COVERED:
Petition of the Prosecutor of the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor's Office PERSON_3 on the extension of the precautionary measure in the form of detention in criminal proceedings, entered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations for № 22022222000000618 of April 12, 2022 in respect of PERSON_7, INFORMATION_1, which is accused of criminal offenses under Part 2 of Art. 436-2, part. 3 st. 436-2 CC of Ukraine - to satisfy.
Continue the precautionary measure in the form of detention, selected in relation to the accused PERSON_7, INFORMATION_1, at the State Institution «Harkiv Investigation Detention Center» for a period up to 19 February 2024, without determining the amount of bail.
To entrust the Kharkiv city medical unit № 27 of the State Institution "Center for Health Protection of the SCVS of Ukraine" branches in Kharkiv and Luhansk oblasts to continue the medical examination of Lira Lopez PERSON_10 in order to determine and control the state of health of the latter and to continue its proper treatment, if necessary.
The decision may be appealed on appeal by filing an appeal directly with the appellate court within five days from the date of its announcement. For PERSON_7, the time limit for filing an appeal is calculated from the moment of delivery of a copy of this decision.
The decision is subject to immediate execution after its announcement.
