The detainee’s lawyer asked for a lighter measure, as it was not proven that he committed the crime. The representative of the Appellate Prosecutor’s Office took the opposite view – the evidence is sufficient to make a reasonable assumption about his complicity in the act – witness statements and video camera recordings.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the detention was lawful. The assumption that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime for which he is charged is justified in view of the oral evidence supported by the identification. The danger of absconding or committing a crime when initially determined to be a measure of procedural coercion is assumed by law when the act was committed in case of a dangerous recidivism. Ivan D. has been convicted 14 times for various crimes, as can be seen from his criminal record. The degree of public danger of the accused is extremely high. This leads to the conclusion that any other measure other than detention would not serve the purposes of the law, the three-judge panel was unanimous.
The decision is final and not subject to appeal.
Tags: release recidivist times Varna