Concealment of the grounds for holding a covert event may indicate provocation of a crime by law enforcement officers

It is impossible to conclude that there is no provocation of a crime on the part of law enforcement officers during covert events, when there is no information about the grounds for such events.

The European Court of Human Rights drew attention to this in the case “Zinin against Russia” (application no. 54339/09).

Stanislav Zinin installed unlicensed software on the client's computer, who turned out to be a police officer who was conducting a secret event.

In court, the man pleaded guilty to copyright infringement, but argued that the law enforcement officer provoked him to commit a crime. After all, he offered a free trial, but the client insisted on a full and newer version of the program.

In court, the lawyer tried to find out the source of information about the illegal activities of the accused. However, law enforcement officers only confirmed that there was such information, but from where they did not report. The judge sentenced S. Zinin to a fine. The national appeal against the verdict was unsuccessful.

S. Zinin applied to the European Court of Human Rights, where they also became interested in the grounds to suspect a man of previously violating the Criminal Code or intent to commit a crime in this case.

The court in Strasbourg noted that the applicant almost immediately agreed to the client's illegal request, downloaded the program and knew how to disable the license protection. But, on the other hand, the ECHR stated that in almost all cases against Russia on provocation, permission for a secret event was issued “in the absence of a clear and predictable procedure by an ordinary administrative decision” of the same body that conducted the secret event, and without independent supervision. He also noted that the source of the "compromising information" was never disclosed. At the same time, the applicant consistently said that he would not install an unlicensed program if the customer did not insist on it.

Therefore, the ECHR indicated that it was impossible to conclude that there was no provocation, because there was no information about the grounds for holding secret measures in relation to Zinin.

At the same time, in the national court, the prosecution did not try to refute the arguments of the defense about the provocation, but only said that they were unfounded. The judge also did not seek to find out why the police decided to hold a secret event.

As a result, the high judges concluded that the applicant's right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) was violated due to his conviction as a result of police provocation.

Recall, according to Art. 17 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Execution of Decisions and the Application of the Practice of the European Court of Human Rights", Ukrainian courts apply the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the practice of the ECHR as a source of law when considering cases.