Two consecutive court hearings in the criminal case against doctors from the private Odrex clinic, Vitaliy Rusakov and Marina Belotserkivska, have been postponed due to the absence of defense counsel. The next hearing is scheduled for July 30, according to UNN.
Surgeon Rusakov and oncologist Belotserkivska are accused under Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — improper performance of professional duties by medical workers. Both deny the charges.
What happened to the patient
According to the investigation, after surgery, the doctors may have failed to prescribe necessary antibiotic therapy to patient Adnan Kivan and improperly responded to postoperative complications. Forensic medical expert conclusions indicate this could have led to sepsis development and the man's death.
The case is at the stage of examining evidence — this is where medical documentation, expert conclusions, clinical protocols and other materials are to be reviewed.
Surgeon publicly pressures the court
Rusakov criticizes the pace of the trial in his own video blogs and claims his case should be reviewed no more than once a month. "Why does Judge Viktor Chaplitsky review serious and especially grave crimes once a month, while my case is reviewed daily?" he states, suggesting judicial bias. Similar positions have been expressed by the accused's lawyers during hearings.
A contradiction emerges here: the Criminal Procedure Code places a duty on the court to ensure reasonable timeframes for case examination, so regular scheduling of hearings complies with basic procedural principles rather than violates them. And if hearings actually fail to take place due to constant postponements by the defense, complaints about allegedly excessive intensity of proceedings appear at least illogical.
Why time works against the investigation
Experts have repeatedly pointed out that the time factor is critical in this case: each postponement brings the proceedings closer to the expiration of the statute of limitations. President of the All-Ukrainian Association of Retired Judges Denys Neviadomskyi emphasized that courts must respond to abuses of procedural rights if they lead to protraction of cases.
The law also provides for disciplinary liability of lawyers for systematic or gross violation of Rules of Professional Ethics — including for unjustified delay of court proceedings.
If defense counsel absences are repeated at the July 30 hearing, this will become grounds for posing the fundamental question: whether this concerns objective obstacles or a deliberate strategy to drag the case out until the statute of limitations expires.
