The Kharkiv Court of Appeal left in custody Olga Kravchenko, the head of the Zolotoe Vremya boarding house, and Igor Mironchuk, whom the investigation calls the administrator of the establishment.

Reported by Depo. Kharko.

The Kharkiv Court of Appeal considered the complaint of the defenders of the head of the Zolotoe Vremya nursing home Olga Kravchenko.

Kravchenko's lawyer filed a motion to change her preventive measure from detention to round-the-clock house arrest. If it was impossible to apply house arrest, the lawyer asked the court to determine the amount of bail for the accused. The lawyer is convinced that the arguments of the first instance court, which chose a preventive measure, are far-fetched and formal.. In his opinion, there are also no risks that Kravchenko will interfere with the investigation, influence witnesses, victims, destroy documents and the like..

All three lawyers of Kravchenko spoke in favor of satisfying the appeal. Kravchenko herself asked to satisfy the appeal. The woman noted that she has a minor child who needs to be looked after, as well as a sick father.

In turn, the representative of the public prosecution opposed the satisfaction of the appeal. According to the prosecutor, Kravchenko ran the Golden Age nursing home, but did not take any measures to ensure proper fire safety. The representative of the public prosecution stressed that the chosen preventive measure is legal and reasonable.

After listening to the opinion of the parties, the court made a decision, the appeal of the defenders was left unchanged, the court's decision on the detention of Kravchenko was left unchanged.

For Igor Mironchuk, suspected of a deadly fire in a nursing home, lawyers also asked for a softer measure of restraint - house arrest.

The lawyers said that Mironchuk had nothing to do with the management of the Golden Age nursing home, so he could not influence fire safety in any way.. They added that Mironchuk is a former drug addict, he has a young child.

According to lawyers, there are no risks that Mironchuk will influence witnesses or victims and will hide from the investigation.. The suspicion announced to him is unfounded.

In turn, the prosecutor is convinced that the decision of the first instance court to detain Mironchuk is lawful and well-grounded.. The prosecutor opposed the satisfaction of the appeal and stressed that Mironchuk himself disposed of the property of the institution and determined all the needs of the "

Having listened to the opinion of the parties, the court made a decision, the appeal of the defenders was dismissed, the court's decision on the detention of Mironchuk was left unchanged.