At the October 15 hearing, the panel of judges heard the defense’s motions to supplement the trial. The lawyers asked the court to question witnesses, obtain case materials, examine additional evidence, and declare a number of items of evidence already on file inadmissible. The court, however, denied all the motions, stating that questioning the witness named by the defense had no material bearing on the case. As for the documents, the panel stressed that they had either already been examined by the court, had never been added to the case file, or had previously been reviewed by the defense.

Defense counsel also moved to recuse the panel, arguing that the right to a fair trial had been violated because the defendant’s right to comment on the evidence had been restricted. The lawyers further claimed that Judge Oliinyk had allegedly been on leave when the case was assigned through the automated distribution system. The panel denied the motion.

The arguments for the second recusal motion revealed that Kuzminykh’s lawyer had filed a complaint against the HACC judges with the High Council of Justice. The complaint was prompted by an August hearing at which the court ordered the MP’s compelled appearance via videoconference, despite his deteriorating health and surgery he had undergone roughly 40 minutes before the hearing. As a result, he was still under local anesthesia.

The lawyer also cited as grounds for recusal the court’s decision to bring the previous defense counsel back into the proceedings, which means two lawyers now take part in the hearings at once: one retained under contract and one court-appointed free of charge. Defense counsel called the decision unlawful. The court left this recusal motion without consideration.

The hearing is now in recess; closing arguments will begin once it resumes.