检察官于2004年4月29日签发一项裁决，下令对他进行审前拘留。
On 29 April 2004, the Prosecutor issued a decision ordering his pretrial detention.
检察官于2004年5月6日正式指控Marynich先生违反《刑法》第295(2)条。
On 6 May 2004, the Prosecutor formally charged Mr. Marynich with a violation of article 295 (2) of the Criminal Code.
检察官于2004年6月25日将对Marynich先生的审前拘留延长至2004年8月26日。
On 25 June 2004 the Prosecutor prolonged the pretrial detention of Mr. Marynich until 26 August 2004.
8. Marynich先生的律师向克格勃提出终止对他刑事诉讼的请求。
Mr. Marynich's lawyer submitted to the KGB a request to terminate the criminal proceedings against him.
这项请求于2004年8月6日被驳回。
This request was rejected on 6 August 2004.
Marynich先生就这项裁决向明斯克检察官提出上诉，检察官于2004年8月20日驳回上诉。
Mr. Marynich appealed this decision to the Minsk Prosecutor, who rejected the appeal on 20 August 2004.
9. 还于2004年8月20日就Marynich先生可能违反《刑法》第210(4)条展开调查。
Also on 20 August 2004, an investigation was opened against Mr. Marynich in relation to a possible violation of article 210 (4) of the Criminal Code.
他涉嫌盗窃美国驻明斯克大使馆借给Delovaya Initsiativa协会的办公设备。
He was suspected of stealing office equipment lent by the United States Embassy in Minsk to the association Delovaya Initsiativa.
检察官于2004年8月26日延长对Marynich先生的拘留一个月，这次是依据《刑法》第210(4)条提出指控。
On 26 August 2004, the Prosecutor prolonged the detention of Mr. Marynich for another month, this time on the basis of the charges under article 210 (4) of the Criminal Code.
10. 2004年9月23日，Marynich先生被正式指控违反《刑法》第295(2)条、第377(2)条和第210(2)条。
On 23 September 2004, Mr. Marynich was formally charged with violations of article 295 (2), article 377 (2) and article 210 (2) of the Criminal Code.
检察官于2004年9月24日下令将其审前拘留延长至2004年9月26日。
On 24 September 2004, the Prosecutor ordered his pretrial detention to be prolonged until 26 September 2004.
然而，据报告，自2004年8月26日以来，没有进行更多的调查活动。
However, since 26 August 2004, no further investigative activity has reportedly taken place.
11. 明斯克中央地区法院于2004年9月2日驳回Marynich先生提出的请求释放申请。
On 2 September 2004, the Central District of Minsk Court ruled to dismiss a motion for release by Mr. Marynich.
针对明斯克中央地区法院裁决提出的上诉于2004年9月7日被驳回。
On 7 September 2004, an appeal against the decision of the Central District of Minsk Court was rejected.
此外，自Marynich先生被拘留以来，他向克格勃调查部、明斯克检察官和白俄罗斯总检察长提出70多份反对对他进行拘留的申请，均被驳回。
Moreover, since Mr. Marynich was detained, he has lodged with the KGB Investigations Department, the Minsk Prosecutor and the Belarus General Prosecutor more than 70 motions against his detention.
They were all dismissed.
12. 来文提交人指称，由于下列原因，对Mikhail Marynich的拘留具有任意性质：
(a) The charges against him are manifestly devoid of any substance.
In particular:
针对他的指控显然没有实质根据，特别是： 关于非法拥有武器的指控，在他乡间小屋被没收武器上的指纹无法辨认，非法闯入他小屋的人显然破坏了各种物件，但没有盗窃任何东西。
As to the charge of illegal possession of weapons, the fingerprints on the arms confiscated at his country cottage are not identifiable, and it is obvious that persons have broken into the cottage, tampering with various objects but not stealing anything.
所有这一切都表明，在乡间小屋找到的证据是伪造的； 关于盗窃载有国家机密文件的指控，据以提出这些指控的文件(部长议会1998年5月14日题为“白俄罗斯经济部经济问题委员会宪章”的文件)没有相关法律所规定的国家机密。
All this suggests that the evidence found in the country cottage was fabricated; Regarding the charge of theft of a document containing a State secret, the document on which these charges are based (a document of the Council of Ministers of 14 May 1998 entitled “Constitution of the Economic Problems Committee of the Ministry of Economy of Belarus”) does not contain any State secrets as they are defined by the relevant law.
(b) 对Marynich先生的诉讼严重侵犯了他享有公平审判的权利，特别是：
(b) The proceedings against Mr. Marynich gravely violate the right to a fair trial.
In particular:
自1996年宪法和立法改革以来，白俄罗斯的司法系统失去了独立。
Since the constitutional and legislative changes in 1996, the judiciary in Belarus is not independent.
在这方面，来文提交人提到法官和律师独立性问题特别报告员达图·帕拉姆·库马拉斯瓦米在其2000年6月访问白俄罗斯的报告(E/CN.4/2001/65/Add.1)中提出的结论意见。
In this respect, the source refers to the findings made by the former Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Dato' Param Cumaraswamy, in the report on his visit to Belarus in June 2000 (E/CN.4/2001/65/Add.1).
除其他外，这份报告指出，“司法独立的保障受到政府系统的破坏，特别是总统对司法机构的态度”(第36段)；“对司法机构的行政控制和对独立法官采取压制性行动，使许多法官对司法独立产生一种漠不关心的态度”(第108段)；“特别报告员还认为，对司法部门活动的随时监督，旨在恐吓司法人员，使他们按照政府的愿望而非根据法律和证据来判决所有案件”(第109段)。
36); “Executive control over the judiciary and the manner in which repressive actions are taken against independent judges appear to have produced a sense of indifference among many judges regarding the importance of judicial independence in the system” (para. 108); and “The Special Rapporteur also believes that the constant monitoring of the activities of the judiciary is intended to intimidate members of the judiciary into deciding all cases in line with the Government's wishes, rather than in accordance with the law and the evidence” (para.
(二) 关于Marynich先生申请从审前拘留中释放的法庭审讯是在Marynich先生及其律师不在场的情况下非公开进行的，因此剥夺了 他享有《世界人权宣言》第十条和《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》第十四条第1款所载有关公开审讯的权利。
The court hearings concerning Mr. Marynich's applications for release from pretrial detention were conducted in closed session, in the absence of Mr. Marynich and his lawyer, thus depriving Mr. Marynich of the right to a public hearing enshrined in article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
13. 来文提交人还说，在审查检察官下令的拘留问题上，法院的管辖权仅限于审查裁决在形式上是否正确。
The source adds that the jurisdiction of a court with respect to review of a Prosecutor's decision ordering detention is limited to reviewing the formal correctness of the decision.