The most essential explanations appear to be the following:
- when considering the question of choosing a preventive measure in the form of placing under guard and its extension, court must in any case discuss the opportunity of applying to the suspect another, a more lenient form of prevention, regardless of the motion of the parties to that effect or the stage of criminal proceedings (para 3);
- court may not extend the term of kеeping the convicted person under guard, if he has a decease which impedes his keeping in custody and was attested by a medical examination carried out in the established procedure (para 25); by saying so the Supreme Court refused to extend the right to be released from custody to persons, to whom the measure of restraint in the form of placing under guard was not extended, but being chosen for the first time, because under current legislation the required medical examination may be carried out only in prison;
- even persons suspected of minor crimes, which do not entail deprivation of freedom as a punishment, may still be placed under home arrest (para 36);
- appellation or cassation courts, when repealing the verdict of the first instance court or returning criminal case to the procurator, must simultaneously adopt their own reasoned decision as regards the preventive measure for the person who is being kept under guard (para 58).
