The panel of judges of the Shevchenkivskyi district court in Kyiv, chaired by Judge Oleh Linnyk, made the decision on Wednesday, Censor.NET reports citing Ukrainski Novyny.
"The court orders to place suspects Danyliv, Bartkov, Strypa, and Baran under the 24-7 house arrest, releasing them from custody immediately in the courtroom," Oleh Linnyk announced the resolutive part of a judgment.
The court also ordered the suspects to attend hearings upon court's first request and avoid any contact with victims and witnesses in criminal proceedings.
The jury did not elaborate on the motives of such a decision as only the resolutive part of a judgment was read out.
The full text of the decision will be announced on April 8. The judgment was final and without appeal.
According to the indictment, by prior agreement with Oleksandr Shepelev and following his instructions, the accused attempted to eliminate the main witness in the case into Rodovid Bank funds embezzlement - banker Serhii Diadechko.
The indictment describes in detail the circumstances of shadowing the target of the assassination attempt, the purchase of weapons, as well as the roles of each of the suspects in the attack on Serhii Diadechko's car with the use of automatic weapons in the village of Sofiiska Borshchahivka in 2012, as well as murder of a bystander.
The court spent most time considering the issue of extending the suspects' pretrial detention.
The prosecution and the representatives of the victims demanded to extend pretrial confinement for another month, citing the seriousness of the offense, clear evidence, and the fact that the suspects possessed passports of Russia, the Czech Republic, and other countries.
The lawyers insisted that the suspects had already served three and a half years in remand prison, which undermined their health. They also stressed that three and a half years in a pre-trial detention center equal to seven years in a jail under the "Savchenko Law".
The lawyers also expressed confidence in the weakness of the charges and referred to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which did not recognize the assumptions on the "defendant's potential attempts to evade justice" as reasonable grounds for imposition of the exceptional measure of pretrial restriction in the form of confinement.
The jury spent over two hours in the deliberations room prior to announce the decision which fully satisfied the demands of the accused and their lawyers.