The Kyiv Pechersky District Court’s ruling to dismiss the criminal case against former President Leonid Kuchma, suspected of involvement in the Sept. 16, 2000 murder of journalist Georgiy Gongadze, was not unexpected. The court hearing of his lawyers’ request for dismissal was a farce.
Just like in the case against former Prime Minister Yulia Tymsohenko, the hearing lasted for 11 hours, until 10.30 p.m., with a single 20-minute break. Judge Halyna Suprun’s conduct was brutal. She refused to discuss petitions, refused to consider objections and cited her own unofficial sources of information, which are not admissible by law.
Suprun was not shy about showing bias. If her aim was to demonstrate that criminal law is ignored not only in the Tymoshenko case, but also in other cases, she managed very well.
The pre-trial investigation against Kuchma was officially over in April. After that, the General Prosecutor’s Office had these options: Prepare a charge sheet and pass the case on to court, or recognize that there is a shortage of evidence and close the criminal case, or send it back for more pre-trial investigation.
First Deputy Chief Prosecutor Renat Kuzmin has declared repeatedly that enough evidence has been collected and the case will end up in court.
After the pre-trial investigation is over, Ukraine’s code of criminal procedure does not provide for an option of challenging the resolution on starting a criminal case. But somehow an exception was made for the defenders of Kuchma, who has always denied involvement in the murder.
But cancellation of the resolution on starting a criminal case against Kuchma is not the same as acquittal of the former president. The court has never assessed Kuchma’s actions. The court simply decided that the actions of Kuzmin are inconsistent with law – it was he who signed the resolution on starting the criminal case.
I doubt that this court decision is beneficial to the former president. The dismissal of a resolution gives no guarantees that some time later the case won’t be started again, because the case has never been considered on its merits.
Moreover, countless procedural violations during the hearing and the clear bias of Suprun show that the desired aim of closing the case altogether could not be achieved without breaking the law.
Not only does a biased court discredit itself, it also shows that circles close to the president are acting against the law.
It is universally recognized that under Kuchma’s presidency from 1994-2005, the courts, law enforcers and tax authorities were used to pressure opponents and to remove persons standing in the way.
There are many examples besides the murder of Gongadze. The violence used against journalist and political scientist Oleksiy Podolskiy is another case.
Lawyer Valentyna Telychenko
It features the same police general Oleksiy Pukach, who allegedly murdered Gongadze, along with three subordinate police officers who are now imprisoned for the crime.
There is the case of lawyer Serhiy Salov, who was persecuted and arrested for his political views and the beating of then oppositional deputy Oleksandr Yeliashkevych. There are several rulings by the European Court for Human Rights that support my thesis.
Manipulations by the judge of the Pechersk court are a continuation of this practice. I am aggrieved to say that under President Viktor Yanukovych this system has developed and become the main instrument for solving problems for those who have money and power.
Acting under pressure, Suprun made a decision that, in our opinion, is against the law. She resorted to assessment of evidence in the case, despite the fact that, at this stage, the court is not entitled to consider the available evidence in the criminal case.
Moreover, the judge ignored a number of facts that give grounds for suspecting Kuchma instigated Gongadze’s murder. These are, primarily, the March 4, 2005, dying declaration of former Interior Minister Yuriy Kravchenko with accusations against Kuchma, and testimonies of Pukach.
The former police general, now being tried in secret, directly says that he conducted the murder on the orders of Kuchma, Kravchenko and current Verkhovna Rada speaker (and then presidential chief of staff) Volodymyr Lytvyn.
The court has not assessed whether Pukach’s testimony is truthful. His statements qualify as a basis for criminal cases against Kuchma, Kravchenko and Lytvyn. But prosecutors ignored this testimony and have not started a criminal case against Lytvyn, who denies any wrongdoing. What is this other than a selective approach to justice?
The General Prosecutor’s Office has also blocked investigation of the late Kravchenko, against the wishes of his surviving relatives, and despite the fact that the court hearing Pukach’s trial has separated Kravchenko’s case and ordered the prosecutors to conduct a pre-trial investigation.
There are plenty of reasons to start a criminal case against Kuchma, even without the recordings of Mykola Melnychenko, the former presidential guard who released tapes with Kuchma’s voice ordering subordinates to “take care” of Gongadze. Suprun ruled that the audio recordings were inadmissible because they had been obtained illegally.
The cancellation of the legal resolution to start the criminal case is just an awkward attempt to block the investigation.
The aggrieved party, widow Myroslava Gongadze, will appeal. Unfortunately, we have no illusions about Kyiv’s Court of Appeals. It is as discredited as the Pechersk court.
However, we’re still hoping for the higher Court of Cassation. Its justices have a history of canceling the rulings of both the lower district court and the appeals court, based on examination of evidence in the case. Moreover, the judges in the Court of Cassation care more about their reputations.
If the Gongadze case ends with the recent ruling of the Pechersk court, Kuchma will never clear himself of the suspicion that he participated in ordering Gongadze’s murder.
Valentyna Telychenko is a lawyer who represents Myroslava Gongadze, widow of journalist Georgiy Gongadze.
