The close
cooperation between Ukraine’s leaders, enforcement bodies and UTV-1
has long been apparent, most noticeably
during the trials of former Prime Minister
Yulia Tymoshenko. But if some modicum of distance was at least
officially maintained by the courts, this was abandoned on June 4
when UTV-1 – in a novel appearance as a defender of freedom of
speech – effectively received judicial backing for its role as a
criminal investigator, prosecutor and judge.
On June 4
the Kyiv Appellate Court revoked an earlier ruling which ordered the
retraction of false information disseminated about Dmitry Reva, one
of four men charged in connection with four bomb blasts in
Dnipropetrovsk in April 2012, in the film Adov Ad (Hades Hell). The
film, shown twice on UTV-1, not only falsifies evidence, but also
consistently pushes the idea that a person not convicted of any crime
can be labelled a terrorist. One can only conclude that the court
found no problem with contempt for the constitutionally guaranteed
principle of presumption of innocence.
Dmitry
Reva and his lawyers expressed outrage and filed a defamation suit.
UTV-1 and the company which produced the film, VTV, initially
just referred to freedom of speech, but in the appeal claimed
that they had never referred to Reva as being involved in the
bombing. It is, however, his photo that accompanies musing on how
intellectuals can become “ordinary bombers,” and how “we are
dealing with a new breed of terrorist.”
The
following extract from the film is even clearer: “During
our investigation we learned that two of the arrested men – Viktor
Sukachev and Dmitry Reva – previously worked in the team of a
member of the opposition. We were also able to establish that the
wrongdoers had in his name corresponded with the head of the Dnipro
Hydro-Electric and Zaporizhya Nuclear Power Stations … You can
fully agree that having arrested the group of terrorists, the law
enforcers have averted an even greater danger for millions of our
citizens…”
The fact
that the Appellate Court effectively agreed that the above had no
relation to Reva and in no way defamed him or presented him as a
terrorist, is profoundly unsettling.
Dmitry
Reva has been held in custody for over a year now and is charged with
being an “accomplice.” He is accused of having gone to the centre
of Dnipropetrovsk around the time of the bomb blasts “to
observe the reaction of the police and public to the explosions, and
if necessary pass on information to Sukachev and Fedoryak, so that
the latter could coordinate their further actions.”
In view of
the quite extraordinary lack of a crime in the actions he is charged
with, the investigators couldn’t help but worry about the equally
daunting absence of evidence. They don’t even attempt to explain
why the exchange of text messages between Sukachev, one of the men
charged with planting the actual bombs, and Reva is supposed to prove
complicity in an act of terrorism when Sukachev on that day sent
similar messages to a number of other friends. Since the two men had
common friends from university days the whole exchange seems absurdly
innocent:
S. : “Are you OK? None of our lot hurt?”
Reva “Yeah, I think so”,
S “Hades Hell, everything at our end seems to be OK”
So
innocent in fact that the Security Service (SBU) investigators needed
to either reject their plan to bring charges which a leading legal
expert has officially concluded
contain no crime, or fabricate some kind of “proof.”
Their
first attempt failed abysmally. The supposed telephone call made to
Sukachev’s number during the search of Reva’s flat might have
aroused suspicion. Instead, however, it inspires only anxiety that
the security of the country should be in the hands of SBU officers
who have not only proven willing to falsify evidence, but capable of
forgetting that Reva’s phones had already been taken away from him.
A criminal
investigation forced by the defence over this distortion of evidence
is going nowhere, and there are worrying indications that it is soon
to be shelved.
Shortly
before the parliamentary elections, UTV-1 and the film’s producer,
VTV, became involved. On Oct. 18 and 20, 2012, UTV-1 broadcast the
show Hades Hell, which purports to be a documentary about the bomb
blasts.
In the
first two minutes of the film, a text message on a telephone screen
is shown with the words “from the
terrorists’ correspondence.” The following “messages”
are given:
“Everything
went well, our people didn’t get hurt”
“Good.
Now Hades Hell has begun”
After such
overt distortion of the main “evidence” in the case against
Dmitry Reva, the only doubts remaining concern the motives of the
film producer and UTV-1. The bias and manipulation of the audience’s
perception could in principle come down to a primitive wish for
sensationalism.
In light
of the above, the recent court ruling unfortunately gives credence to
suspicions regarding the likely commissioned nature of the film, and
yet again raises serious concerns about the role of courts in
Ukraine.
Halya Coynash is a member of the Kharkiv Human Rights Group.
