In the first criminal conviction under the nation's decade old hate-crime law, a Kyiv court hands down a jail term to the leader of a gang of youths who d the capital's Brodsky Synagogue in a high-profile attack last April
In a judgment that is being heralded by members of the Jewish community as a significant step for Ukraine in the consolidation of tolerance and democracy, a Kyiv court handed down a four-year prison sentence March 4 to the leader of a gang of youths who carried out a widely publicized attack on the capital’s central Brodsky Synagogue in April 2002.
The criminal conviction of 27‑year‑old Kyiv‑resident Dmitry “Demyan” Volkov by the Pechersk District Court is said to have been the first under the country’s hate‑crime law since it was adopted a decade ago.
“While Article 161 of the Criminal Code has been used in criminal cases against publishers of anti‑Semitic newspapers and magazines, none of those cases have resulted in criminal conviction,” said Nickolai Butkevich, research and advocacy director of the Washington‑based Union of Councils for Jews in the Former Soviet Union.
After a soccer game at Dynamo Stadium last April 13, a mob of about 50 youths began breaking windows in stores along Khreshchatyk in downtown Kyiv before making its way to the Brodsky Synagogue, where Saturday evening prayers had just ended.
According to the Chief Rabbi of Kyiv Moshe‑Reuven Azman, the youths were shouting “Kill the Jews!” as they hurled stones at the synagogue, breaking 20 windows. They then proceeded to beat up a security guard, the rector of the synagogue’s yeshiva and the rabbi’s eldest son, Yorik.
Most of the attackers had fled by the time police arrived and while eight individuals were detained at the scene, it was not until August that the authorities caught up with and arrested Volkov in Poltava.
Azman and the Jewish community immediately labeled the attack a pogrom, and it quickly received worldwide media attention. Community members, including Eduard Dolinsky, executive director of the United Jewish Community of Ukraine, say that strategy of publicizing the episode was effective in forcing the authorities to take the matter seriously.
“We immediately held a press conference and announced that a pogrom had taken place,” Dolinsky said. “We made that statement despite the fact that the Interior Ministry had already tried to play down the attack as a simple act of hooliganism by a bunch of soccer fans.”
Dolinsky said the conviction of Volkov and several other accomplices who received suspended sentences proved the community had taken the correct course.
“We accept the court’s decision and we salute it,” he said. “The decision serves as a clear warning to others who might be tempted to commit similar acts of violence against the Jewish community. It’s a good decision for Ukraine.”
Butkevich said that apart from the seriousness of the Brodsky attack, the publicity generated was critical in securing criminal convictions.
“Despite some initial reluctance on the part of the Interior Ministry to admit that it was an anti‑Semitic attack, the authorities overall reacted appropriately,” Butkevich said. “The president condemned it, arrests followed quickly, and suspects have been convicted of a hate crime, not some sort of vague ‘soccer hooliganism’ that would have swept the problem of anti‑Semitism in Ukraine under the rug.”
Rabbi Azman also considers that the convictions mean justice has been done.
“It’s a victory for Ukraine,” he said. “It shows that all nations can live in Ukraine in peace and that those who want to destroy the good relations between Jewish people and the rest of the population are acting outside the law.”
Azman said the authorities organized security for the synagogue in the months following the attack and continue to provide extra security during major holidays.
State authorities, however, appear to be downplaying the groundbreaking conviction.
The Interior Ministry has issued no statement regarding the trial, and its press service on March 12 referred inquiries from the Post to the administration of the Perchersk District Court. The court, in turn, referred questions back to the Interior Ministry. Details regarding the length and nature of the trial as well as the background of Volkov and the others convicted along with him remain scarce.
Volodymyr Kulyk, a fellow at the Institute of Political and Ethnic Studies in Kyiv and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, suggested that the lack of publicity about the conviction may stem from the delicate balancing act the authorities have been trying to perform.
On the one hand, he said, Ukraine is trying to show itself as a progressive and tolerant society in the eyes of the world and the human‑rights organizations that monitor its progress. On the other, it is trying to heed the views of the majority of the population.
Kulyk referred to criticism in some Ukrainian media of the strong position taken by the synagogue following the attack and the response of the Russian and international media. He said many Ukrainians felt the international media had blown the episode out of proportion.
“Many people were outraged and felt the Jewish community was relying on the old stereotypes of Ukraine as an anti‑Semitic state,” Kulyk said. “I know some Jewish activists who firmly denied there was any ethnic dimension to the attack.”
Kulyk said the government probably felt it had to balance its reaction and satisfy all parties as much as possible.
“I would say the government tried to do both things: to investigate the situation as soon as it was possible to do so but also to take into account the popular sentiment that the attack was not specifically anti‑Semitic,” Kulyk said.
