The three
are charged with the bomb blast in the Zaporizhya Svyatopokrovsk Church on July 28, 2010, which killed an elderly nun. The prosecutor has demanded 15 years for Serhiy Dyomin, and 14 for his younger
brother Anton Kharytonov and Yevhen Fedorchenko, both of whom were sacristans of the
church.
The case is well-known largely because the day after the explosion
President Viktor Yanukovych ordered the enforcement bodies to effectively solve
the case and find the culprits within the week. The then interior minister
stated just as publicly on Aug. 6 that this had been done.
A number of people, including former political prisoners, independent
defense lawyers, human rights activists, journalists and others have signed
an appeal (http://blogs.telekritika.ua/?id=3202 ) to participants in the
EU-Ukraine Summit on Feb. 25 asking for this case to be raised.
There are, quite simply, too many reasons for concern. These include the number of confessions and the highly irregular fashion
in which they were obtained.
Kharytonov was taken into custody some 14 hours after the president’s order
was issued. He was held in custody, alone, for a further 13-14 hours
before his detention was recorded. The protocol of detention immediately
preceded a videoed interrogation and the first of four “confessions,” all
of which are very different.
Details of this interrogation, including a rather menacing remark from the
investigator followed by an inexplicable 45-minute break in the
interrogation, can be found here
http://khpg.org/index.php?id=1360672225.
The next interrogation and
entirely different confession also began at
midnight.
Anton’s brother Serhiy Dyomin was held without any formal record of detention
for roughly 48 hours before his first confession and videoed interrogation.
Well into that same night, he was videoed explaining how he had made the
bomb. Explosives experts immediately concluded that he was not capable of
having done this, and by the next day Dyomin had made a secondly
“voluntary confession” in which he said that he had “bought” the bomb.
These and many other details outlined in the above-mentioned texts give
the strongest grounds for concern since there is effectively no other
evidence against the three men.
This case is very widely viewed with at least equal skepticism as those
against prominent opposition figures.
Few believe the men are guilty, but
do not expect them to be acquitted.
“This is surely as destructive and far-removed from rule of law as the
selective justice which the European Union, and Western democracies have rightly
condemned.”
There are very many reasons for fearing that the young men’s right to a
fair trial has been violated. These include, for example, the judge’s
behaviour with respect to the following:
1) the fundamental change in the indictment two months ago (and almost two
years into the trial) including removal of the part for which all three men
had watertight alibis. The judge made no objections.
2) Two forensic psychologists from authorized institutes independently
concluded that all the defendants had been placed under psychological
pressure and gave their reasons in detail. Judge Volodymyr Minasov simply ordered a
new assessment which asserted that there was no such pressure. He has
since rejected the defence’s application to have the forensic psychologists
summoned to give evidence.
The ongoing refusal to investigate the men’s allegations of torture and
ill-treatment, and the prosecutor’s demand for very long sentences give
this case particular urgency.
It is vital that it remains under the closest scrutiny from EU and other
structures who have expressed their concern about rule of law in Ukraine,
and all organizations including Amnesty International committed to
combating torture and police impunity in Ukraine.
Halya Coynash is a member of the Kharkiv Human Rights Group.
