The EU presence on Oct. 1, they say in their appeal,
will give a powerful and much needed signal regarding a trial with serious
implications for Ukraine’s justice system.
The signal would be similar to that given
by the EU’s firm stance demanding the release of imprisoned ex-Prime Minister Yulia
Tymoshenko. There may be no high-profile opposition figures in the Zaporizhya
case, no political context, but there is a shared fatal element highlighting
systemic problems in Ukraine.
The “case of the sacristans” gained
prominence because of the role played by President Viktor Yanukovych. That role
is widely deemed to be the determining factor in this case, with the guilt of
the three young defendants seen as questionable, but largely immaterial.
Since the two former sacristans – Anton
Kharytonov and Yevhen Fedorchenko – and Anton’s brother, Serhiy Dyomin are
facing 14 and 15 year sentences, the implications for rule of law in Ukraine
are grave.
A day after the bomb exploded, killing an
elderly nun, Yanukovych held a televised meeting with the heads of all law
enforcement bodies at which he ordered arrests within the week.
Less than a week later Interior Minister Anatoly
Mohylyov informed Yanukovych on television that the case was solved and the
culprits in custody. He also mentioned likely rewards for the officers involved
and many have since then also been promoted.
The enforcement bodies certainly acted swiftly.
The morning after Yanukovych’s television appearance, former sacristan Kharytonov
was taken, together with his mother, to the police station.
He only formally appeared at the station,
however, some 13 hours later. The protocol of detention was drawn up
immediately prior to his first “confession” at midnight and subsequent night interrogation.
His brother Dyomin, detained that evening, was held even longer in police limbo
before writing his first confession.
Kharytonov gave four quite different “confessions”
over the following days.
Dyomin gave only two, but the difference
was telling. He first confessed to constructing the bomb, and there is a video
of him explaining very tentatively how he did so. This explanation, together
with his ability to make the device, was immediately rubbished by explosives
experts, and Dyomin swiftly produced another in which he confessed to having
bought the device from an unidentified individual.
A second sacristan – Fedorchenko – was
arrested a few days later and made only one confession.
There are thus seven confessions from the
three defendants which all have been retracted, asserting that they were
obtained through torture, threats and psychological pressure. The men were not
allowed to contact their families and three of the lawyers called in by the
investigators who sat in on the formal interrogations later faced professional
disciplinary measures for their behaviour in the case.
Some of the other young people taken into
custody at the same time also complained of torture at the hands of the
investigators. In Kharytonov’s case, the police were never able to explain why
the pockets of the young man’s trousers can be seen during the videoed
interrogation to have been cut out.
Kharytonov asserts that the officers cut
them out during the first 13 hours, threatening to cut off his genitals if he
didn’t “confess”. Both brothers report threats that their mother would also be
arrested, and their grandmother abandoned in an old people’s home.
Two forensic psychologists from the Luhansk
and Donetsk Institutes examined the formal interrogations and found that the
young men had been placed under considerable pressure, had been constantly
asked leading questions and had in fact never given a free account of the crime
they purportedly committed.
One of the most worrying aspects of this
case can be seen in the judge’s response to those assessments. Judge Volodymyr Minasov
simply ordered a third assessment from the Kyiv Institute which totally
contradicted the first two, found no pressure and only “inclination to
criminality.”
Minasov then rejected the defence’s
application to have all three psychologists summoned as witnesses to get to the
bottom of such divergent assessments. The list of other discrepancies and
infringements which he ignored is significant. It is his guilty verdict and
heavy sentences that are now at appeal stage.
In fact, however, there is one even greater
cause for concern with respect to the “case of the sacristans”. All of the
above, the lack of any actual evidence linking the defendants with the crime
and other equally disturbing aspects have been reported on many occasions. Yet
there has never been any proper investigation into the allegations made of
torture and of infringements during the trial, Formal complaints simply get
sent on to other departments.
Requests have also been made to the Human
Rights Ombudsperson Valeria Lutkovska, to Amnesty International and other NGOs.
A letter with information about the case has also been sent to the Committee for
the Prevention of Torture.
The lack of active response is baffling
since the complaints are similar to those which have led in many cases, such as
Zamferesko v. Ukraine, Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine to European
Court of Human Rights judgments against Ukraine. The court in Strasbourg was
unequivocal: multiple confessions extracted through torture render all criminal
proceedings against the person unfair.
The complaints, as well as the undisputed
procedural irregularities in those first days, are also the same as those which
have led to damning reports about police impunity and methods of obtaining
confessions in Ukraine.
Ukrainians’ trust in the law enforcement
bodies and in the courts has reached an all-time low, as has the number of
acquittals (0.17% of all criminal trials in 2012).
This is not just material for the next
report on Ukraine’s non-compliance with international obligations. A gravely
flawed trial is taking place now and the stakes for three young men, their
families, and for Ukrainian justice could not be higher.
Standing by and simply watching because the
young men are not politicians or in any way prominent figures, is surely
another form of selective justice, and must not be an option.
Halya Coynash is a member of the Kharkiv Human
Rights Protection Group. Her work can be found at http://khpg.org/index.php?id=1380365261.
