A year later four men remain in custody with the trial
ongoing. Two of the men – V. Sukachev and V. Fedoryak – are charged directly
with detonating explosives in Dnipropetrovsk, and others earlier in 2011; the
other two – L. Prosvirnin and D. Reva – with acting as accomplices. Very
many questions remain unanswered, but the arrest and ongoing detention of one
defendant is extraordinary even by Ukrainian standards.
No motive is provided or any proof as such and the impugned
offence involves behavior which would have been manifestly pointless. While it
would be rash to suggest that this has not happened before, Ukrainian courts
regularly ignore the flimsiest of cases because the accused has signed a
“confession,” preferring not to worry about how it was obtained. Dmitry
Reva has denied any involvement from the outset and been totally consistent in
his testimony. The two men accused of planting the homemade explosive devices
both say that neither of the alleged accomplices were involved, and Sukachev
even declared a hunger strike in protest at their prosecution.
The investigators accuse Dmitry Reva of having
gone to the centre of Dnipropetrovsk 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.”
The initial wording suggested the two alleged “bombers”
still had bombs to plant. In that case, there is some chance of understanding
the role attributed to Reva. But this had to change after it was established
that the bombs had been planted well before Reva reached the centre. He was
only near two of the bomb blasts which were instantly reported on all media
sources in the city. What could he have seen and passed on to the alleged
bombers is therefore entirely unclear. That the police had noticed? They could
turn on their radios to find that out. Furthermore, journalists were in a
better position to provide information than a person standing on the
street. That is, of course, if anyone can imagine what “further actions”
this would prompt. There was no reason at all to expect the police to
immediately identify suspects.
Reva had a legitimate reason for being in the centre,
and there is video footage of him entering and leaving the bank where paid for
some serives. Explosive experts have confirmed that there was no way of knowing
when exactly a specific bomb would go off. This makes the alleged criminal
intent seem like pure nonsense, given that the bombs were in different places,
and Reva had to get back from his lunch break. He did not make any calls at
all, and the investigators have not produced any evidence to suggest that he
would have known how to contact Fedoryak whom all have testified he had never
met. This is of particular relevance since the two locations Reva passed were
where the bombs allegedly planted by Fedoryak exploded.
Reva and Sukachev studied together at university, and
had common friends from those times. At 14.19 Sukachev sent a text message
to Reva asking: “Are you OK? None of our lot hurt?”. Reva replied
saying: “Yeah, I think so,” and received a second message from Sukachev with
the words: “Hades Hell, everything at our end seems to be OK.” Reva has
said that “Hades Hell” was typical of Sukachev’s style and that he assumed he
was being asked if any of their mutual acquaintances had been hurt by the
blasts. Sukachev in fact sent a number of such messages. The recipients
were all questioned, but only Reva arrested, with the message treated as some
kind of coded (but never deciphered) communication.
Why
Reva?
The SBU from the beginning were looking for 4 people
although there is no obvious reason why. The pictures circulated were only
sufficient to identify four males and nobody has ever asserted that the four
defendants were in the same place at one time. It is, unfortunately, not
inconceivable that having started out with four, four it had to be. It should
also be noted that the motives suggested for the bomb blasts have kept
changing. The investigators and prosecution have shown marked interest in
Reva’s freelance work as a political campaign adviser to an opposition member
of parliament.
If this seems cynical, so too was the behavior of the
SBU officer who tried to fake evidence while a search was being made of Reva’s
flat. Reva had been refused permission to make any calls and asked to hand over
the two mobile telephones in the flat which he did. An SBU officer used one of
the phones which had Sukachev’s number on the screen to dial that number. This
was then presented as an attempt by Reva to contact another suspect and formed
the grounds for his being remanded in custody. Reva and his lawyers made a
formal complaint and forced a criminal investigation to be initiated into the
forging of evidence.
None of the above, not even the fact that the grounds
used to justify his initial arrest proved rigged, has had any impact on the
court. The judge has now rejected seven applications for Dmitry Reva to be
released on bail or on the security of Dnipropetrovsk human rights
organizations. The pretexts vary, but one refrain is the “seriousness” of the
crime.
Reva’s lawyers clearly demonstrated the lack of logic
or indeed of any real element of a crime in the charges brought against him
back in October 2012. Now damning confirmation has been received of the
lack of any real crime, motive or other evidence in an independent assessment
carried out by a leading Ukrainian legal expert, Mykola Khavronyuk.
One other positive achievement is that a court has
ordered the State-controlled TV channel UTV-1 to issue an apology over a
scurrilous film with false information about Reva.
The showing on national TV of a film aimed at
presenting the four defendants as obviously guilty as well as the prosecution
and court’s behavior suggest that there is strong pressure to convict four men,
as planned. Such quotas are reminiscent of the worst Soviet times and
publicity is needed to help thwart a cynical mockery of justice.
Halya Coynash is a
member of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group.
