Ukrainian society is starting to take another look at the trial over Oleksii Pukach in the Gongadze case. An increasing number of communal members are becoming convinced – especially after Pukach’s testimonies – that what they can see and hear about is just the tip of the iceberg, that there were others and other reasons behind what is now the situation with Ukraine. There are also people who keep saying let bygones be bygones – I mean the murder of Heorhii Gongadze, the vicious attacks on the public figure Oleksii Podolsky and MP Oleksandr Yeliashkevych (member of the Verkhovna Rada, 2nd and 3rd convocations) – now that Ukraine is in a state of war with Russia; that there is no reason to dig up ex-president Leonid Kuchma’s not-so-tidy past. That there is no reason for assessing his ten-year presidency in light of today’s realities – except that, save for that presidency, there could have been no war with Russia.
Also, one ought to consider the fact that Leonid Kuchma is still very much alive and kicking politically. Rather than basking in the sun somewhere in Sardinia, he continues influencing Ukrainian politics, as evidenced by his official involvement in the Minsk talks. I will not dwell on the Minsk format that turned out to be Ukraine’s losing game vs. Kremlin. I will just say that one of the results of the trilateral Contact Group was to provide personal guarantees for the participants in the consultations. No one has annulled the September protocols, something especially important for Kuchma, considering his “spectacular” presidency.
The current status of the Gongadze case is that, after the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeals, the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine (tagged by the local media as “GPU”) was given time until April 20 to determine which files in the case were to be classified. Under the previous court ruling, GPU had been given from February 12 till March 7 to do so, but they had asked for more time to study the case in more detail. SBU and Interior Ministry (MVS) document classification experts returned their findings on time. Those from the SBU read that the case contained no files worth being kept on a need-to-know basis. Those from the MVS read that most of the files had been declassified, but that some of them had to be kept secret. Meanwhile, the case was in the pre-trial phase, pending appeals.
After the hearing in court, an unpleasant event occurred that had a direct bearing on the Gongadze case. On March 29, Mykola Protasov, ex-head of the duty officers detail, MVS Criminal Investigation Department, died in the Mena corrective labor camp while serving a term for complicity in the Gongadze murder. His death, like those of many other persons involved in or with the high-profile case, left many questions without answers. One is reminded of Prosecutor General Renat Kuzmin’s statement in the Kuchma case: “There are heaps of dead bodies around the Gongadze case.” Protasov’s defense counsel Viktor Chevhuz declared that his client had of late been suffering from a disease and died of natural causes (the State Penitentiary Service issued a similar statement), but there are certain aspects that deserve a closer look.
First, Protasov’s death was made public several days after his body had been buried in Kyiv, not when he had actually died. Second, according to the victim in the Podolsky case, this could have something to do with Pukach’s recent testimonies: “They were about Pukach being blackmailed by the Pechersk Court, involving Justice Melnyk, prosecutors Shylov and Voloshyn, and other officials, along with Valentyna Telychenko, according to Pukach,” a public activist told The Day, adding that her trips to the corrective labor camp coincided with the time when she was allegedly blackmailing him, demanding that he identify Marchuk and Moroz as the ones who had ordered the murder: “Her trips there could also have to do with having other inmates’ testimonies about those who had actually committed the murder. And now these eyewitnesses are dying. For reasons best known to themselves, the GPU does not want to investigate into the statements made by Pukach in court.”
MP Vitalii Kuprii, acting as Podolsky’s legal representative, filed a criminal prosecution claim with Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin on April 10. He submitted a copy to The Day. Mr. Kuprii said this was his second claim. The first one, dated February 5, had been forwarded to the then Prosecutor General, Vitalii Yarema. It referred to Article 214, Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine, but had not been entered into the ERDP (Ukr. acronym of the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations) within the legally established 24 hours since the date of receipt: “We received a response from Oleksii Bahanets, the then Assistant Prosecutor General who had no right to examine the claim in the first place, because he had been earlier implicated in the Gongadze case, on charges of unlawful actions, including the abduction and torture of Podolsky, also in the attempt on the life of Yeliashkevych; who had been questioned as a witness in the case. Second, he unlawfully rejected the claim, allegedly for want of evidence to enter it into ERDP. By the way, Shokin would later suspend him and then fire him. That happened precisely at the time Protasov died. A very suspicious coincidence.”
Mr. Kuprii wrote to [Prosecutor General] Shokin: “During the court hearing in the Kyiv Court of Appeals, on February 6, 2014, the Court ruled that the testimonies made by [the defendant] O.P. Pukach, concerning the attempts on his life, be forwarded to the GPU. However, there has been no response from your side on the matter. I wish to stress that you were the one who promised to investigate into the said criminal case personally, that this is also an obligation on the part of Ukraine as an entity of international law. In view of the aforementioned, I hereby request that: (1) all pertinent data with regard to the threatened attempt on the life of O.P. Pukach and members of his family be entered into the ERDP forthwith, as per Section 2, Article 129 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and that measures be taken to investigate into the matter, effectively and without delay; (2) quick measures be taken to protect the life of O.P. Pukach; (3) that you respond to my inquiry as a member of the Ukrainian Parliament in person rather than through your subordinates.”
At press time, no response was forthcoming. “My statement has not been duly registered to date. We are still waiting for a response on the matter in question,” Mr. Kuprii told The Day. By contrast, the SBU secret police of Ukraine made their stand perfectly clear. SBU chief Valentyn Nalyvaichenko told The Day on April 1: “These court hearings are very correctly being kept public, and all of the files in the case should be declassified, with all subsequent hearings to be kept open to the public eye… The other incriminating evidence and testimonies made by Pukach in the Court of Appeals should be examined separately. In other words, such high-profile cases should be seen by our society for what they’re actually all about, so our people will know who did what, who ordered and paid for the crime. Only then we will be able to say that the murder case has been solved.”
However, something happened before the next hearing in the Court of Appeals. Congressman Steve Cohen, member of the US Helsinki Commission, made headlines in the Ukrainian media after forwarding a letter to President Petro Poroshenko. Oleksii Podolsky offered a Ukrainian version in his Facebook. The original message reads, in part: “As a United States Member of Congress who sits on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (the U.S. Helsinki Commission), I am called upon to monitor human rights violations committed abroad. Over the past two years, I have become closely familiar with three high profile criminal cases in Ukraine: the violent attack on People’s Deputy Oleksandr Yelyashkevych, the abduction of journalist Oleksii Podolskyi and the brutal murder of journalist Georgiy Gongadze. I am concerned that in each of these cases, it does not appear that justice has been carried out to the fullest extent of the law. With these three cases once again gaining traction, I believe that a proper investigation and objective prosecution of those responsible would be an important step toward Ukraine becoming viewed as a true democracy and a positive force in the region.”
In fact, it was not the only message the Ukrainian president had received from overseas. Congressman Cohen had first written to Viktor Yanukovych (Aug. 1, 2013), then to Acting President Oleksandr Turchynov (April 15, 2014). This time he wrote: “While your predecessor never took the opportunity to meet with Mr. Yelyashkevych to discuss his case, I urge you to meet with him to discuss the attack, the methodology by which the investigation was conducted and the actions taken to prosecute those responsible. I have met with Mr. Yelyashkevych in my Washington, D.C. office and believe that a meeting between you and he would make great strides toward reconciliation in this matter, which has great civil and human rights significance. I look forward to meeting with Mr. Podolskyi in the near future as well.”
Neither Yanukovych, nor Turchynov had met with the victims in these high-profile cases. They had simply preferred to leave the messages unanswered. Oleksandr Yeliashkevych told The Day: “It was under Yanukovych that the criminal proceedings against Leonid Kuchma were initiated. The man was charged with complicity in the crimes committed against Gongadze and Podolsky, as the one who had actually ordered them. However, for Yanukovych, the Gongadze case was a way to blackmail the Kuchma family, make them pay large sums and use their influence in Ukraine and abroad. In the end, the Kuchmas outplayed Yanukovych, and nor did their influence on Ukrainian politics diminish after the Euromaidan, even though the Heavenly Hundred had paid for changes in the political system with their lives. Oleksandr Turchynov, as acting president, did what best suited the Kuchma family. His failure to respond to Congressman Cohen’s message and other actions on his part are graphic proof of how he actually treated the case… As for the current president, he appears to be repeating his predecessors’ mistakes. The experience of Yanukovych and Yushchenko shows that this is bad for the president and a big tragedy for the people. Unfortunately, we have to warn our society against a clear and present danger. First, Poroshenko appointed Kuchma as an official negotiator in Minsk, something absolutely unacceptable, something that time has shown to be very much to the disadvantage of our country. Second, the current president made Kuchma a member of the Constitutional Commission. In other words, in the first case it was a time bomb in the foreign political field and in the second one a bomb meant to destroy our domestic policy. Can Poroshenko get back on the right track? He still can, but time is running fast and the ‘Kuchma virus’ can get him and drag him all the way to the bottom. A response from society is very important now. Our society must block the influence of the ill-famous family on public matters, on the destiny of Ukraine.”
Congressman Cohen’s letters show that we are in phase three coping with the same problem, apart from the fact that these high-profile cases have been underway for the past 15 years. If the current administration expects support from the international community, they should at least respond to a letter sent by a member of the US Helsinki Committee. Also, it is high time they started taking actual steps to dot the i’s and cross the t’s in these tragic cases.
