Broadcast journalist Ihor Aleksandrov was buried in the Southern Cemetery in Slovyansk on July 9. Eyewitnesses state that over 5,000 attending the funeral, among them residents, local officials, representatives of volunteer organizations, and the victim’s colleagues. Old-timers cannot think of another funeral calling forth such a public response. Ihor Aleksandrov died in a coma. For three days and nights since the barbarous physical assault on July 3 by several unidentified persons, the residents did their best to save his life: the doctors tended the patient, the local Orthodox community prayed, and the TOR Television Company he headed received endless calls and visitors. From the outset the 45-year-old journalist’s brain injury caused by severe baseball bat blows was diagnosed as lethal, yet a faint ray of hope remained.
All those in Slovyansk and Donetsk, interviewed by The Day, noted that there was nothing strange about so many people coming to pay their last respects. Ihor Aleksandrov was a popular television journalist, a professional upholding the idea of active journalism, always ready to help others. TOR, headed by him since 1991, was the first independent television company in the oblast and its creative credo has always been to cover political, economic, or social conflicts by presenting different views. Actually this consistent approach — keeping the public informed in a most comprehensive manner — could well have irritated someone on high. The deceased’s friends and relative feel sure it was a contract murder.
When asked what kind of a man Ihor was, his colleagues were brief: “The kind of man whose death made the president sign a document attaching national importance to security arrangements at the editorial offices and compensation for the families of dead journalists.” On the date of Aleksandrov’s funeral Interfax-Ukraine reported the president signing a number of directives to secure “a complete and most transparent investigation of the death of TOR Television Company manager Ihor Aleksandrov” and to maintain secure working conditions for the journalists. In part, Mr. Kuchma ordered “a summary of crimes committed against journalists over the past ten years and pertinent investigation reports.”
The cabinet was to “submit proposals concerning aid to journalists suffering in the line of duty and their families,” and to set up hot lines in Kyiv and regional centers, so that the media could quickly contact law enforcement and other authorities in an emergency threatening media people’s lives in the line of duty.” Obviously, the Gongadze lesson has not been entirely ignored by the regime, even though in the case of Ihor Aleksandrov the authorities responded on the sixth day. Why did it take so long and why did the response come only after the victim’s death?
The Day contacted Oleksandr TARNAVSKY, press secretary of the Donetsk oblast state administration. When asked about any official statements, he replied: “As soon as we learned about the assault and battery the oblast governor placed the investigation of the Aleksandrov case under his personal control. Viktor Yanukovych made no official statement, but I can tell you that he was badly shaken by the event. The public of the oblast was outraged and yesterday’s funeral was graphic evidence. This barbarous crime shocked everybody by its cruelty. The regional journalist organization came out with a statement, it was supported by all the media and many remitted money to a special Aleksandrov family relief account.”
“As of July 12, investigators do not know the names of those who contracted or carried out the murder of Ihor Aleksandrov, and the crime has not been solved,” Donetsk Oblast Public Prosecutor Viktor PSHONKA officially stated on July 12 at a Donetsk press conference. Mr. Pshonka also noted that the investigative group includes Donetsk oblast police and security officers, UNIAN reports. Moreover, Donetsk is being visited by representatives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Prosecutor General’s Office. Recall that the president has ordered that to investigate the murder of Mr. Aleksandrov a central commission be established, which will include top officials of the central authorities, while Donetsk and Slovyansk police officers should drop this case. Leonid Kuchma said he had also instructed Yevhen Marchuk, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, to go to Slovyansk and see “with an impartial eye what is going on there.”
Meanwhile, the subject of journalists’ safety has gained a new impetus. Two miscreants assaulted and inflicted serious injuries on Oleh Velychko, president of Lutsk’s Avers Corporation Television Company, on July 11 at 11:20 p.m. in the doorway of an apartment block. Now he is reported in satisfactory condition. As Volodymyr SYNKEVYCH, Avers director, told The Day, “Oleh Velychko has recently been engaged only in corporate management, not in journalism,” but he also emphasized that “the television company has made some programs on corruption at Lutsk University and on the construction of a garage in the national nature reserve that also belongs to the university.”
Another tragic event took place two weeks ago, certainly not as tragic as the Aleksandrov case but very characteristic of what is happening to the Ukrainian media. The Kirovohrad-based newspaper Vedomosti ceased publication after the Kirov District Court of Kirovohrad sustained People’s Deputy Hanna Antonieva’s claim. The court ruling read that the newspaper and its founder, the Horn Information and Radio-Television Company, were to pay Antonieva damages of UAH 5,000. The lawsuit followed the piece, “Leaders a la Kirovohrad,” (Vedomosti, January 5, 2001) about the ceremony of awarding the local prize for 2000, and the passage at issue read: “However, certain nominees and winners made people smile. Kirovohrad oblast’s patron is Hanna Antonieva. How much does she owe the budget? I think considerably more than she has spent on charitable projects. Incidentally, Ms. Antonieva did not attend the show for reasons of health.”
Antonieva’s claim reads, in part, that the above article inflicted on her “deep moral and psychological trauma and distress.” Unfortunately, The Day could not contact Ms. Antonieva and finally got in touch with Vedomosti Editor-in-Chief Nina PTASHKINA. She believes the court ruling is rash and unfounded. “Our defense counsel argued that the plaintiff’s statement does not correspond to reality and therefore cannot be considered by the court in its adjudication. In addition, we were constantly accused of ‘disseminating a statement.’ We did not. It was a question and the following sentence has the words ‘I think that,’ implying suggestion, not a statement. I proposed a linguistic examination but was refused.” It should be noted that the Kirov District Court ruled to exact damages (incidentally, no one has seen the material facts of the indictment) without even bothering to inquire whether the fine can be borne by the newspaper upon it is imposed. Also, the author of the feature, Olena Semko, is fresh out of a pedagogical university, rents an apartment, and her father died recently. True, the court dismissed the claim of attachment and arrest of the journalist’s bank savings, submitted by Antonieva’s lawyer, and reduced the overall moral damages from UAH 55,000 to UAH 45,000 payable by the journalist. When an attempt was made to explain to the court that the journalist was thus being adjudicated for her professional activity, Judge Bakar retorted that she was being held answerable “as a physical person.” And this considering that the feature at issue was carried by the newspaper on whose payroll the journalist was! “We will appeal the court ruling,” says Ms. Ptashkina. “We understand that we can’t expect anything positive from the oblast court, so we are prepared to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Ukraine and even the European Court of Human Rights.” In a word, Vedomosti hopes to restore justice. Here one ought to remember the Polish experience. They secretly rally every time bureaucrats deal a blow (see Den, July 6, not translated in this digest) and boycott them. Then consider the death of a journalist and a newspaper, all within a week. No one can raise the journalist from the dead. Assuming he was wrong, he should be disputed, but in a civilized way. A publication cannot be revived if it does not have enough money to protect its honor and dignity. Here, too, evidence in refutation could have been provided and not only in court. But, then, the court part rates a different story. Is there an unbiased, just, and incorruptible court in Kirovohrad? Or is the place ruled by the law of the jungle? This society continues to live the same old way, preferring to shoot first and ask questions later. When will it all end?
