Heorhy Gongadze’s wife Myroslava told The Dayon December 5 that she had received an official reply from the Kyiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office the previous day, following her statement demanding identification of the body and access to material evidence and forensic expert findings. The document she received reads that various examinations — forensic medical, criminal, chemical, etc. — are to be carried out in the course of investigation to ascertain the age of the body discovered in the forest of Tarashcha, also its height, time, and cause of death, along with other aspects being of importance in establishing objective truth in the case. It is signed by S. Kvitko, Head of the Investigations Division, Kyiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office. As for her participation in the identification of material evidence found with the unidentified body, she will be notified at a later date. Myroslava also wanted to know why no DNA tests were run and was told that such tests are appointed by an expert who sets the date and time. She told The Daythat she is worried about not knowing the date on which expert findings will be announced.
Meanwhile — and The Dayhas pointed this out — the public eye is glued to the situation with Oleksandr Moroz’s sensational statement incriminating Ukraine’s top political leadership in conjunction with the Gongadze case. The date of a special Verkhovna Rada sitting to investigate the case will be set this week, Speaker Ivan Pliushch told a news conference on December 4.
Socialist leader and People’s Deputy Oleksandr MOROZ forwarded statements to the General Prosecutor’s Office and Criminal Board of the Kyiv City Court, demanding invalidation of the court ruling commencing criminal proceedings against him on libel charges. Among other things, Mr. Moroz believes that such charges (pressed on the strength of Article 125, Section 3, Criminal Code of Ukraine) are ungrounded, because “criminal proceedings after the fact may be instigated only if the person, whose actions can be considered as felonious, is unknown,” and that “in my case criminal proceedings were instigated by Volodymyr Lytvyn’s statement (head of the Presidential Administration — Ed.) accusing me directly,” Mr. Moroz’s statement reads.
He further believes that criminal proceedings against him as a people’s deputy can be commenced only by the General Prosecutor of Ukraine. “I do not consider it necessary to give any testimony bearing the legal status of a witness,” the Socialist leader stresses.
That same day, Deputy Oleksandr HOLUB, first secretary of Lviv’s regional committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, declared that the sensational audio cassette, currently in possession of Socialist leader Oleksandr Moroz, was first offered Communist leader Petro Symonenko, but he passed up the opportunity.
According to an UNIAN reporter, Mr. Holub said the cassette had been brought by “former SBU officers” on November 10. When asked whether they had any documentary proof of the tape’s authenticity and that it really had the voices of Yuri Kravchenko, Volodymyr Lytvyn, and Leonid Kuchma, they replied that they did and promised to produce it. They charged nothing for the tape and stressed they wanted the secretly recorded conversations to be made public knowledge as soon as possible, Holub pointed out, adding that he had not seen Petro Symonenko since (regrettably, all attempts of The Day’s reporter to get. Symonenko’s comments failed — Ed. ).
Oleksandr Lavrynovych, chairman of the legislative inquiry, kindly agreed to share his views on the possible political and legal consequences.
The Day: Mr. Lavrynovych, what could be the political and legal consequences of Oleksandr Moroz’s statement for this society?
O. L.: His statement came as a general component of a big problem keeping our society in suspense for several months after Heorhy Gongadze’s disappearance. The situation that has developed sheds glaring light on the absence of public oversight over those entitled to make decisions on behalf of the state and those constitutionally responsible for the protection of civil rights and freedoms, and who are in practice more often than not used as repressive tools. In the absence of public control over the military and security ministries and agencies (by means of a representative body of authority and other institutions of civil society along with non-governmental organizations), such bodies are always strongly tempted to discharge their functions improperly and ineffectively, on the one hand, and on the other, there is always room for allegations and insinuations directed at their performance.
As for the legal consequences, I regret to say that public opinion is currently focused not on the legal outcome of the Gongadze case, on establishing what actually happened to him, who planned the unlawful actions, if any, and who perpetrated them. All this has somewhat faded into the background, although precisely these questions should be answered in the first place. Now the political aspect is attracting most public attention: primarily, the attitude of state authorities in Ukraine toward civil freedoms, particularly the freedom of expression, opposition, and criticism. Unfortunately, we see that the regime regards these manifestations, characteristic of any democratic society, not as levers to keep this country moving forward. Regrettably, these characteristic manifestations are often rejected by force of habit and the powers that show an unhealthy response to their own mistakes. And then such mistakes are not put right, and this only adds to the electorate’s antagonism toward the existing system.
The Day: >Verkhovna Rada has decided to hold a special meeting in camera to deal with the Gongadze case. For what purpose? To find out why there is still no information about the case? Or maybe consider what is happening after Moroz’s statement?
O. L.: I am not sure, because the agenda is still to be approved. A group of deputies proposed a draft resolution providing for a closed sitting and inviting the President, Prosecutor General, Internal Affairs Minister, and chief of the secret police [SBU] to attend. The Speaker and the chairman of the ad hoc committee of inquiry are responsible for the arrangements.
(See also page ECONOMY/CLOSEUP)
