This trial ought to be broadcast live all over the country. Emotions, arguments, accusations, disputes, high-profile developments, sensations... we saw them all at February 6 hearing held by the Court of Appeal which considered appeals lodged against the sentence pronounced on former head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA)’s surveillance department Oleksii Pukach who stands accused of the murder of journalist Heorhii Gongadze as well as the kidnapping and beating of public figure Oleksii Podolsky.
The Day has long been involved with the Gongadze case, and this reporter has covered it for over five years, but I cannot recall such a hearing happening before. The breakthrough in the “wall of silence” has done its job, especially after the subject was covered by the 1+1 TV channel. Even though the much-discussed by the media business conflict between Ihor Kolomoisky and Viktor Pinchuk may be taking place, it does not influence the crux of the matter. What is important for the country is that the Gongadze case coverage has broadened over the recent months to an extent we have not seen in many years. The courtroom was packed with journalists, public figures, MPs, and ordinary citizens...
Public outcry is a necessary step to achieve success, that is, to determine principals to these crimes. After all, it is public pressure that forces tools of the old system to retreat. We saw the first victory coming at once, as the judges were forced to comply with legal requirements and hold an open hearing. It was a demand of the public, journalists, the victim Podolsky himself and his counsels; finally, objective circumstances call for it.
Photo by Mykola TYMCHENKO, The Day
“Given the public interest in the case, public statements by heads of security agencies, MPs, some parties to the trial who spoke for opening court hearings, this panel of judges considers it appropriate to revisit the issue of opening or closing the trial,” presiding judge Stepan Hladii stated at the beginning of the hearing. We feel it necessary to dwell some more on this issue and to emphasize some points.
Firstly, we all remember public statements by heads of law-enforcement agencies Valentyn Nalyvaichenko (Security Service of Ukraine), Arsen Avakov (Ministry of Internal Affairs), Vitalii Yarema (Prosecutor General’s Office), which all could be summarized as “we need the Pukach trial to be open to the public.” “The heads of the MIA and the SBU agree to declassify evidence. We are also ready to support this idea,” Prosecutor General of Ukraine Yarema said in a recent interview. Chairperson of the SBU Nalyvaichenko went as far as to state that the service had already declassified all evidence at its disposal that pertained to the Pukach case. It has turned out to be more complicated in practice, though. At least, according to Judge Hladii, the panel has not received any documents to do with this matter (?!).
Secondly, a victim in the case, public figure Podolsky has accused the court of breaking the law: “I have always been advocating opening the trial, but I take an issue with your previous unlawful decisions. What is all this circus about? The last hearing saw you deciding to keep the trial closed. Today, you immediately open it without complying with any regulations. It is a violation of the law. That is, your actions are guided not by the law, but by the political situation now existing in the country. You closed the trial at the previous hearing, and have it opened now because there were no grounds to close it in the first place.”
Thirdly, what did other parties to the trial say on the opening issue? The defendant Pukach said he hoped to see the hearings kept behind closed doors. His lawyer Hryhorii Demydenko said that the panel of judges had already taken the decision to close the trial at the last hearing, and therefore it was in breach of the law now. He filed a motion to this effect a little later, substantiating the need to request the law-enforcement agencies to give their opinions on the presence or absence of state secrets in the present case.
