Kuchma says that he may return into politics, freely moves around the country and abroad and attends solemn public events in company of the rest of Ukrainian presidents. In short, Kuchma does not look like a man that sits under a sword of Damocles in the form of a harsh sentence. And, judging from the latest developments in his case, the second president is right to be not overly concerned about his future.
The Pechersky District Court of Kyiv will consider Kuchma’s lawyers’ complaint against the Prosecutor General’s Office decision to launch criminal proceedings as soon as December 6, we were told by former presidential guard Mykola Melnychenko’s lawyer Mykola Nedilko. He added that court notices have been served on Melnychenko, his lawyers and former Verkhovna Rada speaker Oleksandr Moroz. Obviously, the defense will do everything possible to exclude Major Melnychenko’s records from the evidence and clean up Kuchma’s reputation, citing the recent ruling of the Constitutional Court.
“The probability that Kuchma’s lawyers’ requests will be granted is very high. They will take advantage of the Constitutional Court ruling on inadmissibility of any evidence that was obtained illegally. Undoubtedly, Melnychenko had no warrant for surveillance. It is, of course, very easy to roll back the case for that reason. Perhaps, the prosecutor’s office will want to dismiss the Kuchma case altogether,” Taras STETSKIV ponders in a conversation with The Day (by the way, he was one of the leaders of the Ukraine without Kuchma protest campaign). “Why did they launch it all, then? My opinion is that Yanukovych wished to take his revenge on Kuchma somehow for the latter’s actions in 2004. He wanted a gentle revenge, though. Yanukovych thinks that Kuchma wronged him in 2004. He believed then that the protesters in the Independence Square should have been dispersed with force, and this action would propel him into the presidency as a fait accompli. So, this whole business this spring was on Yanukovych’s part just an attempt to remind Kuchma that he forgot nothing.”
But did the Ukraine without Kuchma participants forget something?
Renowned sociologist Yevhen HOLOVAKHA also believes that no one had seriously tried to search for justice.
“Kuchma is already a relic; he is already a man from the past. It influences his treatment. When it all was launched in March, it was a signal to society that nothing is forgotten and nobody is forgotten. All will be sifted out by the new government, including even former presidents. If a former president is not immune, then nobody can feel safe.”
Meanwhile, the trial in the Oleksii Pukach case has been adjourned until December 8 at the request of Podolsky, one of the victims. His reasons are that he needs time to prepare the motion for disqualification of the presiding judge Melnyk and the notice of the crime to be sent to the Prosecutor General’s office. Podolsky obtained the sentence that the same judge Melnyk had pronounced in 2002 in the case of causing bodily injury of medium gravity to the MP Oleksandr Yeliashkevych in February 2000. The Day reported on it already last week, after the press conference had been held by Podolsky, Yeliashkevych and Moroz. Let us recall that at the said press conference, Yeliashkevych made a sensational statement: “Due to some completely accidental circumstances, I and Podolsky found out that the trial in my case, when Vorobei had been sentenced, and the current trial of Pukach were presided by the judge A.V. Melnyk. We are not yet sure that we have the same person in both cases, but the last name and initials are the same. If this person is really the Melnyk who sentenced the framed man in the Yeliashkevych case, I would insist on his removal from the Pukach case, this cause celebre. I will not use a steam-hammer to crack nuts, but this Vorobei admitted his confession to be untrue and named the officers who had forced him to lie as early as in 2006. If the judge is the person we think he is, then he still has a chance to recuse himself and avoid participating in the trial that will be a disgrace for Ukraine.”
Judge Melnyk does not consider it necessary to recuse himself, but the media (even those who owe their name to Heorhii Gongadze) have, too, by and large, ignored this sensational topic for an inexplicable reason, thus lending their support to the triumph of dirty politics and nullifying the hope to clean up the society.
“It was judge Melnyk who pronounced the sentence in this case,” Podolsky said after confirming his assumptions. “I see in this sentence clear signs of crimes, including obstruction of justice and forging of evidence. It means that Melnyk is an interested party in the Pukach case. I have taken a break from the proceedings because I can not participate in the trial until the decision on Melnyk’s role comes. It will be after that decision that I will decide whether to continue my further participation in these proceedings or not. According to my information, judge Melnyk has been pro-mised the office of President of the Supreme Economic or Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine after this case ends.”
