The notorious Gongadze case is a never-ending torment for the family and friends. What is it for the country? For the country for many years it has been a sort of litmus paper which has to show if society and the politicians can judge it properly and look to the future, or if they are still living in the past.
Recently Renat Kuzmin, first deputy of the prosecutor general, accused some journalists of insufficiently active protection of the freedom of speech during the examination of Kuchma’s case (in his interview to the Independent News Bureau). Why the ex-president’s case is virtually closed is indeed some food for thought. The first deputy should consider his mistakes, while the journalists might look into their shortcomings as well.
The injured party in the case Oleskii Podolsky believes that the Prosecutor General’s Office is to blame. “The dismissal of the already launched case against Kuchma was only possible with the consent of the Prosecutor General’s office, which resumed investigation on the case without any grounds,” says Podolsky (Den, No.13-14, January 27, 2012). “Instead of shifting the blame on journalists, prosecutor’s office had better examine Kravchenko’s case, as well as all the attempts to doctor the Gongadze case during Kuchma’s presidency.”
By the way, in the abovementioned interview Kuzmin emphasized: “If the court decided in favor of Kuchma and believes that I initiated the proceedings illegally, it does not in the least mean that tomorrow, proceedings against Kuchma cannot be legally instituted. Not for abuse of power, for instance, but on the grounds of another, graver article. The law ensures this right to the prosecutor.”
Recently some Ukrainian journalist organizations and movements (“Stop Censorship!” and the Ukrainian Media Association, supported by the international freedom advocates Reporters without Borders) voiced their concern about the lack of any progress in the case of Gongadze’s assassination. This is the list of their demands:
“To the Pechersk District Court, Kyiv:
– to explain to the judges, including those on the panel examining the charge against Oleksii Pukach, that the judicial investigation be minimally closed, due to state secret involved;
– review the regime of hearing of the Pukach case and qualify it as such that requires a closed examination of only the classified materials, and a closed interrogation of only those witnesses who are undercover police agents. This needs to be done in order to ensure the right of society and the injured party to a public investigation of the case.
To the Prosecutor General of Ukraine:
– to make known the name of the investigator in charge of the case against Yurii Kravchenko, as well as the scheduled completion of the investigation of this case;
– to initiate a criminal case on the charge of pressure on the investigation during the inquiry into Gongadze’s assassination, which fact was established by the European Court of Human Rights;
– to take a definite procedural stand by ruling to initiate a criminal case against Volodymyr Lytvyn, Eduard Fere, Leonid Derkach, and others implicated in the crime by the evidence given by Pukach.
To the Security Service of Ukraine:
– to inform if Mykola Melnychenko has been internationally declared wanted, and explain why Melnychenko is traveling free and unhampered across Europe.”
Of course, the statement contains hopeful moments: the demand that the Pechersk District Court make Pukach’s trial more open, and the appeal to the Prosecutor General’s office to define Lytvyn’s status via initiating a criminal procedure against him. The Day asked the speaker of the Verkhovna Rada to comment on the journalists’ statement. We got the following reply from Viktoria Shvedova, director of the Press Service at the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine:
“The Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada Mr. Lytvyn has repeatedly expressed his opinion on the events concerning the investigation of journalist Heorhii Gongadze’s assassination, and has no inclination to participate in the next political campaign, unfolding on the eve of the parliamentary election. All other questions concerning this case must be directed to the relevant law enforcement agencies.”
The appeal of the abovementioned journalist organizations could qualify as a positive phenomenon, should there not be a few very grave reservations. We would like to direct the critical reader’s attention to these reservations.
Firstly, the statement does not mention the court’s recent ruling to close Kuchma’s case, just like there is no response to this fact on the part of the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine. This silence plays in the hands of Kuchma and his team. “The real masterminds have not been found,” said Kuchma in his interview to the newspaper Fakty i kommentarii (issue of January 27, 2012). “But I want them to be prosecuted. That is why I’m going to insist on the holding of a real, comprehensive investigation.”
The cynicism of the interview is astonishing. Says Kuchma: “I have to admit, there were moments when I asked myself: does God really exist? Why does He just look on and not interfere into what is happening on this perishable earth?” By the way, many commentators told The Day more than once that Kuchma need not search for anyone and turn to anyone. Just looking in a mirror would do the trick.
Now, after Kuchma’s interview appears the appeal from the journalists, where lies are mixed with half-truth. The best scenario is if they were being unconsciously manipulated. But this raises the question of their professionalism. But the worst-case scenario, which we would much rather dismiss, is that certain individuals could have been “motivated.”
Then, there arises another “but.” Why did the authors of the appeal, who know the context so well (since they named speaker Lytvyn), demand an explanation as to “why Melnychenko is traveling free and unhampered across Europe”? In other words, why isn’t he arrested? And this is said by the people who know that Kuchma’s team insisted that a criminal case be opened against Melnychenko, and a ruling to detain him made. The quality of Ukrainian justice is notorious. Therefore, such demands from the abovementioned journalist organizations sound at least surprising. The more so, that Kuchma and his milieu have virtually solved the case of Melnychenko as the key witness. As soon as he turns up in Ukranine, he will be arrested and exposed to notorious investigation practices followed by a trial. And it is very likely that it will be even more secret than Pukach’s. Is that what the petitioners are after?
By all appearances, now Kuchma and his numerous entourage are busy trying to neutralize witnesses Oleksandr Moroz and Yevhen Marchuk. Suffice it to remember the documentaries Conspiracy, with their transparent contexts, and the Russian director Konchalovsky’s epic “masterpiece,” Battle for Ukraine with similar hints, and similar articles and Kuchma’s numerous interviews. By the way, in the statement the names of Moroz and Marchuk are mentioned in a curious way. The implication is that in Pukach’s testimony and Melnychenko’s tapes there is evidence, identical (?) to that implicating Kuchma and Kravchenko, thus criminal proceedings should also be opened against Moroz and Marchuk. In other words, they should be completely neutralized. Strange news, the more so that it comes from a journalist statement, rather than from the Prosecutor General’s Office or a courtroom.
It is common knowledge what befell witnesses Kravchenko, Fere, and Dahaiev. Only Pukach has survived. Now he is totally under control, and can give “correct” testimony at any moment. In the meantime, the injured party, Podolsky and Yeliashkevych, who hinder the “justice,” will perhaps in the very near future feel the attempts to neutralize them.
We should not forget about Melnychenko’s tapes and their examination. Their neutralization also took long, and this is where it is easy to disorient the public. Besides, the Constitutional Court did its bit when it ruled the tapes “illegally obtained” – although this does not stop them from being evidence.
Kuchma and his suite had plenty of time to study the materials of the case, they were not pressed for time. The investigation virtually gave Kuchma and his team a chance to get armed to the teeth. Provided with the copies of nearly all materials on the case and having dodged the trial, Kuchma’s party is pursuing a preemptive tactic – slowly, but steadily. Well acquainted with the materials on the case, the results of the expert examinations and investigation, they are working hard to neutralize them.
What about the background? Kuchma is behaving as if he were at least the prosecutor. Thus, there is no investigation secrecy in Kuchma’s criminal case? In the abovementioned interview, Kuchma names some new facts, allegedly from the case file, and offers his own comments on them. We can see the same about the journalists’ statement. By the way, we asked ex-president’s lawyer Viktor Petrunenko to comment on it, but he said that he was on leave, had not seen the document, and thus could not comment on it. Thus, the witnesses, who were interrogated, also can comment on everything, can’t they? What about Myroslava Gongadze’s defense counsel, Valentyna Telychenko? What about Andrii Fedur, the counsel of Lesia Gongadze? And what about Melnychenko’s advocates? Does it mean that now they, too, may freely comment on any materials of the case – for instance, all details concerning Kuchma’s interrogations, his confrontation with Melnychenko, interrogations of Derkach and Lytvyn? And many more. There must be a lot of curious new facts for the public.
UKRAINIAN JOURNALISTS SHOULD’VE ASKED FOREIGN COLLEAGUES FOR HELP
Oleksii PODOLSKY, public figure, journalist:
“I support the journalists’ statement partially. I mean the part about obstructing investigation in the Gongadze case. The text mentions a period ranging from 2000 until 2004. This case kept being falsified afterward. I have evidence of such falsification and I believe that the investigation in this case has been rigged until the year 2012. Number-one proof is the murder of the key witness, General Yurii Kravchenko, the then Minister of the Internal Affairs of Ukraine. He was murdered while the investigation in his case was openly, blatantly falsified, so much so the widow and children were never familiarized with the files. To this end I believe that the case involves ranking officials, including President Yushchenko and his law enforcement and secret police chiefs, Piskun and Turchynov. They were told by their subordinates that it was murder, but they publicly insisted on suicide. That was a conspiracy which gave Leonid Kuchma immunity guaranteed by President Yushchenko.
“I have also discovered falsehood in my case, courtesy of the Prosecutor General’s Office. I will voice this during the Pukach court hearings. I mean discrepancies between the court records when hearing the perpetrators, Naumets and Maryniak, and the ones currently present in this case. This falsification was meant to cover the unlawful acts committed by the PGO ranking officers who handled the Podolsky case. Such evidence is also found in the Gongadze case, so I believe the falsification campaign is still underway, and that this investigation is in terms of politics rather than law, serving the interest of certain individuals.
“In regard to Melnychenko, I don’t believe that he has committed a crime, although I do believe there should be a criminal case involving Melnychenko, with all due procedures that would put an end to all speculations and rumors against and about him. Melnychenko learned about a number of criminal acts systemically perpetrated by certain individuals who held high government posts at the time. As a true Ukrainian citizen, he felt obliged to record all conversations in Kuchma’s office to prevent such criminal acts, to warn Ukrainian society against them, to bring the guilty parties to justice. I believe that Melnychenko performed his civic duty and I don’t believe that he should be criminally prosecuted.
“I believe the journalists’ statement should address the international community rather than the Ukrainian state and its law enforcement agencies in order to produce practical results. I do because the international community has been paying less attention to this issue of late (courtesy of the Kuchma family’s costly effort – I mean his son-in-law Pinchuk’s lobbying in the media and political domains involving influential foreign politicians). I think the Ukrainian journalists should’ve asked their foreign colleagues for help, so they could’ve warned their politicians against supporting the Kuchma family, lest they feel embarrassed afterward, considering that the truth will out. I don’t think that their electorate in Israel, the US, the UK or Poland will be overjoyed to learn about their nominees supporting the Kuchma family in its effort to evade justice, after having a fellow human murdered – actually more then one! I would go further than the Gongadze case, considering that political and media figures were killed under Kuchma as president and afterward. I mean the death of Chornovil (I insist on it being an assassination [rather than a road accident]) prior to Kuchma’s election as president in 1999, so they could play the Symonenko vs. Kuchma game in the second round. I mean the murder of Hetman, following which a scared Yushchenko stepped down as a presidential candidate in the second round of the Kuchma campaign. I mean the murder of General Kravchenko as a key witness in the Gongadze case. Whatever they say, the motives were with the Kuchma family: (a) removal of the political rivals and (b) removal of the eyewitnesses. That was a system of political violence, launched under President Kuchma.
“Does Kuchma really want to find those who actually ordered these murders? If so, let him look for them considering his motives.
“Disclosure of investigation secrets? Only the defendants were admonished, never Kuchma’s defense counsel. As soon as I started speaking about the Kravchenko case, I was summoned to the Prosecutor General’s Office and warned by an investigating officer that I would face criminal prosecution for disclosing investigation secrets. Kuchma’s defense lawyers kept talking about things the court was still to hear in due course. In other words, they were obstructing justice in the Pukach case, acting contrary to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, singling out and leaving aspects that played into their hand. This is sheer manipulation.
“In regard to my neutralization as a claimant. Combating a victim in court is stupid, of course, yet one can expect anything from Kuchma&Co. My feeling is that any testimony not to their liking – as in the Kravchenko case – is left uncommented upon. When I argued that the rulings of the Pechersk and Appellate Court justices were made in time with certain dates and events, there were few if any comments. No comments following my statement that Kravchenko was murdered. In other words, there are no comments without resources, just silence.”
EVERYTHING STARTED IN KUCHMA’S OFFICE
Oleksandr MOROZ, leader of the Socialist Party of Ukraine:
“This statement by journalists – or whoever wanted to act in their behalf – is proof that they are on Kuchma’s side. All the cases mentioned in this statement have to do with the conversations recorded in Kuchma’s office. The idiotic rulings of the Pechersk [District] Court, aimed at dismissing the [Kuchma] case are proof that this is an effort to protect those who are actually involved in/with the murder of Gongadze. I believe that all these [criminal] cases could be made a single one.
“Why is the trial over Pukach being held behind closed doors? Be that as it may, everything started in Kuchma’s office. The man must be held responsible for what happened afterward, along with the others who were present during those conversations in his office. Then the picture will become perfectly clear. Otherwise how can one explain the reasons behind the murders of Kravchenko, Chornovil, and Maliev? Why the Gongadze case remains to be closed after being properly investigated? The Prosecutor General’s Office must see to this and dot the I’s and cross the T’s in the courtroom.
“Millions are aware of this tragic story in Ukraine and abroad, so there will be no progress for as along as they keep using all kinds of legal loopholes and procedures that are actually totally ungrounded.
“Consider the trial over Landik. Its outcome is a different story. I mean what was the basis of the prosecution? Tapes made without the prosecutor’s knowledge and consent? Then the same should apply to the Kuchma tapes. What’s the difference? Unauthorized recording. Granted, then who would have authorized it? Prosecutor General Potebenko who knew what was going on? Kravchenko who was directly involved? Lytvyn? Kuchma who was supposed to allow his four-letter words quoted across Ukraine?
“Kuchma doesn’t have to look for those who ordered the murders. He should confess and face justice instead, because he is the one who placed the contracts. Isn’t this understandable? Who gave orders to Kravchenko? Why all those who had committed the crimes received promotions afterward? Is this another investigation secret to be kept? This is as clearly apparent as all those prepaid interviews meant to whitewash Kuchma and all who were really involved in/with the murder of journalist Gongadze. There are dark deeds that can’t be whitewashed, not in a court of law, period.”
KUCHMA’S ACTIONS TODAY ARE AN ACT OF REVENGE
Mykola NEDILKO, Melnychenko’s defense counsel:
“I don’t think I understand the passage in the journalists’ statement relating to Melnychenko, that the man can peacefully travel across Europe without being apprehended by authorities, and so on. My question is: ‘Would his apprehension serve the cause of justice?’ I am against his arrest and extradition to Ukraine. Melnychenko is a key surviving witness, like Pukach. Both could give testimonies relating to the Gongadze case. Without Melnychenko – considering that every effort is being made in Ukraine to get hold of him and kill him – there will be no key witness [in the Kuchma case]. Why focus on the criminal proceedings against Melnychenko? Only because this would play into the hand of Kuchma’s defense.
“In regard to Volodymyr Lytvyn, I agree with the journalists’ statement. The man must be brought to justice. Despite the previous court ruling acquitting him in the Gongadze case, overruled later by First Deputy Prosecutor General Renat Kuzmin, what’s happening in this case is anyone’s guess. The impression is that they want to keep the Gongadze case’s status quo. Most likely there will be no criminal proceedings against Speaker Lytvyn, considering that he isn’t on record as a suspect. Renat Kuzmin hinted at his involvement in the course of the pre-trial investigation, but nothing was committed to paper.
“Another positive aspect about this statement is that such issues must be kept on the agenda, that the media must keep the Gongadze case alive and be a constant pain in the neck of the law enforcement agencies, demanding an unbiased independent investigation, and an open unbiased court hearing to finally resolve the Gongadze and Melnychenko tapes cases.
“Naturally, media people have their interests to pursue. Some are corrupt, others aren’t. A case study in corruption is the way Ukraine’s ICTV Channel followed the Gongadze case. We have repeatedly filed libel and slander claims with the court, but our ‘unbiased and independent’ judicial system has effectively blocked every such effort, on some or other technical grounds. Fortunately, there are independent investigative journalists.
“Kuchma’s recent interview with Fakty was a planned publicity stunt, meant to convince the Ukrainian in the street that the ex-president had nothing to do with the murder of Gongadze. His defense says this is a proven fact, as per Pechersk and Appellate court rulings. In actuality, these rulings do not make Kuchma blameless, they simply read that the incriminating evidence in the Gongadze case was obtained in an unlawful manner. The incriminating tapes are still there, with the voices of Kuchma, Lytvyn, and others confirmed by expert audio tests. Leonid Kuchma says he wants to find those who actually ordered the murders. He shouldn’t bother, just look at himself in a mirror.
“This statement reads that the actions on the part of Marchuk and Moroz should be legally assessed, thus placing them on the same level with Lytvyn and Kuchma. This is proof that the journalists [who signed this statement] are either unaware of what is actually going on or are acting as instructed/paid for. Leonid Kuchma was the first to point an accusing finger at Marchuk and Moroz in the Gongadze and Melnychenko cases.
“There were many journalists present at the court hearing of the Kuchma case and they couldn’t fail to understand that Moroz was there as a claimant, as the one who sought justice for a man who had committed an act of crime, namely Leonid Kuchma – and his retinue. I mean their direct involvement in the murder of Gongadze and other crimes. Kuchma implies that Marchuk and Moroz are responsible for the cassette scandal, then why doesn’t he imply Yulia Tymoshenko and Oleksandr Turchynov? Why aren’t our journalists focusing on Tymoshenko and Turchynov, considering that they both knew that Kuchma’s office was bugged?
“I feel critical about this statement, specifically the part dealing with Melnychenko because the requirements to my client sound abnormal; also about the part dealing with Marchuk and Moroz. No one would have learned about the goings-on in Kuchma’s office, about who was actually responsible for the murder of Gongadze, without Moroz. Kuchma’s actions today are actually an act of revenge. Regrettably, there are journalists supporting this tactic. They ought to have attended all court hearings in the Kuchma and Melnychenko cases to come up with unbiased reports.
“I think that there is enough incriminating evidence against Kuchma in the Gongadze case. There are over a hundred tomes of files while the Pechersk [District] Court glanced through about 25 tomes. The rest is kept away from the public eye, including the records of Kuchma-Melnychenko confrontations. Theoretically, such records could and should be made public knowledge [under the law].
“Do we have the right to make such information public knowledge? We certainly do. There is no document whereby the investigating officers gathered evidence in the Kuchma case. In other words, there is no criminal case. There was no pre-trial investigation, so any such information can be made public. None has been. Why? Perhaps because the Prosecutor General’s Office, pressured by the Ukrainian public and international community, in the presence of all this incriminating evidence, will start another Kuchma case. Those who ordered the killings must be identified, come what may. Relying on the data I have received while acting as Melnychenko’s defense counsel, I can state that Leonid Kuchma and Volodymyr Lytvyn were the only ones to have ordered Gongadze killed.
“At present, Leonid Kuchma is an ordinary Ukrainian national after being acquitted in a criminal case. He is legally clean unless subpoenaed in another criminal case as a defendant or witness. The Prosecutor General’s Office is in an embarrassing situation, having carried out a long and complicated investigation, only to learn in court that the whole effort was illegal.
“The Gongadze case remains legally open, so the PGO is faced up with the dilemma of resuming pre-trial investigation and ascertaining the persons who ordered the murder. Then what? Under the circumstances the PGO could press fresh charges against Kuchma, under a different Criminal Code clause. There is no legal assessment of Volodymyr Lytvyn. Melnychenko has repeatedly stressed his role as the organizer in his testimonies in the Gongadze case; that Lytvyn talked Kuchma into ordering Gongadze killed. There is no ruling out criminal proceedings against Lytvyn on these grounds. This would be in accordance with the law.
“Melnychenko has turned from key witness into an enemy of the state in the Kuchma case. I was told so by an influential source in Ukrainian government. Melnychenko kept taping conversations in Kuchma’s office for three years. These tapes are proof of crimes besides the murder of Gongadze. Even if neutralized as a key witness in the Kuchma case, the ex-president’s defense won’t be able to neutralize him as witness in other cases dealing with crimes perpetrated by Kuchma. They want Melnychenko eliminated, a clearly apparent fact, considering that he remains Pandora’s box for as long as he stays alive. He can make public additional information any time. Why doesn’t he? Because after the tapes in the Gongadze case were made public knowledge, no legal response was forthcoming. In any civilized country such exposure would be followed by criminal prosecution, with serious charges pressed. In fact, I believe that crimes perpetrated by ranking officials must be adjudicated using special, harsher Criminal Code clauses.
“I often hear about Melnychenko being on the payroll of a foreign clandestine agency. If he is, give me proof. How about Leonid Kuchma being on that kind of payroll? Melnychenko is accused of revealing a state secret, without specifying that secret. Nothing to this effect in his case files. A sham case. What secret did he disclose? Kuchma’s crimes can’t be qualified as state secrets.”
