In Lutsk Serhii Lazo Street will be given a new name, the one of Heorhii Gongadze. People do remember. The tragic story that struck not only Ukraine but the whole world happened 11 years ago. It is a matter of principle in the modern history of Ukraine. Formerly many “oracles” speculated about it especially when they expected some political dividends. The author attended the recent press conference by Yeliashkevych, Moroz, and Podolsky and saw the journalists’ reaction… The conference was one of the most resonant because of the declarations made but not because of the reactions. The media have repeatedly voiced the idea that without resolving the problem of Gongadze’s murder and Yeliashkevych’s assault there are few chances for purification. The unresolved problem “contaminates” the young politicians and they keep silent.
LYTVYN TO BE ASKED?
The consequences of the declaration made by Oleksandr Moroz 11 years ago, the “cassette scandal,” shocking conversations in Kuchma’s office will electrify Ukraine until the Ukrainian court finishes this case and names those who ordered the murder of Heorhii Gongadze. Oleksandr Yeliashkevych thinks that Ukraine is unable to independently and fairly try the former high-ranking officials involved in Gongadze’s case and the attempt of his life of February 9, 2000. However, there is a chance. The main Yeliashkevych’s message at the press conference was: “I want to seriously upset Leonid Kuchma that despite the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and other measures he has taken this case will be finished! There will be judicial proceedings outside Ukraine; just today the judicial cycle has to be finalized in Ukraine…” (The Day, No. 69, December 1, 2011).
It is known that one more favorable circumstance in “Kuchma’s case” was the resolution of the Constitutional Court of October 20, 2011 concerning the proposal of SBU [Security Service of Ukraine. – Ed.] on the “illegally collected” proofs. “The resolution of the Constitutional Court does not concern Kuchma’s case but millions of Ukrainians. They have been deprived of the possibility to protect themselves. Today nearly everyone has a mobile phone, a camera or a camcorder; they are the means of self-protection against the criminals. Now people are deprived of the possibility to make audio or video recordings of the crimes. It has been done to make the recordings made in Kuchma’s office illegal. It is a crime against the Ukrainian people. I am surprised with the reaction of the so-called opposition not to mention the government since nobody thinks that the inaccuracies recorded during the elections in 2012 will not prevent delinquencies. I am addressing the MPs asking them to find out what this resolution is based on. How did the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine being an interested party write ‘The Letter of the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine concerning the subject of the constitutional proposal.’ What is in this letter? What are the arguments given to leave our people defenseless in front of the criminal world?”
OLEKSANDR MOROZ: “THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IS AN ORDER”
When the proceedings against Kuchma were instituted many people speculated about the serious intentions of the government. Suffice it to recall the declaration by the Senior Deputy Prosecutor General Renat Kuzmin: “During the investigation of the main case of Gongadze’s murder all the people involved into the crime are being detected: organizers, accomplices and those who probably ordered the murder. This work has never been stopped. As a result, we have collected enough proofs of Leonid Kuchma’s complicity in the crimes against Gongadze and Podolsky. Investigation is a complicated process. It is not nails hammering, but even nails have to be hammered correctly. Look, how many people related to Gongadze’s case have been killed! The minister of home affairs, his deputies, two workers of the Department of State Security, even the witness who found Gongadze’s body is no more alive, the FSB officer who received a part of the recordings from Melnychenko, I will not continue this list.” Later there was a change in this process, Melnychenko’s case was resumed and he was forced to go to Israel. Why?
Oleksandr Moroz, leader of the Socialist Party of Ukraine thinks that “the answer to this question can be found when SBU addressed the Constitutional Court, when they started preparing film scenarios, etc. I think that everything is connected with Kuchma’s environment, big mo-ney and certain relations abroad. The resolution of the Constitutional Court was ordered, the court was told to adopt this resolution and it did it.”
THREE RECOMMENDATIONS YELIASHKEVYCH GAVE TO MELNYCHENKO
In this context the appeal of MP of the second and third convocations Oleksandr Yeliashkevych to Melnychenko was left nearly unattended (UNIAN held the press conference another day). Despite the fact that they have not communicated for several years, Yeliashkevych gave Melnychenko three recommendations:
“First of all he should return to Ukraine under no circumstances if he wants to be a witness at any judicial proceedings concerning Kuchma’s crimes. Secondly, if he is in Israel, he should immediately make the local public aware of Leonid Kuchma’s attitude towards the Jewish. The number of anti-Semitic remarks on the recordings is enough to make the Israeli people to give at least a moral assessment of Kuchma’s actions concerning the Jewish living in Ukraine. Thirdly, taking into account that a resonant process of Boris Berezovski and Roman Abramovich is in progress in London I would like to remind Melnychenko that he has the proofs of the fact that Berezovski manipulates the recordings and law-enforcement agencies of certain states. I think Roman Abramovich would be interested in studying this information. Mykola Melnychenko could be a witness at this process in London.”
Titanic efforts put by Kuchma to discredit Melnychenko as the main witness with the help of documentaries Bitva za Ukrainu [The Battle for Ukraine. – Ed.] and Zmova [The Collusion. – Ed.], articles in the printed press and information on the television, the resumption of Melnychenko’s case can have only a provisional effect. It is a disadvantageous way for the future. Sooner or later the justice will win. The efforts of the former president aimed at hushing up Kuchma and Yeliashkevych’s case in the media and the society should not change the matter of the problem. Let’s stop at the specific messages voiced during the abovementioned press conference.
They are of great importance though they did not draw a wide response.
ARE THE ELECTIONS A MANDATE FOR PROTECTION?
As we previously wrote (The Day No. 68, November 29, 2011), On October 20 MP Yurii Karmazin addressed a deputy request to the Ukrainian Prime Minister, Prosecutor General, Minister of Justice, Foreign Minister, Head of the Committee for Organized Crime and Corruption asking to give the information on the measures taken to fulfill numerous resolutions of the PACE concerning the investigation of the attempt of Yeliashkevych’s life. The main point of the request is that Ukraine has not put any efforts to fulfill four resolutions by the PACE concerning the investigation of the abovementioned criminal case. Two investigating commissions of the Verkhovna Rada have made resolutions as well, however, without any result.
Meanwhile, Kuchma concedes that he will probably participate in the future elections to the Verkhovna Rada. Oleksandr Yeliashkevych: “It is the evidence of the fact that the former president and his family are seriously concerned about their future. However, I would like to warn them that we intently watch the lists and districts Leonid Kuchma, Olena Pinchuk or Viktor Pinchuk might appear in. That is why I want to warn those who like selling places in the lists beforehand that it will not go without consequences.”
THAT PARTICULAR MELNYK A.V.?
On April 26, 2002 the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv announced a verdict to a certain Vorobei who admitted being in prison that he had assaulted Yeliashkevych. However, neither the sufferer, nor his representatives attended the trial and the defendant was not recognized. Moreover, the case papers read that the court found it unnecessary to study other materials of the criminal case reading that Yeliashkevych considered Kuchma to be guilty in that crime. During the abovementioned press conference Yeliashkevych made a sensational declaration that can turn into a serious scandal if confirmed: “Oleksii Podolsky and I have accidentally found out the verdict to Vorobei in my case is signed by the judge Melnyk A.V. dealing with the current Pukach’s process. We cannot say that it is one and the same person but the surname and the initials coincide. If it is that Melnyk who falsified the verdict in Yeliashkevych’s case I will insist on removing him from the resonant Pukach’s case. I am not going to break flies on the wheel but back in 2006 Vorobei officially confessed and named the workers of the law-enforcement agencies who made him slander himself. If it is that judge he has a chance to recuse himself and do not participate in the process that will become a disgrace for Ukraine.”
THE APPEAL TO SERHII HOLOVATY AND…
If there is no process against Kuchma Yeliashkevych says that he is ready to meet him in Ukraine or abroad and have a conversation with the help of a lie detector. Yeliashkevych has also addressed Serhii Holovaty and not only: “It is little known but when Podolsky was assaulted in the summer 2000 those who did it asked him to ‘say hi’ to Serhii Holovaty. The latter knows about it that is why I hope that Holovaty, as deputy head of the corresponding committee of the Council of Europe will not keep out of the processes that have been happening in Ukraine and that formally and informally concern him. I also would like to call upon the other members of ‘Ukrainska Perspektyva’ not to keep out. I address Deputy Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada Mykola Tomenko who saw me in Ukraine and when I had to stay abroad (in the US, Poland, and Russia) and ask him to use his powers to control all these processes. I address mayor of Cherkasy Serhii Odarych who has to join in to the extent possible. I address MP Lesia Orobets, the daughter of deceased Yurii Orobets and ask her not to be indifferent. You know, there are a lot of people I still count on since I believe that the number of the people directly or indirectly connected to Kuchma’s crimes will make our society pay attention to the necessity to make Kuchma’s trial public.”
A WARNING TO LUTSENKO
What and who should Yurii Lutsenko pay attention to? Oleksandr Yeliashkevych: “I am surprised that Lutsenko who is currently in the pre-trial prison did not find other lawyers to protect him. Those who protect his interests today have formerly protected Kuchma’s interests as Oleksii Bahanets did it in the Prosecutor General’s Office in the resonant Gongadze’s case or Ihor Fomin who was Pukach’s lawyer and tried to be Kuchma’s lawyer, too. I sympathize with Lutsenko since he is in a difficult situation now but he has to pay attention to his lawyers. Today Kuchma’s family’s money is everywhere, so speaking about that somebody tried to eradicate the ‘Kuchmism’ after the Orange Revolution is simply ridiculous.”
“IN THE US THEY KNOW ABOUT KUCHMA’S CORRUPTION”
Another important thing is that there are other proofs except the recordings. “First of all, there are witnesses ready to testify,” Yeliashkevych says. “There are other serious proofs in the law-enforcement agencies of Russia and the US. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that on September 22 of this year the Internet edition Ukrainska Pravda published the interview of the former American solicitor Martha Boersh. Later Yevgeny Kiseliov (Inter) also interviewed Martha Boersh. In these interviews she hardly said anything about Leonid Kuchma but one phrase (Ukrainska Pravda): ‘…Lazarenko helped Kuchma create a system that finally destroyed him. He was a terrible corruptionist. However, Kuchma was a terrible corruptionist, too…’ I wonder and I think many of the Ukrainians wonder as well: on what grounds has a former representative of the American prosecutor’s office come up with such a conclusion? I assure you that in the US and not only there they know about Kuchma’s corruption very well.” If in Ukraine Martha Boersh’s words, unfortunately, just rend the air, in the US similar things are taken very seriously. An official (though a former one) who makes such declarations has to have a cogent evidence otherwise they risk to be barred from practicing for all their life.
OLEKSII PODOLSKY: “SAY HI TO KONCHALOVSKY”
Oleksii Podolsky, present at the press conference thinks that Kuchma’s case will be resolved in Ukraine since, according to him, the time of Robespierre and Makhno is on our doorstep. “It is no secret that the political establishment regards us as lowbrow,” Podolsky says. “They think that the people are unable to resist that is why the current Pukach’s process is aimed at calming down the international community. However, I do not understand why the process is restricted (the more that no secret information has been revealed during the sessions over half of the year) if as many people as possible should know about it abroad. It is done in order to hide the crimes of the secret service at the Ministry of Internal Affairs committed in the Soviet Union and independent Ukraine. Pukach knows about it since he was a member of this secret service. After he plays the scapegoat in this process there is no guarantee that he will stay alive. However, no matter what I am an optimist though I have been a pessimist for 11 years because I can see in our people’s eyes that the time of Maximilian Robespierre and Nestor Makhno is on our doorstep.” I would like to say hi to the Russian intelligentsia in the person of Andrei Konchalovsky for the film The Battle for Ukraine. Shame on you!”
Ukraine is a supplier of large scandals. The negative information that has been spread by the Ukrainian authorities significantly exceeds the positive information; however, it does not mean that scandals “overproduction” is the reason for making a dusthole out of our country. Kuchma’s case is a test for everybody. Italy also spent a lot of time to finish “Andreotti case.” We remind our readers that the Italian journalist Mino Pecorelli was murdered in 1979 and the principal, famous Italian politician Giulio Andreotti was adjudged only in 2002 (23 years later). For his contacts with mafia and complicity in the murder of the journalist Pecorelli he was sentenced to 24 years of imprisonment. Regardless of the fact that Andreotti was released in 2003 the Italian society gained the judicial proceeding and adjudgement of the famous politician. Is the Ukrainian society ready to take this step?
According to Yeliashkevych, “If someone thinks that Kuchma’s case will be shelved, this person is mistaken – nobody and nothing is forgotten.”
