Court hearings are for Kuchma and his retinue a major whitewashing endeavor. The Pechersk [District] Court is actually hearing the complaint filed by the ex-president’s defense counsels rather than the case, so one is hard put to describe the proceedings as truly judicial. I attended the last two hearings when practically all motions by the injured party – Podolsky and his representative Oleksandr Yeliashkevych; Myroslava Gongadze’s lawyer Valentyna Telychenko; Mykola Melnychenko’s counsel Mykola Nedilko, and Lesia Gongadze’s lawyer Andrii Fedur – were turned down. There was nothing adversary about the trial – even though adversary nature is prescribed by law – and the impression was that Justice Halyna Suprun was fighting the injured party and couldn’t wait to hand down her ruling.
The following is an excerpt from Podolsky’s statement (December 12):
“In regard to my further participation in this fake trial aimed at justifying Leonid Kuchma’s crimes, I have this to state:
“In view of the flagrant violations of my civil rights committed by Justice Halyna Suprun, on December 7 and December 9, 2011, [although these rights are] guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine, by the European Convention on Human Rights, ratified by Ukraine, and by the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine;
“In view of the fact that she, in response to my attempt to turn the trial in the right legitimate direction, arbitrarily posted guards with firearms and rubber truncheons to keep me constantly watched (the kind of billies used by Interior Ministry officers who tortured me for hours, back in 2000, supervised by Lieutenant General O. Pukach who was acting on orders from L. Kuchma and Yu. Kravchenko);
“In view of the fact that she [i.e., Justice Suprun. – Ed.] demonstratively humiliated me as a citizen and Christian during a court hearing;
“In view of all these demeaning procedural violations and cynical threats using militia symbols, there is no doubt left in my mind that Justice H. Suprun is biased, that she is serving the interests of the defendant. This is proof that she has made up her mind to pass a ruling in L. Kuchma’s favor.
“For the Public Prosecutor: I suspect that the stand taken by Justice H. Suprun is explained by reasons that have a direct bearing on corruption.
“In view of all this, I hereby state that I absolutely distrust Justice H. B. Suprun and will from now on avoid further court hearings presided over by her.”
Below are facts and quotes relating to the trial that demonstrate the atmosphere in the courtroom.
On Friday, the court was called to order and Melnychenko’s counsel Mykola Nedilko made his statement to the effect that his colleague, Melnychenko’s other counsel Pavlo Sychov, had been accosted by several unidentified persons in an underpass who said he was talking too much in court and that he’d be best off to keep his mouth shut. Justice Suprun declared this was irrelevant and immaterial and recommended that he turn to the law enforcement agenciens for help. Oleksandr Yeliashkevych was allowed 80 minutes (sic) to familiarize himself with his case, but wasn’t allowed to read a copy of the Pechersk Court’s ruling dating back to 2002. He says this one is “an extremely important document that records other crimes committed by Kuchma and his retinue.” Podolsky’s request that the judge handling the case be replaced was turned down and Justice Suprun said the reason was that a similar petition had been considered.
Podolsky: “I challenge this judge. First, because once again I wasn’t allowed to make a statement in regard to Yeliashkevych’s petition. Second, because Yeliashkevych was allowed only 80 minutes to familiarize himself with his case. Therefore, I believe that Justice Suprun is handling this process in a biased manner, in favor of the defendant. The French Revolution started by seizing the Bastille, the one in Ukraine is likely to begin by leveling off the Pechersk District Court. This court of justice is where the largest amount of injustice, humiliation, and disrespect has accumulated.”
After making this statement Podolsky left the courtroom.
Yeliashkevych: “Some of the prosecution could be smiling, but the old truth remains:Не laughs best that laughs last. I know how the complainant feels. Enduring all this for so long, not only in the courtroom, but over all those eleven and a half years is a heavy emotional burden. I’m offering the justice in charge an opportunity to get back on lawful course. I’m not sure this opportunity will be used because people in this country have long grown accustomed to acting as ordered from ‘upstairs.’ I have more information in my possession than many of those involved in this trial, so I would like to assure the media people that this isn’t the end, that this is just another beginning of the story. The defendant’s counsels have done him a big disservice. I mean that for the first time during the trial – although off the record, with all cameras and audio recording banned – we can talk about just how the criminal cases involving the defendant, ex-President Leonid Kuchma of Ukraine, could be rigged for so long. The judicial system, law enforcement agencies, the entire political system did their utmost to keep this information away from the public eye, considering that a great many people were involved besides Kuchma. This trial must continue, if only to expose the stupidity of those involved. Those who insist that Melnychenko’s tapes are the only evidence in the Kuchma case are wrong. Over the years there have emerged dozens, if not hundreds, of eyewitness testimonies to the unlawful methods that have been applied to carry out Kuchma’s criminal instructions.”
The justice handling the case wasn’t challenged by Kuchma’s counsels Viktor Petrunenko and Serhii Ulianov, ditto Public Prosecutor Dmytro Basov. Something well to be expected, considering that the other side had done just that, on more than one occasion.
Andrii Fedur: “I would have never dreamed of a court hearing during which I would have to challenge the presiding justice after only seve-ral minutes of proceedings. I can’t be present at this [operetta] trial and watch it like another dunce. Your
Honor, you have made mistakes, specifically when turning down some or other petition. The laws currently in effect do not provide for this kind of treatment. I’m not aware of the reasons behind your attitude, but I am aware of your having consciously acted counter to the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, and so I have to challenge you. As a top-notch justice, you must have been aware that Yeliashkevych would be physically incapable of familiarizing himself with his case [within 80 min.], yet that was your decision. Also, allow me to draw your attention to the fact that, for the first time in my 20-year-old career, I found myself present at a court hearing which I simply couldn’t understand; I didn’t know what to do. With your permission, I will describe this as ‘20 mi-nutes of silence in a courtroom.’ Instead of allowing Yeliashkevych [enough] time to familiarize himself with his case, you allowed him
20 minutes and supplied him with three thick folders containing his case files. What was going on in the courtroom meanwhile? Was the court in session? Did anyone forget to adjourn it for those 20 minutes? What kind of trial was it anyway? The defendant was a priori not to study the files himself because he was neither judge nor investigating officer. Your Honor, this has placed me in a rather difficult situation. The whole trial is being held in a destructive manner. For reasons best known to yourself, you are acting contrary to the law.”
All except Kuchma’s defense lawyers and the Prosecutor General’s officer supported this plea, whereupon the justice adjourned to her quarters and then returned to turn it down for want of legal grounds.
On Monday the situation remained unchanged, with the injured party being given less time to make their statements, yet certain things became clear. Yeliashkevych recited Item (b), Clause 6, Subsection “Access to justice and faire treatment” of the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (adopted by UN Gene-ral Assembly Resolution 40/34, November 29, 1985) and requested that this document be entered as evidence.
Item (b) reads: “Allowing the views and concerns of victims to be presented and considered at appropriate stages of the proceedings where their personal interests are affected, without prejudice to the accused and consistent with the relevant national criminal justice system…”
He also asked the court to add to the case files Ruling No. 13 “On Judicial Practices of Legislation Providing for the Rights of Victims of Crimes” passed by a plenary meeting of the Supreme Court of Ukraine (July 2, 2004).
Yeliashkevych: “What’s happening in this courtroom has gone beyond the bounds of law, morals, and common sense. There are public prosecutor’s people present silently watching the complainant’s human rights being flagrantly violated. I can’t understand this. How can I defend this man knowing practically nothing about his case? You don’t allow me to study it.” After that the justice gave the defense counsel
10 minutes to read one of the thick folders that contained the court ruling in the Podolsky case.
Defense Counsel Nedilko [addressing the presiding justice]: “I must state that you are professionally incompetent. When turning down the complainant, Myroslava Gongadze’s counsel, Valentyna Telychko’s motion, you referred to Section 8, Article 236 of the Crimi-nal Procedure Code, as per Article 314 thereof. Your Honor, you made a mistake; this article governs the judge when handling a criminal case on the fact. In the course of a pre-trial investigation you abide by Section 8, Article 236.”
After the first round of the trial, with Melnychenko’s tapes accepted as incriminating evidence and Deputy Prosecutor General Renat Kuzmin’s statement about heaps of dead bodies round the Kuchma case looking hopeful, what followed was a U-turn. The situation remains unchanged. Podolsky told Justice Suprun during a court hearing: “Nils were all I could see in your eyes the moment I stepped into the courtroom.” She was annoyed, of course, but one is reminded of Oleksii Stepura’s article, an expose of the corrupt scheme in the Kuchma case. People have long known all there is to know, yet Leonid Kuchma doesn’t rule out the possibility of running for parliament, handing out university scholarships, paying for plenary indulgence cheap. Is this the kind of rejuvenating change we need?
