SAVING officer Savchenko

The Donetsk City Court, in Russia’s Rostov region, started delivering its verdict in the case of Ukrainian MP Nadia Savchenko. It will take the court two days. The hearing is attended by about two dozen spectators and media workers, including foreign ones. Meanwhile, Russia has prevented from entering its territory Iryna Herashchenko, who intended to attend the hearing along with other legislators. Herashchenko, who serves as the Presidential Commissioner of Ukraine for Resolution of the Donbas Conflict, considers Russia’s decision to ban her from entering that country to be a case of obstructing her work within the framework of the Minsk Humanitarian Subgroup. In particular, she explained: “I am banned from Russia. I am on the FSB’s list, which is rather the Kremlin’s list. They explained I was not allowed to enter Russia because I was a threat to its territorial integrity and defense capabilities and health of its citizens.”

Let us recall that the Ukrainian pilot is held by the aggressor country on a series of trumped-up charges. In particular, she stands accused of complicity in the murder of two Russian propagandists who provided information support for another wave of the occupation of Ukrainian soil in the summer of 2014. Ignoring all norms of justice, the prosecutors demand Savchenko to be imprisoned for 23 years.

Then, in particular, Igor Kornelyuk, soon-to-be a victim of this war, made the report that a “Ukrainian punitive expedition” was massacring citizens of the town of Shchastia, which had been liberated a few days before. Kornelyuk joined his colleague Anton Voloshin for a taxi ride to the village of Metalist near Luhansk, where they visited Russian fighters’ positions and were killed during a shelling. Neither Russian investigators nor the Russian court considered the fact that Savchenko was captured before the shelling in question and never crossed the Ukrainian-Russian border of her own free will. The Savchenko trial has long been known as a kangaroo court proceeding, which is totally politicized. It is also worth mentioning that Nadia did her civic and professional duty in eastern Ukraine while serving in the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Under international law (and despite the fact that Ukraine still terms this war an “anti-terrorist operation”), Savchenko is a prisoner of war, with rights covered by the Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law.

The international community has been calling on the Russian leadership to free Savchenko. People are talking about compiling the so-called “Savchenko list” of Russian officials, including Vladimir Putin. Also, many events are now taking place around the world in support of the Ukrainian pilot who has been in Russian captivity since June 2014. However, experts believe that should Savchenko’s side refuse to appeal the verdict in the hope of a political solution that would free her (for example, through a prisoners’ exchange), it will foreclose any appeal to international legal bodies. Thus, Savchenko’s fate ultimately remains in the hands of one person, that is, Vladimir Putin, who is using her and other prisoners as international hostages, allowing him to exert pressure, including on the issue of lifting international sanctions imposed on Russia.

Photo by Ruslan KANIUKA, The Day

“AMID POLITICAL BARGAINING, WE SHOULD NOT NEGLECT LEGAL AVENUES OF SAVCHENKO’S DEFENSE”

Yevhen ZAKHAROV, director of the Kharkiv Human Rights Group:

“In order to be able to continue with Savchenko’s legal defense, we must

exhaust all Russian legal remedies first. Savchenko said she would not appeal the verdict. It means that after the expiry of the time to appeal, the verdict will come into force. However, it will deprive her of the right to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), because no application will then be accepted by it under any circumstances. That is, she will squander an opportunity to protect her rights at the international level. I think it is a wrong course of action. It would be better to go through the whole procedure and prepare a complaint to the ECtHR, because the so-called evidence of her guilt is not acceptable. This can be proved. Then, quashing the Russian court’s decision would be the only way to enforce the judgment of the ECtHR (assuming it will be in her favor). This is a purely legal path, without need for any exchange. This opportunity must be preserved, we need to have legal rather than just political instruments available to defend Savchenko and prove the absurdity of accusations against her. We must act this way in each case concerning our political prisoners. Some issues can already be presented to the ECtHR, including the violation of the right to freedom. After all, Savchenko was effectively abducted and illegally transported to Russia. These are violations of Articles 5 and 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This application should have been brought to the court immediately.

“Speaking about the possibility of finding a political solution to the Savchenko liberation issue, it is very much possible, but we must remember that Russia will use Savchenko’s fate as a bargaining chip for a long time yet. We do have examples of such exchanges in the past (for instance, Soviet dissidents were exchanged for Soviet spies), but this road is no bed of roses. Nonetheless, Savchenko’s status and the world’s attitude to this case will contribute to her eventual release. However, I would like to reiterate that legal avenues should not be ruled out.”