Session adjourned

Events in the Kuchma criminal case have gained momentum, so much so the esteemed justices (let alone the parties concerned) are hard put to familiarize themselves with all procedural documents. The Court of Appeal of Kyiv adjourned the hearing of complaints forwarded by the General Prosecutor’s Office, Myroslava Gongadze’s lawyer Valentyna Telychenko, claimant Oleksii Podolsky, and Mykola Melnychenko’s defense represented by Mykola Nedilko and Pavlo Sychov, against the ruling of the Pechersk District Court that recognized as illegitimate the Prosecutor General’s Office’s decision to start criminal proceedings against ex-President Leonid Kuchma of Ukraine. Justice Halyna Poltavtseva, head of the panel of judges of the Court of Appeal, declared the session adjourned at the start of the hearing, explaining that the court had received the case files, numbering tomes, only five days ago and hadn’t had time enough to study them.

Oleksii Podolsky, the claimant, told The Day that the Court of Appeal’s ruling was timed to allow Kuchma’s son-in-law Viktor Pinchuk to stage his luncheon in Davos, meant among other reasons to get the Kuchma family out of the criminal shadow. As it was, the parties to the case concurred, simply because none had the time to study the additional files submitted by the ex-president’s defense. At 09:20 a.m., the session was adjourned until January 20.

The Court of Appeal emulated the Pechersk tradition, forbidding journalists to use video or photo cameras; also, Justice Poltavtseva spoke in a low voice so few could hear her in the audience (which was considerably larger than during the hearing of Kuchma’s defense appeals at the Pechersk District Court; it was packed, reminding one of March 2011 when the criminal proceedings against Kuchma had just started). In fact, every journalist should traditionally keep an eye open for such big cases.

COMMENTARIES

Oleksii PODOLSKY, public figure, journalist:

“Justice [Poltavtseva] adjourned the hearing allegedly because she hadn’t had enough time to familiarize herself with it. Actually, the reason is the luncheon annually staged by Kuchma’s son-in-law Pinchuk in Davos, toward the end of January. In other words, this adjournment is meant to keep the time frame; no VIP would have lunch with Pinchuk in Davos, should a criminal shadow be cast over the Kuchma family. I’m sure the turnout in Davos will depend on whether or not the Kuchma family is incriminated. If it is, some respectable people may well decide to have lunch somewhere else. And so all charges must be dismissed before that date. Had the honorable justice made her ruling today, we would’ve had time enough to file an appeal against it and make it public. This would mean that the Kuchma case is still legally effective. In other words, the closer the ruling of the Court of Appeal to the date of Pinchuk’s luncheon in Davos, the smaller the chance of our challenging this ruling. And this considering that Justice Poltavtseva actually has no reason for keeping any time frame; she is versed in the case; she is entitled to handle all pertinent appeals. I will disqualify her; she was the one to reject our appeal against the Prosecutor’s qualification of Pukach’s acts of crime. At the time, the Prosecutor General’s Office came up with the idea that the crimes perpetrated against me and Gongadze weren’t contract murders but killings done on criminal orders. Justice Poltavtseva turned down our appeal then and she is likely to act the same way this time.”

Viktor PETRUNENKO, Leonid Kuchma’s defense counsel:

“We filed our appeals against those of the Prosecutor, the claimants’ and Mr. Melnychenko’s defense. We further appealed against the additions to the Prosecutor’s appeal. From the outset there was no legal cause for criminal prosecution in regard to Leonid Kuchma. The ruling passed by the Pechersk [District] Court is absolutely legitimate, so we expect the Court of Appeal to uphold it. Melnychenko’s tapes are outlawed because he made them in an unlawful manner; they contain falsified information.”

Mykola NEDILKO, Mykola Melnychenko’s defense counsel:

“I doubt that the Court of Appeal will grant the claimants’ appeals and override the Pechersk Court’s ruling. Look at the panel of judges. The same as that which convicted Yulia Tymoshenko. They’re now busy trying to throw Mykola Melnychenko behind bars: (1) Justice Kirieiev who re-opened the Melnychenko case, who sent Tymoshenko to jail; (2) Justice Suprun who dismissed the Kuchma case, who turned down Tymoshenko’s complaint about her being criminally prosecuted; (3) Justice Trubnikov who ordered Melnychenko arrested, who warranted Yulia Tymoshenko’s arrest.

“Justice Poltavtseva. At one time she turned down our appeal against Kirieiev’s ruling that substituted ‘contract murder’ by ‘killing as ordered.’ And so, when we were asked by her whether we qualified her, we said we didn’t. Justice Poltavtseva was also directly involved in the processing of our appeal against Justice Kiriiev’s ruling that re-opened the Melnychenko case (dismissed by the Prosecutor General’s Office).”