“The time of revelations has come”

There are various attitudes to Renat Kuzmin in Ukraine. For some, he is perhaps a lifetime enemy because he opened criminal cases against some former top officials; for others, he is a hero because he dared… No matter what epithets may be pronounced about the First Deputy Prosecutor General, Renat Kuzmin is today personally in charge of the 1990s-2000s high-profile cases. He has given a number of interviews lately. For example, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe said the other day that the Ukrainian side had failed to supply the requested information on the journalist Heorhii Gongadze murder case. This is actually the factor that caused our interview.

“MELNYCHENKO TAPES WILL BE PRESENTED TO COURT AS EVIDENCE”

Mr. Kuzmin, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has recently stated that the Ukrainian side had not provided them with the requested information on the murder of journalist Heorhii Gongadze. The resolution reads, “some information requested at the last examination of this case is still awaited (the trial in first instance against the former head of Ukrainian Interior Ministry’s outdoor surveillance department Oleksii Pukach).” Why has it been delayed?

“We have submitted all necessary information to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. Did our government present all the information to the Council of Europe? I don’t know.”

In his time Viktor Yushchenko promised to bring the Gongadze case to a close, but as we know it was limited solely to punishing the executors. During Viktor Yanukovych’s presidency the Prosecutor General’s Office decided to take over the case and find the masterminds of the crime. You personally initiated criminal proceedings against ex-president Leonid Kuchma, but they never reached the court. The Constitutional Court ruled that Melnychenko tapes cannot be used as evidence in court. The investigation of this sensational crime has been regularly backpedaled. In your opinion, what is the reason?

“Presently the investigation into the murder of journalist Heorhii Gongadze is underway. The investigation group is trying to establish the personalities of the masterminds of the crime and collect the evidence proving their guilt. In its turn, the Gongadze case has been divided into several cases, so it is examined in several stages. The first stage is connected with conviction of actual executors of the crime (former police officers), the second stage – with conviction of former general Oleksii Pukach, and the third stage is confirmation of identities of the masterminds. We have passed the first stage, the second one is coming to an end (the court will soon make its final ruling concerning the Pukach case). And then we will come to the third stage.

“As for the ruling of the Constitutional Court and the case on establishing the masterminds, I won’t comment on the Constitutional Court’s decision. I will only underline that the Melnychenko tapes do exist and they have been included as evidence in the official record of the Kuchma criminal case – they will be presented to court as evidence. What ruling will the court make with account to this evidence is up to the court to decide. I want to point out that the investigation took the tapes from former major Mykola Melnychenko in a legal way, in compliance with the procedure stipulated by the law.

“Besides, there are at least two known resolutions of the European Court on Human Rights concerning the analogical tapes in Europe, like the case of Noor Khan against the UK government in 2000 and Schenk’s case against Switzerland in 1988. The ECtHR stated in no uncertain terms that even if the tapes were recorded illegally, they may be used in court as evidence altogether with other kinds of evidence, which has been done. Therefore we find it necessary to present the Melnychenko tapes as evidence in Ukrainian court thus offering an opportunity to the court to make a procedural decision.”

How would you comment on the fact that namely Valerii Khoroshkovsky, when he was the head of Security Service of Ukraine, signed the decision to deliver to the Constitutional Court a request to provide the official interpretation of Article 62 of the Constitution which stipulates that illegally obtained evidence cannot be used as a reason for accusation?

“There’s nothing to comment on. The head of the SBU applied to the Constitutional Court, and as a result the Constitutional Court made a decision. This decision is ultimate and is no subject to appeal.”

The trial of Oleksii Pukach was held behind closed doors. The court refused to interrogate Leonid Kuchma and Volodymyr Lytvyn in spite of the plaintiffs’ demand. What stand does the Prosecutor General’s Office regarding this issue?

“It was a court decision to hold the trials behind closed doors. The court also decided that there was enough evidence in this case without the interrogation of the persons you have mentioned.”

Does the stand of the Prosecutor General’s Office meet the position of the court?

“The position of the Prosecutor General’s Office is not crucial for the court. The judge passes a verdict based on available evidence and his inner conviction. The judge alone bears responsibility for the decision.”

It is known that the sides have filed an appeal against the ruling of court of first instance. When will the appellate litigation take place?

“This is for the court to decide. We are waiting.”

“COLOSSAL SUMS OF MONEY ARE SPENT TO DEFAME THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE…”

As a result of some combination in Kuchma case (not without the participation of the Prosecutor General’s Office) Kuchma and his lawyers got access to the case file of the investigation and surely made copies of the materials, whereas the case did not go to trial because the proceedings were blocked. In such a way Kuchma and his team got an opportunity to influence the witness database, and they are doing so. Will you comment on this? Is the case file of the investigation still kept secret?

“The court cancelled the decision on launching the criminal case against Leonid Kuchma, the case did not go further than court examination. At that time the old Criminal Procedure Code was in force which allowed for filing an appeal against the ruling that launched the procedure of collecting evidence. The new Criminal Procedure Code which came into force in November 2012 rules out this possibility. In order to hold an investigation today it is enough to register the information about the crime in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations, like it was done by the Prosecutor General’s Office. The information about the crime committed against Gongadze, specifically the information about the organizers of this crime has been entered into the register, which was followed by launching criminal proceedings. It is impossible to appeal against this action of the investigator, therefore the case will be brought to a logical end.

“What actions can be taken against the investigation? Sure, influential and wealthy people are trying to fight the accusation in the ways other than court proceedings, like blackmailing, discrediting, threats, etc. Colossal sums of money are spent to defame the Prosecutor’s Office, all this being done to prevent the investigators from speaking the truth. It was not without a reason that my multi-entry American visa was cancelled and there was an attempt to arrest me in the US on a falsified accusation. Someone has ordered, organized, and paid for this.

“Who? We don’t need to go far. We have two sensational cases, the murder of Heorhii Gongadze and Yulia Tymoshenko case. We need to understand who will benefit from this. By the way, what ways does the Tymoshenko party use to defend her? Discrediting the power is one of their defense elements. What do I mean? Spreading of untruthful information as well as information discrediting the state officials. This is disinformation on governmental level, blackmailing, and bribes. I mean ‘dirty’ methods are being used, like intimidation, threats, and persecution. And all this is taking place before our very eyes.”

I recall last year’s Forum “Yalta European Strategy,” which you attended. It is no secret that this event is held by Viktor Pinchuk, Leonid Kuchma’s son-in-law. The public remembered well the words of the senior fellow of the Peterson Institute for International Economics Anders Aslund who in fact “whipped you in public” by saying: “He looked like a bandit, behaved like a bandit, and spoke like a bandit.” What was your motivation for taking part in the abovementioned Forum?

“True, the event was organized by Kuchma’s son-in-law Viktor Pinchuk. Therefore all these ‘aslunds’ and other people who broke out into slandering against me were invited to the forum, like Leonid Danylovych, by Kuchma’s son-in-law. Besides, they all continue to work in the institutions connected with Pinchuk. Therefore my suggestion is that the story connected with discrediting me was organized by the same people. Why did I go there? Because I got an instruction from the Prosecutor General to take part in the forum and inform the public about the current criminal investigations. I fulfilled the order of the Prosecutor General.”

After the court ruled that launching a case against Leonid Kuchma by the Prosecutor General’s Office was illegal, you in fact reproached the journalists saying: “You assisted in this with the help of your critical articles. What did journalists start to write about? That it was a self-PR by Kuzmin and he did it purposefully not to be removed from the office, he acts in favor of the politicians who want to take the TV channels from Kuchma and Pinchuk.” How will you explain this today? Has the situation changed?

“Frankly speaking, I don’t see any journalistic activity regarding this issue. It must be uninteresting for them, or everyone is satisfied with everything. There are few journalists and publications that cover this topic properly. Maybe they got tired?”

“IF PODOLSKY’S APPEAL IS CONFIRMED, MELNYK WILL BE RESIGNED FROM THE POST OF JUDGE”

The victim of the Gongadze-Podolsky case Oleksii Podolsky appealed to the High Council of Justice to hold the judge Andrii Melnyk accountable for his actions. According to Podolsky, the judge falsified the Yeliashkevych case (People’s deputy of the second and third convocation) in 2002: there was no actual trial, the victim did not know about it, and the suspect later, in 2006, admitted that he hadn’t committed this crime and was forced to admit his guilt under pressure. You are a member of the High Council of Justice, what might happen to the judge Melnyk?

“There was, in fact, such an appeal made to the High Council of Justice. Chairman of the Council appointed me to check the facts mentioned in this statement. The investigation on this issue is underway, but it would be premature to speak about any results before it is officially over. At the moment we can say that V. Vorobei, mentioned by Podolsky in his statement, was convicted and had, indeed, admitted his guilt (during the investigation and during the investigation proceedings). Later Vorobei made a statement, where he said that he gave false testimony against himself and that he never committed such crime. When the inspection was initiated, he repudiated his prior statement and said that he, in fact, did commit the incriminated crime. Thus, the information presented by Podolsky is subject to detailed inspection. Today I evoked the Yeliashkevych case and the explanation of the judge Melnyk from the court. If the facts stated in Podolsky’s appeal are confirmed, Melnyk will be resigned from the post of judge for violation of the oath. If the appeal finds no factual confirmation, the appellant will get a motivated response to his statement.”

It is also known that in January 2006 Oleksandr Yeliashkevych appealed the decision of the trial court. He received the response from the same judge Melnyk, who informed him that the case was pending before the prosecutor’s office. It’s been over seven years now, but no further results have been reported and this is the situation with a high-profile case, the progress of which is monitored by reputable international organizations. How could this happen?

“These facts are stated in Podolsky’s appeal, but only the results of the inspection will either confirm or refute this information.”

In October of 2012 a candidate for the parliamentary elections in the majority Obolon district in Kyiv Oleksandr Yeliashkevych had to make a statement through the newspaper Den that he removed his candidacy from the official list. The reason for this was described as “because of the danger for my life that, as before, comes from Leonid Kuchma.” In his address to the Central Election Commission (CEC) Yeliashkevych insisted: “Forward the copy of my appeal to the CEC to the Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine Renat Kuzmin, who had publicly stated the involvement of Leonid Kuchma to the murders.” Did you receive such appeal? What was your reaction?

“I never received such appeal and I don’t know anything about it.”

“IF CONGRESSMAN COHEN WORKS ON THESE ISSUES WE ARE OPEN FOR COOPERATION”

During the recent hearings of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission) in the US Congress in Washington, Congressman Steve Cohen showed deep knowledge about the justice for resonant criminal cases of the time of Leonid Kuchma’s presidency when asking Ukrainian Foreign Minister Leonid Kozhara questions. Have you ever thought about the need to establish a working contact with Steve Cohen?

“If Congressman Cohen works on these issues we are open for cooperation. And if Cohen will have questions, to which the prosecutor’s office can provide answers, we can establish a dialogue.”

Oleksii Podolsky has repeatedly said that he is preparing his own “Podolsky List,” which will include the masterminds of the mentioned crimes, as well as people involved in falsification of the high-profile cases. What is your opinion about this idea of Podolsky?

“Suppose he will make such list and what’s next?”

As you know, the course of investigation of these cases that we discuss now is controlled by, inter alia, the European institutions. Do you think that there is a chance that such list will have no effect? In this regard, we could recall, for example, the “Magnitsky List.”

“I would like to see this ‘Podolsky List’ with information about the violations that were made by Ukrainian state officials. If Podolsky can help us to prove guilty of the criminals, let him come, and we will surely use his services.”

“IN SHCHERBAN CASE HURVITZ WILL HAVE A STATUS OF A WITNESS, HIS TESTIMONY IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE INVESTIGATION”

Previously you have stated that the version of the involvement of Leonid Kuchma to the murder of Yevhen Shcherban was checked by the investigators. As we all know, Shcherban’s business partner Yurii Dedukh publicly stated that he believes Kuchma and Pavlo Lazarenko to be the masterminds of the crime (according to him, he told the same things to the investigators at the Prosecutor General’s Office). How likely is the fact that there will be another instigator of a crime in the Shcherban case?

“It is still too soon to talk about it. There is such version and we are still testing it.”

According to the latest statements of the MP Eduard Hurvits, he talked with Yevhen Shcherban before he was murdered. Shcherban had told him that the murder was ordered by Pavlo Lazarenko. What status will Hurvits have in connection with this statement in the Shcherban case?

“The status of a witness. Hurvits’s testimony is very important to the investigation. We have many witnesses, who testify about who and how committed this murder, including its instigators. And we intend to accuse Tymoshenko and Lazarenko of masterminding and financing of Shcherban’s murder.”

Former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko has repeatedly stated that “the UESU case” has long been closed by all courts and the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine. Now it’s been reopened. Many people say that this is the reason why the former Prosecutor General Sviatoslav Piskun allegedly moved abroad.

“The fact, that Piskun illegally terminated the criminal case against Yulia Tymoshenko, is true. Later, the Prosecutor General Viktor Pshonka repealed these decrees and the investigation of criminal cases was resumed. At this point, some of them have been sent to court and some are still under investigation. As for Piskun, I have no information regarding his present place of residence.

“If to speak about the cases against the former prime minister in more details, we can trace a certain tactic of actions that wasn’t designed yesterday, and even not a year ago. Tymoshenko has been using this scheme since 1995. It consists of four components. First is non-recognition of guilt and denial of her involvement in the crime. Second is the accusing the government of falsifying the cases, making political implications, and so on. Third is demonstration of severe and prolonged illness. Fourth is the involvement of international organizations, including political allies, for her defense (the latter is the modern know-how in their tactics).

“And now what concerns the fact that the courts have closed the cases against Tymoshenko. Ukraine’s Supreme Court never made a decision on the termination of these cases. This is the simple lie. In fact, the criminal cases against Tymoshenko were terminated by Piskun. But, since the Court was considering a similar case of termination of all cases through the court, the Supreme Court of Ukraine made a decision: since Piskun had already terminated those cases the court has nothing to consider, thus, there was no dispute. This verdict is presented by Tymoshenko’s side as a decision on the substance of the case. But this is not the way things are, as you can see.”

“WE WANT THE COURT TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH IN THE KUCHMA CASE AND THE TYMOSHENKO CASE, AND EVERYTHING WILL BE CLEAR”

Your activity about some well-known cases of the past is causing an adverse reaction in many. Do you feel any pressure?

“The goal of a prosecutor is to collect evidence of guilt and present it to court. The goal of a defense lawyer is to collect evidence of innocence and also present it to court. The goal of the court is to study and analyze evidence presented by the prosecutor and the defense attorney and decide which of them is more convincing in their arguments. If the prosecution presents more proof, there will be a sentence; if the defense presents more proof, there will be an acquittal. This is the essence of a criminal trial.

“The prosecution collects evidence and tries to get the court to take due account of it. We think we have sufficient evidence to accuse Tymoshenko of murder and, therefore, we are prepared to go to court and insist that Tymoshenko ordered this crime. We have no other objectives. For Tymoshenko is not an enemy to the prosecution or me personally – I have no personal conflicts with her. Nor do I have personal conflicts with Batkivshchyna or the Verkhovna Rada as a whole. I have a criminal case in which sufficient evidence has been collected to bring charges against her in court. And that’s all.

“What is going on now? The Prosecutor General’s Office, prosecutors, including myself, and members of the crime investigation team are under relentless pressure. The only aim of this is to make us be afraid. To be afraid to investigate. To be afraid to go to court. To be afraid to tell the truth. To be afraid to work on this case. Their aim is that the case never goes to trial. All kinds of methods are being used to achieve this goal. Nothing will ever stop these people: they will not even stop short of murders.

“The same story is with other high-profile cases, where very high-placed and rich people are being accused of crimes. If I personally signed the decision to institute criminal proceedings against Leonid Kuchma, this means I had enough argumentation and inner conviction to begin investigating this case. As we are investigating this case, we are gathering evidence about ex-president Kuchma’s complicity in this crime. Of course, this triggers the same reaction against me and my investigation team on the part of Kuchma, his relatives and lawyers. The people and structures close to them are making the same aggressive and relentless statements as Tymoshenko, her relatives and lawyers are.”

 The Day has already written that contemporary history is, alas, written… at the Prosecutor General’s Office. Investigating the Gongadze, Podolsky, Yeliashkevych, and Shcherban cases, top prosecutors position themselves as sort of chronographers. These cases are mostly connected with events in the 1990s and the early 2000s. When do you think we will learn lessons from the high-profile cases of the past?

“It is not surprising at all that people are trying to defend themselves, but they are resorting to objectionable methods. When will people come to know the truth and make conclusions? We are saying the truth. And once the court hands down a ruling, this truth will be made public. Today, this truth is so far in the shape of a version – only the court must say the final word. We want the court to establish the truth in the Kuchma case and the Tymoshenko case, and everything will be clear. And history will put the record straight. As ancient jurists used to say, ‘Time reveals everything.’ The time of revelations has come.”

Are the recent staff replacements in the Prosecutor General’s Office (Andrii Kurys, chief of the General Directorate for Investigating Very Important Cases, who handled the Shcherban case, was dismissed from this office and appointed Mykolaiv oblast prosecutor) connected with the pressure you mentioned?

“It is exclusively the Prosecutor General who personally makes decisions about staff rotations. On the Prosecutor General’s orders, the General Personnel Directorate is subordinated to him personally. So it would be inappropriate to comment on the actions of my immediate superior.”

“LUTSENKO SHOWED HIMSELF IN ALL HIS GLORY”

Last week Ukraine’s ex-minister of internal affairs Yurii Lutsenko announced that he would not be pressing for the imprisonment of those guilty of his arrest and was ready for reconciliation at the cost of dismissal of First Deputy Prosecutor General Renat Kuzmin. What will you say to this?

“It is in general difficult to comment on what Lutsenko says. This should be done by experts in other sciences, not jurists. Lutsenko is a thief whom the court found guilty of committing crimes. He took a state-owned apartment, handed it over to his chauffer, but got registered in it by himself. Besides, in contravention of the existing laws, he allocated a 6,000-hryvnia pension to his chauffer at the state’s expense. How did they finalize the documents? They took into account his work as collective farm driver and an alleged term of service in the intelligence service (where one year equals three). It is a petty theft against the backdrop of a ministerial office. It is even shameful to imagine that a minister might have done so. So it is strange to watch Lutsenko trying to position himself as a great statesman who claims to be in opposition. He amply revealed himself as a policeman, a criminal, and a politician. Do you remember him spitting at prosecutors in a court session? A very symptomatic behavior indeed. Let us switch to a different subject.”

A new Criminal Procedure Code came into force in Ukraine last November. Do you think the new code is a more effective instrument of crime investigation?

“Undoubtedly, this code has complicated the work of investigators, but, at the same time, it has eased the life of those under investigation and furnished defense attorneys with incredible powers. The new code is so democratic and so Westernized that many investigators just wonder who has more powers – they or defense lawyers and those under investigation. They think the defense has much more powers than they do. Defense attorneys and those under investigation have received colossal rights. Naturally, it is a progressive code, a step forward in criminal justice.”