Pukach case adjourned for a month to declassify files

While the destiny of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and that of thousands of people were being decided during the talks in Minsk, the Court of Appeal in Kyiv proceeded to handle the Pukach Case on February 12. How were both events related? Oleksandr Yeliashkevych explained when he spoke in court on behalf of the victim, Oleksii Podolsky: “Oleksii Podolsky has authorized me to inform that his absence is a sign of protest against what is happening in this courtroom. As a result of the unlawful actions on the part of the panel of judges and prosecution, ex-President Kuchma is representing Ukraine during the talks in Minsk. Several days ago Russian television broadcast a special report showing Kuchma embrace Russian Ambassador Zurabov. The inactivity and illegal activities of the Ukrainian law machinery has resulted in a situation in which a person who should be in the dock with the defendant, Pukach, in the same prison cell, is not only turning traitor to the interests of Ukraine, leading the Russian man in the street to understand that the Donbas conflict is actually a civil war. He is also insulting the memory of our fallen soldiers and civilians… Neither the court, nor the prosecutor’s office has requested the President of Ukraine as Commander-in-Chief that the negotiator [Kuchma] be replaced as a member of the Trilateral Contact Group. Oleksii Podolsky asked me to submit this statement as a sign of protest, as well as to make it known that he will not mind some or other aspects of the case being heard in his absence, in order not to drag out this process which is important for Ukraine. However, I believe that after this statement and action on the part of Podolsky, the judges who understand their personal responsibility not only for the consideration of the case, but also for the future of Ukraine, will request that the President of Ukraine as Commander-in-Chief suspend Mr. Kuchma’s ‘peacekeeping mission’ for the duration of the court hearings and replace him with a bona fide patriotic citizen who will defend the interests of Ukraine during these complicated talks.”

To sum up, (a) Podolsky absented himself, even if temporarily, from the court hearings; (b) Kuchma’s participation in the Minsk talks was greatly damaging Ukraine’s reputation; (c) all this is proof that something is rotten in the state of Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the pre-trial proceedings went as follows. Law-enforcement people – experts on state secrets – were summoned and interrogated by the prosecution and defense. This was done in keeping with Pukach’s defense counsel Hryhorii Demydenko’s request that the court determine whether the criminal case contains state secrets. After that the justices adjourned to their quarters.

Finally, the court ruled that the leadership of the SBU, Ministry of the Interior, and the Prosecutor General’s Office be tasked with determining whether it is possible to declassify certain files in the Pukach case (the man is serving life for the murder of journalist Heorhii Gongadze and abduction and battery of the public activist Oleksii Podolsky). It was further decided to provide the experts on state secrets with an office on the premises of the Court of Appeal. In view of these rulings, the court adjourned until 11 a.m. March 17.

In the course of hearings, the experts from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Prosecutor General’s Office, and SBU stated they saw no particular obstacles for checking the Pukach case files for state secrets. Olha Butkevych, head of the MIA Classified Information Department, noted that each agency should examine the files bearing its classified stamp, to avoid leaks. A month should suffice, she added.

Andrii Tkachuk of the Prosecutor General’s Office explained that declassifying data or lowering the clearance level is possible after the classification deadline; also, when such classified data has lost its importance, after introducing changes in legislation, and so on.

Pavlo Romanko, head of K Department, SBU, said that the secret police would “do its best to help declassify the case files, the more so that there aren’t many such files as far as the SBU is concerned.”

Says Podolsky’s representative Vitalii Kuprii: “We are satisfied with the court ruling, considering that the court has acted under the law and determined who is to do the declassifying. It is important that certain facts have been clarified during today’s hearing; these facts indicate that trial Justice Andrii Melnyk unlawfully classified the judicial records. He could classify the files only after receiving official findings from the Commission of Experts on State Secrets. He didn’t act that way. In other words, there are fault elements of abuse of office. Melnyk acted counter to the Constitution and violated the injured persons’ rights. We will bear this in mind when revising our appeal implicating Justice Melnyk and officials of the Prosecutor [General’s] Office. It has also transpired that the Prosecutor General’s Office unlawfully classified the indictment whereas this document must be presented to the defendant even if he is not cleared to familiarize himself with state secrets. This was done to prevent the prosecution of the highest ranking dignitaries involved in/with this crime. This also points to abuse of office on the part of the PGO and warrants internal investigation to bring the guilty persons to justice.”