Hrach won’t take it lying down
Leonid Hrach, whom a court denied registration as candidate for the Crimean legislature, last Tuesday held a briefing for journalists. After circulating the text of his court appeal, he said, “Every citizen has his rights, and I am going to defend mine even if I have to go to an international court.” In his statement to the media he stressed, “The verdict of the local Tsentralny District Court in Simferopol will not stand up to a legal challenge, being part of a political contract and the result of pressure on the court coming from certain Kyiv high officials and Crimean clans which have such loud names as Bashmaki (boots) and Seilem. I have submitted my protest to the court and await its response. The best reaction from those who put pressure on the court would be to wake up to the situation and stop this campaign against me. It would also be the best proof that the court is still able to withstand the pressure and influence of those who manipulate it . But if the court fails to do this (knowing the contractors, I have no doubt about it), I’ll be forced to appeal to a higher court, to the Supreme Court of Ukraine.”
He expressed his concern that “the Ukrainian law is so inadequate that a citizen cannot in fact defend his rights in court,” adding that such legal games have become commonplace in politics, affecting the political situation in the Crimea.
Mr. Hrach insisted that the registration documents he submitted to the local election commission were immaculate. In his opinion, the law on electing deputies to the Crimean parliament does not stipulate for officials running for parliament to leave office during their election campaign; nor does it set any form for a candidate’s property declaration, obliging him to specify his house’s technical floor area, Mr. Hrach’s court appeal continued. The speaker of the peninsular parliament also maintained that the same law does not set forth the form of a candidate’s income declaration, and, consequently, it can be submitted in any form. Leonid Hrach also declared that the sale of his apartment and the registration of his new home, was given him as a present by his wife, Valentyna Hrach, and if this raises any questions they should not be addressed to him.
A rally in support of Leonid Hrach called for noon on February 26 in Simferopol near the monument to Lenin gathered as many supporters of the offended speaker, along with journalists and police. A group of irate pensioners tried to control the situation in the square, harassing journalists, making obscene gestures, and using words not accepted in polite company. Several senior citizens with sticks attacked a group of journalists, shouting for them to get out and trying to push them from the square into the street. Only the interference of the police prevented this kangaroo court scenario. One of the demonstrators wanted to get at the Inter television channel camera with his stick, but the cameraman, Denys Pohoriely, shielded the lenses with his arm. However, Mr. Hrach failed to show up at the rally. With the onlookers soon leaving the site, only several scores of pensioners remained in the square, trying to convince the journalists and police of the great benefits of Soviet power. Soon after, the Communist Youth League arrived and set about pitching tents and hoisting posters defending Hrach. In all, six tents were set up before Crimean Chief of Police Mykola Palamarchuk arrived, warning that he would ascertain whether the rally organizers had the right to pitch tents and pledged that the police would not tolerate any breach public order.
A statement circulated by the Crimean Association of Independent Journalists says, “The harassment of journalists by rally participants is direct and aggressive interference with the mass media’s right to perform their professional duties and a threat to the freedom of expression. We demand that journalists be protected by Crimean law enforcement and the perpetrators of the provocation brought to justice.”
As a secretary of the local Tsentralny Rayon Court in Simferopol told The Day, following the filing by Leonid Hrach of his appeal, the Chief Judge Oleksandr Opanasiuk ruled to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that verdicts on conflicts related to the election campaign are final and cannot be appealed.
The conflict has met with mixed response from peninsular politicians. A statement by the Crimean branch of the SDPU(o) reads, “The Socialist Democrats have high respect for such a formidable and worthy opponent as Leonid Hrach, and that is why the court ruling did not cause any joy in our midst. Given the shortcomings of the election law, any candidate could find himself in a similar position.” The Crimean Social Democrats also declared that, despite all ideological differences with the Communists, the SDPU(o) peninsular branch committee believes that the use of foul play techniques in election campaigns cannot be condoned.”
Mr. Hrach’s main political rival on the peninsula, Serhiy Kunitsyn, said that the speaker had slipped on two things. First, he had probably been let down by his entourage who failed to bring to his notice the flaws in his registration documents. Or, he may have been overconfident in making premature declarations that he will again be elected speaker.
The leaders of Russian parties urged the President of Ukraine “to do your best to restore justice with respect to Leonid Hrach and allow him to take part in the coming election.” Russian politicians offered their Ukrainian counterparts a brilliant object lesson of instantaneous cohesion: the message to Leonid Kuchma was signed by representatives of almost the whole Russian political spectrum from Communist leader Gennady Ziuganov to the Union of Right Forces head Boris Nemtsov. Against the backdrop of official Kyiv’s silence, the only timid — for this situation — protest came from Volodymyr Lytvyn, chief of the Presidential Administration, who told journalists that the appeal of a group of Russian politicians about the Crimean situation “borders on interference in Ukraine’s internal affairs.”
Meanwhile, Mr. Hrach’s spokesperson Halyna Mamyko, in an interview with Ukraina.Ru (www.ukraina.ru), denied press reports that Mr. Hrach had called for a national referendum on changing the peninsula’s official status. Ms. Mamyko claimed this information resulted from a misinterpretation of Mr. Hrach’s words: he had actually said he was aware of the danger of referendums and favored the integrity of Ukraine. But let us quote the Crimean speaker exactly, “If Kyiv and its vassals continue to do what they are doing, exerting unprecedented political and judicial pressure, we reserve the right to propose, among other things, a referendum” (Interfax-Ukraine, February 27).
INCIDENTALLY
On the night of February 28, Liudmyla Lytvynenko, the campaign manager of Crimean Supreme Council candidate Tetiana Krasykova, was beaten up near the building where she lives. On her way home, she was waylaid by two unknown men and, hearing one of them say “Hit her in the head,” ducked and felt a blow on her back. She fell, but people coming out of the nearest doorway scared off the assailants, which perhaps saved her from more serious injury. The malefactors did not touch her crammed duffel bag, gold ring, and earrings. For this reason, Ms. Lytvynenko said in the suit she filed to the Zaliznychny police precinct that she thinks this incidents is connected exclusively with her election-campaign work.
In the village of Rodnykovo, a bus pulled up to the house of candidate deputy Valery Taranin, currently manager of the Simferopol District Pension Fund. When his wife came out, she was confronted by some unknown people who pushed her into the bus, which took her outside the village. The kidnappers abused her for a long time, demanding that her husband stand down as candidate. Police is still searching for the bus and the abductors.
Since there was an earlier attack on the office of People’s Deputy Lev Myrymsky, windows were broken in the Crimean Council of Ministers building, the display window of the newspaper Krymskoye vremya was smashed, while that of Krymskiye izvestiya remained intact, and that the office broken into was strewn with leaflets reading “From Hrach with love,” actions like this can be said to be systematic.
Ms. Krasykova and Mr. Taranin are running for parliament on behalf of the Transparent Authority Committee which in fact initiated the review of Leonid Hrach’s electoral documents and brought the case to court.
COMMENTARY
Director of the Kyiv Center for Political Research and Conflict Studies Mykhailo POHREBYNSKY predicted, speaking to the Interfax-Ukraine News Agency, that the present confrontation may either give more publicity to Hrach’s Crimean Bloc or destabilize the situation in the autonomous republic. Mr. Pohrebynsky is convinced that denying registration to Mr. Hrach was a well- orchestrated action by his political rivals. At the same time, he added, “those in the Crimea with slim chances of winning seats in parliament might score some points in the present murky waters of uncertainty.”
Mykhailo Pohrebynsky does not rule out that, given Hrach’s failure to win his case in court, the situation in the region could become tense. In his view, Kyiv had been able to keep Crimea in line for a number of years because “the peninsular elite headed by Hrach could always come to terms with the Kyiv one.” According to legal experts commissioned by Mr. Pohrebynsky to study the issue, there are adequate grounds for such a decision by the court.
However, the political scientist stressed, the court verdict can be viewed as politically motivated due to a number of purely legal miscalculations as the court denied registration to the clear favorite of peninsular pollsters.
Simultaneously, this saga puts Mr. Hrach in mainstream Ukrainian politics, Mykhailo Pohrebynsky pointed out.
