Yesterday was a special day
Who could have predicted on December 15, 2000, when launching the project “Ukraine without Kuchma” (subsequently to evolve into the Mai-dan), that 11 years later Leonid Kuchma would stand trial on grave criminal charges, but that half a year later the court would dismiss the case for want of evidence?
After studying the materials appended to the [defendant’s counsel’s] complaint, the court determined that Melnychenko’s tapes were the only reason behind First Deputy Prosecutor General Renat Kuzmin’s decision to initiate criminal proceedings against Kuchma. The court ruling reads that the Constitutional Court of Ukraine has explained that a person cannot be charged using evidence obtained in an unlawful manner, or be challenged by a person who is not authorized to do police work. In view of this, Melnychenko was not such an authorized person, and the tapes were evidence obtained in an unlawful manner, so they could not be used in court.
Although the Prosecutor General’s Office stated yesterday that it will challenge the Pechersk District Court’s ruling, this isn’t likely to prevent the Ukrainian judicial system from falling apart.
“Our citizens form their attitude to the existing political system by judging the performance of the courts of law. If a court ruling is fair, then the state is fair. That’s why it pains my heart to hear people express criticism, even pass negative judgments,” said President Viktor Yanukovych during the festivities commemorating the Court Workers Day (among those present was Serhii Kivalov). One can understand the head of state only too well.
KUCHMA’S COUNSEL AND COURT ACTUALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE AUTHENTICITY OF TAPES MADE IN THE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE
Oleksandr YELIASHKEVYCH, representative of the claimant, Oleksii Podolsky:
“This ruling on the part of the Pechersk [District] Court was something to be expected, if one can refer to these court hearings as legal proceedings. Personally I am absolutely convinced that what happened in the Pechersk courtroom had nothing to do with the law, morals or common sense. On Kuchma’s counsel’s initiative the court objectively recognized the tapes with President Kuchma’s conversations in his office as absolutely authentic. The Pechersk court ruling refers to the one issued by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on October 20, concerning the admissibility of evidence or actual data that cannot be taken as the basis for charges. In this case it was only actual data, in other words absolutely objective information. And so, by referring to that Constitutional Court’s decision, Kuchma’s counsel and the court actually recognized the authenticity of the tapes. This will make all legal proceedings outside Ukraine considerably easier, when the Kuchma family will be unable to pull off any corruption schemes the way they did previously, including during the Pechersk hearings because justice [in the West] is meted out regardless of whether the defendant is an ordinary citizen or a person who previously held a high executive post and used it to make a vast fortune.
“I would like to assure all those who closely followed the trial that this is not the end of the Kuchma story. It is just the beginning of genuine legal proceedings aimed at bringing Leonid Kuchma to justice. I am sure that the main decisions will be made outside Ukraine. Considering that the Pechersk court ruling actually recognizes the absolute authenticity of the tapes made in the president’s office, I do not rule out the possibility of the Kuchma case being eventually reopened in Ukraine, depending on the stand taken by the Prosecutor General’s Office and political leadership. It is possible that they may feel that way if the Kuchma family offers tangible arguments and their worth is accepted by the PGO and those in power. I would also like to point out that what happened in the Pechersk courtroom is proof that the complainants are totally ignored; that not only their rights but also their very existence is not taken into account. What happened to Oleksii Podolsky after the judge actually provoked him into avoiding subsequent hearings is proof that no one in court cares about the complainant’s interests.”
KUCHMA HAS LEVERAGE OVER THE CURRENT REGIME AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Pavlo SYCHOV, Mykola Melnychenko’s defense counsel:
“We predicted this ruling after the first hearing on December 7. All parties opposing the complaint of Kuchma’s counsel were denied their rights during the trial. The claimant was unable to acquaint himself with the case (the judge flatly refused to allow him the time) and nor was he issued a copy of the complaint. In the course of the trial it was decided to issue a copy, but it was not certified, so whether it is identical to the original document is anyone’s guess. In my opinion, the judge acted as instructed by the Pechersk court, as well as by persons who are interested in letting Kuchma evade answerability. I suspect that this decision was initiated on Bankova Street. A fish rots from the head down. Kuchma has leverage over the current regime and judicial system. The Pechersk [District] Court also assessed Melnychenko’s tapes whereas this assessment should have been made by the trial court when considering the merits of the case. We will struggle on. The Gongadze and Podolsky episode isn’t the only one of the Kuchma crime series.”
JUDGE EXCEEDED HER MANDATE IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDING
Valentyna TELYCHENKO, legal representative of Myroslava Gongadze:
“Of course we will litigate this in court because the decision was made unlawfully. If the court meeting is held until 22:30, one can not hope for a legal outcome. If the court holds the hearing in one day for 10.5 hours with one 20-minute break, the result can be well predicted as well. We will litigate this decision in the Court of Appeal, and probably also to the Court of Cassation. I would like to note that in this decision the judge hasn’t mentioned a word about Pukach’s testimony… The point is that at this stage the judge should not evaluate any evidence at all. She has to evaluate either presence or absence of evidence. The judge has exceeded her mandate in this judicial proceeding. Prosecutor General’s Office for some unknown reason gave 26 volumes of the case (out of 99 volumes) instead of selecting only the grounds, which they had to refer to. I think that it was done so that in the array of materials it would be impossible to figure out what concerns what. For example, the court examined several volumes, which dealt with the circumstances of the discovery of Tarashcha beheaded body, with the violations committed by law enforcement agencies in Tarashcha, and then after that a few officers were brought to criminal account. Why did they have to hand those materials over? In fact, the PGO played not according to the law in this proceeding. Also one should mention that the decision of the Constitutional Court, on which the judge relied today, was passed because of the whole situation with Melnychenko’s records. In this trial the judge only had to evaluate the legality of the investigator’s actions. She doesn’t have to evaluate legality of Melnychenko’s actions.”
