Oleksii PODOLSKY: Investigating the murder of Kravchenko holds the key to the Kuchma case
The trial of General Oleksii Pukach has been adjourned for a month until October 3. Meanwhile, the journalist Heorhii Gongadze’s widow Myroslava insists that Pukach be tried in an open court. “Society must know about this, and the Constitution sets out the rights of the aggrieved party as well as the openness of a trial,” she told Radio Liberty. What is more, Myroslava intends to complain to the European Court that the Ukrainian court has infringed her rights as the aggrieved party in this trial.
Yet the journalist Oleksii Podolsky doubts that there will be an open trial, for this would be too detrimental to the state and the system. In his view, those who really ordered the murder will not be punished, and all the blame will be put on a dead person – ex-Minister of the Internal Affairs Yurii Kravchenko.
Mr. Podolsky, although the court banned photographing and filming the trials of Lutsenko and Tymoshenko, journalists are still allowed to visit and video-record the hearings of these high-profile cases. The Pukach case is of no lesser profile. Why is it a closed trial?
“I can give a very simple answer. The point is the system of undercover police agents has been used against our people since the times of the Soviet Union. For example, Kravchenko was a man of Fere, the now late Interior Ministry chief of staff, and Fere once played the role of Pukach under [Communist Party boss of Ukraine Volodymyr] Shcherbytsky. It is a kind of a secret service which nobody controls and which is doing what it pleases. It is common knowledge, and nobody can do anything about that. They no longer allow criminals to cover up illegal drug trade and are doing this on their own. They used outdoor surveillance as the main instrument for this. Therefore, nobody wants the trial of an outdoor surveillance officer to go public. They want to position this as a mere episode.
“And, in general, this trial is being held only because it has caused an international stir. But for the international stir, Pukach would be now at the head of this service or be drawing a well-earned pension. He is not their enemy. This is why it is a closed trial.
“Formally, they have an airtight argument that trial witnesses are police officers and their names are kept secret. But this can be easily bypassed: there can be a few closed sessions and the rest may be open. All the rest is an open secret.”
Pukach said in the clear at the session before last that Leonid Kuchma and Yurii Kravchenko had ordered the murder.
“It is not a sensational piece of evidence. He said this immediately after the arrest, but we made a written commitment not to disclose the material. You can find all this in his previous testimonies. There is nothing new at all.”
And how can this evidence of Pukach affect the Kuchma case? Word has it that Mr. Kuchma is to be whitewashed. It will be perhaps more difficult to do so after this testimony.
“Yes, Pukach mentioned his name. There are the tapes, too. But I think the Pukach case is a cover and the backdrop for other ongoing trials which aim to show that our government adheres to principles in all matters. But when it comes to the point, it will turn out that the tapes are insufficient and Pukach’s evidence is indirect. The president said nothing to him personally, and there were no witnesses to that. All the blame will be put on Kravchenko. And, in my view, the Kravchenko case hinges on the circumstances of his death. Prosecutors have brazenly engineered the evidence of suicide. The materials themselves comprise ample proof that he was killed. But they are not going to investigate this or even admit that it was a murder.”
And is it in general possible to solve the Kravchenko murder? So many years have passed.
“I will tell you bluntly that it is possible to solve it because there are enough traces left. Paradoxical as it may sound, Kravchenko was killed for the same reasons as Gongadze was. Gongadze was an eyesore because of his political stand and of what he spoke and wrote. Kravchenko was in the way of the same people, for he was a witness of their crime. In this country, the powers that be are quite capable of liquidating a person only because he or she is in their way. Investigating the murder of Kravchenko holds the key to the Kuchma case. But, as they go on claiming that Kravchenko committed suicide, they do not seem to be going to prove the guilt of Kuchma.”
So there is no light at the end of the tunnel?
“If it is announced that the Kravchenko case is being reconsidered, then we will be able to say that there is a political will and desire to identify those who ordered the murder of Gongadze.”
Do you think this may happen in our lifetime?
“A colossus like the Soviet Union collapsed in my lifetime. When I was young, I thought it was impossible. Our lifetime has seen some grandiose things which we consider trivial now.”
But this case has been lingering on for 11 years.
“Many countries have seen cases that changed the system. This especially applies to case law countries, such as the US and the UK.”
Pukach alleges that Gongadze and his colleague Olena Prytula were CIA agents who received an instruction to prevent Kuchma at any cost from assuming the office of president. If I am not mistaken, he also mentioned your name. Why is he doing this?
“If stars are set alight, this means somebody needs it. I like comparing things. The Pinchuk-owned TV channels are holding a publicity campaign to whitewash Kuchma. The tactic boils down to casting shadow, speaking of some secret services, and dropping totally unfounded hints.
“As for our wish to depose Kuchma, I wrote a petition when I worked at the ministry: ‘I request you to relieve me from duty because I am going to take part in a campaign against President Kuchma.’ Can this be called a coup? Our Constitution obliged us to vote and take an active part in elections. It is my legitimate right to have a president changed. I don’t like dictators, boors, criminals, and murderers. I don’t want them to be in power. It is my right!”
When do you think the sentence will be passed? As we can see, the Tymoshenko case is unfolding at a brisk pace, while this one is lingering.
“It is difficult to say. It is also difficult to compare the trials of Tymoshenko and Pukach. But there is no reason why the latter should be dragging its feet. It is a very cumbersome case: a lot of circumstances, episodes, and witness, which requires a lengthy procedure. Pukach testified this week. It took him a day to do so. Now the prosecutors are questioning him. They had been questioning him for a whole day and only reached the middle of my episode. Still ahead are the murder of Gongadze and the destruction of documents. It will take them about three days to interrogate him. Then Telychko and I will be questioning (and we do have questions to him). Then I will begin testifying – and there is no time limit here. Pukach cannot be stopped or interrupted, for this would be a violation of human rights. In other words, it is still a long story.”
TO THE POINT
The Vasylkiv District Court, Kyiv oblast, ruled on August 29 that the claims of the former State Security Service Major Mykola Melnychenko that parliament Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn was implicated in the murder of journalist Heorhii Gongadze were untrustworthy and forbade the ex-major to spread any unverified information about Lytvyn, the parliament’s mouthpiece Holos Ukrainy reports. Once the court ruling comes into force, Melnychenko “shall not spread unverified information about the claimant’s alleged complicity in the murder of journalist Heorhii Gongadze or in any other crimes allegedly committed through a fault of his.” In addition, the court ruled that Melnychenko organize and conduct, at his own expense, a press conference and deny his earlier untrustworthy statements about Lytvyn, the newspaper says.
