A Positive Signal in the “Pukach Case”

A Positive Signal in the “Pukach Case”

The “Hongadze–Podolsky case” has been taken up by the High Specialized Court for Civil and Criminal Cases.

On 12 October, the consideration of cassation appeals against the verdict for the principal perpetrator Alexey Pukach began. First of all, this court brings to mind a well-known episode when in 2012 year, during the review of the Prosecutor General’s Office’s appeal against the recognition of the initiation of proceedings against Leonid Kuchma in the crimes against Gongadze and Podolsky, just before the start of the hearing, Kuchma’s son-in-law Viktor Pinchuk came to the court. As a result, the then authorities led by Yanukovych did not dare to carry the case against Kuchma to completion, but the methods—among them Pinchuk’s visit to the court—by which such matters were resolved were clear.

THE MASS-MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES THIS TIME DID NOT NEGLECT TO COVER THE HEARING IN THE “HONGADZE–PODOLSKY CASE” (THERE WERE QUITE A FEW OF THEM). THE TASK IS TO PRESERVE THE POSITIVE TREND, SINCE THIS IS FIRST AND FOREMOST NEEDED BY JOURNALISTS.

Now about the High Specialized Court hearing regarding Pukach. So far impressions are positive. First: organizationally, the victim in the case, Oleksiy Podolsky, has a new lawyer, Tetyana Kostina. He justified strengthening his team by saying that most of his representatives in court after 1 January 2017 year (for the Supreme Court) will no longer be able to defend his interests, since a provision introducing exclusively professional advocacy in courts will come into force. “In reality this is the destruction of the human rights movement in Ukraine and the creation of a monopoly of the bar,” Podolsky said during the hearing. Tetyana Kostina herself told Den that “for me as a lawyer and a citizen this case is very principled, not to mention for the country as a whole, because it is the key to solving many problems in our society.”

ON THE RIGHT — THE VICTIM OLEKSIY PODOLSKY’S NEW PROFESSIONAL LAWYER — TETYANA KOSTINA

Second: the parties to the process filed a number of motions. In particular, Podolsky’s representative, Oleksandr Yelyashkevych, filed a motion to disqualify the representative of widow Myroslava Hongadze — Valentyna Telychenko. “There are many reasons,” Yelyashkevych emphasized. “First, she was once a witness in this case, and second, not long ago Telychenko was effectively Deputy Prosecutor General under Lutsenko. These facts do not allow her to represent Myroslava Hongadze’s interests. I will not even mention the moral side, when, for example, in the Court of Appeal she spoke against inviting Kuchma to court—even, imagine, as a witness—although Myroslava recently publicly stated that Kuchma should sit in prison next to Pukach.”

DURING THE HEARING, OLEKSANDR YELYASHKEVYCH EMPHASIZED THAT INTERNATIONAL BODIES ARE WATCHING THE PROCESS CLOSELY, AND THEREFORE ALL VIOLATIONS ARE BEING RECORDED. FOR EXAMPLE, THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE (ITS REPRESENTATIVES YARMOLENKO AND TROYAN IN THE PHOTO IN THE MIDDLE) STILL HAS NOT INVESTIGATED THE STATEMENTS BY CONVICTED PUKACH ABOUT PRESSURE ON HIM IN THE PECHERSK COURT.

In response, Telychenko said that both during the pre-trial investigation and during the court proceedings the question of her being questioned as a witness, and accordingly her ability to represent Myroslava Hongadze’s interests, was resolved positively, and she was never officially appointed Deputy Prosecutor General. Telychenko was supported by representatives of the Prosecutor General’s Office.

THE BATTLES BETWEEN PODOLSKY’S SIDE AND THE REPRESENTATIVE OF MYROSLA VA HONGADZE, VALENTYNA TELYCHENKO, WHICH AT FIRST GLANCE SEEM STRANGE, HAVE CARRIED OVER INTO THE CASSATION INSTANCE. PODOLSKY FILED A MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TELYCHENKO.

Podolsky’s side also moved to postpone the hearing for at least a month because the new lawyer Tetyana Kostina needs time to familiarize herself with the case materials. The victim himself made two other important statements: “First—the court must respond to the fact that during the trial in the court of first instance Pukach was intimidated (representatives of the Prosecutor General’s Office and Valentyna Telychenko) so that he would name the masterminds of the crimes not as Leonid Kuchma and Volodymyr Lytvyn, but as Oleksandr Moroz and Yevhen Marchuk, but the Prosecutor General’s Office refused to investigate these public statements by Pukach himself. Second—I am surprised why Pukach was sent to the Chortkiv colony in Ternopil region at all, where ordinary convicts are held, and not to a facility for former law enforcement officers. This is dangerous for his life—Pukach could be eliminated as an important witness regarding the masterminds.” Podolsky was supported by Pukach himself and his lawyers.

DURING THE HEARING PUKACH STATED THAT HE HAD EARLIER REQUESTED TRANSFER TO ANOTHER COLONY, EXPLAINING THAT HE WAS NOT AFRAID FOR HIS LIFE BUT WANTED IT TO BE EASIER FOR HIS RELATIVES TO VISIT HIM.

After a short break, the panel of judges, having consulted, ruled:

“1. Attach to the case materials the documents submitted as support for the motion to disqualify the representative of the victim Myroslava Hongadze — Valentyna Telychenko, for their further study. Also attach to the case the supplements to the cassation appeals submitted by all parties.

2. Decide the question of disqualification of the victim’s representative at the next court hearing after studying the submitted materials and clarifying the position of the victim Myroslava Hongadze herself on this matter.

3. Properly notify Andriy Fedur, who was the representative of the victim, the late Lesya Hongadze, about the next court hearing, to clarify his status at the edge of this cassation appeal.

4. Forward the victim Podolsky’s statements made at the hearing regarding crimes he believes were committed, concerning pressure on Pukach during the pre-trial investigation and court proceedings and concerning violations in determining his place of serving punishment, to the Prosecutor General of Ukraine for entry into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations and for organizing an effective investigation into these statements, and notify those parties who must be notified by law.

5. Considering that everyone supported the motion to postpone the case due to the need for the new lawyer for victim Podolsky to familiarize herself with and study the materials, the court grants this motion in that part and adjourns the proceedings until 16 November at 10.00.”

THE COMPOSITION OF THE JUDICIAL PANEL AT THE HIGH SPECIALIZED COURT FOR CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES SO FAR LEAVES A POSITIVE IMPRESSION.

“The first hearing and the judges we saw so far made a positive impression on us,” comments Den’s Podolsky representative Viktor Shyshkin, the first Prosecutor General of Ukraine (1991—1993 years), Constitutional Court judge (2006—2015 years). “They listened to the motions, and even when some participants were overly emotional, they still showed patience. As a result, virtually all our motions were granted. Regarding the Telychenko matter, they really need time to study all the documents attached to the motion. Plus they need to clarify Myroslava Hongadze’s position. Overall, although the signals are positive, it is too early to draw conclusions about the case; we will see what happens next.”

AFTER THE NEW YEAR VIKTOR SHYSHKIN, ONE OF OLEKSIY PODOLSKY’S REPRESENTATIVES IN COURT, WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO REPRESENT HIM BECAUSE A PROVISION INTRODUCING EXCLUSIVELY PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY IN COURTS COMES INTO FORCE. ACCORDING TO VIKTOR IVANOVYCH, THE SO-CALLED REFORM IN THE JUSTICE SECTOR WILL DESTROY WHAT REMAINS OF THE POSITIVE IN THE JUDICIAL SPHERE.

Ivan Kapsamun, Den, photo by Ruslan Kanyuka, Den