The policemen accused of murdering journalist Georgy Gongadze in 2000 are about to be questioned but the trial is dragging on behind closed doors
Ukraine`s trial of the century, the 2000 murder of journalist Georgy Gongadze, began at the Kyiv Court of Appeals last month, but its slow pace and shroud of secrecy make it unlikely that anything new or conclusive will be revealed until after this spring’s parliamentary elections are over.
“At this rate, we will be listening to testimony until autumn,” said Valentyna Telychenko, a lawyer who has represented the interests of Gongadze’s widow Myroslava from the very beginning of the case.
The pretrial hearing began Dec. 19, and the actual trial kicked off on Jan. 9, but only six court sessions were held in the month that followed.
The delays have been largely attributed to health problems allegedly experienced by the accused, former policemen Mykola Protasov (53), Valery Kostenko (32) and Oleksandr Popovych (33).
“I personally think that we can expect an epidemic of illnesses before this trial is over,” said Andriy Fedur, the attorney for Gongadze’s mother Lesya.
But nothing can be done about it, says Yury Boychenko, the deputy head of the Prosecutor-General’s press service. If someone gets sick during the trial, the judge is obliged to call a break.
“If a participant in the session says he wants an ambulance, procedure must be followed,” Boychenko explained.
Gongadze, 31, had been investigating corruption in Ukraine’s halls of power before being found decapitated in a forest in Tarashcha raion 70 km outside Kyiv in November 2000. Then, the release of secret tapes implicating top officials in the murder and other serious crimes served as a catalyst for the “Ukraine without Kuchma” movement that carried on and developed into the “Rise Up Ukraine” movement in the fall of 2002, bringing thousands of people on to the streets of the capital.
Attorney Volodymyr Prikhodko, who works alongside Fedur, recalled how during one session an ambulance was called for a defendant who said that the presence of lawmakers in the court room had caused his nose to bleed.
As a result of such interruptions, not one defendant has yet to be questioned by attorneys. Telychenko thinks the delays are on purpose. According to her, there are several politicians currently running for parliament who could be subpoenaed to give testimony. The case has such a high profile, that any association would be crucial to a future lawmaker’s career.
“Even if their ratings drop a little, this would be bad,” Telychenko said.
“At issue is big money, really big money. Each seat is worth a certain amount,” she added.
In addition to lawyer’s representing Gongadze’s family, the defendants are subject to questioning by state prosecutors from the Prosecutor General’s Office and Kyiv. All three teams work independently. Telychenko called the work of investigators “professional” but was less enthusiastic about attorneys representing the state.
“Sometimes it seems like they are hiding from everyone,” she said.
Ironically, relations with the defense are more cordial: “At least I can talk to them.”
As for the judges, there are two of them, plus three so-called people’s chairpersons, whom Telychenko described as “pensioners.” Moreover, during one session, the lead judge announced that her colleague was overwhelmed with work from another case.
Boychenko dismisses any suggestions of a cover-up.
“You don’t have to try and find a black cat in a dark room,” he said, “the prosecution is on the side of the victims, trying to protect their interests.”
Although all three defendants have pleaded guilty to premeditated murder, two of them deny that it was ordered.
To Telychenko, this is the main point of the trial.
“It’s very important to me that they are convicted not just of premeditated murder but of premeditated hired murder,” she said.
These two policemen, Protasov and Popovych, had close ties to one high ranking police general, Oleksy Pukach, who currently represents the highest link in the crime’s chain of command. Pukach was detained by Ukrainian police in 2004 only to have been released that year by virtue of a controversial court ruling.
Currently, he is said to be in hiding abroad.
If the Kyiv court decides that no one was behind Pukach, the case will go no further.
Closed doors
The entire judicial process, of course, entails digging into the Interior Ministry’s files, which brings up the second problem encountered by Telychenko and Fedur. Judges have ruled that the general public, including the media, be excluded from sessions that involve the revealing of state secrets.
“There isn’t any case material in this trial that could be called secret,” said Prikhodko.
Telychenko and Fedur agree. Not only is the case directed at police corruption and abuse of power, which would might necessitate airing out earlier practices, but most if not all of the other participants in the trial (i.e. attorneys, judges, etc.) have also not been ‘cleared’ to view sensitive information.
Prikhodko and Fedur said this requires a special process which has not been conducted. None of the attorneys representing Gongadze’s family has even signed a statement of secrecy.
Boychenko counters that an attorney is already bound to case confidentiality by virtue of his professional ethics. Secret information, according to Boychenko, are any statements made by the accused, which he describes as “intelligence officers.”
During questioning by judges or attorneys, insight into how Ukraine’s special police units operate could be compromised.
Meanwhile, “journalists have only been allowed to attend sessions during the procedural part of the trial, not during questioning,” said Telychenko, who believes that the judges’ decision was ordered from higher up.
No one was surprised by this sort of secrecy under President Leonid Kuchma, who some say is also tied to the murder via the scandal tapes, which were allegedly recorded in his office.
But now the country has a new president, prosecutor general and top cop.
“Secret units of relevant state law-enforcement agencies are supposed to report in the Gongadze case,” first deputy head of the president’s secretariat, Anatoly Matviyenko, told journalists on Feb. 3.
“The questioning of these officials requires a certain procedure. Since these are secret agencies, they have their specifics, this is national security,” he added.
Interior Minister Yury Lutsenko seemed equally supportive of the judges’ decision in a statement released around the same time.
“Secret agents of the Interior Ministry will be giving testimony there. They will give testimony in the case which cannot be shown to the public. Therefore there are circumstances dictating certain elements of secrecy there,” the statement reads.
Lutsenko is a leading member of the Socialist Party, which has come out the most strongly against the closure of the court sessions. Three deputies from the Socialist’s parliamentary faction even showed up at a court session to protest the judges’ decision.
“We are probably the only party in Ukraine that wasn’t involved with the Kuchma regime,” said Yevhen Filindash, one of the three deputies.
According to Filindash, Lutsenko’s statements were made as a minister, not a Socialist, and don’t call for absolute secrecy anyway. For people like Telychenko and Fedur, there have been no state secrets to protect in the first place.
Fedur even went so far as to ask that former President Leonid Kuchma and his former head of administration – current parliamentary speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn – be summoned for questioning. The judges turned him down.
Telychenko believes that such appeals just distract from the main business at hand, diverting the court’s and the public’s attention from finding who ordered Gongadze’s murder in the first place.
Fedur, who is also running for parliament with a bloc not likely to squeeze into the legislature, has denied using the publicity afforded by the case to promote his candidacy.
“My first priority has always been my participation in the Gongadze case … even if it means going to court every day instead of campaigning,” he said.
As for other parliamentary hopefuls who may be closer to the case than they would like the public to know, no trial publicity is the best publicity.
“In the end, a judicial decision and verdict will be made public,” said Boychenko, who insists that justice cannot be rushed“Have you figured out who killed J.F. Kennedy yet?” he asked.
