Proceedings begin for nine accused of causing disturbances in Kyiv
A year to the week after an anti‑presidential rally erupted into violence in Kyiv, prosecutors opened a case against 19 people accused of organizing and participating in the disturbance.
The case, which came under fire for months from oppositionists who demanded that the defendants be charged or set free, was delayed numerous times since last spring. Judicial illness, inadequate courtrooms, hunger‑striking defendants, and dismissed lawyers stalled the case. On March 12, the defendants pleaded not guilty and the long‑awaited hearing began.
The prosecution presented video footage of the day, March 9, 2001, when protesters clashed with police during an anti‑presidential rally. The court also heard from those injured in the riots.
On the morning of March 9, thousands of police officers were dispatched to Kyiv’s Shevchenko Park to protect Kuchma, who was to make a short appearance. Several protesters were arrested at the park. The rally continued as demonstrators made their way to the Presidential Administration building, hurling insults, eggs and rocks at police along the way. By the day’s end, around 500 people had been arrested. The majority were cited for misdemeanors and released within 15 days.
But 19 people, including 14 members of the Ukrainian National Assembly‑Ukrainian Self Defense (UNA‑UNSO) were accused of more serious crimes. Three were later released on condition that they not leave Kyiv, though the charges against them remain. The rest, including Andry Shkil, who led UNA‑UNSO during the riots, remains in jail.
Of the 19, about half stand accused of organizing the protests and face a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison. The rest, including five non‑UNA‑UNSO protesters, are charged with participating in the violence and face a maximum sentence of 10 years. Among the non‑party protesters are a 19‑year‑old student from Lviv and a man known as “the Dynamo fan” for his habit of wearing a Dynamo scarf at every hearing.
The trial was originally scheduled to start last summer. Through the fall, there were sporadic attempts to get things moving, but the case was repeatedly delayed.
Finding a courtroom big enough to hold all the defendants was one challenge; further postponements came when hunger‑striking defendants fainted from weakness. The introduction of a new criminal code in September and the reorganization of Kyiv’s courts in October also caused delays.
Preliminary hearings finally got under way in February, until one of the three judges became ill. A replacement was found, and the process started again.
The same month, Shkil’s lawyer Tetyana Montyan was dismissed for “fighting with guards” while trying to reach her client. It took almost a month to find someone to replace Montyan, who is now under criminal investigation.
“No one wanted to defend Shkil because of what happened to Tetyana,” said Tetyana Chornovil, UNA‑UNSO press secretary.
Shkil maintains his popularity, and polls indicate that he is leading the race for a seat in parliament, representing the western Ukrainian town of Horodok. If Shkil wins, he will be granted parliamentary immunity and the case will likely be dropped, Chornovil said.
If the trial goes on, it’s likely to continue at a snail’s pace, as the prosecution presents hours of videotape as evidence of each of the 19 defendants’ actions.
