Editor’s Note: The following is the English-language translation of a March 29 interview by Bild, the German newspaper, with Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko. It is being republished with permission of the newspaper. From its introduction: “He is Ukraine’s chief prosecutor. Whether it’s the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, the investigation of political killings or the fight against corruption, Lutsenko is a key figure in resolving the country’s conflicts. The 52-year-old official’s decisions are not only significant for Ukraine, but also for Germany, which is the most important supporter of the peace agreement for the east of the country – an agreement that looks to have fallen into deadlock. Bild interviewed Lutsenko and asked about these very important questions – and got some surprising answers.
Bild: On March 23, the former Russian Duma lawmaker Denys Voronenkov was shot dead on the street in Kyiv. On the same day, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said the murder was an “act of the state terrorism by Russia,” What evidence do you have for this claim?
Yuriy Lutsenko: “You know that Mr. Voronenkov was a witness in the case against former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who fled to Russia. The murderer followed his victim for more than a kilometer before shooting him. We’ve identified the killer, who was himself killed by (Voronenkov’s) bodyguard. He was formerly a member of Ukraine’s National Guard, part of the Ukrainian Interior Ministry. On March 6, the assassin went to the temporarily occupied part of the Donbas, to the city of Donetsk to be exact. This gives the president and myself reason to suspect that Russia was behind the act. National Guardsmen, including former ones, are forbidden to go to the occupied territories. We searched the apartment where the murderer was living with two other persons. I can’t say any more, as the investigation is ongoing. Voronenkov was certainly not killed for statements he had already made, but for statements he was to have made.”
BILD: So the fact that the murderer was in the city of Donetsk, which is occupied by pro-Russian troops, a few days before the killing, is your main reason for accusing Russia of being behind the murder?
YL (nods): “And Russia has a motive. Firstly, Voronenkov wanted to set up an investigative center in Kyiv in order to uncover corruption in Russia’s FSB intelligence service. The matter also concerned drug trafficking. That’s what he said publicly. And secondly, the killer had links to terrorists in an area that is not controlled by Ukraine. I’m not saying the killer was a Russian agent, but he could have been, for years, even during his time in the Ukrainian National Guard. Once we’ve arrested his accomplices, then we will know more.
But I have bad news for Mr. (Vladimir) Putin and his subordinate Yanukovych: The court case will begin in April, and testimony from the late Mr. Voronenkov will also be used in these court proceedings.”
Bild: Turning to the Minsk Agreement, on which peace in eastern Ukraine depends: Point 5 of the agreement requires that Ukraine pass a law that “prohibits the prosecution and punishment of persons connected to events that took place in certain areas of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine.” Will there be a general amnesty for all separatists – including those who have killed Ukrainian soldiers and civilians?
YL: “I don’t agree with your interpretation of the point. An amnesty can only be granted in Ukraine to individuals. And it can be granted only in cases in which it is appropriate. According to Ukrainian law, murder, torture, rape, grievous bodily harm and kidnappings are not crimes that are subject to amnesty. When this point of the Minsk Agreement is implemented, we will study the case of each individual who wants to be granted an amnesty. If the courts establish that the person has not committed any of those crimes, the court may pardon the person. ”
Bild: But Germany and France, the European supporters of the Minsk Agreement, are calling for a general amnesty for all of the separatists.
YL: “Even if the 10,000 armed Russian troops actually leave the Donbas and finally let us live in peace, then there is still the question of what to do with the remaining 40,000 Ukrainian separatists. There can be no general amnesty. I, as general prosecutor, can only act according to Ukrainian law. These 40,000 people will have to surrender their weapons and submit individual requests for an amnesty. They’ll have to admit to their crimes and ask for an amnesty. Then, in any case, we will investigate whether they committed serious offenses that make granting such as amnesty impossible.
“This may not be the case with most of them, and they could be pardoned. But it won’t be possible for those who stoked up this war and for those who have personally consorted with murderers. We have evidence that the separatists have scalped people, cut off people’s arms and legs, and buried people alive. Do you really believe that we could grant an amnesty to such people!?”
Bild: Point 6 of the Minsk Agreement requires the “freeing and exchange of all hostages and unlawfully detained persons.” Despite this, there are suspects from the occupied territories who have been detained without charge for years to be found in Ukrainian prisons. When will you implement this point of the Minsk Agreement?
YL: “Unfortunately, the Kremlin is using the exchange of prisoners-of-war as a political weapon. We’ve seen periods when prisoners-of-war were successfully exchanged. That’s all in the past now. We’ve got a list of people to be exchanged. However, the separatists have no desire to engage in exchanges. The problem is that before I hand over a person against whom legal action is being taken, I have to stop the proceedings first. Only after that can I exchange that person. And those who have already been convicted have to be pardoned before they can be exchanged. If I do either of those things, then I can return the person to the separatists. However, if no exchange takes place tomorrow, in one week, or in one month, then we’ll have a problem, since we can neither set that person free nor keep them in prison. (That is why people are kept in custody without any charges being brought against them – editor). From a purely legal perspective, that is not possible.
Bild: So it’s a political question?
YL: “It’s a practical question! If I don’t know when the separatists will agree to the exchange, and I’m waiting six months for the exchange, then I have to re-start the proceedings against the person time after time. Every day we get calls telling us to get ready for an exchange (laughs) and every day I have to start legal actions all over again. If someone will give me a guarantee that the exchange will take place there and then, then I’ll do it. But if it’s delayed, the (detained) person always ends up in the grey zone again.”
Bild: And that’s your explanation for people being held without charge?
YL: “Yes.”
Bild: How many people are currently being held in this way for a future exchange?
Lutsenko: “About 100. But I’d like to emphasize that the people we’ve detained are in regular pre-trial detention. They can be visited by relatives, get gifts, and go for walks outdoors. Unfortunately, we can’t say the same for the people who are being detained by the separatists.”
Bild: To the topic of corruption – Your office and the NABU anti-corruption agency should really be working hand-in-hand. But in fact your relationship is practically hostile, and there are claims that your office doesn’t want to submit some cases to the NABU. Will you cooperate fully with the NABU, and issue charges against any person whom the NABU reports to you as being corrupt?
Lutsenko: “I’ll give you a very clear answer: Yes. And this is also confirmed by practice. For my part, there has not been a single case of the General Prosecutor’s Office refusing to investigate a request from the NABU. I myself, when I was a lawmaker, drafted the law to set up the NABU. The problem is that my responsibilities are much wider than those of the NABU. I have 10,000 employees, including 800 investigators. The NABU has about 220 investigators. Together, we’re responsible for 150,000 state employees, and there are currently 1.2 million pending court cases. Many of them are concerned with corruption. We’ve passed dozens of corruption cases to the courts, and I’m waiting with impatience for someone to actually be sent to jail. How is there a conflict with the NABU? The threshold for the NABU to take over a case is very low – from 30,000 euros. That is, for example, the cost of repairing a school. In addition, they can investigate all category A civil servants. If (they took all of those cases) I’d have to hand rail wagons full of files to the NABU. And they only have 220 investigators and 30 prosecutors.”
Bild: But the agency WANTS to get the cases handed over anyway…
YL: “The agency would like me to transfer SOME of these cases. And the law requires me to give them all the cases they want. And I’ve never refused to do so. ”
Bild: “So the anti-corruption law, the one that you created yourself, is flawed?”
YL: “The reason for the conflict is clear. Why are they criticizing me? Not because I’ve failed to deliver the cases but because I have leveled accusations against the judges and politicians they themselves wanted to bring charges against, but failed to for want of staff. As soon as I open proceedings, they say I should hand the case over to them. That won’t work. My people earn 20 times less than the NABU’s staff. When they catch a big fish, they want to bring that case to court themselves so they get credit for it. That’s the conflict, and we’ve found the answer to it together. We’re now setting up joint investigation teams and joint prosecutors. I offer them a case and they decide whether or not they want the case. If they want it, they get it, if they don’t, then they don’t. ”
BILD: Again: Were mistakes made when NABU was being set up, because only now are you realizing that you have to work together, and deal with each other?
Lutsenko: “Well, the law will have to be amended a bit. But from my side I don’t want any control over the NABU. The NABU has a good reputation, while unfortunately we don’t (laughs) – yet. So we should not be trying to control the NABU, but work together, or even sometimes compete in fighting against corruption. Instead, we’re planning to select an auditing board of three people to oversee the NABU. So there’s really only one battle – over who these auditors will be. The NABU wants them to come from their ranks, but the president and the parliament majority wants them to be neutral – from outside of the anti-corruption agency. That would make the oversight more objective. But I’m not going to comment about this, and believe that this issue has become way too politicized.”
Written by Julian Röpcke, political editor, Bild, translated by Euan MacDonald, editor, Kyiv Post.
