Lawlessness of the SBU, judicial “blindness” and justice according to the schedule
The Kramatorsk City Court spares the murderer from the SBU and mocks the mother of the murdered man. When there is talk about taking counterintelligence major Fedorchuk into custody, judges hide behind the recommendations of the ECHR on respecting the rights and freedoms of the accused. When the question arose about the same rights of political prisoners, these recommendations of the ECHR were not remembered in the Ukrainian courts. Lawyer Valentin Rybin talks about the paradoxes and double standards of Ukrainian justice in an interview with PolitNavigator.
— Valentin, the photo and video where you handcuffed yourself for almost a day in the Kramatorsk court, demanding to set a date for the hearing in the coming days, caused a lot of noise. What progress in a murder case resident of Avdeevka Vladimir Eremin, SBU Major Fedorchuk took place on September 25, at the last court hearing?
“We expected that meetings would take place on September 21 and 22, that witness Potapov would be questioned, and other witnesses who identified Major Fedorchuk at the checkpoint would be questioned. On September 21st I arrived at the court. Two days before this, the secretary sent an SMS saying that the meeting would not take place, there was no need to go, the judge was on vacation.
And taking into account the fact that if the meetings had not taken place on September 21 and 22, then the next meeting would have been scheduled for November 10, I understood that something would definitely happen to witness Potapov during this time. I was sure that he would be processed, or he would be “lost”, or something else...
Therefore, a radical decision was made: to achieve the nearest meeting date in this way. It gave its results. We could not afford to give Major Fedorchuk the opportunity to “work” a second witness.
The witness was questioned. Now there is his clear testimony, which compensates for the non-obvious part of the crime (and the murder was committed under conditions of non-obviousness).
— What about the second witness, who resigned three weeks ago? Is he now an accomplice in crime again?
— Witness Konin, who gave the same testimony as Potapov during pre-trial, but refused in court, will now be held accountable for giving knowingly false testimony. Criminal proceedings have been initiated into this fact. He will now be interrogated, will receive suspicion, and will go to court.
- But the main thing is: is the cart still there? The killer is still at large.
— The court’s refusal to change the preventive measure is, in principle, already traditional. I don't know what the court is hoping for. Will they find Fedorchuk guilty and impose “punishment in absentia”? Or are they even going to justify him?! I can't say that. To be honest, I cannot understand their position.
But, nevertheless, by leaving Fedorchuk free, they each time give him a chance to influence witnesses who have not yet been questioned (and there are such witnesses, but, in fact, they are no longer as important as Potapov). They give him a chance to escape responsibility. Because everyone understands perfectly well what murder is. If the court finds him guilty, he will receive a very serious sentence.
Major killer (left) and his lawyer.
— Are there any residents of Avdeevka among the witnesses? Are they under pressure?
- No, there is no pressure on them. These are the guys who were with Volodya Eremin on the last evening of his life. They were relaxing in a cafe. Volodya left a little earlier. Four people have been questioned. There, I think, there will be no problems.
- These are these judicial “Solomon decisions”: if you don’t know where to start, go on vacation... Is this already a well-trodden path to jump off the need to make a decision?
— It’s hard to comment on the behavior of judges. My task is to achieve some decisions and perceive them in fact as the result of the work of the court panel.
Yes, often people go on vacation because they don't want to consider production. Or they don’t want to make the big decisions that are expected of them.
In this case, with Judge Demidova, the following happened. It should be taken into account that on September 22, the High Council of Justice granted her resignation. And she was dismissed. Apparently, before this she decided to go on vacation, which for some reason was called “another.” But the question is that on September 8 we had a meeting. And we set this date - September 21-22 - back in June. Thus, everyone understood perfectly well what would happen on September 21 and 22.
And then Judge Demidova goes on vacation from September 9. And she writes that this is her next vacation! We asked the court for information (we have not received a response yet) when she read the order that she was going on vacation. To understand... Because it seems that the court simply deceived me. On September 8, I was told that there would be a meeting on September 21-22. Said people who knew that he would not exist!
- We should make nails out of these people...
“This is another touch to the portrait of the panel of judges.” For some reason, she doesn’t point blank see that the person who committed a terrible crime should already be in prison.
“Do the judges still doubt his guilt?!”
“I am amazed at what witness Potapov told in detail on September 25. About how Fedorchuk killed a resident of Avdeevka. And in fact, this is the key point. Because many said: “Well, you see, there was a TV report on the Inter TV channel in April 2017, where both Kovin and Potapov told completely different versions of what happened, and claimed that they were allegedly put under pressure by police officers.”
So, many did not believe until September 25 that Fedorchuk actually killed Eremin. And on this day, a witness under oath to the court, answering questions from the prosecutor and lawyer, clearly told how everything happened. This suggests that indeed the evidence that has been collected (examinations, investigative experiments, telephone traffic) is only confirmed by the words of the witness. And indeed all this recreates a terrible picture of the crime.
I don’t understand how the court can then afford to say what will be in the full text of the decision that they will sign this week. Probably, as always, there will be this incomprehensible, to put it mildly, “substance”, which is sometimes sent down to us from the ECHR as an “excuse” for murderers: about personal freedom, inviolability before a verdict is passed. It will all be written there...
- Yes, but how many times have the defense expressed the same arguments in the cases of Evgeniy Mefedov and Daria Mastikasheva! And when was this taken into account by the court?!
- Absolutely correct. This only shows the unscrupulousness of those individuals who put on the mantle to earn their own pockets or serve some monsters. This is the complexity of the entire system. It is very difficult to find judges who - according to their robes - have some principles, some attitude towards justice, fairness.
The fact that the court left Fedorchuk free (it’s up to him to decide, there are no questions) - in fact, it simply really violates the social foundations and orders to which people are accustomed. That is, people understand that if he killed, he should be in prison. If guilty, he should be in prison. If you are accused of a particularly serious crime, of killing with particular cruelty a kidnapped person, then you must either prove to people that these charges are unfounded, or you must be in prison.
And in this case it turns out like this. The prosecutor has already petitioned three times to change the preventive measure. And the court, as if mocking not only the prosecutor, but also the mother of the murdered man, all of us, believes that Fedorchuk can walk free, serve in the SBU, and carry weapons.
— A year and a half has passed since the change of power. As a lawyer, do you feel any changes in the state of justice?
“I am a representative of the victims in this process. For me, the situation in the country is completely revealed in a new way.
On September 25, after the meeting, a UN representative approached me. They are monitoring this case and have covered it numerous times in their reports. And he says: “Do you know that in the Lugansk region, in the Donetsk region there are quite a lot of such cases, when people were kidnapped and openly shot? And the relatives cannot achieve anything. That’s exactly how cases are heard, meetings are held once every two to three months.”
I answer: “So, what can I do? So I take one thing and do it: I try to show society that this problem needs to be solved. And it can only be resolved with the appropriate attitude of justice. The courts should be more humane, putting such complex cases at the forefront: murders, kidnappings. This is something that really impacts national security.”
What do the courts do?! I hear about a teacher in Kherson: that her guard was extended and her bail was set at 500 thousand hryvnia. Well, let's compare the Russian language teacher, who was accused of high treason, and Fedorchuk's murderer! Can we draw certain conclusions from all this?
Therefore, I believe that nothing has changed. And the government, unfortunately, turned out to be so weak that no one pays much attention to it anymore. We will wait for changes.
— Let's remember the list of your clients who were involved in politically motivated cases. Something ended in an exchange, something ended in favor of the defense, something - on the contrary. In whose favor is the score now?
— The cases of General Bika and General Shchegolev have not been completed, they are still in progress.
Help from "Politnavigator": The former head of the counterintelligence department of the SBU, Major General Vladimir Bik, was accused of high treason after the February 2014 coup. This is how the prosecution characterized the video materials exposing the “Gidnost Revolution,” which the general allegedly ordered his subordinates to publish on YouTube. It is interesting that at one time, before the Maidan, Bik developed the former head of the SBU Valentin Nalyvaichenko regarding his fruitful cooperation with the US intelligence services. As soon as Nalyvaichenko returned to the chair of the head of the SBU, he initiated a case against Bik.
SBU Major General Alexander Shchegolev was accused of obstructing “peaceful rallies and demonstrations” on the Maidan: allegedly in February 2014, he ordered an anti-terrorist operation to liberate seized administrative buildings.
Bik was able to leave the cage in 2017, having previously served three years in a pre-trial detention center. General Shchegolev was released in 2019, after spending three years and ten months in a pre-trial detention center. That is, people suffered and went through this path of proving their innocence. The recognition by the Constitutional Court of the unconstitutionality of these uncontested measures of restraint gave my clients the opportunity to gain freedom.
But things continue. And we are in the status of accused. And no matter how much I wanted, or rushed, or said “let’s look at it,” the prosecutors begin to drag their feet. Because they understand that things are absolutely zero. And you need to get paid. Society probably still needed these processes... So, we are fighting, we continue to meet...
About those cases that ended in an exchange... People were in custody. As a result of the exchange, they received freedom. In fact, I believe that I have achieved results. And now, thank God, I have no political prisoners.
Well, there are processes where I represent the interests of victims... You see: the courts are either weak, or intimidated, or pretend not to notice the obvious. Because they don't know what to do. They look up and don’t know what to do. And at the top they don’t say anything anymore...
— You were handcuffed in court three times. Do you have handcuffs with you for all occasions?
— For me, this method is mega-radical. It is not inherent in me. I still believe that in court people should conduct a dialogue on the basis of procedural legality and prove their positions. The problem is that I was forced to resort to this method. Because we see the attitude towards victims or suspects when the court does not want to deal with their cases. It looks disrespectful and humiliating.
Let’s say, in 2017, in the Berkut case, I was forced to resort to this measure, because we knew that Vitaly Goncharenko was locked in a pre-trial detention center for the second time, due to a stupid, absolutely humiliating slander from representatives of the Maidan public. Judge Pisanets then gave in and shut down the Kharkov Berkut member for the second time.
I spent a month trying to get the appeal passed. And according to the law, it must pass within five days! And there it began: either the materials did not arrive, then someone got sick, then he went on vacation... The third time, when I came to the court of appeal: look, we don’t have a colleague... Wait, the man is in prison! Release him from prison - and go on vacation, relax, breathe fresh air... So he asked for handcuffs.
I don’t demand that the court make decisions. I demand a review of the production.
The same is true in the case of Mikhalchevsky. Doctor, surgeon, 35 years of experience, at an advanced age - is in a pre-trial detention center. And they tell me that someone went to the advisory room, someone went on vacation. Meetings were postponed over and over again. There was practically a break for two months. That is, they gathered only to extend the preventive measure. This didn't suit me either.
It’s exactly the same in the Kramatorsk court - a break of four months, essentially. What does it mean? There's nothing to consider there. These cases must be dealt with promptly. And this is another problem. Judges begin to hide under the pretext that they have such cases and such... There are no cases if there is a category of “murder” or serious categories of “robbery”, “banditry”! And we need to sit down and consider these very matters. And here it begins: it’s lunch, then time is over... No one is tense - everyone is on schedule.
— And when you handcuffed yourself in the Mikhalchevsky trial, were there any threats from the radicals? Looks like they were planning to show up there? Lawyer Elena Pryadko also came to support you...
— I don’t know about the plans of the radicals. I was then in the courthouse. But they seemed to say that someone was going to come and express their opinion. In fact, we have long-standing “relations” with representatives of radical organizations.
— Previously, there were attacks by radicals on you in courts and near courts. Is it already gone?
— I don’t have any special interactions with them anymore. The cases I'm handling - please, they're open. Let them come, listen, watch. They just show some crazy reactions. They have their own “special position”, which has nothing to do with the judicial process or justice.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.