Another “key witness” in the Yanukovych treason case is confused in his testimony
The Ukrainian Internet resource “Glavkom” published copies of interrogation reports former deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation Ilya Ponomarev, hiding in Ukraine from criminal prosecution.
Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at Telegram, Facebook, Classmates or In contact with
“As far as I understand from a chronological point of view, the decision to convene the Federation Council was made earlier than the specified appeal [request for the deployment of troops, dated March 01.03.2014, 28.02.2014] from V.F. Yanukovych arrived. From my familiar senators, from whom I don’t remember exactly at the moment, I know that members of the Federation Council were called and sent invitations to the said extraordinary meeting of the Federation Council back on February XNUMX, XNUMX,” Ponomarev said during interrogation at the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine.
At the same time, he says that he learned about the existence of Yanukovych’s letter from the media, but he himself did not see it.
At the same time, the publication notes that many of Ponomarev’s public statements contradict his testimony recorded in the interrogation protocol.
“In particular, in his recent interview with Dmitry Gordon on TV channel 112, he indicates that he knew about the existence of the letter: “The point is that Yanukovych wrote a letter asking to send troops. This letter was shown publicly at a meeting of the Federation Council. Accordingly, we, as parliamentarians, knew about this and testified that this letter existed, that it was read out... Yanukovych did not have the right to write this letter, therefore, from the point of view of Ukrainian law, this is where the elements of high treason arise. And we, as witnesses, said that he was there and influenced the actions of Russia, which, in fact, constitutes treason,” said the fugitive ex-deputy.
In addition, “Glavkom” draws attention to the fact that Ponomarev’s testimony recorded in the protocols for the GPU is in many ways similar to previously published copies of interrogations of another former deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation Denis Voronenkov, who was shot in Kyiv, whom the prosecutor’s office also for a long time called a key witness in the Yanukovych case, who also in his testimony he relied largely on media reports.
At the same time, the publication draws attention to the fact that so far, as part of the process against the ex-president, the state prosecution has not been able to use Voronenkov’s previously given written evidence for the GPU, and Yanukovych’s lawyers, who have access to all the materials of the case, have repeatedly used contradictions or vague wording of witnesses in the process in your favor.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.