The editor of an opposition newspaper was arrested and tried in Kyiv for an interview with Gubarev

In the Darnitsky District Court of Kyiv, the trial of the editor of the opposition newspaper “Working Class”, leader of the Workers' Party of Ukraine, people's deputy of a number of previous convocations of the Verkhovna Rada, Alexander Bondarchuk, continues.

Subscribe to the news "PolitNavigator - Kyiv" in Facebook, Classmates orIn contact with

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

As PolitNavigator already reported, a year ago the SBU opened a criminal case against an opposition politician and journalist for an interview published on June 16 last year in a publication he edits (answers to questions from social network users) with DPR social and political figure Pavel Gubarev.

The case was initiated under Art. 110 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine “Encroachment on the territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine.” Four months ago, the opposition journalist was taken into custody and is currently being held in a pre-trial detention center.

It is worth noting that neither the editor of the newspaper nor the staff writers of “Working Class” have anything to do with this material - the publication was reprinted from the newspaper “Novorossiya”.

It is noteworthy that the expert report, which refers to “indirect calls for recognition of the statehood of Novorossiya” and was added by the prosecution to the case file as evidence, was issued by the Ukrainian Research Institute of Special Equipment and Forensic Expertise of the Security Service of Ukraine. On this basis, the defense filed a motion to remove this conclusion from the list of evidence, since its inclusion in the case is a direct violation of Art. 69 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, which, in particular, states: “Persons who are in official or other dependence on the parties to criminal proceedings or the victim cannot be experts.”

In response, the prosecutor stated that the Ukrainian Research Institute of Special Equipment and Forensic Expertise of the Security Service of Ukraine is independent of the SBU, which means its findings can be included as evidence in a criminal case that was being processed by SBU investigators.

At the same time, the prosecutor’s statement is easily refuted on the official website of the SBU, where this agency appears in the list of organizational structures of the SBU.

Here you can easily find information that the licensing authority in relation to the institute is the SBU.

The judge rejected the lawyer's request at this stage of the trial, but clarified that it could be submitted later, when the expert's report was considered. The expert himself did not appear in court because, as the prosecutor said, he was on vacation outside of Kyiv.

Due to the absence of the expert, the court hearing was mostly devoted to the study of Gubarev’s interview, which generally amounted to the judge reading out all this material.

From the expert’s conclusion it follows that “an indirect call for recognition of the statehood of Novorossiya” is contained in Gubarev’s answer to the question whether Novorossiya will join the Russian Federation or remain independent. “First, the statehood of Novorossiya must take place,” Gubarev emphasized. – We must expand the space under our control. This now has to be done by force of arms and at the cost of many lives. When we conquer our independent Novorossiya, then the people will decide what’s next in a referendum.”

“The expert does not accuse me of violating Article 110 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine,” Bondarchuk noted. – It talks about public calls to change the boundaries of the territory or state border of Ukraine, but not about indirect calls. This interpretation of the expert’s conclusion seems to me absolutely unacceptable.”

The meeting was not without its funny moments. The judge spent a long time reading out the expert’s conclusion on another publication, which has nothing to do with the reprint of material from the Novorossiya newspaper and does not appear as evidence from the prosecution. Only after Alexander Bondarchuk’s remark did the judge realize that she was reading a completely different document and moved on to the second expert conclusion, which caused laughter from the accused’s associates present in the room.