Gorbatyuk: I am Sure that the law on “zaochku” we need to change, otherwise the ECHR will establish irregularities in the application procedure for in absentia proceedings

Interview with the head of the Department of special investigations of the Prosecutor General Sergei Gorbatyuk the Agency “Interfax-Ukraine”

Saakashvili was summoned for interrogation in court of “Berkut” and was supposed to testify, but on the eve of the hearing, he was returned to Poland on the readmission procedure. How important was the investigation of his testimony?

Testimony Saakashvili important, the Prosecutor’s office was interested in them. We previously interviewed him as a witness in the investigation of faktovoe case on the events on the Maidan. According to that was stated in the documentary Italian channel about the so-called Georgian snipers on the Maidan, he gave the explanations. They do look reasonable, and, in my opinion, refute the data contained in the movie. So, of course, the testimony was relevant and the Prosecutor’s office for failure to appear Saakashvili to court is not good .

Please note that the information about the upcoming interrogation was public. Those who took the decision on expulsion, could not know about the interrogation and had to take this into account. Don’t know what would have happened if you would have waited a day or two.

Is it possible to link these two facts?

Whether the expulsion Saakashvili has something to do with the interrogation – I do not know, but the fact that his absence in Ukraine and, as a consequence, the absence at the hearing harms the investigation, is a fact.

How do a serious version of “the Georgian snipers” on the Maidan?

In my opinion, based on what they told, these data do not correspond to the developments. But these statements are, they are associated with specific individuals and it is wrong to just discard this version, we have to check.

In the movie they say that weapons were used, and in the statements that the lawyers of the suspects provide the court, they claim that they were witnesses.

In any case, all this should be checked, so important was the testimony of Saakashvili, because these people refer to it, they give the documents that Saakashvili could comment on in court, in open court.

Version of the involvement of Russian special services to the events on the Maidan supported by evidence?

There is no data on the direct participation of specific representatives of Russian special forces in any military actions. In the media there is information that someone saw the chevrons, I heard accent something else. But the testimony of witnesses about this.

However, it is confirmed that representatives of the FSB, the interior Ministry came and asked for independence, and also carried out consultations of employees of the SBU and the interior Ministry. And depending on developments we are talking about the fact that these consultations were aimed at a military solution to the problem.

But there is no sufficient evidence that these consultations or other actions led to a military solution. No official documents about this “cooperation” was not made, or they are destroyed.

But the investigation goes on, and that there is sufficient evidence will lead to suspicion as a co-organizer or instigator. Now we are talking about helping, but did it to commit crimes, the investigation will give the answer.

Supply of special means of enhanced actions as humanitarian assistance is indirect evidence, although evidence of the boost to the military option.

After four years since the events on the Maidan, the number of people prosecuted? The total number of suspects, the accused, under investigation and convicted really

If we talk about all the events connected with the protest actions in Ukraine from 30 November to 21 February, and not only about what happened in Kiev, in total these cases are notified on suspicion of 412 people. The court directed the case against 252 people, the courts issued 50 verdicts and, accordingly, the case 202 defendants continue to be in the courts.

50 judicial sentences punishment in the form of imprisonment was two, but is serving a sentence by one person, and then, if not already out by the “law Savchenko”. It is on the events of January, when “titushky” beat the participant of the protest action was taken in the bus have been talking about the imprisonment, torture and robbery. One person got four and a half years of real life, the second four years of probation, another offender was sentenced to two-and-a-half years of imprisonment, but given the “law Savchenko” and after the verdict he believed that his sentence was served.

Wanted is now 102 people.

If there were any suspects in the case of the use of force against the very law enforcement?

There are criminal proceedings directly connected with the murders, shootings, beatings. It is investigated in the complex, because it concerns the same events. For each episode, the investigators established, in particular, and circumstances of receiving injuries by police officers.

The events of December 1 was charged to the heads of the interior troops and departments of public security that they are in violation of the instructions, for a long time – about 4 hours – not provided protection to soldiers of internal troops, who were in the forefront, so that they were injured. This qualifies as deliberate inaction of law enforcement officials.

Those who gave the order on introduction of the ATO and agreed on it, we incrementum murder, including police officers, with indirect intent. This former President, and former head of the SBU, and his Deputy, and at that time the Minister of internal Affairs, and his Deputy Reason for the ATO was not putting it into action resulted in the death of protesters and militiamen. That is, we the prosecution say that after the morning events and the victims, given the weapons and its goal of Stripping Maidan, were they aware that they will be injured and killed on both sides.

We recently notified about suspicion in the use of weapons against the law enforcement officers of one man, who was among the protesters. He is charged with committing two murders and one gunshot wound.

Who is this man?

While nothing can say about him, but this is a necessary procedure to establish the truth, including the circumstances of the killings of protesters.

In how many of the suspects started the procedure in absentia prosecution?

The events of February 20 against 20 “berkutovets” the court gave permission to start a special pre-trial investigation. Only the court’s permission at the beginning of the correspondence procedure of the investigation obtained by the three dozens of people.

Why absentee consideration against Yanukovych, Yakimenko, Totsky in the shootings on the Maidan started now?

This was done as soon as there was sufficient evidence, the decision taken by the Prosecutor. But again, this is only the beginning of special (part-time) investigation, then will be the question of whether we are ready to prepare the indictment and to move the materials to the court.

Is it reasonable to expect completion of trial for treason Yanukovych to start the trial of this case?

Technically, both these things can be considered in parallel. But there are plenty of issues related to the rights of a suspect, they can give additional grounds to declare the violations. In particular, given the complications of the work of lawyers after the appearance of the second process.

Overall, I think that to send the case to the court, starting with the suspects in the organization of crime – the approach is wrong, based on the amount of the alleged crimes. The suspect is in fact not involved in the correspondence process, and the aggrieved party suffers from endless court appearances.

And if we organized the trials with the possibility of almost daily consideration for all episodes against the perpetrators or middle managers, we have the output was so-called pre-judicial decision: the court would have found that, for example, the “Berkut” is really involved in these events and the victims of their actions were injured. And then in the process according to organizer, for example, to Yanukovych, the court would have the right not to establish factual material, but only to prove the relationship between the conditional “berkutovets”, and contingent leadership. That is, in this case, the process against the organizers reduced significantly, and at all events we can obtain solutions relatively speaking, for the year. And it does not suffer the victims – once they testify in court. Can only be some point exceptions.

And so it turns out that the victims, the witnesses will go to one court to another, the third. And if Yanukovych suddenly arrive in Ukraine, the process can be started again.

You have repeatedly said about the dubious legal purity of the procedure in absentia prosecution as such…

I was trying to convey to his leadership perspectives “zaochki”, which is spelled out in the criminal procedure code in such a way that creates a good reason for the invalidation, made with violations of the right to protection, the possible sentences in international courts. In the procedure lays down a series of violations of international conventions and practice of the European court of human rights. Accordingly, the appeal to the ECHR can lead to the fact that the European court recognizes violation of the rights of a suspect, procedures, and it will be grounds for cancellation of the verdict of the Supreme court.

I believe that the procedure of using the current “zaochki” almost certainly the European court will then establish a violation.

One of the senior officials gave evidence on the “maydanovsky” who are going who promise but cannot walk?

There are those who give testimony. But they are few. The names will not be called. And in General, the trend – come and say essentially only one. Most say “not seen, not known” or gives a General, sweeping statement.

Whether judicial reform has a negative impact on the consideration of “maydanovskih cases” in the courts?

Judicial reform has complicated all at least in the sense that the elimination of the courts provides certain legal “mines” – can be called into question the legitimacy of the judicial process, and all cases will be considered again. It is proposed to allow the judge to continue to hear cases, he had to reform it, but the CPC does not provide, and prescribes that it is necessary to start all over again.

And then the trial will drag for years, but for centuries…

Well, Yes. Five “Berkut” the process is essentially the court is for two years, and now only came to the end of the questioning of victims and witnesses, is the case – that is, a court somewhere halfway, maybe 2/3. But here we see that the process is moving, meetings are held twice a week.

Other: court cases are not so active, some year and a half, not appointed even to the consideration of the merits. For example, for two years the question of purpose to the proceedings against the commander of the Kharkov “Berkut” (13.02.18 appointed to examine the case). It’s a case of “wandering” through the courts, now it is in the Darnitsa district court of Kiev. And there victims even more than the events of 20 February, but mostly we are talking about the facts of beating.

Impact whether the deprivation of the Prosecutor’s office the functions of investigation on the operation of Your Department?

Certainly. Four years have passed and we still come statements from people injured on the Maidan. The people themselves apparently did not consider it necessary to ask earlier, but their words are confirmed by medical documents.

In fact, investigators now can only finish old business. Prosecutors register these new applications and integrate them with old cases. The question is: do we have the right to do this? Formally, we must record and send to the police or SBU. But if we are talking about checking former police officers, that is illegal and wrong.

What legislative changes should be made without delay, if not improve, at least not to undermine the work of the “maydanovsky”?

The first is to resume full powers of investigators of the Prosecutor’s office for investigation. Powers terminated because it was supposed to start the work of the State Bureau of investigation, and it is actually formed and operates.

We are talking about the fact that there is no one to investigate, not that the Prosecutor’s office wants to regain powers.

Also needs to be a transition period for the transfer of cases.

In addition, 15 Mar effect slightly retouched change of “amendment Lozovoy”. If they come into power there will be chaos. These changes should be undone. Then let them improve somehow, but they should not be in the form in which they are now.

How do You assess the work of your Department?

It is difficult to assess yourself, it should do. I see some mistakes, now I understand that at a certain stage would have to do a lot of things differently. But then the priorities were the other highlights.

Overall, probably our work is successful because there is a result, return. Errors, if they were, it is not intentional, but due to the lack of experience investigating such cases.

Could be much more effective to do if it was not only the work of investigators and prosecutors, and the entire state system, from the legislative to the judiciary.


Leave a comment

Confirm that you are not a bot - select a man with raised hand: