On June 29 the regular meeting of the Obolonskiy district court of Kiev on charges of treason of former head of “independence” of Viktor Yanukovych. The court sided with prosecutors and were allowed to hold hearings in absentia format, without the participation of the accused. Although he accused to testify refused. He was ready to communicate with the court in the mode of video, as it was during the trial in the case of “Berkut”. However, judges his testimony was not needed.
photo: Gennady Cherkasov
Thursday hosted the second meeting this week. And on Monday, and on Thursday the defendant Yanukovych was understandable, was absent in court. The lawyer of ex-President Vitaly Serdyuk repeatedly told judges that his client has a real fear for their lives and health, but he is ready to take part in the hearing via video link from Rostov. To do this, the Ukrainian Ministry of justice only need to apply to the Russian colleagues for the organization of the conference. This requirement is spelled out in the European Convention on mutual legal assistance. However, prosecutors flatly refuse to abide by international rules, and on Monday filed a petition for in absentia proceedings in the case of the former President. And the court took their side.
To sit in judgment on so resonant business without the participation of the main accused — nonsense. A country that reaches out to the European values, could demonstrate a semblance of a fair trial. Indeed, Yanukovych himself constantly repeats that he has something to say. Lawyers for the defendants even filed a motion to call about two hundred witnesses. Among them there are representatives of the current Ukrainian authorities, and the policy of several European countries. However, the court refuses to hear the defense’s side. The question arises “why”? The answer is obvious. Yanukovych wants to prove that Ukraine was a coup, but the official Kiev is not favorable for his testimony, because they discrediting themselves.
According to analysts, the trial was originally planned without the participation of the defendant.
Konstantin Bondarenko, head of the Fund “Ukrainian politics”:
– Initially, it was clear that the case has obvious political color. Choice absentia is not the best and fair decision by the court. In fact, it means a guilty verdict in the case of high treason Yanukovych. The testimony of the ex-President is not beneficial to Kiev, because Yanukovych would indicate that the country was a coup, not a constitutional change of power. What information it will provide is unknown, it scares the establishment”
Vladimir Zharikhin, Deputy Director of the Institute of CIS countries:
– Kiev under European values does not imply a prosperous life for citizens, and banknotes. The normal procedure is not included in their list of values. First, Yanukovych normally not allowed to act remotely on the previous charges. Then pulled time and decided that now would cost without his testimony. One would expect that at some point they (the prosecution) will stop their “games” with a demonstration of a full trial. He is to stand trial for treason but what exactly is it cheating? If he were, in chronological order, painted to all events. After all, when his revolutionary method was overthrown from office, he was still on the territory of Ukraine.And. Crimea was also a part of the country during that period. His words confirm the fact that the country was not a constitutional change of power.