Thursday Obolonskiy district court of Kiev at the meeting in the case of treason, the former head of Viktor Yanukovych’s Square started the main event and considered the evidence for the prosecution. However, poor arguments of the prosecution was completely refuted by their own witnesses.
photo: Gennady Cherkasov
The trial of the former head of Ukraine continues, despite the exit of Yanukovych. He withdrew his lawyers from Kiev in early July and refused to participate in trumped-up, according to him, the process. To represent the interests of the defendant is appointed a public defender Vitaly Masachika. Yanukovych reacted to the fact that as a game for the prosecution. However, the public defender approached the process with seriousness and continued to bend the line of his predecessors. Gozzadini noted that Viktor Yanukovych was submitted to the search illegal, because the defendant had not been given notification of the invitation of the court, as required by international law. In addition, Machacek noted that the Ukrainian side has not appealed to the Russian colleagues to organize a video conference on the program for international legal assistance. Both requirements are regulated not only by world standards but law Square, so the work of the Prosecutor’s office raises serious questions.
One of the evidence that was presented in the court of the Ukrainian prosecutors, was the video of the speech of Vladimir Putin before the Federation Council. Then the Russian President asked the senators to approve sending troops into the Crimea to protect the Russian-speaking population of the Peninsula. Prosecutors insisted that the reason for this was the address of Yanukovych in which he asked Moscow for a military intervention to restore law and order. Vitaly Machacek noted that during Putin’s speech, one of the members of the Federation Council really said about the letter of Yanukovych, but it came only an hour before the event, so the decision to send troops had been made before the appeal of the ex-President of Ukraine. Also, the court has examined the record of the meeting of the UN, which was shown the copy of the letter Yanukovych to Putin. Both videos were admitted as evidence of high treason of the Ukrainian ex-President.
However, the arguments of the prosecution were questioned by their chief witness — former Ambassador Square to the UN Yuriy Sergeyev. The testimony in this case he gave back in January of this year in new York, on August 15 come in for questioning in Kiev. Copies of his testimony posted by one of the Ukrainian portals last Wednesday. According to Sergeyev, the reason for the Russian troops on the Peninsula was not a letter of Yanukovych, and Sergei Aksenov, which was taken at that time, the position of the self-proclaimed President of the government of the Republic of Crimea. The witness also said that his Russian colleagues at the UN Vitaly Churkin at the time was only a photocopy of the letter of Yanukovych, and that without the signature of the former President. Therefore, the arguments of the Prosecutor’s office offset by the testimony of their main witness. In the end, Obolonskiy district court decided to recess the trial until August 15.
It is obvious that at the next meeting the position Sergeeva will already be set out in more detail, so that prosecutors will have to prepare to be able to prove treason on the part of Yanukovych to justice. However, a member of the Committee on International relations of the National Association of advocates of Ukraine Andrew BUZAROV assumes that the default judgment at the trial can be expected in the coming year.
— Now it is difficult to predict the results, as there is only the process. It is normal that some testimony to contradict others. You must wait for the completion of all proceedings. In any case, no one in the expert community is not in doubt that the appeal of Yanukovych to Putin was, so you need this fact to prove legally. The problem with this case is that it is excessively politicized. The Prosecutor’s office is doing everything to speed up the process, and the defence tries to tighten it. Both parties act as professionally as possible to prove his innocence, so it lasts so long. However, I think that in the next six months to a year will have passed so-called default judgment, it is now allowed by the Ukrainian legislation. However, this will is not the point, and the ellipsis”.