Interview of Mrs Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, PACE rapporteur on the Gongadze case, to "Ukrayinska Pravda"
– What did you discuss with Mr Melnychenko in Strasbourg?
Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger: I spoke with Mr Melnychenko more than three hours. The meeting was very useful for me, as I clarified many issues. The main question I addressed to Mr Melnychenko was why it was so difficult to organise an international expert examination of his alleged recordings. I received some explanations, and we agreed on a possible solution. I was pleased to note that Mr Melnychenko has declared himself ready to co-operate with the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine.
So far, the Prosecutor General has set pre-conditions, which made Mr Melnychenko worry that the alleged evidence in his possession could be tampered with.
Mr Melnychenko has now assured me that he is ready to provide his testimony to the Prosecutor General’s office after a credible international expertise of the recordings is carried out. I agreed to help to select international experts in consultation with all sides and act as an intermediary person.
He also has agreed to provide the experts with any explanations that are needed for conducting the expertise. I see this order of actions as a reasonable solution and asked the Prosecutor General to support it as well.
– Did Mr Melnychenko explain why he had not returned to Ukraine?
Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger: As I understood his main concern is the safety of his family. Also, according to him, his visits to Ukraine are possible only upon agreement from the US government; otherwise, his refugee status in the USA could be revoked. He confirms, however, that he is ready to come and testify before the Ukrainian courts. In fact, his visit to Ukraine may not even be necessary for the purposes of the investigation, as all investigative actions could be carried out with the assistance of the US Justice Department within the mutual legal assistance procedures.
– With what Ukrainian authorities do you have contacts and what are your impressions?
Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger: In March, I had extensive and fruitful meetings with Mr Moroz, leader of the Socialist Party, Mr Martyniuk, First Deputy Chair of the Verkhovna Rada, Ms Yemelianova and Mr Marmazov, Deputy Ministers in the Ministry of Justice, Mr Lutsenko, Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr Omelchenko, Chair of the Verkhovna Rada’s Ad Hoc Commission on the investigation of Gongadze and other high-profile cases, Prosecutor General Mr Piskun, and Ambassador Mr Motsyk, Deputy State Secretary of Ukraine. I also met with Mr Fedur, the lawyer for Mr Gongadze’s mother. The main contact of course is Prosecutor General Piskun, whose assistance and co-operation I highly appreciate.
– Are you aware that Mr Melnychenko, for some obscure reasons, regularly visits Moscow?
Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger: I have heard such allegations, but I have no evidence either to prove or to refute them.
– Why did you agree to become a rapporteur on the Gongadze case?
Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger: The investigation of the murder of journalist Georgiy Gongadze is a test case for democracy in Ukraine. Is has also become important for the freedom of expression in Europe as a whole. If journalists cannot feel safe when they are doing their job, freedom of speech will be chilled.
That is why it is of utmost importance to bring to justice the perpetrators and instigators of this crime. The Parliamentary Assembly has insisted several times that this case should be solved. Therefore, I was pleased to accept this rapporteurship, despite the fact that the case is an extremely complicated one.
– What conclusions have you made after working half a year as a rapporteur on this case?
Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger: It is too early to reach any final conclusions. In March, I paid a visit to Kyiv and in April, I presented to the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee an introductory memorandum on this topic. I was authorised by the Committee to conduct another fact-finding visit and to invite to Strasbourg Mr Melnychenko and medical expert Mr Ivasyuk, both of whom I met during the June part-session.
My first impression in March was that the treatment of the Gongadze affair was considered by many “Orange Revolutionaries” as a political litmus test measuring the seriousness with which the new authorities are pursuing the restoration of the rule of law in Ukraine. I was impressed with the determination of several of my interlocutors to go all the way to the top of the chain of command, using all available means of evidence, including the famous “Melnychenko recordings”. At the same time, I was struck by the evident mutual distrust among several key players.
After a breakthrough we witnessed in February-March, when the alleged executors of the crime were found, the investigation has somewhat stalled. This is all the more worrying, as the prosecutor’s office had made public statements that formally the case is “solved.”
I believe that, whatever the approach of police statistics in Ukraine is, the case should not be considered as solved until the whole chain of perpetrators is brought to justice, i.e. tried by the criminal courts. Regrettably, there are also no investigations into the responsibility for earlier procedural violations, both before the disappearance of Georgiy Gongadze and after the headless body was found in Tarashcha.
I am also disappointed that the alleged recordings of Mr Melnychenko have not yet been re-examined by a team of international experts including representatives of the Ukrainian authorities. I have proposed my assistance both to the Prosecutor General and to Mr Melnychenko to reach a solution in this issue.
– What will be your proposals?
Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger: Last week, I have written to Mr Piskun asking him to support the proposal concerning the expertise of the recordings and the subsequent testimony by Mr Melnychenko and to make all necessary practical arrangements. I received on Monday (4 July) a very quick answer from Mr Piskun, but he does not, unfortunately, give a reply to my specific proposal. Therefore, I had to send another letter on the next day (5 July) asking for clarification.
I have also decided to seek an extension of my mandate as a rapporteur to include other high-profile cases, which had been examined inter alia by the Verkhovna Rada’s Ad hoc Commission of Inquiry, in particular the attempt on the life of a former member of the Verkhovna Rada, Mr Oleksandr Yeliashkevych, and the assault on Mr Oleksiy Podolskiy, an assistant to a member of parliament.
Despite allegations that the recordings of conversations of ex-president Kuchma, purportedly made by Major Mykola Melnychenko, may provide useful evidence, there has been no progress in the investigations. It is worth noting that in two earlier resolutions, PACE had urged the Ukrainian authorities to launch a new investigation into the case of Mr Yeliashkevych.
If the recordings' authenticity is confirmed by an independent expertise in accordance with Ukrainian criminal procedure, their contents relating to the commission of crimes (not only in the Gongadze case) should be investigated and the guilty brought to justice. This would show Ukraine's adherence to the rule of law.
– What real mechanisms of influence do you have to make the Gongadze case investigated?
Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger: At some point in time I will present my full report to the Assembly, which will then consider a resolution and, possibly, a recommendation to the Committee of Ministers. I also know that the Gongadze case is also followed within the Assembly’s monitoring committee. My findings are likely to be taken into account there as well.
– What do you think about the March 2005 statement by President Yushchenko that the Gongadze case was solved?
Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger: Personally, I doubt that there was a need for such a statement. But not knowing the exact circumstances leading to this statement, I do not wish to criticise President Yushchenko, for whose courage and determination I have a lot of respect.
– The Ukrainian authorities continuously strive to lift the PACE monitoring procedure with regard to Ukraine. Will it be possible to lift the monitoring if only the executors, and not those who ordered the murder, are punished?
Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger: The monitoring procedure is carried out by the Assembly’s Monitoring Committee and its two co-rapporteurs. I cannot comment on this. However, this week, a high-level PACE delegation including Assembly President Rene van der Linden is visiting Kyiv, to whom you may address this question. I can just reiterate my own opinion, as a rapporteur, that the Gongadze case can only be considered as solved when the masterminds of this crime are also brought to court.
- What is your position and position of your party, the German Free Democrats, with regard to the European aspirations of Ukraine?
Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger: The German Liberal Party (FDP) appreciates the political change in the Ukraine and the will of the majority of the Ukrainian population to establish a very close relationship with the European Union. In times of uncertainty of the future character of the European Union it would be too early to promise an EU membership to the Ukraine – a promise which the EU might not be able to keep.
Under these circumstances and at that time both sides, the Ukraine and the European Union, would most benefit from a very close economical, political and social cooperation, which can start off right now and have time to flourish. In the long run however the Ukraine should get the perspective of EU membership.
