Antonik’s case may be falsified.
13.12.2002 source: UNIAN
Ruslan Antonik, the manager-editor of the People’s TV company of Ukraine, was accused murdering a businessman and condemned to 13 years. Antonik’s advocate and the journalists, who investigated and reflected this case in the press, discuss the arguments of the prosecution and come to the conclusion that this criminal case was falsified.
The journalists, who investigated and described in the press the case of Ruslan Antonik, the manager-editor of the People’s TV company of Ukraine, assert that this criminal case was falsified. Antonik is accused of murdering businessman P. Tychynsky.
As a UNIAN correspondent informs, during the press conference held in the National union of Ukrainian journalists, journalist Natalya Okolitenko told about a number of facts that, in her opinion, directly testify about Antonik’s innocence.
First, she told, the time of the murder, which, as experts determined, occurred two hours before the body was found, does not coincide with the time, when R. Antonik came to the Maryinsky park. In particular, the body was found about 20:00, and Antonik, as it is shown by a check exhibited in court, at 19:30 ordered coffee, 50 grams of vodka and mineral water in the cafe ’Tarasik’ on the corner of Institutska St. and Kripostny lane. Ms. Okolitenko is sure that R. Antonik was not in the park at the time of the murder.
N. Okolitenko also pointed out that the testimony of the only eyewitness of the crime, being logically analyzed, also serves as Antonik’s alibi. By the way the witness, Volkovsky, according to medical expertise, is oligophrenic with traits of debility.
Okolitenko said that she ’does not assert that Antonik is not the murderer, but this case is so fuzzy that the decision of the Pecherskiy district court, which found Antonik guilty, cannot be well-proven’. Besides, she considers strange that the court decided to destroy all the exhibits concerning this case. By the way, among these exhibits there was not a single one, which directly pointed at Antonik as guilty, in particular the knife, which served as a tool of the murder was absent.
As Tatyana Yablonska, a member of the Ukrainian-American bureau of human rights protection, the case against R. Antonik was falsified in order to close it as soon as possible. She is sure that ’Antonik was framed in order to report about the successful investigation of the murder’. T. Yablonska said that ’the main reason of so fast reaction of law-enforcers is the fact that P. Tychynsky was a relative of a top official’. Ms. Yablonska refused to name this official, but said that she knew that Tychynskiy, on the day of being murdered, ’had a business appointment in the park with a man in dark trousers. This is known to the witnesses, whom the court refused to interrogate’. Meanwhile, she said, Antonik wore white trousers this day.
T. Yablonska also informed that Antonik’s case will be considered by all means by the European Court of human rights. Yet, ’for Ukraine it will cost too much’.
All journalists, who investigated this case, stressed that Antonik’s confession was made after he was cruelly beaten by his cellmate in the preliminary prison. Later Antonik denied his confession.
On 3 January 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine will have to consider the cassation appeal of Antonik’s advocates.
UNIAN reminds the reader the circumstances of the case.
On 28 December 2000 the Pecherskiy district court of Kyiv City found Ruslan Antonik, the manager-editor of the People’s TV company of Ukraine, guilty in the murder of P. Tychinsky and condemned him to 13 years of incarceration in a colony of strengthened regime.
Antonik’s advocate Sergiy Kryzhanivski stated that, taking the decisions, judge Yulia Ivanenko did not take into account the arguments of the defense that proved the innocence of the accused.
R. Antonik was blamed for stabbing seven times businessman P. Tychynsky, who died in the result. Antonik categorically rejected these accusations and assessed the criminal case against him as a provocation on the side of law-enforcing organs caused by his work with the series of TV features ’Affair of the al-Ukrainian scale’. The feature was broadcast on his channel and criticized the activities of the Federation of trade unions of Ukraine. Immediately after the first feature went into air, one of the heads of the Federation phoned to the editorial board with threats to ’mince’ Antonik. Advocate Kryzhanivski tells that Antonik has the well-proven alibi. The main proof of the defense is the check from the cafe, where R. Antonik stayed during the murder of Tychynsky. Yet, the court disregarded this exhibit. The advocate said his client was ’psychologically pressed’ by militiamen with the aim to force him to confess.
As a UNIAN correspondent informs, during the press conference held in the National union of Ukrainian journalists, journalist Natalya Okolitenko told about a number of facts that, in her opinion, directly testify about Antonik’s innocence.
First, she told, the time of the murder, which, as experts determined, occurred two hours before the body was found, does not coincide with the time, when R. Antonik came to the Maryinsky park. In particular, the body was found about 20:00, and Antonik, as it is shown by a check exhibited in court, at 19:30 ordered coffee, 50 grams of vodka and mineral water in the cafe ’Tarasik’ on the corner of Institutska St. and Kripostny lane. Ms. Okolitenko is sure that R. Antonik was not in the park at the time of the murder.
N. Okolitenko also pointed out that the testimony of the only eyewitness of the crime, being logically analyzed, also serves as Antonik’s alibi. By the way the witness, Volkovsky, according to medical expertise, is oligophrenic with traits of debility.
Okolitenko said that she ’does not assert that Antonik is not the murderer, but this case is so fuzzy that the decision of the Pecherskiy district court, which found Antonik guilty, cannot be well-proven’. Besides, she considers strange that the court decided to destroy all the exhibits concerning this case. By the way, among these exhibits there was not a single one, which directly pointed at Antonik as guilty, in particular the knife, which served as a tool of the murder was absent.
As Tatyana Yablonska, a member of the Ukrainian-American bureau of human rights protection, the case against R. Antonik was falsified in order to close it as soon as possible. She is sure that ’Antonik was framed in order to report about the successful investigation of the murder’. T. Yablonska said that ’the main reason of so fast reaction of law-enforcers is the fact that P. Tychynsky was a relative of a top official’. Ms. Yablonska refused to name this official, but said that she knew that Tychynskiy, on the day of being murdered, ’had a business appointment in the park with a man in dark trousers. This is known to the witnesses, whom the court refused to interrogate’. Meanwhile, she said, Antonik wore white trousers this day.
T. Yablonska also informed that Antonik’s case will be considered by all means by the European Court of human rights. Yet, ’for Ukraine it will cost too much’.
All journalists, who investigated this case, stressed that Antonik’s confession was made after he was cruelly beaten by his cellmate in the preliminary prison. Later Antonik denied his confession.
On 3 January 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine will have to consider the cassation appeal of Antonik’s advocates.
UNIAN reminds the reader the circumstances of the case.
On 28 December 2000 the Pecherskiy district court of Kyiv City found Ruslan Antonik, the manager-editor of the People’s TV company of Ukraine, guilty in the murder of P. Tychinsky and condemned him to 13 years of incarceration in a colony of strengthened regime.
Antonik’s advocate Sergiy Kryzhanivski stated that, taking the decisions, judge Yulia Ivanenko did not take into account the arguments of the defense that proved the innocence of the accused.
R. Antonik was blamed for stabbing seven times businessman P. Tychynsky, who died in the result. Antonik categorically rejected these accusations and assessed the criminal case against him as a provocation on the side of law-enforcing organs caused by his work with the series of TV features ’Affair of the al-Ukrainian scale’. The feature was broadcast on his channel and criticized the activities of the Federation of trade unions of Ukraine. Immediately after the first feature went into air, one of the heads of the Federation phoned to the editorial board with threats to ’mince’ Antonik. Advocate Kryzhanivski tells that Antonik has the well-proven alibi. The main proof of the defense is the check from the cafe, where R. Antonik stayed during the murder of Tychynsky. Yet, the court disregarded this exhibit. The advocate said his client was ’psychologically pressed’ by militiamen with the aim to force him to confess.