war crimes in Ukraine

The Tribunal for Putin (T4P) global initiative was set up in response to the all-out war launched by Russia against Ukraine in February 2022.


Ivashchenko’s case is among those arousing most accusations of selective prosecution of members of Yulia Tymoshenko’s government. He has been convicted of “abusing his position” in November 2009 while Acting Minister of Defence by signing a plan to sell the Feodosia Marine Engineering Works

Former Acting Defence Minister in Yulia Tymoshenko’s government, Valery Ivashchenko has been sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. The sentence was announced today, 12 April, in the Pechersky District Court.

Mr Ivashchenko, according to the sentence, is also stripped of his public official rank and prohibited from holding certain posts for 3 years.

The sentence says that he will remain in custody, but the period he has spent in prison will be part of the sentence.

The verdict states that the court has taken into account extenuating circumstances: no criminal record; state awards; a positive character reference and poor state of health.

It rejects a civil suit from the Feodosia Marine Engineering Works and removes the arrest on his property.

Valery Ivashchenko has been in detention since August 2010.  He was charged with having, in November 2009 while Acting Minister of Defence abused his position by signing a plan to sell the Feodosia Marine Engineering Works which was property of the Ministry of Defence.  More details can be found in the Second Preliminary Report by the Danish Helsinki Committee on Human Rights, where Valery Ivashchenko’s case is one of those examined

Over recent months Mr Ivashchenko has asserted that the court examination of the criminal investigation material had revealed falsification by the Prosecutor General’s Office.  There is no evidence that any of this has been investigated.

He maintains that from the moment the criminal investigation was initiated, the investigators asserted that Ivashchenko had committed a crime, not that he was suspected of having committed one. Thus his guilt was regarded as fact from the outset, and then they set out finding evidence. In doing so, he asserts, they falsified and manipulated material in order to compensate for the fact that there was no cause and effect link between him and the illegal activity involved, nor intent, etc. 

 Share this