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.

Similar articles

Outrage in Ukraine as Yanukovych lawyer appointed first deputy head of body investigating Maidan crimesNew head of Maidan investigations implicated in judicial corruption scandalUkraine’s leaders further jeopardize suspected Maidan killers’ trial as Russia uses freed suspects for propagandaRussia claims Ukraine promised to terminate the trial of suspected Maidan killers freed in prisoner exchangeSuspected Maidan Berkut killers freed on eve of Donbas hostage exchangeRelease of suspected Maidan killers in prisoner exchange will help Russia destabilize UkraineEx-Berkut officer accused of mass Maidan killing released from detention33 Maidan crime suspects still work in law enforcement bodies, 10 in high positionsKey evidence against Maidan killers in danger of being destroyedWhy is Lutsenko trying to destroy the only department truly investigating Maidan crimes?The case against Georgiy Logvynskyi must be closed. An open statementWhat did the media team of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group deal with in 2022?Kharkiv Human Rights Group’s position regarding the detention and prosecution of Kostyantyn ZhevagoDirector of Amnesty International in Ukraine resigns in protest calling controversial Amnesty press release 'a tool of Russian propaganda’ “Do You Still Want This War?” Anti-War Activities in Russia, 3-9 July 2022Prominent Ukrainian activist Roman Ratushny killed defending Ukraine against Russian invaders Report concerning the investigation of the mass unlawful use of force to the convicts of the Oleksiivska correctional colony (No.25) on January 8, 2020 Kazakhstan opposition activists beaten up and threatened with deportation by Ukraine’s Security Service Court in Ukraine freezes all of former President Poroshenko’s assets over ‘treason’ charges If you committed tortures and remained free, it is our work and not your achievement

Yanukovych’s lawyer reportedly knew in advance he would get top job in State body investigating Maidan crimes

Halya Coynash
There are grounds for suspecting that Oleksandr Babikov was not appointed First Deputy Head of the State Bureau of Investigations as the result of a fair competition, with this only compounding the concerns over a conflict of interests given Babikov’s recent role in representing fugitive ex-President Viktor Yanukovych

There are grounds for suspecting that Oleksandr Babikov knew that he would be appointed First Deputy Head of the State Bureau of Investigations [SBI] even before the competition was announced.  This can only intensify the concern over an appointment which has been condemned by Maidan victims, their lawyers and a leading prosecutor on Maidan trials as representing a clear conflict of interests given Babikov’s former role as one of the lawyers defending fugitive ex-President Viktor Yanukovych. 

This is not the only top appointment which is alleged to have been made on the basis of connections with the Acting Director of SBI, Iryna Venediktova. 

The District Administrative Court in Kyiv announced on 30 January that a legal suit had been lodged, challenging Babikov’s appointment as First Deputy Director, and also that of Oleksandr Sokolov as Deputy Director.  The unnamed claimant has asked the court to cancel, as unlawful, the decision of the selection committee from 10 January 2020 making the above-mentioned appointments, and to allow the claimant to take part in the competition.  

The fact that proceedings have been initiated does not mean that the appeal will succeed; however, there do appear to be reasons for concern.  The claimant is not the only person to have criticized the competition procedure.  The announcement of a competition was not placed on the main page of the SBI official website; there was no public information about it; and people were asked to submit applications during the peak of the New Year holiday period – from 30 December 2019 to 2 January, during which interval the commission’s phone was not taking calls.

Judging by the court statement above, the appointments were actually made on 10 January, although only officially announced on 20 January.

This in itself is disturbing, since Venediktova met with relatives of slain Maidan activists and lawyers on 14 January after they expressed concern that a lawyer who had represented Yanukovych should be appointed to a top post in the body which is taking over around half of the investigations into crimes against Maidan activists. Venediktova merely confirmed that Babikov would be appointed to the post if recommended by the selection committee and if he successfully passed the special check, whereas the decision appears to have already been taken.

On 21 January, the day after Venediktova announced Babikov’s appointment, MP Oleksandra Ustinova (from the ‘Holos’ party) posted evidence that Babikov had formally curtailed his lawyer activities from 28 December 2019, the day before the competition for deputy directors was announced.  A successful candidate would have a week after his or her appointment to make that move, and such speed certainly does give rise to the suspicion that Babikov was strangely confident that he would no longer be working as a defence lawyer.  He is adamant that he won a fair competition, though according to the Insider, he does not conceal friendly relations with the now Acting Director dating back many years.

There have also been allegations that Sokolov has links with Venediktova via his wife’s business.

Such claims need to be verified, but they do increase concerns about the apparently strange features of the competition.

The main issue remains, however, Babikov’s appointment given his recent role in representing Yanukovych.  The situation is not improved by the fact that Babikov held a press briefing on 28 January at which he denied having ever met Yanukovych or represented him.  This was refuted, with proof, by Maidan lawyer Yevhenia Zakrevska before the announcement of his appointment, and more evidence has since been produced.

Oleksiy Donsky, one of the main prosecutors in Maidan cases since the beginning of 2015, has also publicly stated that he sees an obvious conflict of interests in Babikov’s new appointment.  During a press conference on 22 January, marking the first deaths during the Revolution of Dignity, Donsky said that Babikov’s appointment “will undoubtedly have an adverse effect on these investigations.”   He also noted that he had seen Babikov on several occasions during court hearings into the Yanukovych trial, and that the latter had seemed very dedicated to defending Yanukovych’s interests. While hoping that the assurances given by the SBI leadership that Babikov will not be involved in Maidan cases will be honoured, he expressed doubt that this was even possible for a first deputy director.   During his press conference on 28 January, Babikov claimed that he did not know Donsky and had only just heard of him for the first time.

Babikov also asserted that neither the SBI (currently Acting) Director nor her First Deputy and Deputy head the department involved in the pre-trial investigation and that they are prevented by law from interfering in criminal investigations.   The special department responsible for Maidan investigations will only be subordinate to the (Acting) Director and not to him or Sokolov.  This begs the issue of what happens when the Director is ill or on leave, and after all, those contingencies are among the reasons for having a deputy.

There have been serious problems over the transfer of Maidan investigations to the State Bureau of Investigations since at least October 2019, with appeals from the families of slain Maidan activists and their lawyers repeatedly ignored.  There were valid reasons for the reforms within the prosecutor’s office and removal of investigative functions, however the Department of Special Investigations within the Prosecutor General’s Office and its dedicated team had earned the trust of Maidan victims and their lawyers, and of civic society in general.  The failure to prepare adequately for transfer of cases to SBI and other bodies had already prompted warnings that the Maidan investigations could collapse, and thus far nothing about the SBI’s behaviour has allayed concerns.


 Share this