Mykola Oliynyk is 61 and in desperate need of proper treatment for stomach cancer. He is, instead, imprisoned in SIZO No. 2 in Tagenrog, a remand prison notorious for its ill-treatment and torture of Ukrainian POWs and political prisoners and faces a sentence of up to 20 years which he cannot possibly survive.
All such ‘trials’ under Russian legislation, of civilians abducted from occupied parts of Ukraine are in breach of international law. Even the relatively little information available about the indictment and proceedings against Oliynyk give serious grounds for suspecting that this is a trial in name alone.
Oliynyk was seized by the Russians in occupied Zaporizhzhia oblast on 10 October, 2023, and has been in Russian captivity ever since. He had been diagnosed with stomach cancer in 2022, or earlier, and, according to Memorial, had been receiving specialized treatment. It is, tragically, unlikely that he is receiving anything in the SIZO, except possibly painkillers. It is especially disturbing that he has been moved, from the SIZO in Rostov to one in Tagenrog, where the conditions are horrific, even when a prisoner is not subjected to direct torture.
The Russian prosecution claim that Oliynyk cooperated from July 2022 with Ukraine’s Security Service [SBU] and planned to kill Volodymyr Matsak, a collaborator installed by the aggressor state as ‘head’ of the occupation ‘Veselivsky raion administration’ in Zaporizhzhia oblast. Since Matsak was still alive in early 2024, this appears to be one of multiple prosecutions where Ukrainians are charged with allegedly thwarted attempts to kill this or that Russian or Russian-installed official. Such cases are very often based solely on ‘confessions’ extracted from the defendant while the latter was held incommunicado and without access to an independent lawyer.
Here too, Oliynyk is claimed to have provided a ‘confession’ after being seized in October 2023. That appears to have significant differences from the testimony which the 61-year-old gave, via video link, during the court hearing on 7 October. Although he does suggest that an attempt was made to recruit him, he says that he made it clear that he would have nothing to do with killing anybody. Typically, the state prosecutor then read out Oliynyk’s earlier ‘confession’. According to Oliynyk, he had not read the document he signed, but had been told by the so-called lawyer, almost certainly one provided by the prosecution, that all was fine. It was not since Oliynyk stated in court that the supposed ‘confession’ omitted his clear statement that he had refused to have anything to do with killing anybody.
On 30 October, the prosecutor brought in the ‘investigator’ who had originally interrogated Oliynyk. Unsurprisingly, this individual asserted that no pressure had been brought to bear on Oliynyk, that ‘a lawyer’ had been present and that no complaints had been made about the protocols. In very many such interrogations, the lawyers brought in by the prosecutor have clearly seen their role as being only to persuade the person to ‘confess’. In several cases in occupied Crimea, such ‘lawyers’ have sat without any comment or action while their ‘clients’ were being tortured.
The ’trial’ is taking place before ‘judge’ Vitaly Viktorovich Mamedov from the notorious Southern District Military Court in Rostov. The alleged attempt to kill Matsak, a legitimate target given his collaboration and role in the invading state’s ‘administration’, is being called a ‘terrorist attack’ (or attempt at such), with this under the very serious Article 205 § 3b of Russia’s criminal code. Oliynyk is also charged with involvement in a ‘terrorist organization (Article 205.4 § 2) and possession of explosives or weapons, under Article 222 § 4. The charges carry a sentence of up to twenty years with ‘judges’ in such cases effectively always providing the ‘guilty’ verdicts demanded of them.
During his testimony, Oliynyk was asked by his lawyer about the supposed “nationalist views” also mentioned in the original interrogation protocol. Oliynyk answered:
“I am against war, against killings. I am a peaceful man, I never wanted this, and what kind of nationalist views. I’ve lived without war for 61 years, I don’t want this. I have children and grandchildren, I don’t want them to mourn me, nor that I must mourn them.”
