The case of Orthodox journalists: Execute not pardon
The Solomyansky Court of Kyiv suspended the investigator in the case of Orthodox journalists and concurrently, at the request of the same investigator, extended the arrest of one of them. What is going on?
On September 9, 2024, Fr. Nikita Chekman, a lawyer, reported on his Telegram channel that a judge of the Solomyansky District Court in Kyiv ruled to remove SBU investigator Oleh Savenko from the pre-trial investigation into the case of Orthodox journalists and UOC priest Fr. Serhiy Chertylin (UOJ case). Judge I. Teslenko made this decision. For all supporters of the UOC and those concerned about the fate of Orthodox journalists, this was seen as a small victory – a faint sign that justice might prevail, and the baseless persecution of journalists would cease.
However, on the same day, September 9, 2024, in the same Solomyansky District Court, Judge O. Kryvorot granted a motion by the removed SBU investigator Oleh Savenko to extend the detention of Orthodox journalist Valeriy Stupnytsky. The need to extend the detention, according to the investigator and prosecutor, was justified by the severity of the charges against Stupnytsky, as well as concerns that, once released, the journalist could continue to publish "illegal" articles online and hinder the investigation. This points in the opposite direction, indicating that the unlawful and unsubstantiated persecution of journalists will continue, and there is no hope for justice.
Why did the same court make two such contradictory decisions on the same day? One might say that these were two separate hearings and that the hearing in which Judge Teslenko removed SBU investigator Savenko likely took place after the hearing where Judge Kryvorot granted Savenko’s motion to extend Stupnytsky’s detention. Perhaps Judge Kryvorot was unaware of Savenko’s removal, or if she was, she did not consider it important. Procedural norms allow for such situations.
Some might argue that the removal of the investigator is insignificant. A new investigator will simply take over and continue the work of the previous one. Moreover, the pre-trial investigation has already concluded, and the case against the UOJ journalists will be reviewed in court in the form crafted by investigator Savenko. This might be true, especially since on June 17, 2024, an investigative judge from the Solomyansky District Court granted a motion by the defense to remove prosecutor Yulia Dediuk from overseeing the UOJ case. However, this had little impact on the investigation or the journalists' detention. It is worth noting that one of the key arguments for removing the prosecutor was a violation of the confidentiality of the deliberation room, as discovered by the defense on May 8, 2024. According to Fr. Nikita Chekman, during the judge's time in the deliberation room, SBU investigator Oleh Savenko and Kyiv Regional Prosecutor Yulia Dediuk entered the room. This was properly documented and indicated potential pressure on the judge to reach a favorable decision for the investigator and prosecutor.
Despite justified skepticism regarding the removal of Savenko from the UOJ case, it is worth noting that the full text of the court's ruling is expected to be published on September 13, 2024. As of today, only the operative part of the ruling has been made public.
This document states that the removal of the investigator was carried out in accordance with Article 77 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This article lists the grounds for the removal of a prosecutor, investigator, or inquirer. They are as follows:
- If he (the prosecutor, investigator, or inquirer) is the complainant, victim, civil plaintiff, civil defendant, family member, or close relative of a party, complainant, victim, civil plaintiff, or civil defendant;
- If he participated in the same proceedings as an investigating judge, judge, defender or representative, witness, expert, specialist, probation officer, or interpreter;
- If he or his close relatives or family members are personally interested in the outcome of the criminal proceedings, or there are other circumstances that raise reasonable doubts about his impartiality.
Of this entire list, the only point that applies to Investigator Oleh Savenko is the one stating, "there are other circumstances that raise reasonable doubts about his impartiality." Essentially, this means that the Solomyansky District Court of Kyiv recognized the fact that SBU investigator Oleh Savenko acted with bias in the UOJ case, or at least there are sufficient grounds to suspect so. To put it plainly, he was simply following political orders – the task of those in power to silence the defenders of the Church. He had to display extraordinary cunning to present legitimate and lawful journalistic activities as treason against the state. And the first signal confirming this thesis has already come from the court.
What happens next remains uncertain, but we cannot ignore the fact that the court has removed the investigator from the UOJ case. It is important to continue emphasizing that the criminal case, which the defense attorneys claim consists of 42 volumes, contains absolutely no evidence of the journalists' guilt under the charges brought against them. The prosecutors have never presented real evidence in court that the Orthodox journalists had any ties to Russian representatives that could justify accusations of treason. There are no records of phone calls, correspondence, or personal meetings – nothing! The entire case is based on a supposed expert analysis of news feeds on the UOJ website, which claims that the news articles allegedly contain signs of state treason and incitement of inter-religious hatred. For those who want to understand the absurdity of the accusations against the Orthodox journalists, we recommend the article "Three Months of Absurdity and Torture of UOJ Journalists: For What?" which provides a detailed analysis of the "Suspicion" issued to one of the defendants in the UOJ case. In this "Suspicion", it is seriously claimed that the Orthodox Church of Ukraine is one of the attributes of the Ukrainian state, and therefore, any criticism of this religious organization is considered treason against the state. This is the kind of absurdity and mockery of law enforcement that is happening in Ukraine today.
But we must not give up. We must do everything we can to spread the truth about the persecution of Orthodox journalists and the Church in general. Let’s reflect on a simple phrase often used to describe journalism: to shed light on an event. True, professional, and responsible journalism means bringing light to events, making information about what’s happening accessible to people, speaking the truth, and exposing wrongdoings. If certain people find it beneficial to hide the truth, if they try to imprison journalists and silence them, it means they have something to hide. In the Gospel of John, it is written: "For everyone who does evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed; but whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God" (John 3:20,21).
The more light, the less darkness. The more we speak the truth, the harder it will be for wrongdoers to carry out their dark deeds. The more we talk about the absurdity and lack of evidence in the accusations against journalists, the greater the chance of their release and the better the opportunity to defend our freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The decision of the Solomyansky Court to remove investigator Oleh Savenko proves that this is the right approach.
🙏🙏🙏 You can help Orthodox journalists by contributing to the following details:
MONOBANK CARD NUMBER:
5375 4114 3203 1495
Donate through Monobank: https://send.monobank.ua/jar/NYXB691rx
We greatly need your support! 🙏🙏🙏
