luhansk's artem district court

the kyiv post traveled to luhansk on may 5 to talk with volodymr sbitnev, acting chairman of luhansk’s artem district court, about the cocked-up case against sloviansky head borys feldman. a separate interview with feldman appeared in the post on may 12.

kp: what are the additional charges against feldman your court is considering?

vs: we are examining [that portion of] evidence which was submitted for the previous case but not considered.

kp: but didn’t the supreme court consider all the evidence in the case against feldman before overturning his conviction on appeal

vs: i don’t know what evidence they considered. i do know, however, that we are in possession of it. the evidence previously was all together, in one place, until a portion of it was removed. we considered most of it [in the previous trial] and reached a verdict. feldman’s conviction was upheld by the court of appeals. then there was a constitutional appeal, and then an appeal to the supreme court.

kp: so what evidence, exactly, are you basing the next case against feldman on?

vs: i can’t tell you exactly, just that it’s based on the articles of the criminal code dealing with tax evasion and embezzlement.

kp: why are you considering bringing additional charges against feldman after the supreme court handed down its ruling on march 10?

vs: please, understand that we are not considering the old case ruled on by the supreme court. we are continuing with the proceedings begun last year, which were suspended while the supreme court contemplated feldman’s appeal. we are now resuming those proceedings.

kp: will you and this court consider his motion to be released conditionally on parole while he is being held in a temporary confinement facility in luhansk?

vs: i can’t answer that question. that is the job of a court with jurisdiction over the prison colony where feldman is currently serving out his sentence.

kp: is it true the so-called melnychenko recordings have been introduced formally as evidence in the trial?

vs: there are no recordings, as such.

kp: how about the transcripts of the recordings?

vs: feldman’s defense lawyers introduced a motion to introduce the recordings as evidence – and they were introduced. what form these recordings are in – whether they are tapes, a cd disk, etc. – we do not know.

kp: does it make any difference how the recordings are stored?

vs: in principle, we are not considering any matters dealing with major mykola melnychenko or any other person.

kp: have you listened to the recordings?

vs: no. we have not listened to them.

kp: will the recordings be considered as evidence in your court?

vs: i don’t know. it depends on the participants in the trial. they are not yet considered to be “evidence,” since the prosecutor does not recognize them as such.

kp: what does feldman’s defense say?

vs: they defense referred to them in the trial…but this is a tricky question. we have still not reached the stage in trial where feldman can be charged formally.

kp: you don’t object to introducing the recordings as evidence?

vs: it does not depend on me, but on the participants in this process, either for the defense or the prosecution.

[june 16, 2004]