It has been three years already since Mr. Konstantin Maximov, the leader of nontraditional religious organization, brought an action against “Dnepr Vechernij” newspaper (Zhovtnevyj district court) and against “Gorozhanin” newspaper (Kirovskij district court). The topic of the suits is “honor and dignity defense”. Jan Shchekaturov, journalist of “Gorozhanin” newspaper, has discovered quite an interesting thing about the work-book, which Mr. Maximov presented as proof of “pastor’s dignity”, during the inquest. The work-book, which contained information about him being hired for “spiritual” job, appeared to be forged.

At first, this case was sent to Leninskij district department basing on the pastor’s place of leaving. On May, 19, 2008 Medvedovskij A.J., district militia officer, wrote in his report: “Thus, actions of unstated person contain corpus delicti determined by Article 358 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

I’m waiting for instructions about passing the material to investigation department of Leninskij district department for bringing an action against the person mentioned.”

But the criminal case was started only two years after that. It happened after claiming court and Main Administration of Ministry of Internal Affairs to hold official investigation on deliberate receiving of the crime by officials and on discovering reasons and circumstances for their not acting their duties.

Neither militia, nor Office of Public Prosecutor of Zhovtnevyj district did not expect for such actions. They made a break and just stopped coming to court.

Abstract from complaint to the prosecutor of Zhovtnevyj district: “The representative of Office of Public Prosecutor of Zhovtnevyj district did not come to Zhovtnevyj court sitting on March, 19, 2010 (as well as on February, 12, 2010, March, 2, 2010, March, 12, 2010). Because of absence of the representative of the prosecutor office the examination of my claim was postponed till March, 29, 2010 at 12:30. I ask to ensure the claim of district judge Bashmakova about the presence of the representative of the prosecutor office in the sitting on March, 29, 2010 at 12:30.”

Crime: the receiving technology

According to Articles 99-1 and 236-1 of the Adjective-criminal Code of Ukraine, the resolution can be appealed either in prosecutor office, or in court.

If one chooses the first variant (i.e. prosecutor office) he becomes a participant of a repeated action which looks as follows: rejection of district department – appeal – cancellation of rejection- new rejection of the district department – new appeal – and so on.

If new petition is not sent to prosecutor office it may be considered in general order within one year.

The declarant has chosen the second way, i.e. appeal in court. But as it is seen from above, militia and prosecutor office of Zhovtnevyj district have completely ignored the instructions of judge Bashmakova. They go on “not seeing” inactivity of “its” department.

The prosecutor office of Zhovtnevyj district “facilitated” the declarant on March, 22, 2010 by the following petition:

“We inform you that after holding additional inspection, Mr. Karasev has rejected to bring an action basing on part 1 article 358 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine because of absence of corpus delicti.

The inspection has shown that prosecutor office of Zhovtnevyj district has annulled the rejection decision on February, 15, 2010. The materials of the inspection were sent to the head of Zhovtnevyj district department in order to hold additional investigation.

According to results of the inspection of March, 1, 2010 outgoing № 41/2370 Zhovtnevyj district department has sent the results of the inspection to Kirovskij department basing on the Article 97 of Adjective – criminal code of Ukraine.”

In other words that means: we cannot go on “covering” this crime; we pass the baton to our colleagues from Kirovskij department. What can that mean? Militia nad prosecutor office of Zhovtnevyj district suggest to forget about the crime committed on their territory (presentation faked document in Zhovtnevyj court). Besides, they roughly ignore judicial power and “play” on their own rules; it looks like if any crimes are committed in the city, they are not committed in their district, but somewhere “far away.”

Let us remind you that resolution of Zhovtnevyj court of December, 9 , 2009 says:

“Having violated article 94 of Penal code of Ukraine the militia oficers having established basis and causes for criminal case, did not see violations of the law in the fact that fictitious notes were made in 2008; having established the fact of using such a document, they refuse to sue the criminal case.”

We have a question: in what legal institutions and academies people are taught to fling the declarant, victim, or ordinary citizens?

Kirovskiy district: history repeats

However, officers of Kirovskij district brought an action without any enthusiasm. And they informed the declarant in quite a strange way.

Abstract from the answer of Main Administration of Ministry of Internal Affairs of March, 18, 2010 № 8/Щ-14:

“The materials of the criminal case contain the report in which you are quizzed as a witness. Adjective-criminal Code does not prescribed to present the resolution to a witness.

According to Article 69-1 of the Adjective-criminal Code of Ukraine you have no rights to be informed about the decision taken on the criminal case.”

It was signed byBrandis A., the first deputy of the investigation administration.

That means that according to the Law of Ukraine “About citizens’ appeals” and “About militia”, the declarant is to be informed about the answer within ten days; in case the criminal case is brought up, the declarant is to be informed additionally about its consideration and measures taken. As you understand it is too offensive for people’s servants to give distinct explanations to “shouting cattle.”

Investigator Malyshko comes to decision worthy of Solomon. He makes a witness out of declarant!!!! According to Adjective-criminal Code militia is not to report about any action to witness. And so the resonance case can be “investigated” for several more years on the shelves of militia office, and then it will be sent to archive because of statute of limitation expiration. In any case while passing the case from one district to another militia offices “have forgotten” the fact of using the faked document (punishment is up to three years of imprisonment). They brought an action basing on the fact of making faked documents (the punishment is a fine). Despite the fact that the petition was written exactly about the usage of documents, militia prefers to read complaints even not between the lines, but through the lines.

It does not come to investigator’s Malyshko and his colleagues’ minds that the journalist has become a victim. And all this was done just to win the case and get “compensation for moral abuse” by presenting faked documents.

At last, militia has got rid of tiresome declarant; and now they can occupy themselves with more important work than protection of the Law and disclosing of crimes.

According to militia reports, Mr. Maximov, whom they could not “discover”, was away in South Korea, Seoul city. And now, when he got enough guaranties for his safety, he is smiling from posters and inviting people to come to his sermon; and not to far Seoul, but to 8 Kalinovaja Street, Dnepropetrovsk. The theme of this sermon must be deep author’s interpretation of the commandment “do not give false evidence”.

I wonder, what does Mr. Kosuta, the prosecutor of the region, the supervisor of supplementary examination and pre-court investigation, think about all this?

Dnepropetrovsk Journalistic Investigation Agency

Published in newspaper of Committee of Slam-bang Corruption and Violation of Human Rights "For Motherland" № 6, July, 2010