A new stage in the investigation into the Gongadze case has started as a farce (the statement of disclosure of Gongadze’s death) and ended with a tragedy. Former Minister of Internal Affairs Yuriy Kravchenko was scheduled to visit the Prosecutor’s General office by 10 a.m. Friday morning. He failed to do so for a valid reason, though - he was not alive.

Some say it was a suicide. Should this be true, then Kravchenko was surely pushed into it. Others say that several shots were made and that possibly a sniper killed him. Yet in both cases, the responsibility for his death lies with the law enforcement bodies. They had the right to detain a major suspect for 72 hours, and to interrogate him after this. Then they could decide whether to arrest him or let him go. If the authorities had followed this procedure, they would have Kravchenko’s testimony and Kravchenko would possibly have his life.

Had all this been done prior to “the public celebration” of the investigation’s success, then the hypothetical chain that linked Kuchma, Lytvyn, Kravchenko, Fere, and Pukach would not have broken so tragically and irreplaceably. Having broken this chain, Yuriy Kravchenko has become inaccessible for earthly judgment. The very fact of his death has become a testimony that the investigation was on the right track. Unfortunately, one cannot build a case based on such a testimony. When answering ZN’s question if he had any grounds to detain Krachenko last Friday, Prosecutor General Sviatoslav Piskun said: “No. Kravchenko was called for interrogation as a witness.” Piskun is sorry about what happened to Kravchenko, but he “does not see his fault in it,” nor does he see any obstacles to further investigation into Gongandze’s murder. When asked if he considers the link lost due to Kravhchenko’s death irreplaceable, he gave a negative answer… Nevertheless it is still unclear as to why a witness for whose detention the prosecutor’s office had no grounds, would worry so much as to shoot himself. Also, why would one kill a witness if the prosecutor’s office were not on the right track?

Meanwhile, we were promised that all those involved in this case, including executors, organizers, customers, and non-informers would be brought to justice. What will happen to this promise now? Maybe militia General Pukach, sentenced to life imprisonment in his absence; a couple of colonels, who obediently fulfilled his orders; and some militia scum will surface, but this would be all that remained of the Gongadze case. There is, however, one last chance to establish the guilt or innocence of this chain of top officials. It would be possible only if Fere and Pukach testified to the role of Kravchenko in this case. Yet this will work only together with the tapes of Major Melnychenko after they have been brought together and declared authentic. That would be the case of political and moral responsibility of customers and non-informers, but bringing them to criminal responsibility might be even impossible, as Ukrainian legislation provides that only legally made recordings can prove the guilt of these persons. However, there is an option of turning these recordings into real incriminating proof, but one will need a political will for that.

Thus, an important witness has been removed from the case, but despite this, the Prosecutor General does not despair of the investigation into Gongadze’s murder and says that everything is OK. Probably the next upper link in the chain of hypothetical “witnesses in the Gongadze case” will do his best to ensure that “everything will be OK” for Piskun when vital issues will be discussed in parliament. From this perspective, the most surprising thing is not Piskun’s great foresight, but the naivety of the president, who has so distinctly played into his hands. After all, it was the president who made the announcement of disclosure of the case and of the “murderers.”

Last Tuesday, only Petro Poroshenko applauded him when President Yushchenko announced that the murder of Gongadze had been disclosed. His applause sounded loud in the silence of the hall. This was already the second public statement on this matter that Yushchenko made as president. The first one he made during his foreign tour, saying that two criminal cases directly related to the Gongadze case had been submitted to court. He also promised that the case would be passed to the courts in a month or two. The first point of his statement was not only legally inaccurate but also factually incorrect, while the second one was completely inappropriate. It is not the president’s task to set the deadlines for investigation.

The statement he made last week was shocking not only for lawyers. The president may not know all criminal proceedings, but he cannot repeatedly demonstrate this. And the most important thing is that he has no right to pass sentences violating basic principle of justice---presumption of innocence. Only the courts and no one else has the right to call someone a criminal. In fact, by making such statements, the first person in the state is exerting pressure on court, which is unable to acquit a person, whom the president called a criminal. After all, by the moment the president made that statement, the court had not even sanctioned the arrest of the suspects.

Indeed, the government should have informed the nation about significant progress in the investigation into the Gongadze case. But this part should have been given to Piskum, the prosecutor general who was given the personal gratitude of the president for this progress.

Now, let’s speak about the progress. So far, there are only the detained, who as yet have the status of suspects. However, those in the know got the message and took the appropriate measures to silence the witness on the night of Thursday to Friday.

It looks like the immediate executors are known, as well as the cars used to carry Gongadze and then his dead body. “It looks like” because the announced chronology of the events, which preceded to the statement, gives rise to some questions. “Yesterday, I learned some circumstances of Gongadze’s last hours,” the President said on Tuesday, whereas the suspects were detained on the night of Monday to Tuesday. From whom did he learn these circumstances then?

The high rank of the “immediate executors”---a general and a colonel---is also somewhat confusing. Then there are questions concerning the cars that have been so opportunely preserved. This ludicrous fact, however, was given a logical yet unofficial explanation. The cars were preserved due to thrift of the militiamen. One of the cars was taken by an Oblast Organized Crime Department, while the other was given by a militiaman to the godfather of his child. In the long run, other strange facts may also be given logical explanations. But as of now, too few facts have been published to produce a well-rounded view of the course of investigation.

Of all the major questions that the investigation has faced, the one concerning the motive of this crime has yet to be answered. If we assume that the Kuchma - Lytvyn - Kravchenko - Fere - Pukach chain is correct, then it is still unclear what about Gongadze’s publications (which have been thoroughly studies many times) hurt President Kuchma so badly. Thus different questions arise. First, who set Kuchma against Gongadze in such a way as it is recorded on the tapes and why did he do it? The answers that Kravchenko could have given to the prosecutor’s office might have shed the light on this. Deputy Minister of the Interior Koliada insists that Kravchenko was planning to go to the interrogation. Who was afraid of his testimony? Were these the executors? It is unlikely. Were these the customers? It is quite possible.

Given the political will, technical issues related to the Melnichenko tapes are quite settable. Let’s assume that all the “tape-holders” have finally submitted them to the investigation and that they are proved authentic. In this case, a number of other issues arise. What is to be done with the tapes next? Should we select only the passages concerning the murder of Georgy Gongadze or carry out a lustration of the whole Ukrainian elite based on these tapes? Sticking to the first option does not seem quite correct. In addition, in this case who would make the “selection” of the passages related to the murder of Gongadze? What if Piskun did? There are too many people close to him among those involved in this case.

And is the government ready to sacrifice everyone involved in the improper deeds, considering such a ticklish fact that the voices of its current supporters are recorded on these tapes? There must be recordings of Yushchenko, who due to his position at the time could not but have taken part in these high level talks. Of course, there is probably nothing criminal in it, but it cannot be ruled out that he will have to explain certain things to the general public. And at the same time, as bad luck would have it, Medvedchuk’s voice is not there. These tapes can easily become “a weapon of mass destruction” in the hands of Tymoshenko and Moroz, whose voices were not recorded on these tapes due to their opposition with Kuchma and lack of contacts with him at that time.

Speaking of responsibility in the context of this case, we must point to another significant problem. There is a big gap between an obvious need and actual possibility to carry out laborious investigation and bring to a justice everyone involved in the events, which were later built into a case for Gongadze’s murder. This refers to those who sabotaged the establishment of the truth. They include a great many people starting from former prosecutor generals up to those who gave freedom to general Pukach.

But let’s go back to the investigation. Huge public opinion pressures instill fear that the “vox populi,” reinforced by ardent calls from the rostrums, may cause hasty actions. Piskun promised that the Gogadze case would be disclosed according to the same scheme as the case of the murder of journalist Aleksandrov - both the customers and organizers would find out. Unfortunately, the Aleksandrov case is notorious for the law enforcement bodies that falsified the evidences; the prosecutor’s office noticed nothing and the innocence of suspect Verediuk was proved only after his suspicious death. So, please do not follow the scheme of the Aleksandrov case anymore.

As we learned last week, one of the suspects in the Gongadze case agreed to share information with the investigation in exchange for the guarantee that he will be included into the witness protection program. If a suspect in such a crime claims such privileges, his “information value” can hardly be overestimated. As a matter of fact, the postulate that it is impossible to disclose this crime unless the head of Gongadze is found was convincing only for its author, former prosecutor Vasyliev. For the rest of the people, finding the head would serve as evidence that the truly guilty persons are being brought to justice. That is why this so highly valued suspect witness must help the investigation. Otherwise, it would be difficult to believe that the witness has not simply put his signature under the version of the investigation.

So, despite the fact that the first attempts to start a new revolutionary stage in the investigation into the Gongadze case fell flat, we still hope. We hope that all previous mistakes will be eliminated and that the president will understand the need to have a competent and reliable legal advisor. Despite Kravchenko’s death, we still hope that the case will be brought to court and include all its four aspects (executors, organizers, customers, and non-informers), because not only not only politicians but also professionals carried this investigation. We hope that the court’s sentence will be just and legally faultless and to tell this news will be a task worthy of the president’s status.

PS. Many people who personally knew Yuriy Kravchenko are sure that he, as an officer, was capable of committing a suicide. Others insist that Kravchenko’s death is in no way a suicide. At the time of this writing, we learned that the investigators said that Kravhchenko’s head was smashed with the shot. The gun was found next to the body. But nobody made a statement that this was the gun that made the fatal shot. The version of suicide can be trusted, yet one should not forget about one more thing: last week an attempt was made on the suspect and the chief witness in the case of the “werewolves” (criminal militiamen) Nesterov.