There is war in the country, impoverishment of the people, robberies and murders. Journalists are shot in broad daylight. Not a single high-profile crime has been solved, not a single corrupt official has been punished. However, this does not seem to matter to the government leadership and law enforcement agencies. Their goal is to put their personal offenders in prison by any means. Even if not everything is clean for them. We will not find out who is in power without sin; our goal is to provide the public with information collected by journalists.

To show: by speaking publicly about the equality of everyone before the law, the authorities and law enforcement officers openly demonstrate that the laws are not written for them.

The famous lawyer Andrei Fedur provided us with illustrative information on this matter.

Part one: Fedur and the Prosecutor General’s Office. Fight

The indicator of movement to Europe is failures in the investigation of all high-profile cases

The Prosecutor General’s Office is the highest supervisory authority of any state. She is the guarantor of the implementation of laws, by everyone, regardless of rank and status. This was promised to the public by both the president and all three prosecutors general appointed to the department after the Revolution of Dignity. But what are we observing? Sluggish investigation into the shooting of the Heavenly Hundred. The country has been overwhelmed by crime – people are being killed, robbed, a whole army of scammers and beggars has appeared…

Why did this become possible? After all, the country is not moving towards European values - it was actually thrown back into the gangster 90s. Yes, because everyone – both the president and his henchmen in parliament and the prosecutor’s office – flout the law and carry out only political orders.

In general, the Prosecutor General’s Office is an indicator of our movement towards Europe. What’s there? Stagnation, “tykhezhittya”, and activity only in the persecution of personal enemies and opponents of the state leadership. Does Europe need such a country? No.

It is known that Shokin was given until the summer to solve high-profile cases (in particular, Euromaidan). But it is obvious that nothing will happen on time, since prosecutors, apparently, do not even know the Code of Criminal Procedure. And with such “professionalism” we will not find those responsible in the case, at least until the elections. This means that all statements by the leadership of the GPU are pure profanation.

Because in reality we see the failure of the investigation of all high-profile cases. In addition to criminal cases against the enemies of his protégé – oligarch-President Poroshenko and his page (for now) Yuriy Lutsenko.

Very indicative in this regard is the criminal case against the former first deputy prosecutor general of Ukraine Renat Kuzmin (Read more about him in the article Renat Kuzmin: family business of lawless prosecutors), the political implications of which were clearly outlined by Interpol – the Interpol Central Secretariat in France refused to cooperate with Ukraine.

How they wanted to squeeze the lawyer

Today, a large group of investigators is working on the “Kuzmin case” in the Prosecutor General’s Office. Actively, putting it almost at the forefront of the work of the entire department. Let us remember that the case was previously supervised by Yuriy Lutsenko’s lawyer, Alexey Baganets, who was recently shamefully expelled from the prosecutor’s office. It was no longer possible to turn a blind eye to the unprofessionalism of this prosecutor, and Baganets was not saved even by his patron Lutsenko, who heads the presidential faction in parliament.

But before Shokin had time to arrive at the GPU, the first thing he said was that the investigators were actively working on the “Kuzmin case.” In the same case, former investigator of the Prosecutor General’s Office Sergei Voichenko (who led the investigators in the Lutsenko case) also came under criminal prosecution.

We could see the result of the “activity” of prosecutors quite recently: on April 2, suspicion of a crime was handed over to the lawyer of Kuzmin and Voichenko, a well-known lawyer in Europe (!), Andrei Fedur.

The prosecutor’s office suspected Fedur of violence against some unknown prosecutor (the lawyer allegedly said something to him in the courtyard). The court took several days to decide on the preventive measure for Fedur. As a result, the prosecutor’s office refused.

But what’s interesting is that the Prosecutor General’s Office did not demand the arrest of the lawyer, probably realizing how ridiculous its suspicions were. Something else was required: money (deposit) and confiscation of all passports (civil and foreign). So that A. Fedur could no longer protect anyone.

Courts under the “Filka Charter”

And now let’s take a closer look at how the country’s chief prosecutor, who stands up for democracy and equality of all before the law, spits on the law.

In August last year, ex-investigator Voichenko was put in a pre-trial detention center for several days, then released on bail, but the “offender” Lutsenko was not even given a notice of suspicion.

On October 20, 2014, the panel of judges of the Kyiv Court of Appeal admitted that the message of suspicion against Voichenko was not properly served. More precisely, the message of suspicion was handed over to the ex-investigator by the deputy head of the department of the Prosecutor General’s Office Shram, which is a violation of the law, and the notification itself was signed by the Deputy Prosecutor General Anatoly Matios (since August last year he has been the Chief Military Prosecutor of Ukraine).

Did the military prosecutor have nothing to do? “Boilers”, theft of funds for the army, deaths of military personnel… Moreover, the notice had corrections and signs that it was written by different people.
As lawyer A. Fedur explained, in connection with the existing signs of falsification of the message of suspicion to Sergei Voichenko, he applied to the Prosecutor General’s Office with a request to conduct a handwriting and technical-forensic examination of the document.

It’s understandable: the military prosecutor wants to arrest investigator Lutsenko, the handwriting is different, something has been erased, something has been crossed out…Can I see the originals of Matius’ signature? Is the lawyer demanding something top-secret? The prosecutor’s office thought so and refused.

Taking advantage of his rights as a defense attorney, established by the new Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which provides for equality of the defense and prosecution in the process, Fedur turned to the investigating judge of the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv and received a decision to conduct an examination of the signature of Deputy Prosecutor General Matios.
What is needed to conduct such an examination? Sample signatures, both provided by the prosecutor and those contained in documents previously drawn up by him.

Trying to divert A. Fedur from defending himself in the cases of Kuzmin and Voichenko, the GPU, meanwhile, hands a notice of suspicion to the lawyer himself, and sends the case of Sergei Voichenko to the Zhytomyr region.

However, the judge of the Korolyovsky District Court of Zhitomir decided to provide temporary access with the possibility of seizure (seizure) of documents from the personal file of Deputy Prosecutor General Matios, which contains samples of the official’s signature.

From reliable sources it became known that the prosecutor’s office was shocked about this. What kind of Euromaidanists are there, what kind of murders or “cauldrons”? Fedur wants to seize documents to verify the authenticity of Matios’ signature!
“In accordance with the requirements of the Constitution of Ukraine and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the ruling of the investigating judge is mandatory for every official, institution, and organization on the territory of Ukraine. Any official, in accordance with the Constitution, must act only in the manner prescribed by law, that is, in this case, he must comply with the court decision and provide the required documents,” Fedur clarifies.
Any person, but not an official of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine, and not the Prosecutor General. But only the Prosecutor General, as the head of the department, can give instructions on permission to seize the necessary documents.

Trouble in the GPU

On April 17, lawyers A. Fedur and A. Parheta arrived at the Prosecutor General’s Office with a court decision to provide temporary access to documents – the personal file of Deputy Matios.

What started here! The head of the personnel department of the Main Military Prosecutor’s Office, Davydchenko, came to the lawyers. Having learned the demands of the lawyers, he ran away, explaining that he would “hand over” everything. He conveyed it for a long time – about six hours, several times running out to the lawyers, then running away to Shokin.

But, as one would expect, the “Georgian reforms” are not taking place in the prosecutor’s office: the lawyer’s legal demands were sent to the Prosecutor General’s Office with the answer that the department will not comply with the court’s decision, and that allegedly on the same day the GPU filed an appeal against the court’s decision.

Legal experts explained that refusal to comply with a court decision by the Prosecutor General of Ukraine is a serious crime under Part 3 of Art. 382 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the disposition of which reads as follows: “Intentional non-execution of a sentence, decision, determination, court order that has entered into legal force, or obstruction of their implementation.” Part three of Art. 382 provides for the commission of such a crime by a person occupying a responsible or especially responsible position (that is, the prosecutor general, his deputies, prosecutors).

The lawyer immediately stated this, writing a response to the Prosecutor General right in the lobby of the GPU.

Legal experts clarify that the decision of the investigating judge to provide temporary access to documents in this case, according to the law, cannot be appealed, and the notification of the appeal suspends the execution of the court decision.

That is, the conclusion suggests itself that the Prosecutor General’s Office really wants to either change, or distort, or even destroy documents. Otherwise, why falsify them, correct them, hide them, or appeal something?

Is the law the same for everyone?

Actions to fail to comply with a court decision are impossible in any civilized country. For example, in the United States, a prosecutor who refused to comply with a court decision would be immediately arrested by the same judge who made the decision. In the USA, but not here.

It turns out to be a paradox: every day the General Prosecutor’s Office, as a party to the process (and according to the new Code of Criminal Procedure, it has equal rights with the defense) receives in the courts the same decisions to confiscate documents from someone. Did someone try not to comply with the court decision and not give the prosecutors the papers they needed? No. Because they have power, force (and not the law) on their side. Because they will immediately come with a search. And then they will definitely go to jail. Why doesn’t the prosecutor’s office comply with the court’s decision when the case concerns her?

“The Code of Criminal Procedure provides that in the event of failure to comply with a decision on temporary access to things and documents, the investigating judge, at the request of a party to criminal proceedings who has been granted the right to access things and documents, has the right to issue a decision on permission to conduct a search in order to seize the specified things and documents,” explained lawyer A. Fedur.

But how to remove it? Is it possible to conduct a search at the Prosecutor General’s Office to understand whether the department is following the letter of the law? Moreover, the case against Voichenko and Kuzmin is clearly custom-made, politically motivated, and “sewn with white thread.” And if it’s “sewn”, then very bad things can come to light. Which? Fedur promises to talk about this later. In the meantime, he handed over to journalists an equally interesting document – a copy of a letter to Shokin from Kuzmin.