Today, May 21, the High Anti-Corruption Court considered an appeal regarding the pretrial measure imposed on Andriy Yermak. During the hearing, the judge stated that attorney Oleksiy Shevchuk had expressed a willingness to vouch for the former head of the Office of the President.
Shevchuk was the only public representative of the legal community who openly declared his willingness to vouch for Yermak. In an interview with UA.News, he explained why he considers this case to be political, pointed out gross procedural violations, and criticized the court’s decision to remand Yermak in custody.The lawyer stated that he does not know Yermak personally, but is taking a professional stance, arguing that, regardless of his surname, this is a matter involving a lawyer whose rights, in his opinion, were grossly violated as early as the investigation stage.
I categorically disagree with the way this is being handled
As a spokesperson for the National Bar Association of Ukraine, and as someone involved in the self-governance of the legal profession, I categorically disagree with the fact that a person who is a lawyer and a representative of the legal community is being charged with economic offenses while a huge number of procedural violations are being committed.
Specifically: they are serving the notice of suspicion with procedural violations and publicly disclosing materials from the pretrial investigation. And I believe they are committing a number of other gross violations that will ultimately result in a victory for the citizen and attorney at the European Court of Human Rights.
First, under the circumstances we are seeing, they absolutely should not have imposed the most severe preventive measure. This is especially true when the case involves a lawyer and an economic crime. There are alternative measures. In particular—my personal guarantee as a representative of the bar association. This is, to a certain extent, collegial support. I publicly take responsibility for my colleagues.
On public condemnation: I am not afraid
I have never been afraid of condemnation. I’ve handled the Savchenko case, the Il-76 case, and many other high-profile trials. Yermak and I are not acquainted. But he is a lawyer, and therefore a representative of my profession.
And let me remind you of something important. When Nayem distanced himself from his lawyer, Oleksiy Nosov, who was detained by NABU, I also publicly vouched for him. Because I believe you cannot leave a colleague to face a problem alone.
Pretrial detention is the most severe preventive measure. And according to ECHR case law, there must be compelling grounds for its application. In this case, the person wasn’t in hiding; he came to court on his own and reappeared after the recess. In other words, he isn’t evading the proceedings.
I am absolutely shocked that a person accused of an economic crime—and a lawyer, no less—is being held in pretrial detention without a proper discussion of alternatives.
The court refused to consider a surety bond
I was unable to attend the court hearing in person because I had undergone surgery. But I submitted all the documents to the court. And the court should have summoned me, heard my case, explained Yermak’s rights, and given me the opportunity to justify the bail request. The court did not do this.
It is obvious that, given the high-profile nature of this case, the court would not have wanted to grant simple bail or a bond. But the very fact that a representative of the bar association is vouching for his colleague already indicates that there are no risks.
The court overlooked the military aspect
This is a very important point. The judges did not even consider the fact that Yermak represents military personnel as part of the “Lawyer Plus” project. They are detaining the lawyer, and tomorrow a soldier may be unable to receive legal assistance.
In other words, with its decision, the court has jeopardized the right to a defense for Ukrainian military personnel. And all this despite the availability of alternative preventive measures.
Court is not a show
A court isn’t a show. And this has been forced upon us by the “active unemployed,” who have turned court proceedings into a spectacle. A court is like a surgical procedure. There’s a protocol, and you follow it. As soon as they start drawing tattoos instead of making surgical stitches—patients die on the operating table.
That’s exactly what’s happening with the courts right now. The verdict has already been handed down on Telegram channels. And this is a very dangerous situation. If some dim-witted lawmaker were to introduce a bill today declaring that a verdict on a Telegram channel is legally binding, they’d probably already be shooting people.
This is a political matter. One hundred percent
Political. One hundred percent political. This is all media hype and a public witch hunt. I don’t care if it’s Yermak or someone else. What matters to me is that the process be the same for everyone. I’m certain that, procedurally speaking, the prosecution has already lost this case. The media hype—which they needed for publicity—has negated any procedural success in this case.
It could have been classified entirely differently
The case could have been classified differently. How? Very simply—as fraud. And that doesn’t fall under NABU’s jurisdiction. I’ll tell you more: we don’t even see any victims. No one has claimed that their funds were taken. There is no clear body of evidence. And against this backdrop, a huge media frenzy is being created.
Telegram channels cannot run the country
The information campaign surrounding this case is a dangerous trend. It’s very thin ice when Telegram channels run the country. I believe that if you want to prosecute someone, do so according to the law. No spectacle, no campaigns, no public witch hunts. Because tomorrow, anyone could find themselves in Yermak’s shoes. Even the very judges who are making these decisions today.
As a reminder, the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court reviewed an appeal against the pretrial measure imposed on former Head of the President’s Office Andriy Yermak. Following the review, the court upheld the original decision. Yermak had challenged the pretrial measure previously imposed on him.
Author: Oleksiy Shevchuk, Attorney and Partner at Barristers
Source: Law and Business