Vinnytsia - War Crime

VINNYTSIA, Ukraine — Russian cruise missiles hit a shopping center, a dance studio, and a wedding hall in west-central Ukraine on Thursday, July 14th.

I can not see what military justification there is for Russia shooting 3 cruise missiles into a shopping center or a wedding hall filled with civilians. In response to the assault, the Dutch foreign minister said that the Netherlands was considering setting up an ad hoc international Ukraine war crimes tribunal.

The world appears to be outraged by another apparent disregard to the safety of innocent civilians. The Governor of the region said, “These are quite high-precision missiles. ... They knew where they were hitting.” But, Russia claims that the missiles were not aimed at civilians but were targeting an officers’ quarters. “Margarita Simonyan, head of the state-controlled Russian television said that military officials told her a building in Vinnytsia was targeted because it housed Ukrainian ‘Nazis.’’ (AP news)

Sadly, this is not the first time that Vinnytsia has suffered at the hands of invading dictators.  In 1941, the Nazis invaded the town, rounded up its Jewish population and massacred all 28,000 men, women, and children.  A macabre photo put little Vinnytsia on the map - it is a 1941 photo of a Einsatzgruppe soldier about to execute a Jewish man kneeling before a mass grave. The photo was taken by one of the German soldiers watching the massacre who wrote on the back The Last Jew of Vinnytsia.  This photo, one of the most iconic photos of the Holocaust, was first made available at the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann. (I’ve put the photo below in the photo gallery. It is quite disturbing, reminding me of the Vietnam War photo by Eddie Adams of the instant of the execution of a Viet Cong prisoner by a South Vietnamese Colonel.)

Update June 16, 2022 - The Trial as a War Crime

Update to “1st Ukrainian War Crime Trial”

As I suggested in my article of May 27th, it is no surprise that there would be war time trials of Ukrainian soldiers. And, sadly, it is also no surprise that the Russians or the separatist regions would conduct trials of POWs in a manner that fails to adhere to international standards of rule of law. According to the UN rights office, “Since 2015, we have observed that the so-called judiciary within these self-contained republics has not complied with essential fair trial guarantees, such as public hearings, independence, impartiality of the courts and the right not to be compelled to testify.”

From UN News: Death sentence for Ukraine foreign fighters is a war crime: UN rights office

The United Nation Human Right office on June 10, 2022 condemned the death sentence handed down to three foreign fighters in Ukraine by a court in the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic. “Such trials against prisoners of war amount to a war crime,” said OHCHR spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani.

The three men - Britons Aiden Aslin and Shaun Pinner, and Moroccan Saaudun Brahim – were captured while fighting for Ukraine, reportedly defending the southern port city of Mariupol.

Bitter fighting between Ukrainian and Russian forces since the Russian invasion on 24 February flattened the city, where UN rights chief Michelle Bachelet has previously condemned attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure, that have likely caused thousands of deaths.

“OHCHR is concerned about the so-called Supreme Court of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic sentencing three servicemen to death,” said Ms. Shamdasani. “According to the chief command of Ukraine, all the men were part of the Ukrainian armed forces and if that is the case, they should not be considered as mercenaries.”

Answering a question at the regular briefing in New York on Thursday about the death sentences handed down, the UN Spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric, said the the Organization always has "and we always will", opposed the death penalty under any circumstances. "And we would call on the combatants who have been detained, to be afforded international protection, and to be treated according to the Geneva Conventions", he added.

Longstanding concerns

The UN rights office spokesperson also highlighted longstanding concerns about fair trial violations in Ukraine’s breakaway eastern regions bordering Russia. “Since 2015, we have observed that the so-called judiciary within these self-contained republics has not complied with essential fair trial guarantees, such as public hearings, independence, impartiality of the courts and the right not to be compelled to testify.”

Speaking in Geneva, Ms. Shamdasani added that “such trials against prisoners of war amount to a war crime. In the case of the use of the death penalty, fair trial guarantees are of course all the more important.”

United Nations and the Russo-Ukraine War

In the evolution of mankind, the United Nations is a massive step forward in setting standards for peace, prosperity, and compassion.  I am a huge fan of the United Nations.  The United Nations has accomplished much in only 77 years.  It has been instrumental in averting any massively destructive world wars, provided care for millions of refugees, mediated between angry nations, adjudicated disputes, made high standards of human rights a global reality, and developed economic incentives to avoid disputes. In response to the humanitarian crisis caused by the Russo-Ukraine War in the last 3 months, the United Nations is raising $2.25 billion for humanitarian assistance to Ukrainians citizens and refugees.

Let me dispel a myth about the UN - the UN was formed not only to keep the peace, but with 4 goals in mind. 1. The UN was to safeguard peace and security in order ‘‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.’’ 2. The UN was ‘‘to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights.’’ 3. The UN was to uphold respect for international law. 4. The UN pledged ‘‘to promote social progress and better standards of life.’’

However, admittedly the Russo-Ukraine War is a threat to the credibility of the United Nations.  The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February has caused Europe's fastest-growing refugee crisis since World War II with more than 7 million Ukrainians fleeing the country and a third of the population displaced from their homes.

I’d like to say that the United Nations should be able to stop this war.  This level of aggression between 2 large European sovereign states has not been seen since World War II.  Isn’t this what the United Nations was formed to prevent?  And, yet, the aggression and fighting continues on Ukrainian soil.  Unfortunately, and as might be expected, Russia has prevented the Security Council from doing its job.  Holding a veto power in the Security Council, Russia has prevented any legal military action by member states or by UN peacekeeping troops, making the UN appear helpless.   

The United Nations has its challenges.  It is not easy keeping the peace between 193 members.  And, the biggest and most powerful members - the United States, Russia, and China - do not regulate themselves well.  However, the United Nations is not an organization of allies.  We don’t all get along all the time.  The UN is intended to be an association of all international states who work out ways to keep the peace between themselves.   

In 1945, at the end of WW II, the Soviet Union took an active part in the formation of the United Nations.  Remember, from 1941 the Soviet Union was an ally against Hitler in the War. In fact, the USSR defeated the Nazis in Eastern Europe and was first to occupy Berlin. The Soviet Union suffered a third of all WW II casualties - 20 million Soviets - the most of any country in the war.

Stalin, initially hesitant to join the UN, insisted that there be veto rights in the Security Council and that alterations in the United Nations Charter be unanimously approved by the five permanent members.  The Soviet Union demanded that all fifteen Soviet republics be made member states, until this was countered by the United States who said if the Soviet Union got to make all its republics members, then the United States’ 48 states should also be given separate membership.  A compromise was made that agreed to make Ukraine and Byelorussia (today’s Belarus) full members, but states of the United States could not demand membership.  Sorry, Texas.

In 1991, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation took the Soviet Union's United Nations membership, including its permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.  The question of automatic succession is not as obvious as it seems.  Some scholars argued that with the end of the Soviet Union, Russia should have had to be admitted like any other new member, thus eliminating Russia’s permanent seat on the Security Council.  In fact, this might have happened if in the early days after the breakup of the Soviet Union, all 14 Soviet republics had separated from Russia.  But, in the beginning, only the 3 Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) and Georgia declared themselves separate.  In truth, politics was the real reason for Russian succession to membership.  Eliminating Soviet membership, and thus forcing Russia to reapply, would have created a constitutional crisis in the United Nations when Russia was one of two great nuclear powers.  It is questionable if the United Nations could have remained viable without the continued participation of Russia.

A reminder:

The United Nations has two voting bodies.

The General Assembly is made up of all 193 members - each has one vote.  Voting in the General Assembly on certain important questions—namely recommendations on peace and security; budgetary concerns; and the election, admission, suspension, or expulsion of members—is by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting. Other questions are decided by a simple majority.

The Security Council is the only UN body that makes decisions pertaining to the maintenance of peace, including sending in peace keeping troops. It is made up of 5 permanent members and 10 non-permanent members.  The 5 permanent members including Russian, China, France, the United States, and Britain have veto power over all decisions made by the Council. Notice neither Japan or Germany are on the Security Council, as the UN was created by the Allies of WWII and since they made the game, they get to make the rules.  The Security Council‘s powers include establishing peacekeeping operations, enacting international sanctions, and authorizing military action. The Security Council is the only UN body with the authority to issue binding resolutions on all member states.

---

Un Timeline: Russo-Ukraine War

United Nations: In the event of a continuing, protracted war in Ukraine, 18 years of socio-economic achievements could be lost, with almost one third of the population living below the poverty line and a further 62 percent at high risk of falling into poverty within the next 12 months.

A Timeline

February 23: UN Secretary-General António Guterres spoke to the General Assembly saying, “the decision of the Russian Federation to recognize the so-called “independence” of Donetsk and Luhansk regions are violations of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine and inconsistent with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”

February 24: Russia invaded Ukraine.  UN Secretary-General António Guterres said to Russia, “Stop the military operation. Bring the troops back to Russia.”

February 25:  Russia vetoed a resolution by the United Nations Security Council that would have declared Russian aggression against Ukraine a violation of Article 2, paragraph 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.  The resolution called for Russia to immediately cease its use of force against Ukraine, and withdraw all its military forces immediately, completely, and unconditionally from that country’s territory.  The resolution did not pass because of Russia’s veto.

February 27: The Security Council members, frustrated by the veto vote of Russia, voted that the General Assembly convene an emergency special session.  This was a procedural act, not subject to the veto power, requiring only the vote of 9 members.  The vote was 11 to 1.  The Security Council last called for convening an emergency special session of the General Assembly was during the 1982 Lebanon War (Israel v. Syria), and in 1980 during the Soviet-Afghan war.

Russia urged Security Council members not to call the General Assembly, “We hear lies and deceit about the indiscriminate shelling of Ukrainian facilities, hospitals and schools” when “the Russian army does not threaten civilians in Ukraine; it does not shell civilian infrastructure.”  Instead, it is the Ukrainian “nationalists” who are using civilians as humans shields and deploying rocket launchers in civilian areas — acts that are used by terrorists and must be condemned.”

February 28: General Assembly called an Emergency Special Session.

Secretary General: “The fighting in Ukraine must stop now.” Noting that bombardments by Russian have been pounding the country day and night, he said the capital, Kyiv, now finds itself surrounded. Ukrainians have been forced to shelter in subway stations and more than half a million have fled across the country’s borders. Citing credible accounts of serious damage sustained by residential buildings and other non-military infrastructure, he described the attacks as unacceptable and stressed that Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected.

Russia: The representative of the Russian Federation said the root of the current crisis lies instead with Ukraine itself. Kyiv flouted the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements, failed to engage in dialogue with the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and turned a blind eye to the people of Donbas. Against that backdrop, President Vladimir Putin decided to react. “There is a need to de-Nazify Ukraine,” he stressed, adding that his country is exercising its right to self-defense from Ukraine, which strives to obtain nuclear weapons, seeks North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) membership, and is making false territorial claims against the Russian Federation.

Chili: Milenko Esteban Skoknic Tapic said the fact that the Assembly is meeting in emergency format for the first time in decades bears witness to the international community’s frustration at the Security Council’s failure to adopt a decision in favor of peace.

March 2: The General Assembly Member States adopted a resolution 141 to 5, demanding the Russian Federation immediately end its invasion of Ukraine and unconditionally withdraw all its military forces from that neighbouring country. The Assembly also deplored Belarus’ involvement in this illegal action. The 5 in opposition were: Belarus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Eritrea, Russian Federation, and Syria.  35 nations abstained.

March 16: The International Court of Justice ruled in UKRAINE v. RUSSIAN FEDERATION: “The Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine.”

April 7: The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for Russia to be suspended from the Human Rights Council.  The resolution received a 2/3 majority of those voting.  The vote took place on the anniversary of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, and the Ukrainian ambassador drew parallels between the crimes committed by Russia with the Rwanda genocide.

Ukraine: Ukrainian Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya urged countries to support the resolution. “Bucha and dozens of other Ukrainian cities and villages, where thousands of peaceful residents have been killed, tortured, raped, abducted and robbed by the Russian Army, serve as an example of how dramatically far the Russian Federation has gone from its initial declarations in the human rights domain.”

May 19: “United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned of a global food crisis exacerbated as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Guterres said Ukraine and Russia together produce almost a third of the world's wheat and barley and half of its sunflower oil, and Russia and its ally Belarus are the world's number two and three producers of potash, a key ingredient of fertilizer. The secretary-general said the number of people facing severe food insecurity has doubled in just two years from 135 million pre-pandemic to 276 million today.” DW News. Note: DW News is Deutsche Welle (German Wave), a German public state-owned international broadcaster funded by German federal taxes.

June 8: United Nations reports - Food prices are at near-record highs.  Fertilizer prices have more than doubled. Without fertilizers, shortages will spread from corn and wheat to all staple crops, including rice, with a devastating impact on billions of people in Asia and South America, too.  Record‑high energy prices are also triggering blackouts and fuel shortages in all parts of the world, especially in Africa. 

1st ukrainian War Crime Trial

---

Update: June 10, 2022

From The Conversation, “Ukraine: British POWs sentenced to death after ‘show trial’ which appears to violate Geneva Conventions” - “Two Britons captured while fighting in Ukraine’s armed forces have been sentenced to death after what has been condemned as a “show trial”. Aiden Aslin and Shaun Pinner, who surrendered to Russian forces during the siege of the Azovstal steelworks in Mariupol, were convicted on the charge of “being a mercenary”. They have a month to appeal and, if successful, they could receive a life or 25-year prison sentence instead of the death penalty. Pro-Russian officials in the breakaway republic of Donetsk, where the trial was conducted, claimed the men’s actions had “led to the deaths and injury of civilians, as well as damage to civilian and social infrastructure”.But what observers have called a “show trial” on “trumped-up charges” raises important questions both about their status under international law (specifically, whether they are entitled to prisoner of war status) and the compatibility of these trials with the rights that come with such status.

Russian Show Trials?

Britons Aiden Aslin and Shaun Pinner with Moroccan Brahim Saadoun, who were captured after the siege of the the Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol. (Image taken from footage of the Supreme Court of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic.)

---

Law and Justice in Ukraine during Wartime

May 23, 2022.  Judges in Kyiv handed down the first verdict on a war crime in the Russo-Ukraine War.  Sergeant Vadim Shishimarin, 21, was convicted of shooting a 62-year-old civilian, Oleksandr Shelipov, in the northern region of Sumy. Sergeant Shishimarin, who had pleaded guilty at the start of the trial, was sentenced to life in prison. 

According to Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova the defendant was a Russian sergeant whose convoy was under attack from Ukrainian forces and while driving out of the village he and his fellow soldiers saw a villager talking on the phone while he rode his bicycle. The young sergeant, afraid that Mr. Shelipov would report their location to Ukrainian forces nearby, fired his rifle at the old man.

The sergeant was charged under Ukrainian Criminal Code, Article 438 §2 and the trial drew crowds to the courthouse in Kyiv. International scholars and journalists followed the case and the trial was broadcast on YouTube.

The case was tried without a jury according to the defendant’s wishes. The evidence presented by the prosecutor included the self incriminating testimony of the defendant, ballistics on the gun used, testimony from a friend of the victim, as well as testimony from another soldier who had been with the sergeant and was also captured at the same time the sergeant was brought in.

There are some interesting legal points about this trial.

1. It is unusual for soldiers to be tried for war crimes during active wartime. This is in large part because of logistic problems relating to arrest and to access to courts. It is unusual for a war crime trial be conducted during a conflict. A case from the Bosnian War is the point of reference of a previous trial conducted during war. In that case another 21 year old soldier, Serbian Borislav Herak, was arrested for brutally killing and raping a massive number of civilians. A report on this Bosnian case by John F. Burns won a 1993 Pulitzer Prize, “A Killer’s Tale: A Serbian Fighter's Path of Brutality.

2. What is the point of a war crimes trial? Justice, revenge, deterrence for future crimes? In history, war crimes have been dealt with through crowd justice and hangings, to a more recent establishment of international tribunals.

3. What are the elements of the crime of a war crime in Ukraine’s Criminal Offenses Against Peace, Security of Mankind and International Legal Order, Article 438. What are possible defenses? Is there a defense of self defense where it can be argued that in the time of war that troops found it necessary to kill a civilian informant that might give witness to the location of troops?

4. How difficult is it for the defendant to put on a defense during war? Would a defense attorney in another jurisdiction have recommended to the defendant that the sergeant plead guilty or decline a jury trial, as was done in this case?

5. The Russian defendant-soldier in this Ukrainian case is very young. He represents the kind of troops that are being sent to Ukraine in the early part of the war. War is unpredictable and dehumanizing, and untrained and inexperienced troops may respond aggressively out of fear, bravado, war fatigue, or sometimes from directives from commanders. Also, there is a factor of out-of-controlled-ness that comes in war. There have been reports of horrible crimes committed by Russian troops. The tendency of troops to commit war crimes is exacerbated by the Russian leader Putin speaking of Ukrainians as “Nazis,” or in demeaning ‘other’ terms such as dirty khokhols, extremists and terrorists, immoral aggressors.

6. Is the local Ukrainian criminal court the best place to try a war crime? Robert Goldman, a scholar on international human rights at American University Washington College of Law, argues that this case should have been tried in a military court. Professor Goldman wrote, “international humanitarian law is a highly specialised area. Military court officials will have the training required to understand the nuances in a way that civilian courts will, by and large, not.” This is not possible in Ukraine as Yanukovych, the president deposed in the Maidan Revolution in 2014, abolished all military courts in 2010. (This is good fodder for another article.) Respectfully, I am also not sure a military court in Ukraine would have the training Mr. Goldman refers to. And, finally, would a military court in Ukraine be viewed internationally as unbiased? I am concerned about the appearance of fairness.  Should the trial have been held in Kyiv? Or in Ukraine, at all? Which brings up the question if it would be better to try war crimes outside the country with the International Criminal Court, an outside independent judicial body with plenty of experience in humanitarian law and with war crimes. I know, this is asking a lot. Interestingly, I read reports of ICC investigators working in Ukraine today.

7. Should we worry that the Russian’s will respond in anger to this trial and will seek revenge on Ukrainian soldiers? Goldman writes that the Russian military may respond in like and put on ‘show trials’ of Ukrainian defenders. In mid May nearly 1,000 Ukrainian fighters, who hid out inside Mariupol’s steel plant in south Ukraine, surrendered to Russian troops and Russia has threatened to put some of them on trial for war crimes. While a worry that the Russians will conduct war trials in a tit for tat in response to this Ukrainian war trial is legitimate, I think that is what the Russians will do anyway. Fear of the enemy putting on show trials may not be the best argument for not conducting war trials. In a perfect world, the Russians would send their defendants to the ICC to try the soldiers from Ukraine, but I can’t imagine this happening under this Putin regime.

8. There is an interesting side note relating to the Ukrainian judiciary. According to a coordinator for a human rights organization, “At present, the trial of Shishimarin looks like what we have dreamed of,” she said. The defendant was brought to trial quickly. Online media and the public were given access to the court hearing. The activist gave the impression that both speed and accessibility are unusual in Ukrainian courts. According to Ms. Reshetylova, it took “a full-scale Russian invasion for the Ukrainian judiciary to understand that transparency and accessibility in warfare is not only a matter of justice, but also an element of justice to satisfy the victims.”

   According to the Ukrainian Criminal Procedure Code, Art 27 §2 “In courts of all instances, criminal proceedings are conducted openly.” Only in very limited cases, may the trial be conducted ‘in camera,’ i.e. without public admittance. Also, an audio recording of the trial must be available. Article 28 §5 requires “Everyone shall have the right for a charge to be subject of a trial within the shortest possible time or criminal proceedings concerned closed.”

   In my study of Ukraine, at the early stages of Ukrainian statehood, I heard horror stories of long incarceration before trials. On the other hand, I was welcome to watch criminal and civil trials as a member of the public. Admittedly, those trials were neither controversial nor political.

Boris Bondarev, Russian United Nations Diplomat

May 24, 2022: "My name is Boris Bondarev, in the MFA (Minister of Foreign Affairs) of Russian since 2002, since 2019 until now - Counsellor of the Russian Mission to the UN Office at Geneva.

For twenty years of my diplomatic career I have seen different turns of our foreign policy, but never have I been so ashamed of my country as on February 24 of this year.

The aggressive war unleashed by Putin against Ukraine, and in fact against the entire Western world, is not only a crime against the Ukrainian people, but also, perhaps, the most serious crime against the people of Russia, with a bold letter Z crossing out all hopes and prospects for a prosperous free society in our country.

Those who conceived this war want only one thing - to remain in power forever, live in pompous tasteless palaces, sail on yachts comparable in tonnage and cost to the entire Russian Navy, enjoying unlimited power and complete impunity. To achieve that they are willing to sacrifice as many lives as it takes. Thousands of Russians and Ukrainians have already died just for this.

I regret to admit that over all these twenty years the level of lies and unprofessionalism in the work of the Foreign Ministry has been increasing all the time. However, in most recent years, this has become simply catastrophic. Instead of unbiased information, impartial analysis and sober forecasting, there are propaganda clichés in the spirit of Soviet newspapers of the 1930s. A system has been built that deceives itself.

Minister Lavrov is a good illustration of the degradation of this system. In 18 years, he went from a professional and educated intellectual, whom many my colleagues held in such high esteem, to a person who constantly broadcasts conflicting statements and threatens the world (that is, Russia too) with nuclear weapons!

Today, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not about diplomacy. It is all about warmongering, lies and hatred. It serves interests of few, the very few people thus contributing to further isolation and degradation of my country.

Russia no longer has allies, and there is no one to blame but its reckless and ill-conceived policy.

I studied to be a diplomat and have been a diplomat for twenty years. The Ministry has become my home and family. But I simply cannot any longer share in this bloody, witless and absolutely needless ignominy."

---

This simple eloquent renunciation of Putin and the Foreign Ministry is a clarion call to all Russians. Bondarev -not a name most of us know - is stationed in Geneva, as a member of the Russian Foreign Mission to the United Nations. He has been quietly doing his job for the last 22 years working for the Russian Foreign Ministry and is happy and honored to be assigned to his position in Geneva. So, why give up his cushy career with the Russian government? Because the war is a crime, the Russian aggressors want power and wealth more than the well being of its citizens, and the purveyors of war are isolating and humiliating Russia. That’s why.

According to the New York Times, “The Kremlin has gone to extraordinary lengths to silence dissent on the war. On state television, the war’s opponents are regularly branded as traitors. A law signed by Mr. Putin in March punishes “false information” about the war — potentially defined as anything that contradicts the government line — with as much as 15 years in prison. Partly as a result, virtually no government official had spoken out publicly against the invasion until Mr. Bondarev’s resignation.”

What bravery! This is the ultimate sacrifice and honor to stand up to power. Dedicated to the precepts of the United Nations, Mr. Bondarev bravely has set the bar for all Russian workers. For that matter, he sets an example to all government and political leaders throughout the world.

---

HIDE YOUR PAPERS UNDER THE POTATOES

mbfitzmahan. Volodymyr Kovalchuk. Lutsk, Ukraine. 1997.

FALL 1997

A man came to the KGB office.  He looked frightened.  ‘My talking parrot has disappeared.’ The agent was confused.  “That’s not the kind of case we handle here. Why don’t you go to the police?’ The man frowned, “I know that, but I am here to tell you officially that I disagree with the parrot.”  

Viktor was a man who liked a joke.  On my first day at the university, Viktor, the dean of the law school, took my hand and smiled,  “I am happy you are here to help us get a new perspective.  A class in comparative law is just what we need. I must warn you, though, we have no textbooks, no printer, and no computers.  Sometimes we don’t even have lights,” he laughed.   This time he wasn’t joking.

I came prepared to teach about American and European law, but I didn’t know anything about Ukrainian law.  There was nothing  written in English so I asked Viktor if he would introduce me to an attorney who could teach me a little something about Ukrainian law. “Hmmm,” he pondered.  “I know!  I will introduce you to Volodymyr.  He’ll know what to do.”

Volodymyr Kovalchuk was neither a professor nor a lawyer.   I wasn’t sure why I needed to meet him.  He  looked like an ordinary fellow.  About 5 foot 8 with greying hair, he looked a bit like Martin Freeman in The Hobbit.  He spoke English, but not fluently.  How was this kind, simple man going to help me?

A retired communist bureaucrat, Volodymyr was a member of the Communist Party, one of a chosen few.  In the late 1980s less than 4% of the Ukrainian population were members of the Party of the Soviet Union.  Membership in the Party was a hard sought after honor that brought guarantees for a better job, better living quarters, and a better life.

This unassuming looking man held massive power to decide who got a passport or who did not. Many people owed Volodymyr.  In Ukraine, who you knew and who owed you, were valuable commodities. A passport, a propiska, was a valuable asset when the State restricted personal movement.  A passport was needed not only to travel abroad (a rare privilege), but to travel within the country – to take a trip to Kyiv, Moscow, or even to your Aunt Natasha’s in L’viv.  To get a place to live, a job, or to attend a university, you needed to produce your propiska.   

Volodymyr Kovalchuk‘s Communist Party Membership book.

I shook hands with Volodymr and exchanged the requisite pleasantries.  Before I could explain what I needed, he looked directly in my eyes as if to weigh my commitment, “So you want to meet some attorneys.  Do you also want to talk to some judges?”  This would be more than I expected!  Of course I did!  “Do you want to know how the legal system works?” he asked.  “That is precisely what I need to learn. Can you help me?” I asked.  “Well, tell me.  Do you want to know how the system is suppose to work, or how the system actually works?”  He turned to me with that little Hobbit look, “If you want to learn how the system is suppose to work, this will take a couple of months.  If you want to learn how the system really works, this could take us years.”

My modest idea to interview a handful of attorneys turned out to be a complicated, sometimes unnerving, three-year journey into the bowels of Soviet and Ukrainian jurisprudence. When I needed information, Volodymyr knew who to ask.  When I needed to hear the truth, a more intricate and dangerous request, he knew how to find it.

Solely through the interview process with the help of Volodymyr, I gathered volumes of  information on the new legal system of Ukraine.  I ultimately compiled and analyzed the data and wrote America’s first piece of scholarship on the Ukrainian legal system, in particular its flawed court system.  Columbia University published my study under the long title, “Vestiges of Soviet Control Mechanisms in the District Court of Ukraine.”  

I did all my interviewing in the province of Volyn, primarily in its capital, Lutsk.  Between 1997 and 2000, I met with 100 jurists and attended trials and visited jails. I did all this knowing only bits of Ukrainian and Russian.

Volodymyr taught me how to “do business” in his culture.  He taught me to drink brandy in the morning with Judge Milishchuk.  Vodka in the afternoon with the prison superintendent.  “Chut, chut, just a little. Sto grams, 100 grams,” Volodymyr encouraged. He taught me that this was how trust and friendships were forged.  “You must bring a gift, befitting the importance of the official,” Volodymyr instructed.  So I took the de rigueur gift of Scotch whiskey to the judge and some cigarettes and vodka to the prison warden.

“Hide your papers,” he advised, “under the potatoes.” Volodymyr revealed the dangers to me that all Ukrainians knew. “Don’t carry around tapes of the interviews. Or your photographs. They will stop and search you.”   “Who will stop me?” I asked him.  “The KGB…I mean the SBU.  They are the same! Absoliutno!” he warned.

Volodymyr Kovalchuk of Lutsk, Ukraine, and my friend of 20 years, died on May 1, 2017. “Volodymyr thought you were a very noble person,” my friend wrote me.  “I saw him about 6 months ago.  We stood outside my apartment and reminisced about those years when the Fitzmahan’s lived in our town.”

Many of my friends from Ukraine are suffering.  Jobs have dried up and pensions are not sufficient to pay for retirement.  Many have left and moved to other parts of Europe. Those who could not leave, stayed behind dreading a Russian invasion and feared for their survival. I will miss my friend very much.  I will miss his humor, his fearlessness, and his devotion to the truth.

Since Volodymyr’s death, the Russians have invaded twice. In 2014, Putin’s troops invaded and occupied Crimea in the south as well as sent in troops to support separatists in the Donbas region in the east. This latest brutal incursion in 2022 comes as a result, in part, because the Ukrainian government has finally begun to move forward from the calamity left by the earlier Soviet/Russian occupation. Ukraine’s corrupt pro-Putin leadership was replaced in 2014 with pro-Europe leadership that made strong efforts to eliminate corruption and solidify a government committed to a liberal democracy including hopes to fix the judicial system. The latest president, Volodymr Zelensky moved to replace corrupt members of the Constitutional Court. Last year, the Prosecutor General indicted Viktor Medvedchuk for treason and attempted theft of government property in Crimea. Viktor Medvedchuk is a friend of Putin and has been identified as Putin’s choice for the next puppet leader of Ukraine.