“There’s nowhere to put oneself in a cell” the lawyer described how Viktor Babariko was detained and is being incarcerated.

“In the course of investigations, it’s important not to close in on ourselves”

The former head of Belgazprombank Viktor Babariko is defended by three lawyers. One of them is Alexander Pyl’chenko. “Narodnaya volya” interviewed Alexander about how Viktor Babariko was detained, in which conditions he is being kept now and why the lawyers were obliged to withhold information on the case.

— Alexander Vladimirovich, tell us if Babariko was charged and under which articles of the Criminal code?

— On pain of criminal prosecution we, lawyers, were forbidden to name the articles of the Criminal code under which Viktor Babariko was charged.

— But everything has already been articulated several times!

— Nevertheless…Our legislation lacks clear criteria for сonfidentiality of preliminary investigation and everyone understands and interprets it in their way. Our head of investigation reported that the сonfidentiality also includes the articles of the Criminal code. As well as the place where the defendant, subject to preventive measures, is being kept. And much much more… But given that more than a week before his arrest there had been several offenses articulated you’ve got to conclude that the confidentiality is only for the defenders. Whereas for State media and officials of different ranks there is no confidentiality. But it’s not the main thing, the main one is that you can’t challenge stringent claims about hard evidence of Viktor’s involvement in criminal activities. Although the activity itself isn’t recognized as such yet. In my view, confidentiality can be a person’s testimony incriminating another person which the lawyer found out during confrontation. It is a list of persons suspected of a crime but not detained as well as other information that can hinder an investigation. But a statement of a case relating to a person’s life, restriction of his freedom, can’t be confidential. Neither can his attitude to the charge, detention, and arrest be. Here it’s impossible to find for 24 hours where the detainee was put and it worries relatives and concerned ones.

— Tell us how Viktor Babariko was detained.

— Viktor Dmitrievich described how it had happened in a meeting with a lawyer. On the morning of 18 June at about 9 a.m. he was on his way to the city. He was carrying lists of signatures to file them with the commission. Not far from village Mochany where he lives, on a deserted country road near a cemetery, he was stopped by a highway patrol officer. While he was submitting the documents to the officer, several people ran over to the car. Viktor Dmitrievich asked them to introduce themselves, they hastily stuck something in his face but he couldn’t read anything. Babariko was taken out of the driver’s seat and put on the back seat of his Tesla. Viktor Dmitrievich said that if there were questions he was ready to arrive at the place and time specified upon request by an investigative authority. They answered: we will take you. Babariko claimed that he views this as kidnapping and required his lawyers. Everyone got into Tesla, one of the unknown people got behind the wheel. Admit that this is a stressful situation. As Viktor Dmitrievich said, during a week or more he was told: make off, you’ll be arrested. — But there’s nothing for, and no one calls me over anywhere. — he surprisingly replied.

He was taken to The Financial Investigations Department (FID) of the republic. His possessions — a tablet, two phones, and a watch — were thrown onto the back seat of the car, whereas he was taken away into the building. The fate of the possessions and the car which is leased is still unknown. According to Viktor Dmitrievich, the personal search report doesn’t say anything about the things mentioned and the car.

From the first minutes of communication, Babariko required inviting his lawyers as he was detained. By the way, we, lawyers, at that moment tried to get inside the building to notify about Babariko’s defense. The entrance to the building was closed. In this building by the way there is not only FID, so other people first entered it. It was closed only for us. They refused to accept our documents, as well as an appeal against arbitrary and unjustified detention. Only the next morning we were invited for questioning in KGB.

Where the person had been until yesterday is not known. How he is doing is not clear. If he needs medical assistance is not clear. What is the need for such actions? Not to mention legitimacy. A detained citizen requires a lawyer, provides contracts with lawyers, reflects this in a detention protocol — which means that the criminal prosecution body must provide a suspect with an opportunity to exercise his right to defense. But his requirements are simply ignored.

That’s the policy conducted in FID now. While introducing a new executive to the staff of the Committee of Public Accounts on June 5, 2020, the head of the President’s Office said that with him there’d be new tendencies, approaches, and focuses introduced. As we see the tendencies aren’t encouraging and the focuses are the same.

— Well, yes. Though this is already a Belarusian tradition: by the election candidates for presidency get arrested. By the way, does Viktor Babariko have claims to the conditions of detention?

— No claims to staff. The conditions of detention — like the others’. There are problems with everyday routine. As we were not admitted to Viktor Dmitrievich on June 18, he couldn’t tell us which things he needed. Receipt of packages mode is Monday, Wednesday, Friday. So all that time he was wearing formal attire. His sleeping area was added. A so-called “helicopter” which is put between other beds overnight. It means that during the day there’s nowhere to put oneself in the cell.

— How do you see the statement of the chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts that he couldn’t imagine how the head of a bank could be unaware that his employees had committed a crime?

— Did he state this? A very bold and dangerous statement…Let’s reason from analogy. Not so long ago at the beginning of the year a former deputy chief of the Main Directorate for Combating Organized Crime and Corruption, Viktor Tikhinya, was taken into custody. Are there executives above him? Yes. It means that if he had committed a crime, in Tertel’s logic, Tikhinya’s executives — the chief of the Directorate were aware of crimes committed. Let’s look at another case. In 2017 the sentence entered into force in a so-called case №17 which related to selling narcotic drugs and malfeasance. As you remember, in the case there were KGB and the Directorate employees convicted. One of the KGB employees was actually from the Central Office. If I’m not mistaken at that time Ivan Stanislavovich Tertel’ worked in the Central Office in the executive position. In his logic, he couldn’t have been unaware of crimes committed. And where? Inside the walls of KGB, in the Central Office! And finally the latest example. The Supreme Court is hearing the case where one of the key figures is a Deputy Secretary of State of Security Council Andrei Vtiurin who confessed to taking a big bribe. Should I continue? Or you understand it? Therefore if I were an official, I would refrain from incriminations which provoke far-reaching conclusions by analogy.

— Alexander Vladimirovich, still: what about Viktor Babariko’s charge?

— As I said before, we have no right to articulate the articles so I don’t. And from the point of nature of the charge — I am satisfied, if I may say so. I can’t wait till State media or officials articulate it! There is usually no confidentiality of preliminary investigation for them. And we will have a chance to express ourselves on it.

— How can you comment on a General Prosecutor’s statement of the initiation of new criminal proceedings against Viktor Babariko?

— Which statement do you mean?

— Alexander Koniuk claimed that he initiates proceedings under article 285 of the Criminal code, this is criminal organization — establishment and participation.

— So what, are they going to investigate it themselves?

— No, they transferred it to KGB.

— I can’t make it clear. I might only add that such offenses are difficult to prove. As the General Prosecutor of the Soviet Union once joked (maybe not him though): in the course of investigations, it’s important not to close in on ourselves.

— There’s a bit of truth in every joke… Who is the head of the investigation group for Babariko’s case?

— You know, we forgot to clarify if his last name is confidential. I’ll surely ask when I meet them next time. Meanwhile, I’ll decode the subject of the investigation confidentiality for myself by including the head’s last name there. (Smiling) We have no complaints against him except for the confidentiality of the investigation.

— In your opinion, why are the conditions on the information on this case so tough?

— I don’t know. And we are not explained that. I guess it is connected to plenty of problems with the availability of evidence. One thing is to claim about hard multiple evidence to those who interpret it in their way, the other — is to assemble the evidence in a form stipulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure. And if there’s such a problem, the only thing which we can count on is a full mystery and very limited information

This is a translation of the article made by Lisa Sagal previously published in The Village Belarus on June 23rd, 2020.