Lawyer Vitaliy Tytych: The verdicts in the Maidan cases fail to identify those responsible for these crimes.

On November 30, it marked 11 years since the first crime was committed against the participants of the Revolution of Dignity – the "Berkut" brutally beat protesting students on Maidan. Today, the sentences in the "Maidan cases" do not provide answers about who should be punished. Almost 90% of the cases transferred to the courts have already been closed or will be closed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, says the lawyer of the Heavenly Hundred. About the state of the investigation and the sentences for the guilty – in an interview with Vitaliy Titich for RBC-Ukraine.

During these days, 11 years ago, protesters had stood on Maidan for a week expressing dissatisfaction with the government's refusal to sign the Association Agreement with the EU. On the night of November 29 to 30, 2013, the first crime against a peaceful protest occurred: the special unit "Berkut" violently dispersed the students.

The law enforcement officers, claiming they were "clearing the area for a Christmas tree," beat people with batons and pursued them even beyond the square. That night became a turning point, provoking a massive protest movement throughout Ukraine. These events went down in history as the Revolution of Dignity.

Throughout the Revolution, beatings, torture, arrests, and shootings were recorded. The bloodiest days were February 18-20, 2014, when law enforcement used firearms, leading to the deaths of the Heroes of the Heavenly Hundred. The responsibility for the crimes lies with the perpetrators – the special forces from "Berkut" and the organizers from the highest levels of the state leadership, including the fugitive president Yanukovych.

However, after 11 years, justice has still not been achieved: most of the guilty have escaped punishment. The lawyer for the Heavenly Hundred, Vitaliy Titich, spoke to RBC-Ukraine about the situation with the sentences, recalled some details of how the investigation process unfolded in several cases, and expressed his opinion on whether the perpetrators and organizers will finally face justice.

– What is the main thing to know about the situation with investigations and guilty verdicts in the Maidan cases 11 years after all the events?

– Almost all key episodes of the Revolution of Dignity were investigated by the Office of Special Investigations of the Prosecutor General's Office (OSI) under the leadership of Serhiy Horbatiuk, and most of the criminal proceedings regarding these episodes were transferred to the courts between 2015 and 2017.

The lawyers of the victims had certain questions regarding the "quality" of the investigation. In particular, certain important circumstances of the crimes were left outside the criminal process and were not disclosed using appropriate methods.

However, there are objective reasons for this – publicly known facts of obstruction from high-ranking officials of law enforcement agencies and courts. Primarily from the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor General's Office, specifically former prosecutors general – Viktor Shokin, Yuriy Lutsenko, and their deputy, the now-deceased Stolyarchuk.

Criminal proceedings were even initiated against him for interfering with the activities of OSI prosecutors. This is a unique case in the history of Ukraine and simultaneously serves as evidence of the conditions under which the Maidan investigators operated.

5Photo: The bloodiest days were February 18-20, 2014, when law enforcement used firearms, leading to the deaths of the Heroes of the Heavenly Hundred

But the key problem of the investigation was the criminal inaction of the highest leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The greatest "contribution" to the destruction of evidence was made by former Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov. These are not my assumptions – this has been publicly stated multiple times by the head of the Department of Special Investigations of the Prosecutor General's Office, Serhiy Horbatiuk.

The Ministry of Internal Affairs received instructions from OSI investigators to verify the involvement of "Berkut" special unit fighters in the crimes and to search for those who had fled. And they "leaked" information about covert search operations to the suspects. As a result, their outcomes were zero. After the events concluded, internal documents within the Ministry of Internal Affairs were destroyed – information on specific individuals involved in the "operations," their use of physical force against citizens, special means, and most importantly – firearms.

The weapons used to commit the terrorist act on February 20 had completely disappeared from storage at the "Berkut" base. The Ministry of Internal Affairs responded to OSI investigators that they did not identify individuals involved in the intentional killings during the protest actions because the documents were destroyed by unidentified officials of the internal affairs bodies.

Moreover, the Ministry of Internal Affairs sent "Berkut" fighters to the ATO zone with weapons that were checked for use in the murder on Instytutska Street. According to the Criminal Code, such actions are classified as a crime – aiding in concealing evidence.

In May 2014, Avakov sent a letter to the Prosecutor General's Office demanding an end to summonses for police officers, including former "Berkut" collaborators, for questioning, claiming that this "negatively affects their psychological state."

Additionally, we should mention the sabotage from the national Interpol bureau, which resulted in refusals to issue international arrest warrants. This made it impossible to apply the procedure for in absentia investigations. Legislative chaos also hindered the process. Chaotic, ill-conceived amendments to criminal procedural legislation, including the "Savchenko Law" and "Lozovyi Amendments."

It is also worth mentioning the so-called "amnesty law for Maidan activists." This was used as a basis for the defense of special forces involved in the killings on Maidan. The law provides for the exemption from criminal liability for participants in mass protests. However, this law is not applicable and has never been applied by investigators or prosecutors in cases of crimes during the Maidan.

6Photo: Almost all key episodes of the Revolution of Dignity were investigated, with most cases transferred to court between 2015 and 2017

Real protesters do not need "amnesty" because their actions do not constitute a crime. The right to peaceful protest is a constitutional right, and the right to rebellion is a natural right of a political nation that does not require confirmation by laws. The main goal of this law was likely to create obstacles for investigating the crimes committed by provocateurs and law enforcement.

Even these examples justify the assertion that the individuals who came to power in Ukraine after the events of Maidan made maximum efforts to block the investigations into the crimes committed by Yanukovych's organized criminal group – the organizers of violent crimes against participants in the protests, and to make it impossible or reduce the punishment for the ordinary perpetrators. Primarily those who committed the most consequential terrorist act in Ukraine's history.

However, despite these circumstances, almost all major criminal episodes were investigated and transferred to court. And now we find ourselves in a situation where neither the victims of the case nor Ukrainian society have received answers to important questions that should have been provided by the criminal proceedings.

The responsibility for this lies with the judicial authority of Ukraine, which has systematically destroyed the results of the investigation for almost ten years. Almost 90% of the cases transferred to the courts in the "Maidan cases" have already been closed or will be closed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal liability.

And the few sentences that have been issued tend to have the opposite effect, as they do not provide Ukrainians with answers about what happened on Maidan, who is responsible for these crimes, and who and when will be held accountable. The mere existence of these sentences means nothing. Judges have systematically, brazenly, and cynically sabotaged the execution of their constitutional functions for 11 years.

– It was often said that it is impossible to hold people accountable because a significant number fled to the Russian Federation.

– This is a false thesis. Unfortunately, it has been supported in the media all these years. The flight of many figures to the Russian Federation in no way hinders the courts in establishing the circumstances of the crimes attributed to such individuals. The Criminal Procedure Code regulates the in absentia procedure (trial in absentia without the presence of the accused – ed.). Starting around 2019, it has been actively applied in courts.

7Photo: The crimes of Maidan were thoroughly documented in photos and videos, which were shown on television channels

For a long time, this procedural tool was unavailable to the courts – the responsibility for this lies with the legislative authority – the deputies who came to the Verkhovna Rada on the wave of Maidan (for several years after Maidan, there was no effective mechanism to hold those who fled abroad accountable without their physical presence. Until 2019, the parliament did not adopt the necessary laws, which