Shmarov defamation case halted as language becomes the issue (05/19/96)

Shmarov defamation case halted as language becomes the issue

by Marta Kolomayets
Kyiv Press Bureau

KYIV - The case of Ukrainian Defense Minister Valeriy Shmarov vs. the daily newspaper Vechirniy Kyiv (Evening Kyiv) and its editor-in-chief Vitaliy Karpenko went to trial on May 12, at Kyiv's Shevchenko raion courthouse - for 15 minutes.

Minister Shmarov has accused the popular newspaper of defamation of character (in Ukrainian, the charge reads "violation of the honor and dignity of the minister") in a series of articles written by Mr. Karpenko earlier this year. In his summons, Mr. Shmarov also seeks 2 billion karbovantsi in damages (approximately $10,000 U.S.).

But no sooner had the trial started than the judge postponed the proceedings until May 23, because Mr. Karpenko objected to the fact that the summons he received and the documents submitted to the court were in Russian, while Ukrainian law stipulates that "all court proceedings should be in the Ukrainian language, or in the language of the majority of the population in the region."

The proceedings chaired by Judge Z. Antonyshyn began at 10 a.m. on Sunday morning, with Serhiy Hayduk, assistant to the defense minister, representing Mr. Shmarov at the proceedings (Minister Shmarov did not attend).

People's Deputy Vasyl Kostytsky, who is a lawyer by profession, represented the Vechirniy Kyiv newspaper, while attorney Viktor Nikazakov represented Mr. Karpenko in the proceedings.

In the case brought before the court, Minister Shmarov states that Mr. Karpenko defamed him as a government official in the editor's column of February 8 headlined "State Revolt," where Mr. Karpenko accuses him of inciting a revolution among the military, with the intention of destroying the Ukrainian armed forces, and, in turn, the Ukrainian independent state.

Among the points in Mr. Karpenko's column that Mr. Shmarov denies is the accusation that the minister has formed a "shadow general staff which has developed an anti-patriotic military policy," and that Mr. Shmarov "has tried to deceive Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, showing him documents that generals signed under pressure" from Mr. Shmarov.

In turn, Mr. Karpenko has said in subsequent articles that the accusations presented in his column on February 8 were not Mr. Karpenko's inventions, but facts revealed by a group of generals who have expressed their displeasure with Mr. Shmarov's restructuring of policy and reforms, which they added, can contribute to the demise of the national army and can be dangerous to the national security of Ukraine.

Political observers in Ukraine have said that some of Ukraine's armed forces are displeased with the fact that their defense minister is a civilian, while others say that the dismissal of Gen. Anatoliy Lopata, one-time head of the chiefs of staff, earlier this year caused the initial uproar between Mr. Shmarov and Vechirniy Kyiv.

However, on May 12, the issue in the overcrowded courtroom in the center of the city was not the truth or the substance of the allegations, but the issue of language. Mr. Karpenko immediately demanded a translator for the trial, as the judge began proceedings in the Russian language.

Mr. Karpenko said he needed to review his summons in his native language, Ukrainian, arguing that he may not understand the "innuendoes of the Russian text," and, given that these are allegations made against him, he feels it only fair to be able to comprehend the charges.

In a transcript from the first morning of the court proceedings, Mr. Hayduk accused Mr. Karpenko of being "cunning," adding that Mr. Karpenko understands Russian very well and that he has had the opportunity to get acquainted with the documents, which were sent to the newspaper in both languages.

Although Mr. Karpenko acknowledged that he did see the texts in Ukrainian, they were not official documents signed by Mr. Shmarov, and, therefore, he cannot view them as a court summons, stressing that he needed to see a summons in Ukrainian signed by Mr. Shmarov.

But Mr. Karpenko did drive home the point concerning the use of Ukrainian in the proceedings, stating that "it would be nonsense if in Germany court proceedings were in French, and in France, proceedings were conducted in English, and in England they were conducted in Spanish. We are in Ukraine and we are arguing about elementary points which are spelled out in our laws."

His demands also highlighted the fact that a government minister, who is obligated to represent his country in its official language, submits his documents in Russian - though he speaks and understands Ukrainian fluently. Vechirniy Kyiv, in a front-page article reporting on the trial on May 13, asked "Is this conscious ignorance, or outright scorn?"

People's deputies, including Stepan Khmara, Mykhailo Ratushnyi, Anatoliy Yermak, Vyacheslav Bilous and Pavlo Movchan, who is also the chairman of the Prosvita Ukrainian Language Society, witnessed these events in the courtroom.

| Home Page |