The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine often finds itself at the center of scandals about violations of the presumption of innocence. Thus, anti-corruption activists are trying to pass off procedural actions as the real result of their activities. This is evidenced by a number of court decisions, UNN writes .
The presumption of innocence is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law, which stipulates that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
However, in its activities, the NABU often violates this principle by publicly accusing suspects and actually shaping public opinion before the trial.
This was also the case in the case of anti-corruption activists against MP Serhiy Kuzminykh. According to the defense, the detective spoke affirmatively during the podcast about the indisputable proof of Mykytas's guilt in the criminal proceedings against him and thus disseminated this information to a wide audience. The High Anti-Corruption Court recognized the violation by the NABU detective.
The same situation occurred in the NABU case against former MP Maksym Mykytas. During the interview, the detective in this case covered certain details of the pre-trial investigation, and although he did not name the accused, the context of the conversation and categorically affirmative statements undoubtedly formed the public's belief that the accused was guilty of the criminal offense. The HACCU issued a ruling establishing a violation of the presumption of innocence by the detective.
In an exclusive commentary to UNN, Oleh Shram, former advisor to the Director of the State Bureau of Investigation, noted that by violating the presumption of innocence, anti-corruption agencies are trying to shift the focus of their activities from the results expected by society to the intermediate stages of the investigation.
They (the prosecution - ed.) provide public information with an accusatory bias, form public opinion that the person is a criminal, and show him or her in a negative light. Although, until a person is recognized as such by a court decision, no one has the right to talk about it. They can say that a person is suspected or accused, but not that he or she has committed any illegal acts. Violation of the principle of presumption of innocence is a matter of disciplinary responsibility. For the most part, existing disciplinary bodies simply do not respond to such violations. They turn a blind eye,
According to him, the violation of the presumption of innocence by anti-corruption activists is a systemic story that arose due to the lack of real results in their work.
They are trying to form the opinion that the result of a pre-trial investigation from the first day of their activity is a notice of suspicion or a preventive measure against a person. In this way, they shift the emphasis on the results of their activities from those expected by society to the intermediate stages... And because of these distortions of definitions, terms, and real results, and their transfer to the initial stages of the pre-trial investigation, we have this result,
Shram added that there are many questions about the responsibility of the prosecution, investigators, detectives, and prosecutors for their investigation results. Including if they conducted such an investigation in violation of the law, which resulted in the illegal prosecution of a person.
It is worth noting that such actions on the part of the NABU call into question the agency's ability to act within the law and raise questions about the transparency and fairness of the anti-corruption fight in Ukraine.
Add
Allegations of bias and political bias of NABU detectives in their investigations have been made repeatedly. Recently, however, they have begun to be heard from the bureau's leadership. The reason for this was that anti-corruption activists launched an investigation against NABU First Deputy Director Gizo Uglava. Only after he found himself on the other side of the investigation did he admit that there were serious problems with the investigation conducted by anti-corruption activists and noted that the bureau was focused on achieving "external goals" rather than establishing the truth.
There are also concerns about violations of the presumption of innocence by the NABU in the case against former Minister of Agrarian Policy Mykola Solskyi. In particular, the Kharkiv Human Rights Group criticized the NABU for statements in this case that violate the presumption of innocence. The real reason for Solsky's prosecution there is the reform of the land market in Ukraine.