Main page > History > Taken From The Report Of Christos Purhurides “The Disappeared People In Belarus”

Taken From The Report Of Christos Purhurides “The Disappeared People In Belarus”

The Secret “Ihnatovich’s Gang” Trial

“Starting from October 24, 2001 four people (V.Ihnatovich, M.Malik, A.Huz and S.Savushkin) were on a closed trial for the abduction of Mr. Zavadsky. The barrister who represented Zavadsky’s mother solicited the judges to hold a public trial session, but it was rejected. All the inquiries of Zavadsky's family to receive the testimonies which had been sent by the barristers of Zavadsky's family were turned down. On March 14, 2002 four persons were sentenced for long penalty terms for the abduction of Dmitrij Zavadskij (but not for the murder, as the body had not been found) among other things, on the basis of the digging tool with blood of Zavadsky, which had been found in Ihnatovich’s car. It was reported that the condemned kept pleading they were not guilty, calling the legal trial a farce. According to the words of one of the barristers of Zavadsky's family, former General Prosecutor Bozhelko was a witness for prosecution at the trial, but he mainly refused to give an evidence referring to the regulation of Criminal-Remedial Code which allowed the investigator to defend their sources of information.\

This verdict was presented to me partly in details by Minister of Foreign Affairs and General Prosecutor as a partial solution of Zavadsky's case. On indictment’s version the motive of the felony against Zavadsky which had been committed by Ihnatovich and his gang was a revenge, as Zavadsky blamed Ihnatovich in public for waging the war in Chechnya at the rebels’ side.
The major part of the interlocutors from the families’ side stated that the disappearance of Zavadsky was of the same line as the disappearance of Zacharenko, Honchar and Krasovskij, due to the reason that it had similar political motive: to take revenge upon “treason” of the president for whom formerly Mr. Zavadsky had worked as a private operator before he started working as s journalist of “hostile” mass media.

To my mind, the used up pistol was not given approximately at the time Mr. Zavadsky disappeared, it was possible, in general, that there was not a direct organizational connection between this affair and three others. It might have happened that “Ihnatovich’s gang” killed Zavadsky in order to settle his own scores with this journalist, while the members of the gang or some of them by coincidence might have been involved in the so called series of executions in other cases. Anyway, the statement which was made in advantage of the necessity of carrying out the close trial procedure – otherwise the witnesses would have been afraid to give evidence, – in my opinion was beneath criticism: if the witnesses had been afraid of the gang, the fact of holding a close session would not have made any difference, as the participants of the gang presented at the trial anyway.
From the point of view of the gravity of the established facts at present and the earnestness of suspicion ensuing from all these facts against high ranked state officials and even against president Lukashenko, personally I think, that a strong signal should be sent to Belarusian regime. Besides of this message, which can be sent by The Council of Europe, sincerely I hope that the international community in a wide sense of this word, beyond the limits of our organization, join the pressure, which is necessary to fulfill in order the justice will prevail.”