Many years ago, I, Valery Nikolaevich Litvinenko, former deputy head of the investigative department of the regional prosecutor's office, met S.S. Vepritsky, as they say, in "battle," "on opposite sides of the barricades."
This "battle" was tough and long, but in the end, as they say, friendship prevailed. I've been in touch with this man ever since. Recently, while browsing the internet, I saw an article, "The Truth About the New Leaders of the Ukrainian Bar. The 'Kharkiv Shooter,'" which was posted on the website:
https://www.rupor.info/analitika/2012/11/15/pravda-o-novyh-rukovoditelyah…
The author of this article is a certain Mr. Prokopenko, who posted it on one of the Russian websites, after which it was literally picked up by several Ukrainian websites.
I think it's clear why this was done. However, that wasn't the only thing that struck me. The article about Vepritsky describes actual events from 1990. Anatoly Dmitrievich Suprun, as a senior investigator for especially important cases in the prosecutor's office, investigated this high-profile case. But before I recount what happened, so to speak, firsthand, I'd like to analyze why, more than 22 years after the incident, this publication appeared, allegedly based on a letter from one of the victims, who back then, in 1990, hadn't even attempted to challenge the decisions of the prosecutor's office and the court.
As is well known, in 2011, the new Law of Ukraine "On Advocacy and Advocacy Activity" was adopted. S.S. Vepritsky, as the head of one of the largest bar associations in Ukraine, declared a merciless fight against corruption in the legal profession, bribery, and the persecution of lawyers for dissent.
As editor-in-chief of the national legal publication "Zakhist Prava," he organized the publication of a special edition of the newspaper (https://vash-advokat.com/uploads/Gazeta/%E2%84% 96%2022.pdf) titled "The Whole Truth About the Crisis in the Kharkiv Bar." Unafraid to expose those responsible for the collapse of the Kharkiv bar, he exposed the problems of corruption, bribery, and embezzlement, naming specific names. He named lawyers, former leaders of the Kharkiv bar, who, through the prosecutor's office, attempted to imprison their fellow lawyers simply because they wanted to escape the total control and "bribery" of certain figures—former leaders of the Kharkiv bar.
Both the website vash-advokat.com and the newspaper "Zakhist Prav" published incriminating documents. In his publication, Vepritsky, fearlessly, raised the issue of the sale of lawyers' certificates and the organization of corruption schemes.
None other than S.S. Vepritsky spoke at a meeting of the High Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the Ukrainian Bar Association, chaired by its head, Vysotsky, where, fearlessly, he exposed corruption and lawbreaking by the then Ukrainian and Kharkiv leadership of the bar. It was after S.S. Vepritsky's open (and I dare say so) fearless actions that the article "The Truth About the New Leaders of the Ukrainian Bar Association" was published.
In essence, the events described in the article did take place. And I, as a former prosecutor, am ready today to tell the public the whole truth about what happened in 1990.
Vepritsky S.S. was indeed an officer of one of the security forces and had the right to carry a service firearm at all times.
Indeed, on September 15, 1990, at Red October in Kharkov, Vepritsky S.S. was wounded (I am not at liberty to describe all of his wounds), a citizen was indeed killed and another victim was injured by a ricocheting bullet.
The investigation considered several issues:
Was Vepritsky sober? One of the witnesses stated: "There were 12 of us. Vepritsky didn't run away from us, as the police officer who was with Vepritsky S.S. did, and only a drunk would behave like that." All necessary investigative steps were taken in the case. Doctors and experts stated that Vepritsky S.S. was sober, and witnesses all claimed that he never drank alcohol. And anyone who knows Vepritsky will confirm this.
So, as a former investigator, I can state that on the day in question, Vepritsky S.S. was sober.
The second issue considered by the investigation was whether Vepritsky, as a law enforcement officer authorized to carry weapons, exceeded his official duties and committed a crime under Article 166 of the Criminal Code of the Ukrainian SSR.
And today I will say: “No, Vepritsky acted strictly within the framework of official instructions, including the use of weapons, and did not exceed his official powers.”
The investigation established that the deceased citizen attempted to seize S.S. Vepritsky's service weapon after Vepritsky identified himself as a law enforcement officer and demanded to accompany him to the nearest police station for questioning. Vepritsky could not have predicted that the citizen would attempt to seize his weapon.
The attempted seizure of a weapon resulted in shots fired, injuring Vepritsky himself. The bullet that passed through Vepritsky proved fatal. A second bullet, fired during an attempted seizure of his service weapon, ricocheted off the asphalt and injured the victim's toe. Vepritsky, who suffered varying degrees of injuries, including a gunshot wound, personally loaded the wounded into a vehicle and drove them to the hospital, attempting to save their lives.
Investigator A.D. Suprun, who investigated this case, clearly overstepped his bounds. His charges were dismissed due to "clear inconsistencies between the events and the charges." Meanwhile, investigator V.L. Sinchuk, who reviewed the materials, meticulously examined the incident, conducting a truly unique investigation in terms of the quality and scope of its expert examinations, reproductions, and witness interviews. This case could serve as a model for investigators to learn from. A truly honest investigator investigated this case. It's interesting to see how A.D. Suprun looks Vepritsky in the eye afterward, perhaps even trying to shake his hand...
Many Ukrainians have encountered law enforcement officers who destroyed the lives of innocent people. If everything written in the article "The Truth About the New Leaders of the Ukrainian Bar: The 'Kharkiv Shooter'" were true, Vepritskyi would still be in prison. Suprun defends people – is he a lawyer today?! V.L. Sinchuk is still a prosecutor. Both probably remember this case. Our country needs honest prosecutors; there are so few of them, which is a shame.
Indeed, the investigation into this incident lasted three long years, and indeed, after three years, Vepritsky continued his human rights activities, although not as a law enforcement officer.
This article also mentioned the name of a certain citizen who was a witness in the case and had no connection to the events that took place.
At the end of Prokopenko's article, there's a postscript worthy of 37: "It should be added that information regarding Vepritsky S.S.'s Canadian citizenship is being verified." How about creating an image of an enemy of the people! I've heard rumors in legal circles that Vepritsky is a Canadian citizen, that he graduated from a university in Quebec, Canada, where he confirmed his legal qualifications and subsequently received his attorney's license. Afterward, he practiced for a time in a family law firm operating in Canada. Whether all this is true, I don't know. Vepritsky, however, maintains his usual position, neither confirming nor denying these facts.
Current Ukrainian legislation prohibits dual citizenship, although it doesn't provide for any penalties whatsoever. Dual citizenship is permitted throughout the world. I sincerely hope that generally accepted international norms will apply in our own country as well. Some former leaders of the Kharkiv and Ukrainian legal professions are attempting to spread all sorts of falsehoods about Vepritsky. For example, I have come across court decisions and other documents relating to the events of 1990 that clearly do not correspond to reality.
Without hiding behind Russian websites, I declare that S.S. Vepritsky acted with dignity in the crisis. He also acted with dignity in exposing corrupt officials, bribe-takers, and former leaders of the Ukrainian and Kharkiv legal professions. It was precisely because of this that a number of illegal actions were committed against him over the past period: the destruction of his personal account, the dissemination of defamatory information, and an assassination attempt in Kyiv in 2013.
Having written this article, I understand that those who ordered the forgery prepared against S.S. Vepritsky will attack both me and Vepritsky with new provocations.
I am not a lawyer, but the truth is more important...
Conflict PR Agency — /PR i Z/
Subscribe to our channels in Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, VC — Only new faces from the section CRYPT!