Andriy Antonenko (Riffmaster)

Biography: rock musician, volunteer at a medical hospital, sergeant of the press service of the Special Operations Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine since 2017.

Case: Sheremet's case.

Lawyers: Dmitry Krugovyi, Stanislav Kulyk, Vitaliy Galenchenko, Denis Lomanov, Svyatoslav Zhernovnikov.

Status: accused.

Status: Consideration in the Shevchenko District Court of Kyiv on the merits.

Last court hearing: January 12, 2021.

The latest court decision: the withdrawal of the representative of the injured party, Mamalyga, the removal of the police officers from the courtroom, the attachment of the prosecution's documents.

The short story:

At the end of 2019, the National Police issued a statement that spread like lightning across all news feeds. At an emergency briefing, Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, in the presence of President Volodymyr Zelensky and Prosecutor General Ruslan Ryaboshapka, reported on the success of the investigation into the murder of journalist Pavlo Sheremet.

According to the investigation, suspected of committing this crime There is volunteer and doctor Yulia Kuzmenko, musician Andriy Antonenko, and nurse Yana Dugar. At the briefing, these people were almost presented to the entire country as murderers.

The National Police data shocked the public. All three suspects are well-known members of the volunteer movement and have positive characteristics. Public activists and ATO veterans immediately came to the defense of Dugar, Antonenko, and Kuzmenko.

Chronology of persecution:

On July 20, 2016, Sheremet was killed at 7:44 a.m. by an inertial measurement device planted under his car. The explosive device was planted at 2:38 a.m. by two unknown individuals, presumably a man and a woman. They had been previously captured on surveillance cameras at the crime scene between 2:15 and 3:00 a.m.

The evidence collected in the 2016 case refutes Antonenko's involvement in Sheremet's death. Two independent forensic reports dated August 25, 2016 and September 1, 2016 established the height of the alleged criminals. The height of the male figure is 170-172 cm in shoes and a hat. Taking into account all possible errors (image quality, stoop, etc.), the experts determined: the height of the criminal (in shoes) cannot be outside the range of 167-177.16 cm. The height of Sergeant Antonenko is 180 cm barefoot, that is, 9 cm more than the most probable value determined by the experts and 3 cm more than the maximum permissible limit (in shoes).

On December 12, 2019, at approximately 3 p.m., Andriy Antonenko, along with two other defendants, volunteer and pediatric cardiac surgeon Yulia Kuzmenko and military medic Yana Dugar, were illegally detained: before the prosecutor had applied to the court for the appropriate permission. He was charged with premeditated murder by an organized group in a particularly dangerous manner. From the beginning, he was charged with organizing the murder of Sheremet, manufacturing an explosive device, and a Nazi motive. However, on May 21, 2020, all three last points disappeared from the new wording of the suspicion.

None of the accused admits guilt or any involvement in the crime. The suspicion and all subsequent decisions to take them into custody were based solely on the written conclusions of the examinations on the identification of the three suspects. The examinations were conducted by comparing the video from the crime scene in 2016 with the reference videos made in the fall of 2019 during the secret surveillance of Antonenko, Kuzmenko and Dugar. The originals of the reference videos are missing from the case.

The portrait examination did not identify either Antonenko or Kuzmenko, citing the low quality of the images. The anthropometric data of the suspects, in particular their height, were not examined in these conclusions. The data from the height examinations of 2016 and the data from the height measurements of the suspects were not presented.

On November 21, 2019, forensic psychologists from the Kyiv Research Institute of Forensic Expertise made a categorical conclusion regarding all three detainees. The experts claimed that the gait was supposedly non-verbal behavior. And without any reservations, they stated that the same individuals were depicted in the video footage from the crime scene and in the reference footage.

The defense established that the main evidence of the investigation – the portrait and psychological examination of the specialists of the KNIISE – was carried out using a scientifically unfounded and unregistered methodology. Since the methodology does not exist, the Ministry of Justice brought experts Yuriy Irkhin and Andriy Semenets to disciplinary liability. The Ministry of Justice noted that the expertise was not based on the methodology, but is the personal opinion of specialists. Conducting an expertise using an unregistered methodology contradicts the "Instructions on the appointment and conduct of forensic examinations and expert studies." The KNIISE expertise is based on literature former Ukrainian law enforcement officer, scientist Vladislav Sednyov, who remained in the occupied territory since the beginning of the Russian-Ukrainian war and allegedly even started working in the “Prosecutor General’s Office of the DPR.” In particular, Irkhin referred to his monograph “Essays on the Theory of Forensic Examination,” which he published in 2015 in the occupied territory.

Former senior prosecutor in this case Serhiy Zuzak considered the expertise “doubtful and insufficient evidence to send the case to court.” Despite this, a new group of prosecutors completed the pre-trial investigation in May 2020 and sent the case to court without any new evidence.

Regarding Antonenko and Kuzmenko, investigators added the conclusions of a forensic analysis of the gait to the case British criminologist, Professor Ivon Birch in Ukrainian. As of today, neither the original English text nor data on the translator have been presented to the court or the defense. There is reason to believe that the translation is distorted, because Ivan Birch claims in his scientific works that gait analysis cannot be the main and sufficient evidence, and the Ukrainian translation uses the word “sufficient”. This was officially confirmed by the defense of Scotland Yard. In addition, the official explanation for British courts states on the basis of Birch's own research: a person's gait is not unique, and the error rate is 29% That is, every third conclusion of experienced British gait experts is incorrect.

On May 22, 2020, the investigation was completed and the materials were opened to the defense. The lawyers stated: despite the publicly announced statements, no new evidence appeared, and some of the stated circumstances were refuted. These facts turned out to be untrue, at least there is no information about them in the case: a) Antonenko's involvement in another crime involving the blowing up of an electric pole in 2015; b) the connection of Antonenko and the case as a whole with another offense involving explosives in the Ivano-Frankivsk region and the Hryshchenko family, who, as it turned out, had no connection to the case of the murder of Pavlo Sheremet; c) Antonenko's residence near the crime scene and the alleged criminals spending the night there; d) Antonenko's limp and the alleged criminal's limp in 2016.

On August 11, 2020, the Kyiv City Court of Appeal released Yulia Kuzmenko under 24-hour house arrest, noting that prolonged imprisonment is not justified. According to the investigation, she allegedly directly planted the explosive. As the defense informs: for unclear reasons, Andriy Antonenko remained in custody, although their alleged role and degree of proof are almost identical. In addition, Antonenko is a nursing mother of two minor children and has an elderly mother to support.

On August 19, 2020, the indictment against all three detainees was transferred to the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv as a jury for consideration of the case on the merits and sentencing. Despite the requirements of continuity under Article 322 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hearings were scheduled twice a month, and from October 21 to December 8, they stopped. Since the beginning of December, hearings in the case have been sluggish, but they are scheduled and taking place.

On August 31, 2020, the European Court of Human Rights announced that it had accepted Antonenko's complaint against Ukraine under No. 29341/20.

On October 21, 2020, the presiding judge remanded Antonenko in custody for 60 days, citing the fact that the court had not yet considered the prosecution and defense materials.

At present, there is no reasonable version of the motive for the crime. The indictment states: “persons not identified by the investigation decided to kill the journalist for the purpose of destabilization, for this they sought out people prone to violence with low moral and psychological qualities”. There is no direct or indirect evidence to confirm the motive, the connection of the accused with extremists, special services or incomprehensible mentors in the materials of the pre-trial investigation. There is no direct evidence of Antonenko’s presence at the crime scene. The original analysis of Birch’s gait in English is missing. The original video recording of Antonenko, which was provided to Birch for comparison, is missing.

Antonenko and his defense attorneys repeatedly agreed to undergo a polygraph test, but not by a polygraph examiner from the justice system or the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Other polygraph examiners were not allowed to take the test.

Despite the presumption of innocence, Antonenko's child support payments were stopped, and his wife lost her job due to the need to support her husband in pre-trial detention and care for the children.

December 8 OGPU prosecutor Mikhail Tishin justified the risk of influencing witnesses by the presence of a false alibi created by Antonenko witness Alexei Yermilov. However, the witness himself stated on August 20 in a comment for the publication “Left Bank” that he was not influenced by either Antonenko or his lawyers. On December 13, Yermilov reported on the air of the 4th Channel studio that on the day of Sheremet’s murder, Antonenko was allegedly at his house and taught him how to play the guitar. However, the witness later said that he had made a mistake in the dates. The false alibi caused a wave of discrediting Antonenko in the information space. In particular, by media resources close to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and official pages of law enforcement agencies.

There are objective reasons to believe that it was the prosecutor's office that influenced the witness. In the transcript of the interrogation protocol, Yermilov testified that he did consult with the Channel 4 studio before the broadcast. by the then Deputy Prosecutor General Viktor Chumak. Later, Chumak himself confirmed this conversation in a comment under the journalist's Facebook post. However, this did not prevent the prosecutor from accusing Andriy Antonenko, without evidence, of influencing a witness.

The witness also reported that Antonenko's lawyers were the first to contact him, check the alibi, and establish its falsity. Back in August, the defense told about the verification of Mr. Yermilov's statement at the hearing and exposed its falsity. Lawyer Stanislav Kulyk stated on February 11, 2020, that the prosecutor's office sent the witness with a false alibi. The Prosecutor General's Office has created the conditions to still refer to the risk of witness influence, which does not exist. In addition, the lawyers never filed a motion either from the defense or from the suspect himself about the existence of such an "alibi" and did not want to involve Yermilov as a witness or question him in court. This information about the false alibi is being disseminated and constantly speculated about by the prosecutor's office. As a result, this is not the first time that Prosecutor Tishin justifies the relevance of Antonenko's influence on witnesses with these false testimonies of Yermilov. However, when asked by the judge how Antonenko influenced the witness, the prosecutor did not provide evidence to support these words. The prosecutor's office has no evidence that Yermilov was under the influence of the defense or the accused. Despite this, for almost a year, the Kyiv Court of Appeal has recognized the risk of influencing witnesses as relevant, only in view of the false alibi.

December 8 Presiding Judge of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court Oksana Holub violated Ukrainian law by not allowing relatives, free listeners and guarantors to the session. The judge made a decision to consider the criminal proceedings in closed session and, at the same time, allowed journalists to the session and did not stop the online broadcast on the web portal “Judiciary of Ukraine”. The Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine does not allow this. If the session is closed, only participants in the trial may be present in the courtroom: journalists are also not allowed, and the broadcast is automatically stopped. Only relatives, free listeners and people's deputies-guarantors were unable to enter the “closed” session.

Holub abused her power because she made an unmotivated and groundless decision to hold a closed session, thereby violating the Laws of Ukraine and the Constitution of Ukraine. The Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine does not provide for a closed session on the grounds of “ensuring the safety of persons participating in criminal proceedings” if it concerns judges, prosecutors and jurors, which the judge referred to in the ruling.

People's deputies from the "EU" Maria Ionova, Mykhailo Bondar and former people's deputy from the "People's Front" Andriy Teteruk called the patrol police to the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv over the judge's actions, as she also violated the law "On People's Deputy". The people's deputies will appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice regarding the chairwoman to hold her accountable for disciplinary action.

At present, it is absolutely clear: there are no legal grounds for continuing to keep Antonenko in custody. His charges are no different from Kuzmenko, whose imprisonment was replaced by house arrest. According to Part 5 of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, everyone who is in custody must be provided with a trial by a court within a reasonable time or released during the proceedings. Currently, there are all legal grounds for mitigating the preventive measure for the accused.

Despite this, on December 8, the presiding judge of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court, Oksana Holub, extended Antonenko's detention until February 7.

Links to articles:

Documents: the information is being updated.

Photo: the information is being updated.

Special merits and awards: the information is being updated.