When the judge is friends with one side – against the other
Yelensky, Stefanchuk, and Dumenko at the same table. Photo: OCU press service
On August 27, the head of the State Service for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience (DESS), Viktor Yelensky, signed a decree recognizing the affiliation of the Kyiv Metropolis of the UOC with Moscow, paving the way for its ban. Just a couple of days before that, on August 25, Yelensky dined at the same table with the head of the Rada, Stefanchuk, and the head of the OCU, Serhiy Dumenko. Coincidence?
In the judicial system, any connections of a judge with one of the parties are an unconditional basis for recusal. Friendly contacts, public statements, even simple communication make a judge's participation in the consideration of a case impossible. Especially if there is personal interest involved. A judge in a property dispute cannot publicly call for the transfer of assets from one party to another.
In football, it's the same. A referee whose nationality matches one of the participants in an international match is never appointed.
Today, Yelensky and Stefanchuk are like judges for the UOC, deciding its fate. But over the past 10 years, Yelensky has made numerous statements expressing negative views on the UOC. At the same time, he actively supports the OCU and does not hide the fact that banning the UOC would greatly benefit Dumenko's organization. This is a clear case of blatant bias on the part of an official holding a high state position.
Of course, against the backdrop of everything happening in the church field, a shared dinner may seem like a minor detail. Anyway, is this really how things are supposed to work in a democratic state? Are we expected to believe in “justice” toward the UOC after this?
Read also
Portrait of the “сonscience of the nation”
Shevchuk waxes eloquent about the uniqueness of the Ukrainian nation and the value of human life – while supporting the sweeping mobilization that is grinding that very nation down.
OCU in the Lavra: When a recording replaces the choir
Parishioners have been pushed out of the Lavra. The monks are barred from the churches. But there is room for a handful of OCU “monks.”
Sviatohirsk murder no one is allowed to talk about
Logic suggests that Zelensky was informed about the monk’s murder that very day.
Sviatohirsk Lavra tragedy: A confession of faith or not?
The killers came to the monastery and, after hearing the words “Glory to our Lord God” in response, began to kill. What matters is that the victims were given a choice: they could give the “right” answer and escape death.
Have the talking points on the Sviatohirsk murder already been rolled out?
Espreso gives viewers the unmistakable impression that nothing particularly terrible happened – and that no one should feel too sorry for the “Moscow Patriarchate monks.”
Why are a rabbi and an exarch pleading for corruption suspects?
The rabbi and the exarch are both highly intelligent men and cannot fail to understand that their actions are dealing a serious blow to their reputations. Yet they still went to court. Why?