Chernivtsi police and prosecutor withhold info on bomb shelter renovations from IMI rep

Chernivtsi prosecutors and police have refused to provide journalist and Institute of Mass Information’s regional representative Alyona Chorna with requested information about the proceedings concerning potential misappropriation and embezzlement of budget funds allocated for the renovation of bomb shelters in the city. The law enforcement bodis cited pre-trial investigation secrecy in both responses.

IMI’s representative first approached the Prosecutor’s Office with a query about the progress of the investigation. In particular, she asked if there were any suspects, what were the likely damages, what action had been taken to recover them, and what was the procedural status of the proceedings.

The Prosecutor’s Office confirmed that the investigation was ongoing, carried out by investigators at the Chernivtsi District Police, with procedural oversight provided by prosecutors with the Chernivtsi District Prosecutor’s Office. No further details were provided, with reference made to Article 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

READ MORE

• Chernihiv City Council withholds source of square repairs funding

Following this, the journalist submitted a follow-up query to the police. The police likewise confirmed that the investigation was ongoing, but provided no further information, citing the secrecy of the pre-trial investigation.

“This is a socially important issue, since it concerns the use of budget funds and the state of bomb shelters, which is a matter of people’s safety. Journalists with Molodyi Bukovynets investigated the situation and exposed problems with shelters renovated for budget money. The Prosecutor’s Office later opened a probe into the matter. Nearly a year on, it’s important to understand what the investigation has found. I wasn’t asking for case files or information that could harm the investigation — just openly available information. Instead, the Prosecutor’s Office and the police effectively just told me that they were working on it,” Alyona Chorna said.

Institute of Mass Information lawyer Volodymyr Zelenchuk notes that citing Article 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not automatically entitle authorities to deny journalists information of public importance.

“Furthermore, under the requirements of the Law ‘On Access to Public Information,’ access to information about the management of budget funds, procurement, possession and use of communal property, or the status and findings of inspections and internal investigations into violations in these areas cannot be restricted. The caveat within this provision, regarding cases where disclosing information could harm national security, defence, or efforts to investigate or prevent a crime, no longer applies here. Given this, the District Prosecutor’s Office or the investigative units should have properly carried out the three-part test and provided at least some of the information,” Volodymyr Zelenchuk said.

According to him, Ukraine’s Criminal Procedure Code grants an investigator or prosecutor the right to independently determine the scope of information that may be disclosed or made public.

“The investigation should take into account the public interest in facts concerning the misuse of budget funds, and identify the information whose disclosure would not be detrimental to the investigation. Of course, this doesn’t mean providing full and exhaustive answers to every question journalists ask, but the investigation should still have provided a bare minimum of information about the probe’s progress, if only because this information is also an indicator of their own work, for which they are accountable to society. In this case, an outright refusal could very well be regarded as unlawful withholding of information,” IMI’s lawyer noted.