The case of Pavel Latyshenka

On the 20th of this month the Warsaw District Court was to hear again, for the third time already, the case of the murder of Warsaw Metropolitan Yuri by Archimandrite Smaragd.

The last time, on 26 November of this year, the case was postponed by common consent of the parties: the prosecutor lacked the chief witnesses for the prosecution; the defence, criticising the half-hour "expert examination" by some police doctor, secured from the court the appointment of the best Warsaw specialists for a proper expert examination, and the committal of the accused for observation and study to the psychiatric hospital in Tworki.

This expert examination by six of the best Polish specialists found Pavel Latyshenka perfectly healthy in mind, fully understanding everything he did at the moment of the murder, even capable of controlling his actions, but with complete limitation…

So says the record of the expert examination.

For this reason the new indictment nearly repeats the first: P. Latyshenka is accused of murdering a high official, for personal motives, in the performance of his official duties. The indictment also refers to the well-known Article 15 of the Transitional Regulations, under which the highest penalty is the death penalty…

On 20 June, out of a total of more than 60 witnesses, the most important ones again failed to appear. Among them were Metropolitan Yuri's "servant", Kostetski, who was the first to see the whole scene after the murder, and all 4 bishops, of whom the most important for the defence is the former Hrodna bishop Uladzimir.

It is very interesting that, as it turned out, Kostetski was never served with a summons, and for that reason, under the law, it was not even possible at the trial to read out his testimony given to the investigator.

As for Archbishop Uladzimir, despite the order of the judicial authority, independent and fully empowered in the Republic of Poland, the starosta forbade him to leave "his" county; the starosta is evidently the representative of an administrative authority that is still more independent and more fully empowered in the "Kresy"…

The absence of these chief witnesses forced the defence to seek a postponement of the case, and the court granted this request.

It must be added that only thanks to the explicit statement of defence counsel Wróblewski, who informed the court of the reason for the absence of the witness, Archbishop Uladzimir, will the dignity of the judicial authority in the Polish Republic be honoured (if it will be!..); the counsel demanded that the court compel the representative of the administration to submit to the orders of the judicial authority, which are binding on the latter.

And the public prosecutor (the prosecutor of the Warsaw Judicial District himself, Mr. Rudnicki!) was forced merely to agree with defence counsel, but showed no initiative of his own in defending the authority of the judicial power.