Two Interrogations of Journalists during One Day
Natallya Radzina, a "Charter"97" Web-site journalist was interrogated at the Investigative Department of Public Prosecutor’s office in Minsk on July 1, 2010. Maryna Koktysh, "Narodnaya Vola" Deputy Editor was also interrogated at the KGB on the same day.
Natallya Radzina was interrogated as a witness to the criminal case, filed "in relation to the unknown people, who disseminated the flagrant lie in the Internet," the Charter'97 Web-site reports.
The media worker was told that the criminal case had been initiated in response to readers" comments under an article "1937-Style Harassment" published on www.charter97.org.
"The interrogation was conducted by Viktar Fieshchanka, Deputy Head of Investigative Department of Public Prosecutor’s Office and Ihar Parmon, Deputy Head of "K" Department, dealing with solving crimes in the field of Hi-Tech," N. Radzina noted. "First of all, they were interested to learn how the Web-site worked, how it could be administered, where the Web-site editorial could be found, where it was registered. They asked a lot of technical questions," the journalist added.
"I told them that www.charter97.org was registered in the United States and proposed them to address to the Interpol if they wanted to find its owners and administrators, Natallya Radzina told. She emphasized that several criminal cases had been filed in relation to the informational Web-resource in the recent years and that the police still didn’t return the PCs they had seized from the office in March 2010. Moreover, the policeman, who hit her in the face hadn’t been punished at all.
Maryna Koktysh, "Narodnaya Vola" Deputy Editor was interrogated as a witness to the criminal case in relation to Sviatlana Baykova, a Public Prosecutor of Prosecutor’s General office, arrested in March 2010, at the KGB Investigation Department in Minsk on the same day. However, the journalist noted that surprisingly, the majority of questions, put by Senior Investigator Pavel Charniauski during the interrogation were related personally to her. The media worker refused to give answers to the questions that weren’t connected to the case and refused to keep the contents of the talk in secret, since it was hardly related to the declared criminal case, mentioned above.
