The institute concentrated on the effects of radioactive caesium on animals and humans. The institute was not subsidised at all. But within a short time we had trained six PhD students. Our institute was awarded the Lenin-Komsomol prize from the Soviet Socialist Republic of Belarus.
By 1999 there were already twenty-four PhDs at the institute. We could compete with the old established universities. We made a number of films about our research. We had developed a methodological approach to the problems of Chernobyl.
Of course we had to dismiss members of staff who could not or would not do their work. For example, the first vice rector, the deputy dean, the vice-rector in charge of administration (he has now been re-appointed to this post), the chief accountant.
All students were judged according to the same criteria. In 1997, 49 students were sent down because of poor results, in 1998, 36 and in 1999, 67. These were first and second year students”.
The prosecution: “What was the atmosphere like at the institute?”
Bandazhevsky: “Some people weren’t up to it. Not all the specialists had the necessary level of competence. There was some tension, some dissatisfaction. Some people wrote joint letters of protest. The institute was inspected. In 1999, I had to go to Warsaw, to receive an international prize. It was that very day that an important commission came to inspect the institute.
After he was sacked Sokolovski engineered a denunciation and sent it to the secretary of the security council. Two students, Miskova and Pachaiev, who had been sent down, also played a part in this story. Certain people wanted to have “their own” rector.
Khomchenko, Ravkov are pupils of mine. Within a few years of study, they had their doctorates. Fourteen doctorates awarded in 1997 and1998 alone.
I only met the examiners in my role as president of the admission board the night before the exams, when I would give them their instructions. Lenkevich posed particular problems for me. He worked in sanatoriums examining children. The results of his examinations differed according to whether he was reporting to me or presenting a report at an official meeting. I had even considered appointing him as head of the department of nervous diseases. But then I learnt that at an official meeting, he claimed that caesium had no harmful effects on a child’s body. This was 5th August 1998. He never attended meetings of the scientific council. He was malicious.
I never conspired with anyone, let alone for criminal reasons. My life is devoted totally to my work.
There is also a lot of malice towards me in the media. I am under enormous pressure because of the opinions I hold and that I have made known throughout the world. There is enormous opposition from the IAEA. A secret agreement was signed between the IAEA and the WHO in order to control information about the consequences of radioactivity.
In 1999 we showed our film Сердце на ладони (The heart on the palm) and then we brought up the question of transferring the Institute of Radiological Medicine of Minsk to Gomel before the Academy of Sciences committee. I took part in the commission charged with monitoring the activities of this institute. But I did not have the time. I was never present at the admission examinations but I never let anyone approach the board either. Tsepkalo, who monitored the work of the board, can confirm this.
No-one ever asked me to intervene on behalf of a candidate for admission. I never told anyone any information about the content of examination questions. I did not know that professors on the examination board were involved in cramming candidates. This is against the rules laid out in “Regulations for examination board professors on the selection of candidates for admission”.
After my arrest, I lost 35 kg in weight. I suffered a gastric haemorrhage. They wouldn’t send me to hospital”.
At 17.15 hrs, the president adjourns the hearing until 20th March 2001 at 10.00 hrs.
2. JUDICIAL AND PROCEDURAL GEMS
During the investigation, the lawyer Baranov had asked for the case against Bandazhevsky-Ravkov to be dismissed but the main prosecutor, Judge V. K. Terekhovich rejected the case for dismissal in a decree dated 5th December 2000.
According to the defence, the preliminary investigation has not presented evidence proving the guilt of the former rector of the medical institute at Gomel, and the accusation is based on supposition and contradictory statements from other defendants.191
191 Y.D. Yankelevich claimed to have given Bandazhevsky 7,000 dollars. Even though he had been accused of corruption himself, found guilty, and then accused of perjury, he was called to give evidence in court as a “witness” against Bandazhevsky. The military prosecutor interviewed on Moscow television, said: “Look at Yankelevich’s testimony! He declared “Yes, I gave Bandazhevsky 7,000 dollars to allow two students admission to the Institute. Well, doesn’t that constitute proof?” This statement, in the absence of any direct material evidence, after a year and a half of investigation is nothing short of slander. (cf Nuclear Controversies, by W. Tchertkoff, Feldat Film).
The lawyer A.P. Baranov has said that no “direct evidence” has been provided that Y.I Bandazhevsky received bribes for the admission of candidates to the institute. In a criminal trial, evidence can be either direct or indirect, and neither has more force or priority over the other. The evidence collected is evaluated in its entirety.
Unlike the other defendants who are being tried, Y.I. Bandazhevsky had no direct contact with the parents of candidates, did not conduct interviews on their admission to the institute and did not receive any material recompense from them.
However, having analysed all available information about this affair, the investigation has concluded that the quality of the evidence is sufficient to bring Y. I. Bandazhevsky to trial. […]
Taking the above into account, the case for dismissal on the grounds of lack of evidence, presented by Y.I. Bandazhevsky and A.P. Baranov is rejected.
3. PROFESSOR BANDAZHEVSKY’S FINAL STATEMENT,
24th MAY 2001
“Judges, like doctors, have to deal with human destinies. They both base their conclusions on a number of objective indications. It is these indications taken as a whole that allow the judge to formulate a charge or the doctor to diagnose the illness. It is only the proof of the existence of several objective indications in a patient that allows the doctor to diagnose a particular illness correctly and to prescribe the right treatment. It is impossible to make the right diagnosis, to determine the illness precisely, on the basis of one indication, especially if it has not been confirmed by objective methods. I think the same principle applies in law.
However, in my case, in order to prove the crime that I am supposed to have committed, the Republic’s state prosecution is based only on statements from people who have their own interests in the outcome of the case—other defendants. The case has been fabricated from start to finish: the charge is based on unfounded statements. These seem to suffice to accuse me of a serious crime. The investigation has no witnesses to the crime I am supposed to have committed; neither do they have any material proof, or incriminating evidence. I have the impression that the prosecution does not itself believe the charges against me are true. In accusing me of an odious crime, and corruption is certainly that, they produce as evidence, slanderous statements made by other defendants, Ravkov (for the prosecution), Shamychek and Yankelevich. All of these statements, without exception, are absurdly confused and illogical. It is probably the reason why the prosecution asked the court not to allow television and radio to record the case for the prosecution. Otherwise everyone would have understood instantly why Professor Bandazhevsky was on trial.
The prosecution knew, long before they began investigating the case, what conclusions they would reach in order to accuse me of having perpetrated a serious crime. One only has to read the provisional detention order. Ravkov’s statement and of course, the signed denunciation by the vice-rector Sokolovski, were quite sufficient. The conditions under which these s
tatements were obtained did not matter to them, as long as it achieved the desired result: get rid of Bandazhevsky, turn him into a criminal despised by everyone. So, all his achievements in science and in medicine, would be forgotten. I do not know the exact circumstances in which Ravkov made his statement, but it is likely that conditions were extremely harsh. How else can one explain the text recorded in the minutes of his interview on 13th July 1999 (t.1 LD 126–133): “At the end of 1997, Y. Bandazhevsky, the rector of the medical institute telephoned me and said I needed to honour my function…I made a list of the candidates in my own hand…I can confirm that throughout 1997, I also received 1,800 dollars from pupils’ parents”. How can one talk about receiving bribes on behalf of candidates for the entrance examinations, at the end of 1997, when the entrance examinations to the institute were already over? The need to dream up a criminal act quickly seems to have deprived the prosecution team of elementary logic. In the minutes of the first of Ravkov’s statements, apart from whole sentences that were prepared in advance with the participation of the people mentioned above, there is absolutely no concrete information about how the money was transferred (neither dates, nor amounts).
If I had not known the content of Sokolovski’s denunciation of me, I would have had more reasons to believe that Ravkov wanted to offload his responsibilities onto me, the rector. But knowing how they harassed me, I have every reason to believe that Ravkov was forced to vilify me.
I would like to avoid talking in clichés about conscience and honour but at present, there are very few people who have remained faithful to me and to my family. And I am deeply grateful to them.
I would like to express my gratitude to all those who have supported me and continue to support me today. I have discovered that I have a huge number of friends all over the world. And that they are not indifferent to my fate. They are convinced of my innocence. Their confidence gives me strength. I have always tried to work professionally whether as a scientist or as a doctor or teacher. I am proud of the results of my work: the discovery of new facts, that were unknown before now, the research into problems that are of vital interest to the whole of humanity; I am proud of my medical institute, even if today it is on its knees and humiliated; I trained more than a thousand doctors and most of them will make excellent consultants.
To the prosecution I say, you cannot prohibit me from thinking. To do that you would have to take away my life. Thinking is my professional activity. To the great regret of those people who wish me ill, the crime of corruption does not carry the death penalty. That would probably have made them very happy”.
Chapter II
THE SHOCK OF PRISON
After sentence was passed, Yury Bandazhevsky began his own Journey to the Cross for which he had not prepared himself. Right up to the last minute he believed he would be found innocent. As free men and women, our task had been to support him and his family, morally and materially and to publicise his case as widely as possible. We were going to discover also that he would need our help now to avoid the traps, the provocations and the manipulations of people who wanted to sever the links between himself and his wife Galina Bandazhevskaya, and through her, to the growing support of the international community. Only Galina had the right to visit him, periodically, in prison. Without her, no-one would have known anything about his years in detention.
Bella Belbéoch reacted straight away. On the very day he received his sentence, she wrote to the ambassador from Belarus in Paris, Vladimir Senko. In vain. But the wheels of history turn, the truth remains. Here is an extract from her letter:
None of the corruption charges against him were proven, which confirms the fact that it was for his scientific work that Professor Bandazhevsky has been condemned. This is the first time in the history of science, at least in the West, that a scientist has been tried and found guilty by a military court for his scientific research. It takes us back to the Stalinist era, which we believed had been left behind when your country gained independence.
You are, Ambassador, a Permanent Representative to UNESCO. I have heard you express yourself with feeling on the subject of the health problems experienced by the people of Belarus following the Chernobyl disaster. I find it incomprehensible that, in this situation, through your indifference, you join in the condemnation of this scientist, Yury Bandazhevsky, whose principle motivation is the same as yours: to help his fellow countrymen.
As secretary of the Scientists’ Group for Information on Nuclear Energy, I am asking you to transmit my words of protest about the judicial procedures used against Professor Bandazhevsky to the authorities in your country.
I hope that you will also pass on to His Excellency the President, Mr Lukashenko, my indignation at the condemnation of this man of science whose only concern is to determine the real impact of Chernobyl on the deteriorating health of people, in particular children, living in the contaminated territories and to come to their aid; but also to undertake this pioneering work on the previously unsuspected effects of internal contamination on the human body which could lead to the re-evaluation of international norms of radioprotection.
We were in Minsk when Russian and Belarusian television announced the verdict. We had come from Kiev where we were filming the WHO conference. Bandazhevsky’s work had been presented by Vassili Nesterenko, Alexei Yablokov, and by Michel and Solange Fernex. But his work had been greeted by stony faces among the UN officials, and by visible irritation from Professor Ilyin’s scientific team.192
192 See “Nuclear Controversies” by W. Tchertkoff at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZR_Fvp3RrQ .
Two days later, Nesterenko, at the wheel of his car, thought out loud as we drove to Galina Bandazhevskaya’s house. She had come from Gomel to meet us.
V. Nesterenko—You told me I was wrong to worry, that I was exaggerating, that he would hold up psychologically. But I went through all this in 1986 when I was betrayed by most of my colleague at Sosny. What’s happening to Yury is exactly what happened to me. Recently, he has been telephoning frequently and saying: “Excuse me for telephoning you every day, but I have no-one else to talk to. Everyone has turned their back on me”. Eight years in prison, that’s very hard…
I think Galina has been allowed to make a first visit to the prison…She wanted my advice. What is to be done? She is asking herself “How will I carry on with my life?” The situation is difficult. Those who really did take bribes have been freed… In his case, nothing has been proved. Given that he is the only one to be convicted, with his vice-rector, I think it is yet more proof that it is politically motivated, and specifically to do with Chernobyl. One thing is certain; they have produced no proof, absolutely none. It reminds me of 1937 with the famous purges. They’re using the same methods.
What is truly regrettable is that his research has been stopped… Yury has obtained unique results. It was a revelation for everyone, both at the Minsk conference, in March, and at the conference in Kiev. Professor Savkin claimed at Kiev that “according to classic radiobiology, caesium is distributed evenly throughout the soft tissue”. But Bandazhevsky made direct measurements of organs from bodies he was dissecting, and gave caesium at different doses to rats and guinea pigs, and he discovered inequalities of accumulation up to a factor of 10. The very high level of caesium in vital organs such as the heart, the kidneys, the liver, in comparison with the average over the whole body, explains precisely the dramatic rise in illness. It seems to be of great significance. Official science appears to know nothing about it. It’s a shame…I had just arranged, with Professor Tsyb in Kiev, for a pathologist to come from Moscow to see Yury and look at his histological sections of tissue that has been altered by caesium. I showed him the correlation curve established by Yury between alterations in electrocardiogram results and the accumulation of radionuclides. It was our collaboration that made these results possible. I provided him with my data on the incorporation of radionuclides in childr
en and he compared them with the results of his clinical examination. It seems to me that this is the key to the whole question. We complemented each other’s work. I am not a doctor, I am a physicist. I need medical expertise to know the limit at which there is a risk of danger. As a radioprotection specialist, I know that we need to reduce to 30% below this limit, because this is the threshold above which interventions are needed. But they stopped our research…
Galina Bandazhevskaya was waiting, overwhelmed by the enormous weight of responsibility that had now fallen on her shoulders. She knew that she would have to bear this responsibility alone for many years to come.
G. Bandazhevskaya—I have to do everything I can to get him out of there. Maybe the European Parliament could do something, make a request…Because if we do nothing…eight years… he won’t make it. And to think that all those teachers that did accept bribes have been freed! By the way, Yury told me that in the police van that took them from the court to the prison, Ravkov asked his forgiveness for having slandered him and he told him that he had not been able to resist the pressure…They are all dressed in black there. Everything is black. I was able to bring him the regulation 30 kg parcel, of clothes, medicines and food. It’s absolutely essential because the food is terrible. He told me that in the morning they get a ladle full of a sort of gruel, without butter, made with water. At midday, a soup made of who knows what, with water and a few bits of macaroni and beetroot floating in it. And in the evening, the same gruel again. That’s all. Bread by itself, no butter, no cheese…That’s why they allow you to bring these big parcels.
V. Nesterenko—Thank goodness they did not confiscate your flat in Gomel. As soon as they have finished making an inventory, you must try to exchange it for a flat in Minsk so that you can come and live here. I would like to invite you to come and work at the Belrad Institute, I would like to make you director of research in the medical field. The main thing is to set up some worthwhile projects because you need to earn your living. In fact, I think they would make life very difficult for you if you carried on working in Gomel.
The Crime of Chernobyl- The Nuclear Gulag Page 66