Date
19/09/2001  
First
Eduard  
Surname
MARKEVICH  
Sex/Age
M, 29  
Incident
homicide  
Motive
J  
Place
in courtyard  
Job
chief editor  
Medium
print  
Federal District Plus
URALS  
Street, Town, Region
Reftinsky, Sverdlovsk Region  
Freelance
no  
Local/National
local, Novy reft  
Other Ties
 
Cause of Death
shot, contract killing  
Legal Qualification
not known  
Impunity
investigation, halted  
Post Image

[Updated 16 October 2010]

The Investigative Committee, which now answers directly to the President (until recently it answered to the Prosecutor General), has given assurances to a visiting delegation from the CPJ that it will give serious consideration to 19 deaths that the CPJ believes to have been murders linked to the professional activities of the deceased journalist. One name on this list is that of Eduard Markevich.

(See agency and Russian media reports on CPJ press conference)


MAIN ENTRY

From “PARTIAL JUSTICE” report (June 2009)

Eduard Markevich was shot dead on 19 September 2001 in the town of Reftinsky. About 9 pm he entered the courtyard of 17 Yubileinaya Street. His family had rented a flat there for several years. Markevich was almost halfway across the yard when he was shot in the back. A bullet usually employed in bear-hunting was fired from a double-barrelled shotgun at close range, passing through his heart and embedding itself in the wall of the building beyond.

Other people were in the courtyard at the time and several noticed an unfamiliar person directly before and immediately after the shooting. They also saw a rapidly departing white automobile. At 9.30 pm all traffic police in the area received instructions to stop the vehicle. Ten minutes later the car was spotted and the driver, known to local law enforcement as a member of a criminal gang, was detained as a suspect.

BACKGROUND

Markevich established the weekly Novy Reft newspaper in 1998 and its troubled history is inextricably entangled both with his character and that of Reftinsky (2008 population 19,000), where he was born.

The Urals town of Reftinsky grew up in the 1960s around a power plant supplying energy to nearby Asbest, twenty kms away, a city built next to one of the world’s biggest asbestos mines. Reftinsky was a small and privileged community, and in the early 21st century still had some of the highest wages in Russia. It then had no less than five newspapers (six after Novy Reft appeared) and could receive up to 21 TV channels.

After serving in the army Eduard Markevich worked for four years at the power station while studying on evening courses. Then, until he set up his newspaper, he was responsible for youth activities in the town. In 2000 he qualified as a lecturer in engineering but intended to study law. He had already passed the examination to enter the Academy of State Service. This brief biography shows that Markevich was clearly drawn to public activity and involvement. Yet he found himself constantly obstructed by the local authorities, say friends and acquaintances.

This came to a head when Markevich failed to receive the accommodation he had been promised for his young family. After protesting at the injustice, he was sacked. In response he and several supporters began to stand in local elections. The main way of influencing public opinion, he believed, would be the media, in particular the independent newspaper he set up in opposition to the existing local paper.

INTERPRETATIONS

As his well-wishers readily admit, Eduard Markevich was a highly combative individual and made many enemies in the small town. In a comment after his death, the next chief editor of Novy Reft, his widow Tatyana, said the newspaper would now adopt a “different” tone.

At first the official investigators could not decide where to begin. There were many individuals and organisations that might have wanted revenge and this often obstructed the analysis of alternatives. Eduard’s private life was complicated, for instance, and the motive of personal jealousy was investigated. More substantial was the suggestion that local policemen, exposed by an article he published in January 2001, wanted to take vengeance on a journalist who had prompted criminal charges against four of them. An attempt, in response, to frame Markevich almost succeeded but then resulted in the resignation of the local prosecutor and the deputy regional prosecutor. Tatyana Markevich doubts that this was the reason why he was killed. It was well known that another person was the main force in pressing for the exposure of local police corruption.

A different interpretation was of revenge by a competitor. Markevich complained to the Ministry of Press, TV and Radio Broadcasting that Reft-Teleinform Ltd did not have a proper licence to broadcast. Yet despite personal antagonism between Markevich and Alexei Pogiba the head of the local broadcasting company, no evidence was later found against him although the law enforcement agencies were inclined to have him arrested.

After a certain period the favoured view was that Markevich was killed for blackmailing others. The suspects were the same as those listed in connection with Markevich’s professional activities but now it was suggested that the chief editor was using the information he obtained to blackmail certain individuals for his own advantage. Finally, by process of elimination, the official investigators were left with the explanation that Markevich had been killed because of what he wrote and published.

This was the view of his colleagues and acquaintances. “As long as Edik loudly denounced scoundrels nothing more serious happened than the office being smashed up. In his last year, however, Edik became involved in a serious investigation, gathering documents and evidence, and constantly checking facts ... That was when he truly became dangerous,” argued his friend Roman Toporkov. “At a certain point someone realised that his last major investigation, which he had been working on from late April to 19 September 2001, would soon be complete. At any price that person wanted to prevent publication of this exposé ...”

The story began with a letter of complaint to the newspaper. Over the next few months Markevich followed a trail leading, he said, from simple economic abuses to “extremely grave violations”. He did not share his findings with colleagues but a month before he was killed he told friends that it would be “explosive” and the material would “take up almost all that issue”. Markevich said he had “an entire file” of evidence. Unfortunately, neither his friends nor the official investigators could find this file. His close acquaintances say the subject was probably linked to abuses in the construction, allocation and privatisation of residential accommodation.

Not only was it something close to his own heart. It was also extremely topical for Reftinsky. A satellite town, its comparatively recent and good quality housing stock made it an attractive target for various forms of criminal intervention. In particular, the 40-flat apartment block belonging to a boarding institution for juvenile offenders offered an easy opportunity for abuse. The first beating Markevich received was in February 1998 when he published an article about the disputed ownership of the building and attempts to privatise it. There was again confirmation of this link when, following an advised silence about controversial issues after Eduard’s murder, Tatyana again wrote about the boarding school at 12 Molodyozhnaya Street.

Soon afterwards in October 2002 her flat was attacked. No difference in the tone of Tatyana’s article, comments Sergei Plotnikov, helped to prevent that attack. Part of the specific atmosphere in the suburb was created by this grim institution and its fearsome director. Had he wished to do something to intimidate or silence the chief editor of Novy Reft, suggests Plotnikov, he had the connections, not to mention his small army of juvenile offenders (including murderers).

INVESTIGATION

The local prosecutor’s office opened a criminal case under Article 105.1 (Murder) on 20 September 2001. Several days later it was transferred to the investigations department of the Sverdlovsk Region prosecutor’s office. The usual procedures were followed, beginning with door to door questioning and ending with expert and scientific analysis. When Investigator Mikhail Milman took charge he insisted that local law-enforcement officers repeat certain of the initial measures since he considered they had been lazily implemented.

The traditional distrust and lack of understanding between journalists and the law enforcement officers meant that almost all unofficial contacts between them were conducted through Sergei Plotnikov. As a result, the investigators examined a large mass of documentary evidence and information that local law enforcement had overlooked.

On 20 May 2002 the preliminary investigation was halted since those to be arrested had not been identified. The investigation was re-opened and closed twice more, between September and November 2002, and between February and March 2003. Subsequent appeals to different authorities, including the Russian President, were redirected to the Prosecutor General's office which replied that there no grounds for re-opening the case.

Appeals and complaints were regularly made by Tatyana and Markevich’s mother, and by monitoring organisations within Russia and abroad. In April 2004 Roman Toporkov wrote, in a letter to the Prosecutor General (then Vladimir Ustinov), that apart from eliminating the journalist the killing of Eduard Markevich “was intended to frighten and discourage other publicly active inhabitants of Reftinsky and served as a demonstrative triumph of criminal organisations over the law”.

An appeal to the new Investigative Committee of the Prosecutor General's office was made in March 2008 and the case was called up for consideration. In August 2008, however, the Committee’s press secretary said that it had been decided not to renew the investigation.

Lacking access to the case materials, the CJES expert sought the impressions of those who had seen some of the documentation. Markevich’s widow and mother say that after a period of activity the investigation became a purely formal exercise. Drawing on Investigator Milman’s views (he later resigned from the prosecution service), Sergei Plotnikov commented in 2002: “The most important period for solving such a crime are the first few days after a murder. For various reasons these were wasted by the local investigators. After ten days in detention the suspect was released, in accordance with the Criminal Procedural Code, without charge or even having been interrogated. The deputy Prosecutor General for the Urals Federal District took personal charge of the case but that had no real effect on the investigation. After a very short period Investigator Milman was ‘overloaded’ with routine work while the police officers and detectives were transferred elsewhere on the pretext that there was a shortage of staff.”

There remains a real chance to solve the crime but only if there is a will to do so. The response to Mikhail K., the main suspect, suggests a lack of interest. Having failed to interrogate or charge him the first time, although there was evidence that the murder weapon had been in his car, he was arrested again and found guilty of possessing an explosive device. He was given a 2-year conditional sentence and the opportunity to thoroughly interrogate him was missed. Yet why would investigators or the courts stick their necks out if there was no clear support from their superiors?

In the hope that it might turn up new clues, all the possible subjects of Eduard Markevich’s last investigation were prepared and listed by local journalists and the CJES expert. Anything that seemed of importance was given to the head of the team of investigators.


POSTSCRIPT: “Novy Reft” after Markevich

Roman Toporkov, a friend and colleague of Eduard and Tatyana Markevich, has recorded the 7-year struggle of the new paper to keep going.

“Novy Reft” On 22 February 1998 two men in masks made the first attack on the newspaper’s offices. They broke into the premises at night and severely beat Markevich with metal bars. In September 2001 after Eduard was murdered his widow Tatyana took over as chief editor and the same team of journalists continued to work for the paper.

“Novy Reft: Events” On 6 November 2001 the first issue of the newly registered Novy Reft: Events was published. The founder and chief editor was Tatyana Markevich and the team of journalists remained the same. On 15 October 2002, following a new attack on the paper’s premises, Tatyana Markevich announced at a regional press conference that she would close the newspaper and leave the criminal suburb.

“Novy Reft. Facts” From 23 October to 31 December 2002 the chief editor was Larisa Toporkova. The newspaper was then re-registered as Novy Reft: Facts and continued to appear until 30 December 2004.

In all 387 issues of the newspaper appeared. The team that produced it now moved out of Reftinsky. A successor publication “Novy Reft: Kurier plus” could not maintain either the readership or the policies of its predecessor and lasted only from January to May 2005.