Expert who found no defamation in Dumenko’s remarks to face disciplinary action
An Interior Ministry research center has confirmed disciplinary measures against the expert whose findings supported what the Metropolitan’s representatives described as unfounded accusations by the OCU head against Metropolitan Theodosiy.
The expert who prepared an opinion on remarks made by OCU head Epifaniy Dumenko in a lawsuit brought by Metropolitan Theodosiy of Cherkasy and Kaniv to defend his honor and dignity will face disciplinary action. This was reported by the Dozor Telegram channel, citing a document from the State Scientific Research Forensic Center of Ukraine’s Ministry of Internal Affairs.
The case concerns a psycholinguistic analysis conducted by expert Vadym Zhuravel connection with what the Metropolitan’s representatives described as offensive remarks made by Epifaniy Dumenko about Metropolitan Theodosiy.
During an earlier appearance on the 1+1 television channel, the OCU head claimed, among other things, that the hierarch was allegedly “being used by the Russian Federation” to create the impression that religious freedom does not exist in Ukraine.
Metropolitan Theodosiy filed a lawsuit seeking to defend his honor and dignity. During the proceedings, representatives of Epifaniy Dumenko submitted Zhuravel’s expert opinion, which argued that the OCU head’s statements amounted to value judgments and contained no signs of false information.
Relying on that opinion, the court of first instance rejected Metropolitan Theodosiy’s claims. However, the hierarch’s legal team appealed the expert’s findings, arguing that they were unfounded. The appellate court subsequently ruled the opinion inadmissible.
Representatives of Metropolitan Theodosiy then asked the Interior Ministry’s forensic institution to assess the expert’s conduct. The State Scientific Research Forensic Center later confirmed that disciplinary decisions had been taken against him.
As the UOJ reported, a court previously fined a prosecution expert in Metropolitan Theodosiy’s case for a second time after she once again failed to appear. The entire case against the UOC hierarch is based on her findings.
