How Yakubovich "Keeps" His Word

After the incident with the European Belarus activist, the semi-official newspaper’s editor-in-chief is seen as a coward and a liar.

On September 12, 2016, taking part in the elections as an observer, European Belarus activist Leanid Kulakou was arrested for "drinking alcohol". However, according to the documents of the medical examination, carried out in the Narcological Dispensary in Peradavaya street, where Kulakou was taken to by the police at 00:50, there were only 0.18 and 0.198 ppm of alcohol in two samples, to which psychiatrist-narcologist doctor Zhdanovich delivered an opinion: "The state of alcoholic intoxication is absent."

But at the second examination, which was carried out at 2:05 in the specialised isolation unit of the Pervamaiski police department, it miraculously turned out that there were 0.5 ppm of alcohol in his blood, as if Kulakou had managed to drink at the police station or the car, while being arrested, the Belarusian Documentation Center writes.

Most likely, this story would have been forgotten long ago, if the main state newspaper Sovetskaya Belorussia had not come in on it. In the article "The Nasty Story" by Ihar Shubin, it defiled Leanid in the best traditions of the Soviet press and reported false information, that it had been allegedly found "about 1 ppm of alcohol in his blood." Thus, the author of the article blatantly overestimated the data of the second examination in 2 times, and of the first one – in 5 times!

Leanid Kulakou wrote several statements, including the one to the Ministry of Information, demanding to publish a refutation and apologies, which resulted in a personal meeting between editor-in-chief of Sovetskaya Belorussia Pavel Yakubovich and the activist. Yakubovich promised to publish a refutation and an apology in the presence of a lawyer. Then the Belarusian independent press, including the newspaper Nasha Niva, reported about that meeting.

Two months passed, and Kulakou received Yakubovich’s response. However, it was totally different to the promised one. He received the response not in the form of a publication of a refutation and an official apology in Sovetskaya Belorussia, but in the form of a runaround, not even from Yakubovich himself, but from his deputy Liabedzik, who considered that the publication in Nasha Niva was good enough to resolve the conflict!!

Leanid Kulakou commented on that letter to journalists:

"The most offensive thing is that Yakubovich seemed to be a decent and honest man at first sight. He promised to give a refutation in the presence of my lawyer. He also asked me to write my version of what happened, saying he would give his refutation under my note. He even promised to give me a fee to subscribe to Narodnaya Volia. I sent my article to the Sovetskaya Belorussia editorial board by a registered letter with return receipt, personally addressed to Yakubovich. But the receipt has never come back. For some reason, instead of an answer from Yakubovich, the first deputy editor-in-chief Liabedzik answers me. He makes a completely absurd statement and refers to the newspaper Nasha Niva, arguing that the Belarusian public knows about the fact of their apology already! But the readers of Sovetskaya Belorussia, due to their views, most likely, do not read Nasha Niva, and do not even suspect that Yakubovich in words has apologized to me. And what is more, I could say anything to independent journalists. I quite sincerely believed the editor-in-chief of the state edition. As a result, Yakubovich is seen in my eyes as a coward and a liar who is not responsible for his words. Now the question is, how can you trust state periodicals that publish slander and do not bear any responsibility for this? I said to Yakubovich that I did not want to go to court and demand compensation, like, it was better to sort out the situation in a human way. But it turns out that I have been deceived in the most insolent way: they said one thing in my face, at the lawyer’s presence (now I'm glad that there was a witness at the meeting), but in reality they acted quite differently. I am sure that according to all the rules and laws, the newspaper, which published calumny and insults of a person, must publish a refutation with apologies."