What do the government officials think about the ways to solve the Tymoshenko situation? The Day asked Volodymyr OLIINYK, people’s deputy (Regions Party), to comment on this.
“The Europe itself has not yet figured out what political and criminal persecutions are. That is why the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, has taken the matter of differentiation between juridical and criminal responsibility of officials into consideration.
“If there is a solution to the Tymoshenko situation, it will be possible within the legislative framework. When the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe addressed the president, that is what they wrote, ‘in a constitutional way.’
“What can be done? First of all, the president has a right to do one thing which is unavailable for the MPs. It is a pardon, an individual act concerning a certain person, performed by the head of the state. But there is a procedure. Before the pardon takes place, all the other procedures should be finished, this includes appeal and cassation. But on the other hand, a pardon cannot be applied to someone, who does not want it. And the procedure itself foresees the address to the person. We can only wait for all the mechanisms of appeal against this sentence to be over.
“Second, the MPs can introduce a legislative initiative that would include an amnesty mechanism. A special law is issued for a certain person, for example, concerning children, or women, or those who have three children. So, some specifications should be given. Because if it is just Article 365 that will be mentioned, all the turncoat law enforcement officers might as well be amnestied according to it. This would be quite interesting for Ukraine. That is why this law should be well thought over. The opposition itself does not offer a law like this. Though the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe said that a pardon is a possible option, the opposition never offered a law like this.”
Why?
“Because Yulia Tymoshenko herself says, ‘I am not guilty, I have not done anything I should be pardoned or amnestied for. I want to receive the verdict of acquittal.’
“There was an attempt to put one more mechanism into action. I mean, changes in the legislation concerning decriminalization. But when it was appealed to get rid of this article, even Ukrainian society did not support the idea. Because that would mean untying the officials’ hands by eliminating Article 365.
“Then another way was found. Let all this stay the way it is, but let us relieve the president, prime minister, and ministers of responsibility within this article, and (I was plain surprised by this) let them make their own authorities according to this article. This is not acceptable. And they saw that this idea had no support. The opposition showed that an attempt to decriminalize has a strange air to it. Because it sounds like this: something existed, but from now on it does not. What kind of phenomenon is that?
“Because the questions on what to do with real damages emerge. All the experts say that the damages increase with every passing year. We overpay about 50 billion hryvnias per year to Russia because of the unfairly shaped prices, which were accepted after the direct order from Tymoshenko. And there are a lot of similar matters.
“But let the very participants of this decide what they want. Do they want to break laws and the Constitution down to the core for just one person? This is not going to happen. If they want another way of acquittal, they should provide evidence.
“Article 365 guards for the order established by the Constitution (Article 19) not to be corrupted by anyone.
“And the fourth way out of this situation is probably the acquittal. Let the courts decide upon this. But about a thousand of people were sentenced under Article 365 last year. What should we do next? Discharge the others. Say that this never existed in Ukraine. And then the chaos will come. Ukraine will look like some bizarre circus, with officials making up powers for themselves and the legislative order vanishing for good.”
Is it possible to accept Germany’s offer to let Tymoshenko go there for medical treatment?
“It is true, Germany does offer to treat Tymoshenko’s medical condition, but not to amnesty her. The treatment of a convicted citizen of Ukraine abroad is not specified in Ukrainian legislation at all. First of all, if she crosses the border, who is going to guard the person who should be imprisoned according to the law in force? Is it going to be us or the German side? If us, then on what grounds are armed people going to be there? They will have to receive a legal permit, and the decision of Ukrainian court would probably not be enough for this. If Tymoshenko were a German citizen, extradition would be possible.
“Second, who is going to bear the responsibility for the state of her health? Right now, according to the law, it is the system of penal colonies. Besides, she is still under investigation. Can she be a part of investigation process concerning other cases while being in Germany? There are many more questions, all of them still not clarified.”
According to some mass media sources, there is one more way: the president amnesties Tymoshenko, thus demonstrating his kindness, lets her go to Germany and receive medical treatment there. Is this option possible?
“I would like for the opposition to offer such a draft law. Why do they not? There is only one reason. Tymoshenko says, ‘what amnesty are you talking about, I am not guilty.’ They should figure things out for themselves. An amnesty can only be applied to a guilty person, but this is an act of mercy from the state, and a certain category of citizens who have performed certain kind of crimes fall within it, and as a rule, this is done on the eve of some holiday.”
What solution of the Tymoshenko case you think to be the most possible one?
“After all, we need to view this from the perspective of the whole state. People now need to pay more of their hard-earned money because she exceeded her authority. Price of gas influenced prices of all other goods and services. We should decide once and for all. If we are ready to make such gifts, let us amend the Constitution, let us write there that different rules apply to some people (and make a list of them), than to the majority of citizens. And we shall put an end to the equal protection of the law. Then it is going to be fair. But I see only one thing here: if a person pleads to be not guilty, please, let her prove her innocence in court.
“It is not even the ‘selective justice,’ but selective sentence fulfilling we come to talk about now. Tens, hundreds of women serve out their convictions in Kachanivska penal colony and have similar problems. Instead of improving the situation for everyone, we keep on talking about just one person. I oppose the imprisonment of women. But the system should be changed for everyone, instead of just changing it for one person and forgetting about the rest.
“If we talk about the selective sentence fulfilling, then, according to the Constitution, what is the difference between citizens Tymoshenko and Sydorova or Ivanova, for example? The difference is that Sydorova or Ivanova never got to be a prime minister. Which part of the Constitution says that this difference should be taken into consideration? And a political force that proclaims the equal protection of the law to come into effect, asks for support in this case? Well, I do not believe in such equality.”
