Ukraine`s Tymoshenko Blasts Exclusion From Poll

[Packman]

Gee, does it really differentiate between Soviet and Ukrainian courts.  I could understand for political crimes, but for basic theft? 

Just curious about that?

[Claus]

Law is like that! 

Seriously, it must be so - a person convicted for crimes against or by the (Soviet) state might be the best possible president or prime minister of Ukraine, right?

Really, it's logical! No independent nation can accept that the verdict of another - or former - nation determines who can go for parlament and government, and who not. Think it through, and the logic is there - for once

What I mean is, that a constitution is a formalistic thing - in the case of Ukraine not very well thought through and gorged with self-contadictions - I suppose it was neither conceived nor written by law professionals (and if it was, I shudder at their incompetence!).

But, very simplified - concerning the issue in question - all the complicated, glorious, self-contradictory rules boil down to this:

If you own a company which violated the law, anywhere - and the company is convicted for that here, there, and everywhere - you're clean, as a person.

If you committed, and by court was convicted for a crime here, before Ukraine left the Soviet Union... you're clean.

If you committed a crime in Russia, Denmark, or elsewhere outside Ukraine (after USSR broke down), and were convicted there but not here... you're clean.

Only in case a Ukrainian court has convicted you (personally) of a crime which you personally carried out in Ukraine - then etc.

Naturally, if you're a mass-murderer (without being an active politician), it's absolutely different

But this is no Ukrainian speciality, we have similar rules in Australia, Denmark, Europen Union, and the USA.

[Packman]

Its an interesting question for sure...just a clarification.

So the jails were emptied when Ukraine became independent?  Since everyone was convicted from the Soviet system?

[Ivans]

Law is like that! 

Seriously, it must be so - a person convicted for crimes against or by the (Soviet) state might be the best possible president or prime minister of Ukraine, right?

Really, it's logical! No independent nation can accept that the verdict of another - or former - nation determines who can go for parlament and government, and who not. Think it through, and the logic is there - for once

What I mean is, that a constitution is a formalistic thing - in the case of Ukraine not very well thought through and gorged with self-contadictions - I suppose it was neither conceived nor written by law professionals (and if it was, I shudder at their incompetence!).

But, very simplified - concerning the issue in question - all the complicated, glorious, self-contradictory rules boil down to this:

If you own a company which violated the law, anywhere - and the company is convicted for that here, there, and everywhere - you're clean, as a person.

If you committed, and by court was convicted for a crime here, before Ukraine left the Soviet Union... you're clean.

If you committed a crime in Russia, Denmark, or elsewhere outside Ukraine (after USSR broke down), and were convicted there but not here... you're clean.

Only in case a Ukrainian court has convicted you (personally) of a crime which you personally carried out in Ukraine - then etc.

Naturally, if you're a mass-murderer (without being an active politician), it's absolutely different

But this is no Ukrainian speciality, we have similar rules in Australia, Denmark, Europen Union, and the USA.

Oh no, you cannot be serious!

I shall not rise the issue of Ukraine as a successor state (partly) of USSR, eg. why a member to UN, international trities (pacta sunt servanda, etc.).

Just wanted to know or do you really thing (or am I understand you correctly), that in 1991 all the criminals, murderers, etc, must be released just by reason that they were convicted by a USSR courts (i.e. non-Ukrainian courts)?
What about state succession under International Law?

Victor Saprano is a criminal, and cannot hold office (under law applicable).

[Claus]

Its an interesting question for sure...just a clarification.

So the jails were emptied when Ukraine became independent?  Since everyone was convicted from the Soviet system?

Of course not  - I suppose that most criminals served their terms, as would be normal (also refer above to what Ivans writes).
All I say, is, that the Ukrainian constitution functions in such a way, that persons who - as persons - have been convicted by a Ukrainian court for a crime, are nor eligble.
It's fair enough, I think.
As for foreign courts, naturally Ukraine can not accept that other countries may convict their politicians in absentia with any effect for the eligbility -if its spelled tht way  - here, then it'd be far too easy to control everything from outside.
As for Soviet courts, perhaps what they condemned as criminal then, is not seen here as criminal now. And it would be far too complicated to outline in the constitution which and what crime convicted in USSR times are still seen/are not seen anymore as crimes.

[Packman]

Does anyone know how that worked here?  Were all criminal cases reviewed after Ukrainian independence?  I'm guessing you'd need to differentiate between murderers and economic crimes violators.

[Ivans]

Does anyone know how that worked here?  Were all criminal cases reviewed after Ukrainian independence?  I'm guessing you'd need to differentiate between murderers and economic crimes violators.

In some ex-USSR countries there were reviewed mostly political cases. Several politically exposed persons were rehabilitated in Russia by Russian courts (some after such person deth), whereas murderers and other 'real' criminals served and still serve their sentences.

[Tim]

Well Interpol suspended the charges at first, because the President, PM, and parliament members all share immunity in Ukraine

That wasn't the case as Interpol removed its "Wanted" record in fall 2004 when Timoshenko was rather telling horror stories and fairy tails on Maidan. I guess that was a part of the deal between “old criminal power” and “new criminal power” supported by the States.

Russia had to respect the Ukrainian constitution which guarantees that immunity

I'm afraid you're misinformed. This immunity is granted by domestic laws works only in Ukrainian courts. What you may have meant is a diplomatic immunity working for diplomats and state officials during official business abroad but that doesn‘t even cover unofficial visits and this is why FBI had a right to arrest Pavel Borodin in New York in 2001 for alleged money laundering during his unofficial visit to the States despite that fact he was the top official of the united Russian-Belarus state at that time.

So Russian Federation might easily keep the cases against Timoshenko open.

However, after she was released from the government, Interpol erased all charges against her which I think would coincide with what you were talking about.

Interpol as such didn’t bring any charges as bringing charges is not its business at all; Interpol is rather a coordinating entity. Ukrainian and Russian authorities did. The former ones dropped any charges when “new criminal power” came to the power and the latter ones might have traded charges against Timoshenko for compromising evidence against other Ukrainian politicians. Presumably, of course.

[BrianPBG]

I'm afraid you're misinformed. This immunity is granted by domestic laws works only in Ukrainian courts. What you may have meant is a diplomatic immunity working for diplomats and state officials during official business abroad but that doesn?t even cover unofficial visits and this is why FBI had a right to arrest Pavel Borodin in New York in 2001 for alleged money laundering during his unofficial visit to the States despite that fact he was the top official of the united Russian-Belarus state at that time.

I am not misinformed, the deal with diplomatic immunity aka Vienna Convention of 61' was only with the situation on her purposed April 15-16 2005 trip to Russia. Russia's Prosecutor General made certain statements that suggested his willingness to arrest her.  Russia at first said "Yulia Timoshenko's parliamentary immunity is no obstacle to her arrest. Her immunity can be quashed on valid reason" stressed the prosecutor. "Parliamentary immunity envisages its holder's criminal liability. This is in the Ukrainian law, too [as in the Russian]. The file contains sufficient evidence for law-abiding people to determine to get Timoshenko to the dock." Later when charges were suspended several times, once when she was PM, and once when she went to Russia for questioning. Russia eventually dropped the charges due to statute of limitations.  Any warrant that is lodged with Interpol depends on local authorities to make the arrest. In this case, that would mean Ukrainian law enforcement authorities. Extradition proceedings would be what followed. However throughout the whole ordeal many top Russian officials stressed that they DID respect her own countries immunity and since charges against her in Ukraine were dropped, eventually Russia had to acknowledge the situation.

Interpol as such didn?t bring any charges as bringing charges is not its business at all; Interpol is rather a coordinating entity. Ukrainian and Russian authorities did. The former ones dropped any charges when ?new criminal power? came to the power and the latter ones might have traded charges against Timoshenko for compromising evidence against other Ukrainian politicians. Presumably, of course.

That is pretty much implied, we all know what Interpol does, they are an information gathering and dissemination organization only, but they were organizing information against her, cause the charges started by the Russian Prosecutor General, once again it was the situation at the time, certain high end members and contacts.  Interpol dropped charges BEFORE Russia's prosecuting General did, and Russia did so cause of statute of limitations.  Presuming an exchange of information against others is ludicrous and just hearsay.

[Tim]

BrianPBG

Later when charges were suspended several times, once when she was PM, and once when she went to Russia for questioning. Russia eventually dropped the charges due to statute of limitations.

If you think you said something that conflicted with that presumable version I had mentioned, you're wrong, sorry. You just explained how it might be done and how it might look like from the outside meaning both preliminary bargaining and closing the deal, thanks.

Technically, she might be sued in absentia and for their "justice" that would be no problem at all. That fact it didn't happen bring questions alone.

Any warrant that is lodged with Interpol depends on local authorities to make the arrest. In this case, that would mean Ukrainian law enforcement authorities. Extradition proceedings would be what followed.

Sorry, that's incorrect. Ukrainian constitution specifically bans extraditing Ukrainian citizens. So Russian Federation had no way to get Timoshenko unless she would come to Russia not enjoying the diplomatic immunity at that moment. Surprisingly for many observers, that happened in September 2005 (not April!) when she was not the premier-minister any more and, on the other hand, the limitation was not expired yet which happened much later (in December 2005).

So in September 2005 Russian Prosecutor General's Office had a unique opportunity to get Timoshenko if they wanted as, let me repeat, 1) she had no diplomatic immunity, 2) the limitation of her case wasn’t expired yet, and 3) she was in their jurisdiction. By the way, she wasn’t even a member of Rada at that moment (she had given up her membership becoming the PM a few months earlier) if that’s still important to you.

The fact she came back with no problem brings strong presumptions about existing a deal between Russian authorities and Ms.Timoshenko. And a nature of this presumable deal is clear as she simply had nothing else to trade that would be interesting for Mr.Putin's team.

Presuming an exchange of information against others is ludicrous and just hearsay.

And her soul is still pure and innocent, right? <grin> I don't believe in miracles, do you?

[BrianPBG]

If you think you said something that conflicted with that presumable version I mentioned, you're wrong, sorry. You explained how it might be done and how it might look like from the outside meaning both preliminary bargaining and closing the deal. Technically, she might be sued in absentia and for their "justice" that would be no problem at all. That fact it didn't happen bring questions itself.

Actually you only really stated assumptions; I was laying down the facts of the situation because you "assumed" I was misinformed, only because it does not match your "conspiracy theories".

Sorry, that's incorrect. Ukrainian constitution specifically bans extraditing Ukrainian citizens. So Russian Federation had no way to get Timoshenko unless she would come to Russia not having diplomatic immunity at that moment. Surprisingly for many, that happened in September 2005 (not April) when she was not the premier-minister anymore and, on the other hand, the limitation was not expired yet which happened much later in December 2005.

So in September 2005 Russian Prosecutor General's Office had a unique opportunity to get Timoshenko if they wanted as, let me repeat, 1) she had no diplomatic immunity any more, 2) the limitation of her case wasn?t expired yet, and 3) she was in their jurisdiction. By the way, she wasn?t even a member of Rada at that moment (she had given up her membership becoming the PM a few months later) if that?s still important to you.

The fact she came back with no problem brings strong presumptions about existing a deal between Russian authorities and Ms.Timoshenko. And a nature of this presumable deal is clear as she simply had nothing else to trade that would be interesting for Mr.Putin's team.

Actually it is NOT incorrect, I was talking about INTERPOL procedures, regardless of whether they allow extraditions or not, that is the rule of law for INTERPOL, of which I was talking about.  She cancelled a trip to Russia as PM in APRIL cause of statements by the Russian Prosecutor General.  Second of all her trip in September was for questioning, after which Russia suspended the arrest warrant.  The trip was short, and so called unexpected, but it seems she was given assurances before hand, but like many of your arguments, it is only assumptions. The fact that she came back is not really surrounded by conspiracy theories as you assume, it was pretty much guaranteed beforehand.  If there had always been a deal between them, why did she not make the trip in April?

And her soul is still pure and innocent, right? <grin> I don't believe in miracles, do you?

I don't really know if she is innocent or not, I am an outside observer like you, I just decide not to make broad assumptions about something, neither you nor I really understand the details about.  Lastly, I do believe in miracles, a lot more then I believe in conspiracy theories 

[Tim]

BrianPBG

basically, we both agree that something happened in September'2005 or a bit earlier. So Ms.Timoshenko, who in April was frightened at the thought of criminal charges, frightened that much she didn't even rely on the diplomatic immunity she definitely had in April, in September somehow became brave enough to go to embraces of Russian Prosecutor General's Office that could easily put her in jail for years. We also know she came back from these embraces all rigth. She wasn't even detained for questioning.

You didn’t need to involve "conspiracy theories" to conclude Ms.Timoshenko was given assurances beforehand. But that's a technical side. The real question is why she got these assurances.

At this point, there are 2 major versions.

The first one implies miracles and establishes correlations between Maid of Orleans and Ms.Timoshenko. This is a very poetic version and not “conspiracy theory” at all but frankly I don’t believe in miracles. Neither I believe in magic, fair justice in Russia, and innocence of domestic politicians.

And the second major version implies trading. Trading something for dropping the charges. What something was we don’t know and that’s exactly why I said presumable version. I don’t insist and Ms.Timoshenko might simply trade sex for dropping charges, for instance. We don’t know. The only thing I know is that Mr.Yuschenko has never trusted Ms.Timoshenko since that. Maybe just a jealousy, who knows…

[Packman]

I don't believe in fair justice in Russia either, but maybe the Russian "procurer" could have been made to understand that prosecuting Tymoshenko in Russia would only strengthen the Orangies in Ukraine, much like it did when Yushenko was poisoned.

[Tim]

maybe the Russian "procurer" could have been made to understand that prosecuting Tymoshenko in Russia would only strengthen the Orangies in Ukraine

That doesn't explain who and why gave her assurances of her safety beforehand. That doesn't even explain why she needed to come to Moscow. Unless we're ready to discuss pure imaginations like Mr.Putin calling Ms.Timishenko and saying something like "Hi, baby, why wouldn't you come here so we'd have a nice little chat and I'll tell my guys to stay away from you" and Ms.Timoshenko accepting this invitation Bur that would definitely put you on "conspiracy theories" track way too much.

For instance, I heard a version that on that day Mr.Putin and Ms.Timishenko were actually discussing outlooks for them marrying (after divorcing current spouses, I guess) and establishing a royal family for the united state Russia-Byelorussia-Ukraine. Wanna discuss this, man?

Yushenko was poisoned

Was he? I cannot recall a single fact established for sure including the misdeed itself. There have been way too many "conspiracy theories" all based on the same information starting poisoning and to leprosy including modifications in which Yuschenko died ans was replaced by someone else.

The worst part is that the presumable victim doesn’t seem interesting in investigating the presumable case. At the beginning he said several times in public he knew who did this and swore to name presumable felons as soon as he got a seat of President. That happened more than 2.5 years ago and... nothing has happened yet. That’s basically the only thing we know for sure about this story. So let’s stop developing conspiracy theories about poisoning, shall we?

[Packman]

Tim I love your rich theories.

As far as I know the clinic in Austria reported dioxin poisoning.  I love the body double theory!  Rich..very rich!

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- Community ----------------------------- => Introductions ----------------------------- Expatriate Life ----------------------------- => Q&A => Health and Medical => Events and Meetings => I recommend => Handy Things to Know => Languages ----------------------------- Business ----------------------------- => ESL Discussion Group => Incorporation => Banking and Finances => Opportunities => Private Entrepreneurship => Information exchange ----------------------------- Current Events ----------------------------- => Democracy and Beyond => Ukrainian News => International News ----------------------------- Meet compatriots ----------------------------- => Polish Forum ----------------------------- Going Out ----------------------------- => Shopping => Weekend Breaks => Theatre&Movie => Eating&Drinking => Sport ----------------------------- Expatriate Jobs ----------------------------- => Jobs Available => Jobs Wanted ----------------------------- Expatriate Cafe ----------------------------- => Hobbies => History Today => Book club => Fun, Games and Jokes => Relationships ----------------------------- Information ----------------------------- => Your Expat Ukraine => Help desk