“
Authors: Corruption Center, Dejure Foundation, Avtomaydan.
The events of recent weeks – numerous criminal proceedings and searches related to the activities of members of the High Qualifications Commission of Judges (SCCS) have been almost out of the public and media. And in vain.
Because it is on the SCCS and its stable work that Ukraine will finally be able to clean the judicial system. This is in particular an important condition for our EU accession.
Advertising:
However, the analysis of recent events shows that the President’s office and the judicial elites have finally found a “good moment” to destroy all the efforts and achievements in the judicial reform over the last few years.
Why was such a “good moment” right now? There are several reasons for this.
Firstly, Through geopolitical events, all the attention of society and international partners is drawn to the war and the role of the United States, which is absolutely logical. Therefore, while in the geopolitical field, the moment of the ideal storm, both domestically and outside, no one should notice an attempt to disrupt the purification of the judicial system.
Second, In the face of intense conversations about possible elections, the instrument of criminal proceedings through manual law enforcement officers and the courts for each authorities becomes a political instrument. It is criminal prosecution that is a standard method for discrediting and intimidating all opponents, critics and “disagreeable”. It is this tool that decided to apply to the SCCS now to keep the necessary judges in such an important period.
The reason for such actions is also obvious – Currently, preparation for the active phase of qualification evaluation of judges of the Pechersk court and other district courts of Kyiv, as well as judges of the former scandalous district administrative court of Kyiv (OASK), which was liquidated in December 2022, has begun.
In parallel in May, the active phase of the Judges Competition to the Courts of Appeal should take place. The consequence of these processes is the dismissal of unsuccessful judges in Kiev and the lack of doubtful manual candidates to the appellate courts. It was for the quality evaluation and selection of Judges of the SCCS and reboot. However, it is obvious that independent judges in this country are not needed by everyone.
Why are these courts critical in terms of power? Due to the specifics of the location in the center of Kiev, it is on judges – for example, the Pechersk court – it is considered the essence of the majority of both criminal and civil cases, disputes or crimes in the territory.
In addition, the key investigations of law enforcement officers against top officials, if they are not related to corruption (there is already a Vertical NABU, SAP and VAKS), are most often considered by Pechersk, Shevchenkivsky and other courts in Kyiv. It is about key cases of the Security Service of Ukraine, the National Police and the State Bureau of Investigation (DBR).
In particular, these courts consider precautions, searches and detentions, and all other investigative actions. That is why society often sees the decisions of these courts in the news. It was in these courts that there were most cases of massacres with Maidan activists during the Revolution of Dignity, which were critically needed by criminal authorities during the period of time. The same courts then sanctioned or drained cases about Yanukovych’s expansers and his entourage. It was in the Pechersk court, for example, that precautions were considered to be such odious characters as Viktor Medvedchuk and oligarch Kolomoisky.
The peculiarities of the relations of these courts (and judges) with the authorities have always been built on the fact that judges should politely fulfill the necessary power. Instead, the authorities guarantee inviolability even for illegal decisions or “closes their eyes” on “workers”.
The GRP reform and the SCCS, voted in 2021, had an end to this circular guarantee. The newly elected members of the CCCS had to continue the qualification of judges and finally ensure the purification of the courts. In parallel, the newly elected High Council of Justice (GRP) also had to launch quality disciplinary procedures in the judicial system.
Despite the fact that the newly elected SCCS did not live up to all expectations and could not move in evaluating the judges quickly and qualitatively, nevertheless dishonest judges have finally started to be released and checked much more carefully than it was before the reform. During 2016–2019, the CCCS recommended that only 4% of judges who had passed the evaluation. The new composition of the SCCS submitted for the release of 20% of judges, 12 of whom had already released the GRP.
Even these results clearly made it clear that the judges of the Pechersk court of Kyiv did not expect anything good.
Accordingly, as soon as in the beginning of March this year, the Supreme Court of Ukraine announced the appointment of a testing of personal moral and psychological qualities of judges of the Pechersk court and already liquidated Osk-by manual law enforcement officers and judges “suddenly” began a parade of numerous investigative actions in the framework of various criminal proceedings.
The main actors in this attack were the manual DBR and the Pechersk court itself.
The interest of the judges is obvious – to disrupt your own qualification assessment, which can result in dismissal from a “bread.”
The interest of DBR is also quite logical. It is the Pechersk Court that gives the DBR rulings for searches, investigative actions and makes sentences based on DBR materials. Therefore, the DBR is accurately interested in the fact that manual and favorable judges, who often on the hook in the system, remained in positions and continued to coordinate investigative actions in far -fetched criminal cases.
However, without a doubt that without instruction from the office of the President of the DBR, I would never dare to independently on such an unprecedented pressure on the CCCS. Next, we will explain in detail why such criminal proceedings and investigative actions are mainly pressure, and how all players will continue to use this to disrupt the qualification evaluation and the competition in the courts of appeal.
Important detail: April 17 reports of suspicion to one of the members of the SCCS – Vladimir Lugansk – was presented with NABU from the SAP. However, this case should not be considered in the context of systemic pressure on the CCCS.
First, the NABU case was opened at the request of one of the authors of this text-the Center for Combating Corruption (CPC). Thus, in August 2024, the CPC reported that Vladimir Lugansk had a essentially fake degree in the form of a Diploma Doctor of Philosophy in the field of law. It is actually a piece of paper that was published in MAUP in 2011, when the Ministry of Education did not form such a document with a confirmation of a scientific degree. But the problem is not even in this, but that this piece of paper Lugansk gave him a surcharge in the form of 15 percent of the salary. According to NABU and the SAP, it has taken over UAH 576 thousand. Being a judge of Lugansk could not help but understand that his diploma did not entitle these payments. It is obvious that such actions are unacceptable to the CCCC member, who should evaluate the integrity of judges and candidates in the judge.
Secondly, there is no doubt that rescuing the judges of the Pechersk Court and the OASK is definitely not in the interests of NABU. For example, in 2023, NABU and SAP reported suspicion to one of the judges of the Pechersk Court Tatiana Ilyeva, and recently the director of NABU Semen Krivonos filed a complaint with the GRP with a request to bring the same Ilyev to disciplinary responsibility.
So, below, we analyze the DBR’s affairs against the CCCS.
Analysis of Criminal Cases against the CCCS All the proceedings we describe below are combined by a number of common features.
Firstly, All of them began or suddenly intensified in March this year – after the announcements of the planned testing of judges of the Pechersk court.
Second, Most of these cases are the same leader of the investigators. This is a senior investigator of DBR Yaroslav Kravtsov.
Thirdly, The incriminating cases look quite far -fetched and often unfounded. Instead, instead of the systemic investigative actions of the DBR in all cases, he first of all searches, during which he removes very selective materials. Not to mention that the searches at the CCCS and in the homes of the CCCS members are also an element of pressure.
Some of the cases were opened according to the statements of the People’s Deputies from the “servant of the people”. However, in our opinion, it is only a course for attracting attention and imitation of an independent investigation. After all, it is too brazen to initiate several cases about the SCCS at the same time.
In most cases, sanctions on the same searches and other investigative actions are issued by the judges of the Pechersk court themselves. As a result, this financial is invented that a considerable part of the judges of the Pechersk court would continue to use it for an imaginary “conflict of interest” with the SCCS. Some judges – applicants in the CCCS members, while others sanctify investigative actions. Of course, it is legally a weak argument, but they will be sure to disrupt the judges’ evaluation.
Another important Frank – DBR investigators are already seizing documents against judges into their criminal cases. This may also allow the judges to be properly evaluated.
So, we carefully analyzed information from public sources on criminal cases concerning the members of the SCCC, and found such a list.
Investigate in the DBR criminal under Part 1 of Art. 182, Part 3 of Art. 382 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine – that is, interference with a judge’s private life and failure to comply with a judgment. It was in this case that the DBR came to the SCCS with temporary access to the documents in order to seize the materials of the Tsarevich collected on the judge.
Judge Tsarevich is known by the fact that for a long time she was an assistant to the former chairman of the Pechersk court approximately the curator of the judicial and law enforcement system Andriy Portnov – Inna Otrosh. During the Revolution of Dignity, Tsarevich deprived protesters of the rights of driving. The judge has already been dismissed, but she was resumed thanks to the decision of the Supreme Court. She does not currently exercise the judge due to the expiration of the term for which she was appointed but continues to receive his salary from the state.
The SCCS itself declared such failures on 09.07.2024, but intensified the investigation only now. And right now in this case we decided to search in the premises of the SCCS.
The People’s Deputy initiated the case of providing deliberately false testimony by the Deputy Chairman of the SCCS Oleksiy Omelyan during an interrogation in the case of an accident with the participation of excesses Tandir. Omelyan in court claimed that the tandir did not consume alcoholic beverages, which allegedly artificially created evidence for protection. This proceeding is interesting in that Omelyan’s testimony took place in February 2024, but also a statement, and the case was only now. It was in this case that the DBR searched Omelyan’s apartment.
It is about the possible use of a fake document on a scientific degree by a member of the SCCS Vladimir Lugansk (Part 4 of Article 358 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). However, the issue of a fake document about the scientific degree of Lugansk and receiving payments from the state for it is already being investigated by NABU – and this is a long -term public fact. However, Lugansk in the SCCS is a group of influence, which is under the control of the Presidential Office. Therefore, this proceeding could have appeared to try to save Lugansk from NABU. Here you should expect more investigative actions that may prevent NABU from obtaining the necessary evidence.
It is a possible introduction of the members of the SCCS Ruslan Melnik and Roman Sabodash by prior conspiracy with a group of persons of false information to the automated system, which operates in the SCCS (Part 2 of Article 376-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). However, the details of the case are unknown.
This list should also be mentioned No. 62023000000000798 of September 15, 20123 with respect to the former head of the CCCS – Roman Ignatov. The investigation into Ignatov concerned the presence of Russian citizenship, which could qualify as a state betrayal (Part 2 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). At that time, the DBR without any evidence stated the fact of citizenship, which actually forced Ignatov to make the powers of a member of the SCCS in March 2024. It is important that Ignatov considered the chairman of the CCCS to evaluate the judges of the Kiev courts a priority in work. It is also noteworthy that investigative actions in this case were magically stopped after Ignatov’s release. Although Ignatov continues to work in a state position of judge of the Kyiv Court of Appeal.
According to the authors of this publication, this is not an exhaustive list of contrived cases in the DBR, which in one way or another relate to the qualifying evaluation of judges.
All these cases in the aggregate – create a pressure effect, the purpose of which either force the SCCS to evaluate the judges “correctly” or completely disrupt the process of cleaning the courts in Ukraine.
Also, this list of cases may be quite likely to be replenished in the near future, and even far -fetched suspicions of independent members of the CCCS may appear in existing cases. After all, experience shows that for DBR it is not a problem to simply draw them when needed. So you should not exclude the scenario that d Eye members of the CCCS will be transformed in the near future from just a target for DBR on suspects for fictional reasons.
As a result, while delaying and disrupting the DBR evaluation process, they are smoked from the Presidential Office, keeps “his” judges and ensures control over the activities of the CCCS. During this epic of the DBR, it can at least block and disrupt the evaluation of specific judges, and can go further and knock out the suspicions of uncontrolled members of the CCCS.
The latter is very advantageous to the President’s office, since since June this year the competition commission with international experts who have elected the current composition of the SCCS ceases to exist.
If the DBR manages to bring to the release of another or two members of the CCCS, which are not yet controlled from the Presidential Office-then it will be announced to this body. At the same time, if the authorities do not extend the powers of international experts in the competition commission, then candidates from the odious council of judges, prosecutors, lawyers will come. The head of the Council of Judges Bogdan Monich is the set of the recently liberated head of OASK Pavel Vovk, and the Council of Advocates is headed by Ancient associate of Medvedchuk – Lydia Izovitova. All these institutions also arrange the President’s office.
One can only imagine what the majority will look like in the SCCS with candidates elected without the participation of international experts. Further, they will choose 550 judges for the courts of appeal and 1800 for the courts of first instance with powers for the next 30 years. In such circumstances, it is possible to forget about cleaning the system from bad judges. That is why it is important to prevent this scenario right now:
- terminate the pressure on the work of members of the Higher Qualifications of Judges through the State Bureau of Investigation;
- To continue the powers of international experts in the competition commissions until our justice system is able to cope with this at the proper level.
A column is a material that reflects the author’s point of view. The text of the column does not claim the objectivity and comprehensive coverage of the topic that rises in it. The editorial board of “Ukrainian Truth” is not responsible for the accuracy and interpretation of the information provided and plays only the role of the carrier. The point of view of the UP editorial board may not coincide with the point of view of the author of the column.
”, – WRITE: www.pravda.com.ua
Authors: Corruption Center, Dejure Foundation, Avtomaydan.
The events of recent weeks – numerous criminal proceedings and searches related to the activities of members of the High Qualifications Commission of Judges (SCCS) have been almost out of the public and media. And in vain.
Because it is on the SCCS and its stable work that Ukraine will finally be able to clean the judicial system. This is in particular an important condition for our EU accession.
Advertising:
However, the analysis of recent events shows that the President’s office and the judicial elites have finally found a “good moment” to destroy all the efforts and achievements in the judicial reform over the last few years.
Why was such a “good moment” right now? There are several reasons for this.
Firstly, Through geopolitical events, all the attention of society and international partners is drawn to the war and the role of the United States, which is absolutely logical. Therefore, while in the geopolitical field, the moment of the ideal storm, both domestically and outside, no one should notice an attempt to disrupt the purification of the judicial system.
Second, In the face of intense conversations about possible elections, the instrument of criminal proceedings through manual law enforcement officers and the courts for each authorities becomes a political instrument. It is criminal prosecution that is a standard method for discrediting and intimidating all opponents, critics and “disagreeable”. It is this tool that decided to apply to the SCCS now to keep the necessary judges in such an important period.
The reason for such actions is also obvious – Currently, preparation for the active phase of qualification evaluation of judges of the Pechersk court and other district courts of Kyiv, as well as judges of the former scandalous district administrative court of Kyiv (OASK), which was liquidated in December 2022, has begun.
In parallel in May, the active phase of the Judges Competition to the Courts of Appeal should take place. The consequence of these processes is the dismissal of unsuccessful judges in Kiev and the lack of doubtful manual candidates to the appellate courts. It was for the quality evaluation and selection of Judges of the SCCS and reboot. However, it is obvious that independent judges in this country are not needed by everyone.
Why are these courts critical in terms of power? Due to the specifics of the location in the center of Kiev, it is on judges – for example, the Pechersk court – it is considered the essence of the majority of both criminal and civil cases, disputes or crimes in the territory.
In addition, the key investigations of law enforcement officers against top officials, if they are not related to corruption (there is already a Vertical NABU, SAP and VAKS), are most often considered by Pechersk, Shevchenkivsky and other courts in Kyiv. It is about key cases of the Security Service of Ukraine, the National Police and the State Bureau of Investigation (DBR).
In particular, these courts consider precautions, searches and detentions, and all other investigative actions. That is why society often sees the decisions of these courts in the news. It was in these courts that there were most cases of massacres with Maidan activists during the Revolution of Dignity, which were critically needed by criminal authorities during the period of time. The same courts then sanctioned or drained cases about Yanukovych’s expansers and his entourage. It was in the Pechersk court, for example, that precautions were considered to be such odious characters as Viktor Medvedchuk and oligarch Kolomoisky.
The peculiarities of the relations of these courts (and judges) with the authorities have always been built on the fact that judges should politely fulfill the necessary power. Instead, the authorities guarantee inviolability even for illegal decisions or “closes their eyes” on “workers”.
The GRP reform and the SCCS, voted in 2021, had an end to this circular guarantee. The newly elected members of the CCCS had to continue the qualification of judges and finally ensure the purification of the courts. In parallel, the newly elected High Council of Justice (GRP) also had to launch quality disciplinary procedures in the judicial system.
Despite the fact that the newly elected SCCS did not live up to all expectations and could not move in evaluating the judges quickly and qualitatively, nevertheless dishonest judges have finally started to be released and checked much more carefully than it was before the reform. During 2016–2019, the CCCS recommended that only 4% of judges who had passed the evaluation. The new composition of the SCCS submitted for the release of 20% of judges, 12 of whom had already released the GRP.
Even these results clearly made it clear that the judges of the Pechersk court of Kyiv did not expect anything good.
Accordingly, as soon as in the beginning of March this year, the Supreme Court of Ukraine announced the appointment of a testing of personal moral and psychological qualities of judges of the Pechersk court and already liquidated Osk-by manual law enforcement officers and judges “suddenly” a parade of numerous investigative actions began Editions.
The main actors in this attack were the manual DBR and the Pechersk court itself.
The interest of the judges is obvious – to disrupt your own qualification assessment, which can result in dismissal from a “bread.”
The interest of DBR is also quite logical. It is the Pechersk Court that gives the DBR rulings for searches, investigative actions and makes sentences based on DBR materials. Therefore, the DBR is accurately interested in the fact that manual and favorable judges, who often on the hook in the system, remained in positions and continued to coordinate investigative actions in far -fetched criminal cases.
However, without a doubt that without instruction from the office of the President of the DBR, I would never dare to independently on such an unprecedented pressure on the CCCS. Next, we will explain in detail why such criminal proceedings and investigative actions are mainly pressure, and how all players will continue to use this to disrupt the qualification evaluation and the competition in the courts of appeal.
Important detail: April 17 reports of suspicion to one of the members of the SCCS – Vladimir Lugansk – was presented with NABU from the SAP. However, this case should not be considered in the context of systemic pressure on the CCCS.
First, the NABU case was opened at the request of one of the authors of this text-the Center for Combating Corruption (CPC). Thus, in August 2024, the CPC reported that Vladimir Lugansk had a essentially fake degree in the form of a Diploma Doctor of Philosophy in the field of law. It is actually a piece of paper that was published in MAUP in 2011, when the Ministry of Education did not form such a document with a confirmation of a scientific degree. But the problem is not even in this, but that this piece of paper Lugansk gave him a surcharge in the form of 15 percent of the salary. According to NABU and the SAP, it has taken over UAH 576 thousand. Being a judge of Lugansk could not help but understand that his diploma did not entitle these payments. It is obvious that such actions are unacceptable to the CCCC member, who should evaluate the integrity of judges and candidates in the judge.
Secondly, there is no doubt that rescuing the judges of the Pechersk Court and the OASK is definitely not in the interests of NABU. For example, in 2023, NABU and SAP reported suspicion to one of the judges of the Pechersk Court Tatiana Ilyeva, and recently the NABU Director Semen Krivonos suffered a complaint to the GRP with a request to bring the same Ilyev to disciplinary liability.
So, below, we analyze the DBR’s affairs against the CCCS.
Analysis of Criminal Cases against the CCCS All the proceedings we describe below are combined by a number of common features.
Firstly, All of them began or suddenly intensified in March this year – after the announcements of the planned testing of judges of the Pechersk court.
Second, Most of these cases are the same leader of the investigators. This is a senior investigator of DBR Yaroslav Kravtsov.
Thirdly, The incriminating cases look quite far -fetched and often unfounded. Instead, instead of the systemic investigative actions of the DBR in all cases, he first of all searches, during which he removes very selective materials. Not to mention that the searches at the CCCS and in the homes of the CCCS members are also an element of pressure.
Some of the cases were opened according to the statements of the People’s Deputies from the “servant of the people”. However, in our opinion, it is only a course for attracting attention and imitation of an independent investigation. After all, it is too brazen to initiate several cases about the SCCS at the same time.
In most cases, sanctions on the same searches and other investigative actions are issued by the judges of the Pechersk court themselves. As a result, this financial is invented that a considerable part of the judges of the Pechersk court would continue to use it for an imaginary “conflict of interest” with the SCCS. Some judges – applicants in the CCCS members, while others sanctify investigative actions. Of course, it is legally a weak argument, but they will be sure to disrupt the judges’ evaluation.
Another important Frank – DBR investigators are already seizing documents against judges into their criminal cases. This may also allow the judges to be properly evaluated.
So, we carefully analyzed information from public sources on criminal cases concerning the members of the SCCC, and found such a list.
Investigate in the DBR criminal under Part 1 of Art. 182, Part 3 of Art. 382 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine – that is, interference with a judge’s private life and failure to comply with a judgment. It was in this case that the DBR came to the SCCS with temporary access to the documents in order to seize the materials of the Tsarevich collected on the judge.
Judge Tsarevich is known by the fact that for a long time she was an assistant to the former chairman of the Pechersk court approximately the curator of the judicial and law enforcement system Andriy Portnov – Inna Otrosh. During the Revolution of Dignity, Tsarevich deprived protesters of the rights of driving. The judge has already been dismissed, but she was resumed thanks to the decision of the Supreme Court. She does not currently exercise the judge due to the expiration of the term for which she was appointed but continues to receive his salary from the state.
The SCCS itself declared such failures on 09.07.2024, but intensified the investigation only now. And right now in this case we decided to search in the premises of the SCCS.
The People’s Deputy initiated the case of providing deliberately false testimony by the Deputy Chairman of the SCCS Oleksiy Omelyan during an interrogation in the case of an accident with the participation of excesses Tandir. Omelyan in court claimed that the tandir did not consume alcoholic beverages, which allegedly artificially created evidence for protection. This proceeding is interesting in that Omelyan’s testimony took place in February 2024, but also a statement, and the case was only now. It was by this case that the DBR searched Omelyan’s apartment.
It is about the possible use of fake Document on the scientific degree of a member of the SCCS Vladimir Lugansk (Part 4 of Article 358 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). However, the issue of a fake document about the scientific degree of Lugansk and receiving payments from the state for it is already being investigated by NABU – and this is a long -term public fact. However, Lugansk in the SCCS is a group of influence, which is under the control of the Presidential Office. Therefore, this proceeding could have appeared to try to save Lugansk from NABU. Here you should expect more investigative actions that may prevent NABU from obtaining the necessary evidence.
It is a possible introduction of the members of the SCCS Ruslan Melnik and Roman Sabodash by prior conspiracy with a group of persons of false information to the automated system, which operates in the SCCS (Part 2 of Article 376-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). However, the details of the case are unknown.
This list should also be mentioned No. 62023000000000798 of September 15, 20123 with respect to the former head of the CCCS – Roman Ignatov. The investigation into Ignatov concerned the presence of Russian citizenship, which could qualify as a state betrayal (Part 2 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). At that time, the DBR without any evidence stated the fact of citizenship, which actually forced Ignatov to make the powers of a member of the SCCS in March 2024. It is important that Ignatov considered the chairman of the CCCS to evaluate the judges of the Kiev courts a priority in work. It is also noteworthy that investigative actions in this case were magically stopped after Ignatov’s release. Although Ignatov continues to work in a state position of judge of the Kyiv Court of Appeal.
According to the authors of this publication, this is not an exhaustive list of contrived cases in the DBR, which in one way or another relate to the qualifying evaluation of judges.
All these cases in the aggregate – create a pressure effect, the purpose of which either force the SCCS to evaluate the judges “correctly” or completely disrupt the process of cleaning the courts in Ukraine.
Also, this list of cases may be quite likely to be replenished in the near future, and even far -fetched suspicions of independent members of the CCCS may appear in existing cases. After all, experience shows that for DBR it is not a problem to simply draw them when needed. Therefore, it is not necessary to exclude the scenario that some members of the CCCS will be transformed in the near future from just a target for DBR on suspects for fictional drives.
As a result, while delaying and disrupting the DBR evaluation process, they are smoked from the Presidential Office, keeps “his” judges and ensures control over the activities of the CCCS. During this epic of the DBR, it can at least block and disrupt the evaluation of specific judges, and can go further and knock out the suspicions of uncontrolled members of the CCCS.
The latter is very advantageous to the President’s office, since since June this year the competition commission with international experts who have elected the current composition of the SCCS ceases to exist.
If the DBR manages to bring to the release of another or two members of the CCCS, which are not yet controlled from the Presidential Office-then it will be announced to this body. At the same time, if the authorities do not extend the powers of international experts in the competition commission, then candidates from the odious council of judges, prosecutors, lawyers will come. The head of the Council of Judges Bogdan Monich is the set of the recently liberated head of OASK Pavel Vovk, and the Council of Advocates is headed by Ancient associate of Medvedchuk – Lydia Izovitova. All these institutions also arrange the President’s office.
One can only imagine what the majority will look like in the SCCS with candidates elected without the participation of international experts. Further, they will choose 550 judges for the courts of appeal and 1800 for the courts of first instance with powers for the next 30 years. In such circumstances, it is possible to forget about cleaning the system from bad judges. That is why it is important to prevent this scenario right now:
- terminate the pressure on the work of members of the Higher Qualifications of Judges through the State Bureau of Investigation;
- To continue the powers of international experts in the competition commissions until our justice system is able to cope with this at the proper level.
A column is a material that reflects the author’s point of view. The text of the column does not claim the objectivity and comprehensive coverage of the topic that rises in it. The editorial board of “Ukrainian Truth” is not responsible for the accuracy and interpretation of the information provided and plays only the role of the carrier. The point of view of the UP editorial board may not coincide with the point of view of the author of the column.