Lincoln's Gettysburg Address urges "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from earth." Americans did unite and made their country embraced the principles of democracy, freedom and justice.

Today, Ukraine faces similar challenges to those America faced when Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address. It is being tested, and the threat of authoritarianism in Ukraine is imminent. Its people have embraced principles of democracy, but its government elites are only hiding behind empty words.

The Constitution of Ukraine and its Bill of Rights, guarantee freedom of speech and the right to due process. However, while in U.S. human rights are sacrosanct, in Ukraine they are flagrantly violated.

Underneath the rhetoric of democratic reform that undergirds U.S. – Ukraine relations, hides a shadowy country that has not yet evolved into a free market nation guided by rule of law.

As a lawyer and a Ukrainian citizen, I want to draw the attention of U.S. government to the fact that there is no rule of law in Ukraine. My father, Oleksandr Lavrynovych, is a famous Ukrainian statesman. He is one of the founding fathers of Ukraine's independence, and has now been subjected to baseless, political persecution by Ukrainian authorities.

More: OCTOBER 4, 2017 | POLITICO (PDF page)


Facts of political persecution
Oleksandr Volodymyrovych Lavrynovych (Ukrainian: Олександр Володимирович Лавринович) (born June 28, 1956 in Ovruch) is a Ukrainian physicist, lawyer, politician, former member of the Supreme Council of Justice of Ukraine, a former Ukrainian member of parliament and former Minister of Justice of Ukraine. He is Merited Jurist of Ukraine (2003). He was one of the founders of the first democratic party in Ukraine in 1989 - People's Movement of Ukraine and considered to be one of the "fathers" of the independence of Ukraine from the Soviet Union.

After graduating from the Shevchenko National University in 1978, Lavrynovych worked in the NAN Ukrainian SSR. In 1981-1984 he served in military (chief of radar station). From 1989 till 1998 Lavrynovych was one of the leaders of People's Movement of Ukraine. From 1990 till 1994 he was a member of the Central Election Commission of Ukraine and its First Deputy Chairman in 1991-1994.

From 1998 till 2001 he was an People's Deputy of Ukraine for People's Movement of Ukraine parliamentary faction, surrendering his deputy mandate early. In 2002 Lavrynovych was elected to parliament on the Our Ukraine party list, but refused to be registered. In May 2002 Lavrynovych was appointed as Justice Minister in the Kinakh Government. In the First Yanukovych Government (2002-2005) he was also Minister of Justice of Ukraine. After a short intermezzo as Deputy Chairman of the Board of "Ukrnafta" (2005-2006) Lavrynovych returned to national politics in August 2006 as First Deputy Minister of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine in the Second Yanukovych Government. But he soon moved to the post Minister of Justice of Ukraine again (from 1 November 2006 till 18 December 2007). In the 2007 parliamentary election he was elected Deputy of Ukraine for Party of Regions. From the dismissal of Arseniy Yatsenyuk till the election of Volodymyr Lytvyn as Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada, Oleksandr Lavrynovych assumed the position as acting chairman from November 12, 2008 till December 9, 2008. The Verkhovna Rada refused to include in its agenda an issue concerning dismissal of its first Vice Speaker Lavrynovych on November 17, 2009. Starting 11 March 2010 Lavrynovych became Justice Minister again. On 2 July he was elected as member of the Supreme Council of Justice of Ukraine. Olena Lukash replaced Lavrynovych as Justice Minister 2 days later. On April 10, 2014 Oleksandr Lavrynovych resigned from his position with Supreme Council of Justice. Since that time he is acting as legal expert and holds the position with the Board of Institute for Legal Society, Non-governmental organization.

On 13 July 2015 the Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office announced that Lavrynovych was suspected of embezzling public funds worth more than 8.5 million Hryvnia. It said these funds were used to finance foreign law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (USA) that helped to win the court case in the European Court of Human Rights by the State of Ukraine and at the same time "to conceal evidence of criminal violations of the law by Ukrainian state law enforcement agencies and the courts" during the 2011 trial of Yulia Tymoshenko.

In March 2016 Ukrainian court released Mr. Lavrynovych from any restrictions of Prosecutor's office.

Facts of the case
On September 15, 2017, Pechersk District Court decided on applying a measure of restraint to Оleksandr Lavrynovych in the form of a detention in custody for a term of 60 days pointing out the final date of November 2, 2017. He was arrested in the courtroom and sent to pretrial detention facility.

Oleksandr Lavrynovych is suspected of committing a criminal offense stipulated in Part 1 of Article 109 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (actions aimed at violent change or overthrow of the constitutional order or seizure of state power as well as conspiracy to carry out such actions).

The reason for such accusations was the publication of the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated September 30, 2010 No. 20-рп / 2010 on a case of constitutional petition of 252 people's deputies of Ukraine regarding the compliance of the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) with the Law of Ukraine "On Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine of December 8, 2004 № 2222-ІV (case on compliance with the procedure for amending the Constitution of Ukraine) in the Official Gazette of Ukraine - a state printed press that is in the management of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.

On September 30, 2010, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine repealed the Law of Ukraine on Amendments to the Constitution from 2004 and returned Ukraine to the Constitution from 1996. The decision of the Constitutional Court is subject to publication in all official press of Ukraine. The Official Gazette automatically published the Decision and the text of the current Constitution.

On July 14, 2010, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine received the constitutional petition of 252 people's deputies on the constitutionality of the Law "On Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine" of December 8, 2004. The deputies mentioned that the amendments to the Constitution were adopted with violation, although most of them voted for these amendments in 2004.
Absurdity of accusations
The Constitutional Court of Ukraine is the only body authorized to interpret the Basic Law and to establish other legislation in accordance with it. This was done in 2010 during the consideration of the constitutional petition of 252 people's deputies on the constitutionality of the Law of Ukraine "On Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine" dated from December 8, 2004. By its decision, the Constitutional Court overturned the 2004 political reform and reinstated the 1996 Constitution.

On October 1, 2010, the decision of the Constitutional Court came into force and was published in the Official Gazette of Ukraine, as it was requested by the Court, as it is an official publication in which full texts of laws, normative legal acts, including acts of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine are published.

The decision of the Constitutional Court is binding upon all authorities from the moment of its announcement, is final and can not be appealed. Therefore, the employees of the " Official Gazette of Ukraine " performed their work in accordance with their official duties. Moreover, Oleksandr Lavrynovych, who headed the Ministry of Justice at that time, did not give (and should not have given) any instructions on publication of the decision. Despite this, the Prosecutor General's Office believes that the consequence of the publication of the Constitutional Court decision was a "violent insurrection."
Read more
It should be noted that this decision of the Constitutional Court was approved by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) - Conclusion "On the Constitutional Situation in Ukraine" December 20, 2010 CDL-AD (2010).

This decision continues to be in force and is a component of Ukrainian legislation, and thousands of other legislative and regulatory acts have been adopted and continue to apply.

The absurdity of the accusations made by the General Prosecutor's Office lies in the fact that the accusations concerned only Oleksandr Lavrynovych. Instead, three judges who in 2010 adopted this decision of the Constitutional Court are still members of it. Several parliamentarians who appealed to the Constitutional Court in 2010, today remain deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. At the same time, the General Prosecutor's Office did not file any charges against them, indicating only one thing - the selectivity of justice in Ukraine.

Having decided upon the arrest of Oleksandr Lavrynovych, the Pechersk Court violated Ukrainian legislation, since this preventive punishment is applied only if the actions of the suspect are exclusively violent against the individual, that are a threat to society. However, after the publication of the decision of the Constitutional Court, neither was injured, nor received bodily injuries. Furthermore, the suspect did not hide from the investigation and has not left the borders of Ukraine since 2015.

Another violation of human rights is the statement by the prosecution party that Lavrynovych needs to be isolated, because he can influence over public opinion for the purpose of misinformation. Thus, in fact, the General Prosecutor's Office limited the freedom of speech in the country.

Oleksandr Lavrynovych is an active lawyer, therefore, according to the current legislation on suspicion, he was to be informed and handed in person by the Attorney General or his deputies. Instead, it was done by telephone, which in best case testifies to the unprofessional nature of the prosecution, and in the worst case - that the prosecutor's office acted deliberately and realizing the insignificance of the case, tried to prevent probable consequences for themselves.

Taking into account this fact, the National Association of Advocates of Ukraine requests the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine to submit information to the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations on the fact that the investigators of the GPO committed a criminal offense under article 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine handing out a suspicious message to Oleksandr Lavrynovych, a lawyer and former Minister of Justice of Ukraine.
State and public figures, lawyers and experts on the case of Lavrynovych
This is not the case of Lavrynovych, but Yanukovych. He was an inspiration figure and organizer of the seizure of power and benefited from it. Lavrynovych received an order and executed it, - says the former deputy 53-year-old Taras Chornovil.

The decision of the Constitutional Court on the return of the 1996 Basic Law has been under investigation since the spring of 2014. The case was opened by the prosecutor general Mr. Makhcnitskyi. Yarema closed it quietly. Shokin rerived again. It hung in the air. It is difficult to find fault with the judges. After the Constitutional Court, the Verkhovna Rada had to take a decision. And Yanukovych received usurpation powers. (22.09.2017)
Taras Chornovil
Former deputy
When it concerns such resonace cases around Yanukovych's environment, the issues of law and justice can diverge, says Denys Monastyrskyi, an expert lawyer at the Ukrainian Institute of the Future. Very often, the courts make lawful decisions, he says, but they are unfair decision, in terms of public expectation, he says. However, it also happens that National Anti-Corruption Bureau, police and the prosecutor's office are carrying out procedural acts that Ukrainians consider to be fair, but then they are found to be illegal, he adds.

Oleksandr Lavrynovych may repeat the path that another former justice minister, during the time of Yanukovych, Olena Lukash has already passed, suggests Monastyrskyii. "As for her, the proceedings were immediately instituted, she remained and went through all the interrogations. And finally her case collapsed and did not move further. In this case, it will probably be the same result, "- suggests Monastyrskyi. (21.09.2017)
Denys Monastyrskyi
Expert-Lawyer of the Ukrainian Institute of the Future
A member of " Opozicionnyi Blok " today and a deputy of "Regional party" in the past, Yuriy Pavlenko believes that Lavrynovych's involvement in the case - "the search for a whipping boy". The former justice minister did not run away and consistently co-operated with the investigation, says Pavlenko. "The decision on his arrest is solely an attempt to divert attention from the real problems of the investigation and an attempt to demonstrate its actions," Pavlenko says. (21.09.2017)
Yuriy Pavlenko
Член «Опозиційного блоку»
Igor Mosiychuk believes that the case of seizing power should be considered in a complex manner and bring to responsibility not only the executors, but also those who organized the usurpation of power. In particular, Mosiychuk, together with his party members, signed an appeal to the Prosecutor General with a call to bring the former head of the Presidential Administration, Serhiy Lyovochkin, to responsibility for a "constitutional coup."

"Liovochkin - is the main architect of this сase. When Lavrynovych serves time in prison, there is a question why Liovochkin is walking freely, that's all, "says Mosiychuk.

radiosvoboda (21.09.2017)
Igor Mosiychuk
Deputy from the "Radical Party"
During all those years he was living in Ukraine after the Revolution of Dignity, he was absolutely law-abiding person and he certainly has no influence on the investigation, the courts. I think that there was a fear that he would disappear, leave the country, but the house arrest may be used for this. (21.09.2017)
Oleksandr Martynenko
Political expert
"Why judges are not touched, because it's an anxiety to create precedents for punishment for those decisions that are necessary for the first person, namely, the president", - thinks Igor Lutsenko.

But the arrest of Lavrynovych and, in general, the fact that he is in the case of the seizure of power, the deputy calls " unexpected progress of the investigation". "Lavrynovych is not the central figure in this process. And even if now the courts have allowed all these processes around it, this is not a guarantee that we will achieve the truth in this process" adds Lutsenko. (21.09.2017)
Igor Lutsenko
Deputy from "Batkivshchyna" political party, activist of the Revolution of Dignity
In order to distract attention from the case of state treason - they came up with a case over the usurpation of power, but since the only one who is present in Ukraine today is Lavrynovych, he was pointedly arrested. (21.09.2017)
Kirill Molchanov
What Lavrynovych did, that he, so to speak, gave power to Yanukovych, it is very funny because it was absolutely impossible to do no matter which position he would occupy? The Constitutional Court, some other structures, state bodies carried on all this and all claims to them. I think that Yanukovych is far away, but Lavrynovych is near. He has to be "grabbed" and sent to prison. And it is just incredible that it is very easy to do this in our reality. (21.09.2017)
Ivan Drach
State and public figure, Ukrainian poet, translator, screenwriter, play writer, former people's deputy
I am convinced that Olexandr Lavrynovych needs to be provided with reliable protection, because it is a shame when such people are arrested! (20.09.2017)
Ivan Drach
State and public figure, Ukrainian poet, translator, screenwriter, play writer, former people's deputy
Для Украины очень важно иметь независимые суды - от президента, от прокуратуры, от коалиции и от оппозиции. Важно, чтобы была сформирована независимая судебная власть. Однако судебная реформа поставит суды в еще большую зависимость от президента. Этого ни в коем случае нельзя допустить», - отметил Вадим Новинский.

По его словам, пятничный суд над Александром Лавриновичем – пример того, как будут действовать украинские судьи в случае принятия судебной реформы.

«В минувшую пятницу решением суда Александр Лавринович был отправлен за решетку на два месяца. Все, кто присутствовал на заседании, видели, что у прокуратуры не было практически никаких аргументов, адвокаты разбили все обвинения. Но суд в итоге принял решение под давлением Администрации президента. Если мы хотим, чтобы подобные случаи стали нормой, должен быть принят этот закон. Тогда суды будут полностью зависимы от президентской вертикали власти», - отметил Вадим Новинский.
Вадим Новинський
Народний депутат від Опозиційного блоку
The decision of the Constitutional Court on the return of the 1996 Constitution has been under investigation from the spring of 2014. The case was opened by the Prosecutor General, Mr.Makhnitskyi. Then they were looking for ways to bring judges to responsibility without expressing any claims to Yanukovych or the Ministry of Justice. Yarema closed it quietly. Shokin rerived again. It hung in the air.

In fact, it's very difficult to find fault of the judges. Responsible people are those who exceeded their duties and in fact returned the Constitution. And this is, by no means, not the court itself, because it did not say to revive it. It only pointed that the amendments in 2004 were carried out illegally. After the trial, the decision was supposed to be adopted by the Verkhovna Rada, only this state institute could change the Constitution by 300 votes.

This is not the case of Lavrynovych, but Yanukovych. He was an inspiration figure, organizer and benefited from the seizure of power. Lavrynovych got the order and executed it. He officially published on behalf of the Ministry of Justice the text of the Basic Law of 1996 as valid. Signed it. And Yanukovych received usurpation powers by stroke of someone else's pen.

But Lavrynovych's case is simple, there is a legally defined crime. For him, salvation is very small. His lawyers can delay the process and re-qualify for professional negligence. It is possible that Lavrynovych will agree to cooperate with the investigation and will put blame on Yanukovych. Аlleging that there were terrible threats and he will be a victim. In this way, he can receive a suspended sentence. The second option he will be put into prison. (19.09.2017)
Taras Chornovil
Former deputy
Previous and today's governments are interconnected. Therefore, the one who is absolutely undesirable for the current leadership is to be found. This person became Lavrynovych, - says 61-year-old Oleksandr Kochetkov, a political analyst.

They will try to put Ex-Minister of Justic in jail. However, Lavrynovych is a high level professional, his son is a lawyer. Therefore, the probability of being behind the bars is 50/50. The case will be delayed. The members of the Constitutional Court involved are not touched, because people with tainted reputation are useful for current regime. Lavrynovych is considered a traitor in patriotic circles. In the early 1990's he was in "Narodnyi Rukh", later he joined Kuchma, and then collaborated with Yanukovych. Obviously, political technologists of the authorities believe that Ukrainians will welcome his punishment. (19.09.2017)
Alexander Kochetov
Political analyst
The authorities must demonstrate spectacles to people. "The process of the century" - the case over Yanukovych - has failed. Maidan case is delayed. Therefore, we need new topics, - says politologist, 52-year-old Andrii Zolotariov.

"Predecessors" have been pursued again, because Poroshenko is unable to put to prison any of his friends. (19.09.2017)
Andrii Zolotariov
I consider this situation as a critical constitutional conflict, which can also be called a constitutional coup. But this coup is not connected with the publication of the relevant decision of the Constitutional Court regarding the return of the 1996 Constitution in the official bulletin of the Ministry of Justice, "- commented Stavniychuk.

Thus, the expert explains that the essence of this constitutional coup is connected with the corresponding decision of the Constitutional Court, whose judges without explanations recognised the changes that were introduced into the Constitution in 2004 as unconstitutional.

"Judges of the Constitutional Court are not brought to justice because there is no possibility to fully investigate this case, or there is no political need to investigate the whole case. Indeed, now the Constitutional Court, like during previous government, demonstrates the same political expediency of its decisions and obedience to the government ", - said Stavniichuk. "There are various talks that Lavrynovych was, if not the main but one of the architects of such constitutional coup. It is also believed that those were precisely his proposals to the president Yanukovych in connection with the coup to take up the position of Minister of Justice. But gossips are gossips, however, when a criminal investigation is conducted, then there must be only factual circumstances. Therefore, it seems to me that today this case is absolutely politically intertwined, which reflects the legal mess that takes place in the country ", - summed up Maryna Stavniychuk. (18.09.2017)
Maryna Stavniichuk
Member of the Venice Commission
The case of Lavrynovych makes the judges of the Constitutional Court obedient, says lawyer Vladislav Golub. According to Mr Golub's version, many judges who decided to revive the Constitution 1996, still work in the Constitutional Court. With a criminal case against Lavrynovych the judges are made obedient. The lawyer also does not understand why the acting authorities repeat the same actions that were typical for the previous government.
Vladislav Golub
As an ombudsman I unfortunately can not interfere in the situation. I can not influence this process in any way. But as a person with legal education, I can say that, from my point of view, this accusation is absurd. Why in this situation there are some claims to the former justice minister who just gave an order to publish, is a big mystery to me. It sincerely grieves me to observe all of this. But, speaking from my position as an ombudsman, I can not intervene in this process. Because it is not stipulated by the law. (17.09.2017)
Valeriia Lutkovska
Human Rights ombudsman of Verkhovna Rada
These changes in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the arrest of Lavrynovych are deliberate, as part of an organized criminal group, a pre-planned crime committed by a group of people, aimed at unlawfully depriving of freedom an innocent person. (17.09.2017)
Andrii Portnov
Speaking about the Ex Minister of Justice, Mr Lavrynovych, there must be irrefutable evidence of his involvement in the constitutional coup. Without having the indictment of suspicion, it is rather difficult to talk about the prospects of this case.

Anyway, the announcement of suspicion is the stage of criminal prosecution, which obliges to conduct a full investigation. On the one hand, the investigation actually has been already completed. On the other hand - the lawyers of suspected people have the opportunity to examine carefully the alleged suspicion and start processing the line of defense and prepare for trial. Therefore, this is just the beginning of a legal contest, and we can only wait for it to end.

Of course, we are well aware of those past days and understand that the judges, in particular the judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, could not but be uninfluenced by that government. (17.09.2017)
Mykola Onishchuk
Former Minister of Justice, President of the Institute of Legal Policy, Doctor of Law
The blogger points out: the truth is that in the cell where Oleksandr Lavrynovych was sent to, there are clearly a few judges from the Constitutional Court are missing, who are de jure legalized the main criminal of the country, who was supported by 12,481,266 citizens of Ukraine in the elections in 2010. Andrii Kapustin notes that it is interesting that only 9,857,308 people voted for Poroshenko in the elections in 2014, which is 2,623,958 votes less. Yes, indeed, Crimea and SDDLR did not vote, but less by 2.5 million votes than Yanukovych, it's impressive.
Andrii Kapustin
Read more
Але ж ми не бачимо розслідування щодо тих людей, які безпосередньо приймали це рішення. Це судді Конституційного суду, багато з яких є діючими суддями КСУ. Чому в мене це викликає сумну посмішку, бо я десь розумію, що таким чином Конституційний суд стає «ручним». Тобто, показують – ось у нас є Лавринович, котрий заарештований, і якщо ви будете приймати будь-які рішення, які суперечать якісь нашій політичній позиції… (16.09.2017)
Владислав Голуб
Мне неясна фабула обвинения: причем тут решение КС, обнародование этого решения Минюстом и "измена родине" - обвинение, которое маячит за Лавриновичем? Сам этот термин имеет четкое определение, и там нужно доказать умысел: работал ли он на другую страну? Там совершенно четкие квалифицирующие признаки и состав преступления, - сказал "Вестям" экс-судья Конституционного суда, нардеп Василий Нимченко. (15.09.2017)
Василий Нимченко
Екс-суддя Конституційного суду, народний депутат
"Нам давно відомо про цю кримінальну справу. У рамках неї були допитані працівники Міністерства юстиції. Ми намагалися підняти всі документи того періоду, щоб допомогти слідству. Навіть я була на допиті в прокуратурі – намагалися пояснити, як ця процедура відбувається в міністерстві…", – сказала перший заступник міністра юстиції Наталія Севостьянова.

"З 2014 року проводився збір доказів. І пана Лавриновича допитували на окремому з етапів", – сказала Севостьянова.

Сама Севостьянова була на допиті один раз.

"Ми в той період не працювали і нам невідомо, що насправді відбувалося тоді в міністерстві, але ми роз'яснили саму процедуру того, як це відбувається, як заходять документи в Мін'юст, яка їх процедура", – сказала вона.

"Ми будемо дивитися, чи достатньо зібрано доказів прокуратурою, але справді такий факт відбувався: було змінено Конституцію. Суд буде давати оцінку всім доказам", – додала чинна заступниця міністерства юстиції.

Вона вважає, що Віктор Янукович спробував повернути собі повноваження Леоніда Кучми, – і "перспективи в цій справі є". (15.09.2017)
Наталія Севостьянова
Перший заступник міністра юстиції
«Пока моих дел в этом суде нет на рассмотрении. Я пришел морально поддержать Александра Владимировича», — подчеркнул Новинский, которого ГПУ подозревает в причастности к организации незаконного лишения свободы в течение 179 дней помощника митрополита Владимира архиепископа Александра Драбинко.

Также Новинский заявил, что подозрение, выдвинутое Лавриновичу, является политически мотивированным.

«Если бы было хоть что-то в этом деле, то это дело возбудили еще бы в 2014 году», — сказал депутат. (15.09.2017)
Вадим Новинський
Народний депутат від Опозиційного блоку
"У нас триває історія, коли борються зі старими і забувають про сьогоднішні. Люди вже втомилися від того, що бачать, як постійно затримують, постійно якісь судові процеси над старими чиновниками, які допомагали дійсно забезпечувати повноту влади і узурпацію влади президенту Януковичу, але сьогодні більше хвилює, що відбувається з сьогоднішнім президентом і сьогоднішньої узурпацією влади"- сказав Тарута.

За словами гостя програми, сьогодні оточення Порошенка намагається дати йому ті повноваження, які згідно з Конституцією він не має. (15.09.2017)
Сергій Тарута
Народний депутат
Прокуратура желает взятия под стражу Александра Лавриновича, - пишет Лукаш у себя в ФБ. - Слушала их аргументы и комментировать профессионально их не смогу. Тут нужен или санитар или экзорцист.

Разъясню в чем его "вина".
1. Он не бежал из страны, и с достоинством недоступным многим, защищал свое имя.
2. Скоро годовщина гос. переворота, и по прошествии более чем трех лет режиму отчитываться не о чем. Вот и назначен "виноватый".
3. Победных новостей у власти нет. Убито и проиграно абсолютно всё. В баржу и угли люди не верят. Им достаточно платежек и ценников, чтоб понять всю суть реформ.
4. Новости всё хуже, и нужно переключить внимание людей. Пусть "переключателем" будет Лавринович.
5. Ну а о таком "преступлении" как печать нормативно-правового акта во исполнение действующего решения суда... я вообще промолчу".
Олена Лукаш
Адвокат, екс-мініст юстиції України
"В 1992 году Вячеслав Чорновил поделился мыслями о федеративном устройстве Украины - сегодня эта тема в Украине находится под запретом. В начале 90-х сотрудником Чорновила был Руслан Коцаба. Сейчас его второй раз пытаются бросить за решетку. Заместителем и ближайшим соратником Чорновила был Александр Лавринович - сегодня его арестовали на 60 суток", - пишет Бондаренко.

"Интересно, такими темпами к юбилею Чорновила его памятник в Музейном переулке НЕ демонтируют случайно? От нашей власти всего можно ожидать", - резюмировал политолог.
Костянтин Бондаренко
Mr. President! You are either really a maniac or your card has been played by your "friends". Today you have thrown into prison a Ukrainian, one of the founders of "Narodnyi Rukh" of Ukraine, the founder of the state and the state structure of Ukraine, a co-author of the Constitution of Ukraine, a politician and a scientist. But, if you suddenly did not attach your hand to this event, then in this case, no one will surely believe you. After all, today these appointed by you prosecutors and intimidated judges have put my father in jail as if a dangerous criminal to the society.

Maksim Lavrynovych
Lawyer of Olexandr Lavrynovych
Member of the European Commission "For Democracy Through Law" (Venice Commission) in 2009 – 2013
Translated from


Operation "Publication". Concerning the latest views on the usurpation of power

On September 12, the UN Monitoring Mission announced that there was some progress in investigations into the killings of Maidan protesters and the tragedy in the Odesa trade union building.

Against this background, the General Prosecutor's Office is demonstrating high activity in its investigations into the cases with the so called political background. A list of the latest achievements also includes a "victory" in an investigation into a high-profile case of a constitutional coup, which investigation has been conducted since March 2014.
Read more
And now, more than three years later, it is a surprise! As far as is known, the ex-minister of justice and several former officials of the Ministry of Justice have been served with charges these days. Upon unthinkable efforts, investigators arrived at a shocking conclusion: the usurpation of power (this term means that the version of the 1996 Constitution, i.e. a presidential and parliamentary system of government is back) happened… through the publication of the text of the Constitution in the official journal of the ministry!

At that moment all people, who are experts in the matter, felt a cognitive dissonance, as, following this logic, charges could be brought, for instance, against meteorologists, who announced that it is raining, and are found guilty because it is raining!

In other words, leaving aside Yanukovych himself, members of his political team and judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, investigators focused on several officials that were in charge of publishing "a combat leaflet" at the ministry! Well done! I suggest that people, who bought an ink for the printing house, typed the text, and washed the floors, would be served with charges as well.

Now all jokes aside. We are witnesses to a selective, absolutely politically motivated investigation. It will probably be followed by selective justice, because the key potential figures of the "constitutional coup" are clearly let off the hook, while scapegoats are designated to be guilty. And all of this was launched amid much fanfare of the "Maidan demands". However, the Maidan did not demand to throw dust in the people's eyes.

While we can suspect that investigators cannot work efficiently in difficult situations involving killings, large numbers of facts and testimonies, this is not, however, the case in this situation, as in fact this story was characterized by a certain development logic, suggesting a direction to every reasonable investigator. It is true that we are dealing with a sophisticated puzzle where genuine mental facilities and professionalism are needed to put its pieces into place. And the fact that investigators chose an invented, unimportant, and deliberately politically motivated episode from a large picture of a sophisticated category of a constitutional conflict, does not point out to foolishness, but to an attempt to mislead the public.

Why there are bad habits

The historical background needs to be explained at first. Since the 1990s, Ukraine has been going through a complex constitutional process, which seems to never end. Since 2004, the Constitution has been a victim of political and legal games. And they are far from following the rules of a legal procedure set forth in Section 13 of the Constitution of Ukraine.

The 2004 political and legal consensus was found as a way out of a serious political crisis. But it was clear back then that the 2004 Constitution version was a political and legal solution reached by violating certain procedures. Furthermore, the constitutional process was still underway … However, everyone inside and outside the country hoped that this constitutional reform was an extraordinary case and that this case would put an end to all such processes.

However, afterwards Ukraine experienced new situations with regular constitutional reforms, each of which more and more pointed out to a further legal degradation. As a result, the state created a paradox: aiming at guaranteeing democracy, freedom, and rule of law, it drifted in a total disregard for the constitutional order of amending the constitutional law.

In 2010, the country witnessed a new crisis of the constitutional conflict when a judgment of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, after six years of the effect of the Constitution (2004 version), reinstated the pre-existing Constitution (1996 version). The 2014 reinstatement was characterized by a total disregard for the constitutional procedures as well. At first, the Constitution was reinstated under the Law "On Reinstatement of Certain Provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine"; a relevant regulation of the parliament was added a day later.

All three stories involving "development" and "reinstatement" of the Constitutional versions over the last 13 years are identical: to be honest, both the "old" and "new" regimes changed the Constitutional Law in an unconstitutional way. In 2010, under the "old" regime, the key fatal role was played by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine; in 2014 – by the parliament.

What is more, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, the President, and the parliament liked it so much that, without limiting themselves to facts of reinstatement of the Constitution versions, they went even further and meddled with the constitutional regulation of procedures for amending it. For example, the notorious "clinical" judgment of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine regarding an extraordinary next session: the Court actually answered: "Whenever you wish", having insolently replaced the constitutional procedure with political expediency!

These facts should be borne in mind to evaluate the background against which the aforementioned pre-trial investigation into the "constitutional coup" or, in a "new version", concerning the usurpation of state power, has been conducted for the third year in a row.

Crime or political responsibility?

Investigators may not ignore a direct and obvious, like the oak entry door of the General Prosecutor's Office, fact that the foundation of this "constitutional coup" was Judgment No. 20-rp/2010 of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU) dated September 30, 2010 in the case initiated by the constitutional inquiry of 252 members of parliament of Ukraine concerning the Ukrainian Constitution conformity (constitutionality) to Law of Ukraine No. 2222IV "On Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine" dated December 08, 2004 (compliance with the procedure for amending the Constitution of Ukraine). Therefore, it would sound logical if law enforcement officers considering the initiation of a criminal case involving the usurpation of power investigated the nature of this CCU judgment, its content and, what is more important, its legal consequences. Because this is the heart of the problem. And they should perform a legal evaluation of these aspects: were there elements of crime in the actions of all the participants in the constitutional consideration when this judgment was made or began?

But almost three years have passed. Based on the media information, it can be concluded that investigators tried to find out whether judges were influenced, whether members of parliament addressed the CCU according to the Constitution, whether they had other motives. Perhaps, they found out who came up with an ideology and scheme of cancelling the 2014 amendments, if any. Expert reporters wrote about it on the eve of the presidential election ( Obviously, they should have tried to find out whether there was a criminal conspiracy and whether there is the main element of an objective side of crime – seizure of state power or changes of the constitutional system as stipulated by article 109 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

However, in conclusion it is obvious that all of these aspects were not properly investigated. Or they were investigated without finding elements of crime. It appears that officers investigating this high-profile case have no idea of what a "constitutional system" means as well as its institutions, political and legal components, and what state power is. Time is needed to get through it all.

And all of a sudden – the beginning of a new political season. Sensations are wanted. "The country will plunge into an election campaign in about a year", said the President in its 2017 Speech. Rumor has it that, given the agenda of its August meetings, this campaign has already started for his team. The shadow political players do not lag behind with their plans, either. But this will be discussed later.

However, given the importance of this case and its impact on the future of our state, the issue must be clearly resolved. For the public, for investigators, for all those involved in the 2010 events. And for those who are in power today and rule from behind the curtains.

Some constitutionalists, experts in law directly involved in the constitutional process, analyzing the 2010 events leading to the 1996 Constitution reinstatement, back then, and not only after the Revolution of Dignity, believed that the CCU Judgment dated September 30, 2010 was a constitutional coup, a constitutional conflict.

However, there are certain specifics of this legal situation. If the criminal element in the actions of the CCU judges, plausible ideologists of the judgment, participants in its adoption procedure is proved, then criminal liability takes place.

If this element is not and cannot be proved, I beg your pardon, but there is just a constitutional conflict resulting in constitutional, political responsibility.

Themis, isn't she blind?

In both cases, a way out of this situation in a constitutional way should be found (this was the purpose of creating the Constitutional Assembly).

These are both legally and politically complicated, but solely possible and mutually exclusive legal options of getting out of the current constitutional conflict. There are no other options.

This CCU judgment gives grounds for a political and legal evaluation of the conduct of the CCU judges to be conducted by all those who nominated them: the President, the parliament, the judiciary. Given the legal consequences judges caused by their judgment, it is obvious that after the Revolution of Dignity they should have resigned. The parliament terminated the powers of certain judges. Others submitted their resignations to the acting President. But their resignations were not accepted and most judges involved in the constitutional proceedings still hold their positions. And, as we can see, the court works in conformity to the current "party policy". They are needed.

Conspiracy present

In order to forbear from disturbing the harmony at the loyal Constitutional Court and although the criminal element in the judges' actions will obviously be sought, the pre-trial investigation followed a different path. It is hard to state with full certainty, but it is quite likely that investigators showed their "artistic" talents in shaping the publication titled "Constitutional Affair" of one of the current judges of the CCU in Dzerkalo Tyzhnia in February 2014 (, which proposed a fantastic conspiracy version, according to which "… the judgment of the Constitutional Court dated September 30, 2010 should be declared null and void, i.e. the one that a priori could not give rise to any legal consequences as far as amendments to the Constitution are concerned". This conclusion is as follows: the heart of the problem consists in the "technical text replacement". Then the author gives a detailed analysis of who and why published the "substituted" text…

It turned out that the conduct of judges should not be investigated, the text of the CCU judgment should not be read, and the conclusions of the Venice Commission just as certain opinions of the CCU judges should be disregarded... It is much simpler to declare that only Mr. Yanukovych (who was a completely ignorant person, to say the least, when it comes to constitutional issues) and officials of the Ministry of Justice, who published the relevant text of the Constitution, were guilty! All other persons involved in the process are true angels, who still work for the benefit of Ukraine.

In deference to the author of the article, I would like to emphasize that, as an opinion of a researcher of criminal law and related sciences, this attitude could be passable in 2014. But investigators proved to be happy to stick to this unbelievable version. And the case was artificially simplified in an extremely sophisticated constitutional and legal area so that it got downplayed to a level of an investigation into the theft of a cell phone or a car. And "a matter of honor" for law enforcement agencies and "fulfillment of the Maidan demand" for their chiefs got a new inspiration and prompt prospects of becoming another "victory".

The urgent "solution" of the constitutional coup case, re-qualified into a case of the usurpation of state power, has political expediency behind it. However, this haste, the time and place when and where it occurred, make it appear as another soap bubble. Anyway, the "heart" of the Constitutional reform case in the form of the above CCU Judgment and its consequences is still there. Investigators and prosecutors may, of course, claim this judgment to be "null and void", but I wonder how they are going to explain it in court. How will they prove that it had no legal consequences, which means: the power was seized through, I beg your pardon, the release of the Official Bulletin of Ukraine.

Concerning "null" and legal consequences

In the meantime, investigators should have carefully analyzed the CCU judgment. In particular, its most important aspect, in which its legal quintessence and importance consist: the nature and legal consequences of the judgment. Below are short quotations of the key fragments (in the order positions were stated in the text).

Extracts from Clause 6 of the statement of reasons for the judgment:

"The Constitutional Court of Ukraine assumes that declaring Law No. 2222 unconstitutional due to violations of its consideration and adoption procedures means the reinstatement of the pre-existing legal contents of the Constitution of Ukraine, which were amended and removed by Law No. 2222".

"The Constitutional Court of Ukraine finds that the governmental authorities must immediately implement this Judgment by bringing the laws and regulations in line with the Constitution of Ukraine dated June 28, 1996, in the version effective before it was amended by Law No. 2222".

Clause 2 of the statement of reasons for the judgment:

"Law of Ukraine No. 2222-IV "On Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine" dated December 08, 2004 is declared to be unconstitutional, becomes null and void upon this Judgment adoption by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine".

Clause 4 of the statement of reasons for the judgment:

"The Judgment of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine is binding across Ukraine, final and may not be appealed against. The Judgment of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine is to be published in the "Bulletin of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine" and in other official journals of Ukraine".

These clauses alone (being regulatory just as the entire text of the judgment) are sufficient to understand their legal consequences and the time period they take effect.

It appears that the CCU Judgment text concerning its consequences was clearly realized by the CCU judges, who, according to article 64 of the older version of the law on this authority, added their individual opinions on that judgment.

By criticizing the inconsistency, contradiction, lack of any "clear legal attitude toward the legal consequences of declaring Law 2222 unconstitutional", quoting the above attitudes toward the CCU judgment, Judge V. Shyshkin writes: "Such wording absolutely points out to the position of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, according to which, once the Judgment is passed, the Ukrainian State is governed by all the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine adopted by the Verkhovna Rada (Supreme Council) of Ukraine (constitution developer) on June 28, 1996".

CCU Judge P. B. Stetsiuk emphasizes that the court's position is ill-grounded: "Unfounded is the position of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, according to which "Law No. 2222 invalidation due to violations of its consideration and adoption procedures means the reinstatement of the pre-existing legal contents of the Constitution of Ukraine, amended and removed by Law No. 2222".

Therefore, the two CCU Judges expressing their individual opinions, arguing against the CCU Judgment, gave their proposals, but relied on the CCU legal position that this judgment reinstates the Constitution of Ukraine dated June 28, 1996, effective before it was amended by Law of Ukraine No. 2222-IV "On Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine" dated December 08, 2004. Otherwise, they would have no reasons for challenging this legal position.

In my opinion, the so called automatic reinstatement of the text of the Constitution was implied.

The European Commission "For Democracy Through Law" (Venice Commission) took the most professional position. In its Opinion "On the Constitutional Situation in Ukraine" (20.12.2010 CDL-AD(2010)044), it clearly qualified the legal consequences of this CCU judgment. In particular, several clauses of the opinion cover the legal consequences of the CCU judgment. Let us quote literally just one of them, clause 40 of the opinion: "The main consequence of the 30 September Judgment of the Constitutional Court is the reinstatement of the pre-existing legal contents of the 1996 Constitution". Therefore, the Venice Commission critically analyzes the judgment, from a standpoint of European constitutionalism and, actually, the Constitution of Ukraine, but this is a fact: it recognizes it.

The text of the CCU judgment, the text of the individual opinions of the CCU Judges, the evaluation of the Venice Commission, Ukrainian experts, in particular, my (V. L. Musiyaka) opinion, and that of others, arrive at the key conclusion: the judgment of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine following the constitutional inquiry of 252 members of parliament of Ukraine concerning the conformity of the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) to Law of Ukraine No. 2222-IV "On Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine" dated December 08, 2004 (case considering compliance with the procedure for amending the Constitution of Ukraine) reinstates the Constitution pre-existing its amendments under Law of Ukraine No. 2222-IV.

Back then we disputed and criticized this judgment, but it was binding across Ukraine, final, and could not be appealed against. Despite all, it is effective at present as well.

Furthermore, with the situation being all that sophisticated and disputed, the CCU clarified what its actions meant, and obliged the governmental authorities to implement its judgment without delay.

Therefore, the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine immediately published, in its special issue of the bulleting titled the "Official Journal of Ukraine" dated October 01, 2010, the Judgment of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine following the constitutional inquiry of 252 members of parliament of Ukraine concerning the conformity of the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) to Law of Ukraine No. 2222-IV "On Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine" dated December 08, 2004 (case considering compliance with the procedure for amending the Constitution of Ukraine) and the automatically reinstated text of the Constitution of Ukraine dated June 28, 1996. Not a new version with new details, but in a way as stated by the CCU in its judgment.

On October 06, 2010, on the working day of the scheduled plenary session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine following the CCU judgment, the parliament adopted a decree "On Implementation of Judgment No. 20-rp/2010 of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated September 30, 2010 on the conformity of the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) to Law of Ukraine No. 2222-IV "On Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine" dated December 08, 2004", under which, for drafting amendments to the applicable laws, ordering it to immediately draft decisions of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine due to Judgment No. 20-rp/2010 of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated September 30, 2010, it had to draft, if necessary, a parliamentary address to the CCU requesting clarifications of the aforementioned judgment.

Neither the parliamentary majority not the opposition requested any clarifications. The situation was clear to everyone. They plunged into an active law-making process.

Therefore, a PR campaign of investigators, who bring charges for the usurpation of state power through the publication of the text of the Constitution of Ukraine in the official journal of the Ministry of Justice, appears legally impotent and is just not serious. At least as far as the official duties of people, who did not hold political positions, but were just officers of the ministry, are concerned.

New risks associated with the old topic

Most actions of today's statesmen are similar to those of their predecessors. So all those involved in the process – from the President to members of parliament and the General Prosecutor – should carefully read documents and seriously reflect on their doctrines, prospects and, once again, consequences!

Everything that was mentioned above is in fact half the trouble. Challenges of the latest constitutional process appear even more threatening to our society today. The content and the procedure are extremely important here.

Politicians have been recently squeezing out of their resources ideas of a referendum as a procedure for adopting the new Constitution of Ukraine. Perhaps, this problem of usurping state power is that primitive method, which will permit those behind the curtains of the Ukrainian politics to destroy again the country's Constitutional Law and the state as well. It turns out that we are so talentless and our state is such a fake one that power in it can be usurped even by the publishers of the text of one of the Constitution versions.

In the spring and summer of the 2014, the Russian Federation government already attempted to "stimulate" the Ukrainian constitutional process by calling to adopt the new Constitution of Ukraine through a referendum.

I would like that all the potential parties of the constitutional process learn their own lessons from the Ukrainian constitutional reforms and that we could keep on progressing in that important area in accordance with the European constitutionalism, in a way that would be democratic and legitimate in all respects. This is what the state has its parliament and president for.
05.10.2017 Maksim Lavrynovych: A Target of Political Persecution in Ukraine
Ukrainian News publish column of Maxim Lavrinovich, son of Alexander Lavrinovich, previous published by Politiko.

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address urges "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from earth." Americans did unite and made their country embraced the principles of democracy, freedom and justice.

29.09.2017 The court released the former Minister Lavrynovych from jail
The court of appeals has released from custody the ex-Minister of justice of Ukraine Oleksandr Lavrynovych, who was arrested in the case on "the constitutional coup of 2010", reports on Wednesday, the UNIAN news Agency.

27.09.2017 Court of Appeal releases from custody ex-justice minister Lavrynovych
The Kyiv Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv to take into custody former Minister of Justice Oleksandr Lavrynovych, an UNIAN correspondent reported from the courtroom. "The panel of judges ruled to satisfy Oleksandr Lavrynovych's appeal. The decision of the investigative judge of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv of September 15 shall be canceled," said in the ruling of the Court of Appeal.

27.09.2017 GPU Papariga about wkra visoko imort Vtech Lavrynovych
CEN-ustic Ministr of Ukraine Oleksandr Lavrynovych, yakogo vchora released iz SZO, Mauger vtekti z Krainy
About TSE saying the senior Prosecutor Genprokuratury Oleksii Donski, powders "Gromadsky radio".

He visloviv the perekonannya scho nadan attorney General's office dokazi schodo Lavrynovych patardzeuli pdsi through scho rsena Pecherskogo court little b date th Nadal.

"We are not disposable Pacelli NavNet risiko Vtech Lavrynovych. Especially given the fact scho tro pdoran for tsiy spraw vzhe flowed. I'm talking about Bogatirya Yanukovych. Rizik VTEC je duzhe visokiy", – Lavrynovych nagolovu.

27.09.2017 The appellate court reversed the decision to arrest Lavrynovych
The Kyiv court of appeals has dismissed the appeal of protection ex-the Minister of justice Oleksandr Lavrynovych for his arrest. The corresponding decision on Wednesday, the judge said Tatiana Rosik, reports UKRINFORM.

"The appeal counsel Lavrynovych to meet," said Rosic.

In comments to journalists after the meeting, Lavrynovych stated that he would comply with their procedural obligations in good faith.

The Prosecutor Janis Simonov told reporters that the prosecution was not satisfied with the decision of the court.

On 15 September the court arrested Lavrynovych until 2 November 2017.

27.09.2017 Kyiv's Appeals Court releases ex-Justice Minister Lavrynovych
Kyiv's Court of Appeals has satisfied a complaint of the lawyer of ex-Minister of Justice of Ukraine Oleksandr Lavrynovych and revoked the ruling passed by Kyiv's Pechersky district court, which ruled to arrest the minister for two months as a preventive measure.

The decision to release the minister from custody in the courtroom was taken on Sept.27, an Interfax-Ukraine correspondent has reported.

As reported, Kyiv's Pechersky district court on Sept. 15 ruled to keep Lavrynovych in pretrial custody Nov.2.

27.09.2017 Lavrynovych argues that Ukraine has a Constitution in edition of 1996
The ex-Minister of justice of Ukraine Alexander Lavrinovich insists that Ukraine has the text of the Constitution in the wording of June 28, 1996.

"From October 2010 in Ukraine there is only one text of the Constitution, adopted on 28 June 1996," he said on Wednesday, speaking during meeting of Appellate court of Kiev on consideration of the complaint of his lawyer for his arrest.

A. Lavrinovich noted that in 2010 the constitutional court of Ukraine took decision to cancel the amendments to the Constitution, which was implemented by Parliament in 2004 during the Orange revolution and this decision is still in force.

He also believes that the decision taken by the Verkhovna Rada in February 2014, a return to the Constitution 2004, was held with violation of procedures and legislation.

27.09.2017 Rechtsanwälte fordern die Freilassung des früheren Justizministers der Ukraine und geben an, dass die ihm zu Lasten gelegten Vorwürfe unbegründet sind
Kiew, Ukraine (ots/PRNewswire) - Die ukrainische NGO "Ukrainian Rule of Law Institute" (Ukrainisches Institut für Rechtsstaatlichkeit) verlangt im Rechtsfall des früheren Justizministers der Ukraine, Oleksandr Lavrynovych, von den ukrainischen Behörden die Einhaltung der rechtsstaatlichen Vorgaben und der Menschenrechte.

Oleksandr Lavrynovych wurde am 15. September auf Anordnung des Kiewer Amtsgerichts Pechersk festgenommen. Die Staatsanwaltschaft wirft ihm gewaltsame Machtübernahme vor, während das Gericht den Haftbefehl mit "einer rechtswidrigen Änderung der Verfassungsordnung" begründet hat.

27.09.2017 Lawyers Demand the Release of Former Ukrainian Justice Minister, Claiming Charges Against Him are Unfounded
Ukrainian NGO "Ukrainian Rule of Law Institute" demands the Ukrainian authorities follow the rule of law and respect human rights in case of the former Minister of Justice of Ukraine Oleksandr Lavrynovych.

Oleksandr Lavrynovych was detained on September 15 by Kyiv Pechersk District Court of Ukraine. The Prosecutors have accused him of forcible seizure of government, while the Court had ordered his arrest for "an illegal change of the constitutional order".

The charge refers to the events of 2010, when the Constitutional Court of Ukraine restored the Constitution of 1996, which increased the powers of the President Viktor Yanukovych.

Lavrynovych's attorneys have called his charges unfounded. He is accused of publishing the decision of the Constitutional Court in the official press and further implementing it, together with all other Ministries and public authorities. One of the grounds for immediate arrest by the state prosecutor was the possibility of Lavrynovych influencing general public by providing false information to mass-media.

26.09.2017 Protection of Lavrynovych will go to the ECHR
Protection ex-the Minister of justice of Ukraine Oleksandr Lavrynovych will appeal to the European court of human rights. Comments about this "UKRINFORM" said the lawyer of Lavrynovych Eugene sweet.

"Regardless of the decision of the court of Appeal, the rights of Lavrynovych broken. Therefore, the complaint in the European court of justice will be served anyway," said the defender.

On 6 September the General Prosecutor of Ukraine Yury Lutsenko reported that the ex-President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and Lavrynovych declared suspicion in seizing power through a constitutional coup in 2010.

Then the constitutional Court of Ukraine has returned the country to a presidential-parliamentary form of government, by extending the powers of the President. The court in closed session overturned the political reform of 2004, under the chairmanship of Anatoly Golovin has renewed the Constitution of 1996.

22.09.2017 Protection of Lavrynovych will appeal to the European court of human rights
Protection ex-the Minister of justice Oleksandr Lavrynovych will soon appeal to the European court for human rights regardless of the decision of the court of Appeal. This was announced by the lawyer of ex-Minister Evgeniy Solodko, reports UKRINFORM.

The decision of the Ukrainian court will be announced Wednesday, September 27.

"Regardless of the decision of the court of Appeal, the rights of Oleksandr Lavrynovych broken. Therefore, the complaint in the European court of justice will be served anyway," said the defender.

22.09.2017 Prosecutors will not seek the seizure of property Lavrynovych
The Prosecutor General's office will petition the court on imposition of arrest on property of the former Minister of justice Oleksandr Lavrynovych. This was announced by the representative of the state prosecution in this case Janis Simon, reports UKRINFORM.

"When Lavrynovych has committed a crime, part 1 of article 109 of the Criminal code did not provide punishment in the form of confiscation of property, so the result will not be submitting a petition to the court," he said.

Simonov added that the drainage changes at UCU was made in 2014, but since the crime was committed earlier, the investigation must take into account the previous edition of the code.
According to the Prosecutor, the now former Minister of justice is in lukianivka facility. Soon the Kyiv court of Appeals shall assign the hearing to consider the complaint of lawyers of the former Minister on the decision of Pechersky court about his arrest without the right of bail.

21.09.2017 Ex-Minister Lavrynovych Not To Give False Evidence Against Yanukovych's Entourage Even For Freedom
Former justice minister Oleksandr Lavrynovych does not intend to give false evidence against the entourage of former president Viktor Yanukovych in exchange for freedom and release from prosecution.

Maksym Lavrynovych, the son and lawyer of Oleksandr Lavrynovych, said this to Ukrainian News Agency during an interview. According to Maksym Lavrynovych, his father was proposed to give false evidence. Maksym Lavrynovych says his father will not yield to this.

21.09.2017 Yanukovych commented on the arrest of his colleague
The former President believes that the Ukrainian government is putting pressure on judges to accept those decisions.

Former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, now hiding in Russia, commented on the arrest of his colleague, the former Minister of justice Oleksandr Lavrynovych.

19.09.2017 Yanukovych justice minister arrested for alleged crime in 2010
Analyst: "The timing of Lavrynovych's arrest is suspicious as it comes just as the election campaign season is beginning."

KYIV, Sep 19, 2017 - Oleksandr Lavrynovych [pictured], the justice minister under former President Viktor Yanukovych, was ordered under arrest on Sept. 15 by a Kyiv district court for his role in the government's illegal amending of the Ukrainian constitution in 2010 to usurp power, Concorde Capital informed clients in an online advisory. Among those present for the hearing were influential MPs Vadim Novinsky and Oleksandr Vilkul of the Opposition Bloc, successor to the Party of Regions, which fell apart following the Euromaidan protest and Yanukovych's flight from Ukraine.

19.09.2017 Vadim Novinsky: Judicial reform will make the courts more dependet on the president
This was stated by MP from the OPPOSITION BLOC Vadim Novinsky in the corridors of the Verkhovna Rada on Tuesday, September 19.

"It is very important for Ukraine to have independent courts - from the president, the prosecutor's office, the coalition and the opposition. It is important the independent judiciary power to be formed. However, the judicial reform will make the courts more dependent from the president. This in any case should not be allowed," Vadim Novinsky said.

"Spin doctors, the authorities believe that the Ukrainians will respond positively to the punishment of Lavrynovych" – political scientist Alexander Kochetkov. Photo: UNIAN

The former Minister of justice Oleksandr Lavrynovych, can land you in jail. About it said political analyst Alexander Kochetkov.

"The authorities need predecessors, which allegedly is hard. Want a demonstration to show the fight against corruption.

But the previous and the current government are interrelated. Therefore it is necessary to find out who the current leadership is absolutely necessary. This was Lavrynovych. His situation is difficult – will try to plant.

Lavrynovych very professional lawyer and has a law firm, the probability that going to jail is 50: 50. Would prolong the case.

16.09.2017 Ukrainian Prosecutor Says Yanukovych's Justice Minister Detained On 'Coup' Charges
Ukraine's prosecutor-general has said that former pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych's justice minister has been detained over allegations that he participated in an illegal "coup d'etat" in 2010.

A court in Kyiv has placed Oleksandr Lavrynovych, 61, in provisional detention for 60 days, Ukrainian Prosecutor-General Yuriy Lutsenko said in a statement on September 15.
Lavrynovych is accused of having participated in a "coup d'etat" due to his role in pushing for the adoption of a controversial constitutional reform that increased the powers of the president.

15.09.2017 Lavrynovych commented on his arrest
Lavrynovych arrested for two months
The former head of the Ministry of justice considers himself a "soft target".

Former Minister of justice Oleksandr Lavrynovych believes that the current government, for example, want to show how the struggle against the old regime. He commented on the decision of Pechersky court in Kiev, which he made on Friday, 15 September, reports Ukrainian Pravda.

15.09.2017 El Tribunal arresta a Lavrynóvych por dos meses
El Tribunal de Kyiv eligió una medida cautelar para el ex ministro de Ucrania, Oleksandr Lavrynóvych, en forma de detención por un periodo de 60 días.
La decisión correspondiente fue anunciada el viernes por la juez Olesya Batryn, informa un corresponsal de Ukrinform.

"El tribunal dictaminó satisfacer la solicitud de medida cautelar en forma de detención por un periodo de 60 días", dijo Batryn.

15.09.2017 Pechersky Court of Kyiv arrested ex-Minister of Justice of Ukraine for two months
Kyiv: Pechersk District Court of Kyiv arrested the former Minister of Justice Alexander Lavrynovych for two months. This was reported by the press secretary of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine Larisa Sargan.

"The Pechersky court has chosen a measure of restraint to ex-Minister of Justice Alexander Lavrynovych in the form of detention for 60 days, until November 2," Sargan said.

15.09.2017 Court arrests ex-Minister of Justice Lavrynovych until Nov 2
Kyiv's Pechersky District Court has remanded former Justice Minister of Ukraine Oleksandr Lavrynovych to pretrial custody for 60 days.

The court made its ruling on Friday, September 15, satisfying a request by state prosecutors, who requested his arrest on charges of participating in the illegal seizure of state power in 2010.

16.09.2017 Ex-justice minister Lavrynovych arrested
The Pechersk rayon court ruled to detain ex-justice minister Oleksandr Lavrynovych for 60 days, bail excluded, Ukrinform reports Sept. 15.
Prosecutors charged Lavrynovych with the attempt to seize power in conspiracy with ex-president Viktor Yanukovych.
In 2010, by-passing Verkhovna Rada, they replaced the then Constitution with its earlier 1996 version that expanded Yanukovych's powers and curtailed those of the legislature and government.

15.09.2017 Court Orders Arrest Of Former Justice Minister Lavrynovych
The Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv has ordered detention as a measure of preventive punishment for Oleksandr Lavrynovych, the former justice minister, within the case on usurpation of powers by then president Viktor Yanukovych through illegal return of the Constitution of 1996 in 2010.

The court made this decision on Friday, Ukrainian News Agency reports.
The Pecherskyi District Court satisfied the motion of prosecutors.

15.09.2017 Court arrests former Justice Minister Lavrynovych for two months
The court has granted the request of the prosecutor's office and chose a restraint measure of 60 days arrest without a bail option for former Justice Minister of Yanukovych period Oleksandr Lavrynovych.

Censor.NET correspondent reported from the court.
The Pecherskyi district court of Kyiv has chosen a restraint measure of 60 days of arrest until Nov. 2 for former Justice Minister of Yanukovych period Oleksandr Lavrynovych.
No bail option has been provided by the court.

Lavrynovych & Partners Law Firm
Made on