Stanislav Kravchenko, President of the Supreme Court. The Court should be audited

The Supreme Court has had a new chief justice for two weeks now. This is 56-year-old Stanislav Kravchenko, who previously headed the Criminal Cassation Court within the Supreme Court.

This would have been the case for at least few more years if not for the high-profile story of the detention of Vsevolod Kniaziev, who was then the President of the Supreme Court, by the officers of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine for a $2.7 million bribe on the evening of May 15. According to the investigation, the money was received in exchange for the decision adopted by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in the Ferrexpo case. The investigation is still looking into the possible role of other judges in this matter.

The Supreme Court's response to the incident was immediate. The plenum which convened the following afternoon voted to pass a motion of no confidence in Kniaziev which would terminate his powers. Just ten days later, on May 26, another plenum was held to elect a new head, at which Kravchenko received 108 votes out of 148 judges present.

During his interview for Ukrinform, the new chief justice described his plans to overcome the crisis of trust following the Supreme Court's "dark day"; under what conditions the court will review the judgment for which the bribe was allegedly given according to law enforcement officers; whether he intends to cooperate with the so-called "youth wing" of the court - former researchers, lawyers and first instance judges.

During the conversation, Kravchenko shares facts about cases against the Russian military and insists that after his ruling Heorhii Gongadze's killer, Pukach, did not escape.

THE ISSUE OF KNIAZIEV'S HEADING THE SUPREME COURT IS OVER FOR GOOD

- Mr. Kravchenko, after your election on May 26 as the President of the Supreme Court, you have not moved to the President's office in the Klovskyi Palace. Is it sealed by law enforcement? Are there still investigations going on there?

- As far as I know, the investigation there has already been completed. I haven't moved yet because of my current workload. But I will have to move, because the election of the President of the Criminal Cassation Court is scheduled for June 12 (previously, S. Kravchenko held the position of the President of the Criminal Cassation Court - ed.)

As for the office of the former President of the Supreme Court, it is a moral barrier. I am not sure that I will move to this particular office. Perhaps I'll find another one nearby.

- After discovering last year that the Vice-President of the Supreme Court, judge Lvov had a Russian passport and after the detention of the then chief judge Kniaziev for bribery, the credibility of the Supreme Court has reached a catastrophically low level. How are you going to solve the problem?

The case of Kniaziev shows that the actions of one judge can destroy the reputation and credibility of all judges.

- Unfortunately, I cannot contradict you. Five years of hard work by the entire team was wiped out in one day. No matter what I say about our achievements over the years, the blow is so strong that it is probably impossible to counter it. Each Supreme Court judge is personally responsible for the level of trust in the court. This case shows that the actions of one judge can destroy the reputation and credibility of all judges.

I can relate to the emotions of my colleagues who said that everyone should just get up and leave. However, this would paralyze the work of the cassation instance and lead to irreparable consequences in the protection of citizens' rights.

The actions of the Supreme Court were aimed at sending the following message: the court will cleanse itself and do everything necessary for this

Many important steps need to be taken to remedy the situation.

The first operative step was already taken on the day NABU and SAPO published information about "the receipt of undue benefits by the leadership of the Supreme Court", which stunned the judges. We immediately convened an extraordinary meeting of the Supreme Court plenum. And the very next day, on May 16, the plenum expressed no confidence in Vsevolod Kniaziev and prematurely terminated his presidential powers.

The Supreme Court not only declares but also demonstrates zero tolerance for corruption

All the actions of the Supreme Court were aimed at sending the following message: the court will cleanse itself and do everything necessary for this. At the same time, the Supreme Court not only declares but also demonstrates zero tolerance for corruption.

The second step is to elect the head of the court. In such a challenging situation, an institution cannot be left without a leader. Certainly, during the "transitional period" there was an acting President of the Supreme Court, but his powers are largely limited: he cannot participate in the work of the High Council of Justice and make decisions as a member of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.

- It was reported that several judges of the Supreme Court were found in possession of marked bills from the bribe money. What will the Supreme Court do when the NABU serves the judges with further notices of suspicion in this case?

- A meeting of judges or a plenum cannot remove judges from office. This power is vested in the High Council of Justice.

If the judges are served with notices of suspicion, the standard procedure for such cases will be to apply to the High Council of Justice for consent to keep the judges in custody, for the High Anti-Corruption Court to choose a preventive measure, and for the High Council of Justice to remove them from the administration of justice.

If this happens, I will convene a plenum to determine how we can assess the situation.

- Will the Supreme Court be reviewing the judgment in the Ferrexpo case, for which, according to the investigation, Kniaziev and lawyer Horetskyi received the bribe?

- One of the grounds for reviewing a court decision on the basis of exceptional circumstances is the establishment, by a court decision that has entered into force, of the guilt of the judge in committing the offence that led to issuing a court decision.

If such circumstances are established, the judgment may be reviewed.

- Will this take place after the decision of the Appeal Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court or of the Criminal Cassation Court within the Supreme Court, which is the last instance for NABU cases?

- Depending on when the verdict comes into force. In one case, the verdict of the court of first instance comes into force after the deadline for filing an appeal - within thirty days from the date of the verdict, if no such appeal was filed.

If an appeal is filed, the court decision, unless reversed, comes into force after the court of appeal, i.e. the Appeal Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court, makes its decision.

- There is a presumption of innocence in our country. At the meeting of the High Council of Justice, Kniaziev said that he had his own version of the events which he would announce later. Suppose the court acquits Kniaziev. Will he be able to return to work at the Supreme Court?

- There are two aspects here: legal and moral. The issue of Kniaziev's heading the Supreme Court is over for good. The plenum passed a motion of no confidence in him and prematurely terminated his powers. Regarding the work of a judge, I think there are integrity issues that will be addressed by the appropriate authorities.

AFTER THE MEASURE OF RESTRAINT WAS CHANGED, PUKACH DID NOT ESCAPE

- What motivated you to apply for the position of the President of the Supreme Court?

- In 2021, before the plenum that elected Kniaziev as the president of the court, the judges of the Criminal Cassation Court put forward a question at the meeting that I run for the post of President of the Supreme Court. I refused because I believed that my task was to organize the work of the Criminal Cassation Court. A lot of work had been done, and I wanted to complete it. That would have been the case if this event had not happened.

On May 24, 2023, during a meeting of the judges of the Criminal Cassation Court, they nominated me again, and I could not simply look them in the eye and say that I would not run under such circumstances.

After the information about my candidacy for the post of the Supreme Court President appeared in some media and social networks, there were reports about my lack of integrity due to the negative opinion of the Public Integrity Council (PIC), about undeclared 9 hectares of land, and other issues...

Clearly, the mere existence of a PIC opinion that a judicial candidate does not meet the criteria of integrity and professional ethics is already a negative factor. However, this opinion is also a signal for the relevant authorities to thoroughly investigate it. If the information is not confirmed, it is possible to override the opinion by 11 votes of the members of the High Qualification Commission of Judges.

Today, the activists refer to the PIC's negative opinion on me, but for some reason they do not say that I have provided my explanations. Back in May 2017, I disagreed with the opinion and took the opportunity to file an appeal. I addressed the PIC with the relevant explanations and asked it for review. So far, I have not received a reply.

I also provided a full explanation regarding the PIC's opinion during the meeting of the High Qualification Commission of Judges.

As a result, this opinion was overruled by the HQCJ. The High Council of Justice also reviewed it all and recommended that I be appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court. In November 2017, the President signed a decree on my appointment, and the judges of the court elected me as the President of the Criminal Cassation Court.

- In addition to the negative opinion of the PIC, you are accused of issuing a ruling by a panel of judges of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, according to which the measure of restraint for Heorhii Gongadze's murderer, Pukach, was changed to a non-custodial measure. After that, he fled and hid from the investigation until 2009, when he was detained by the Security Service of Ukraine. Was there any influence on the judges in this case? What do you have to say about this?

- Twenty years ago, when the Pukach case was being investigated, it was my first year working at the Kyiv Court of Appeal. I was a member of the panel, but I did not chair or report on the case. The panel was reviewing the decision to impose a measure of restraint on Pukach, who was being held in custody.

I would like to emphasize here that Pukach was not charged with murder at the time, as the media reported, but with ordering to destroy certain documents that probably confirmed or indicated that the Internal Affairs Ministry officers had been conducting surveillance of Gongadze.

The court analyzed all the evidence presented and, taking into account the case law of the ECHR, which has repeatedly pointed out that such a measure of restraint as detention is unreasonable, changed the measure of restraint to an undertaking not to leave.

There was no influence on the judges, the decision was taken in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of 1960 in force at the time.

After the measure of restraint was changed, Pukach did not escape. On the contrary. He went to court and appealed the decision on opening a criminal case, and his appeal was upheld. The case against him was dismissed on the basis of this decision, which was upheld on appeal and in cassation.

A few months later, Pukach was charged again, with murder. And then he was put on the wanted list.

I did not hear this case, so some media outlets are giving somewhat distorted information in this regard.

- How are you going to find common ground with the so-called "youth wing" of the Supreme Court - former researchers, lawyers, and first-instance judges who became judges as a result of the 2016 reform and competitive selection? In particular, they are Olena Kibenko and Ivan Mishchenko, who was one of the candidates for the post of the Supreme Court President. Do you think their ideas for the development of the court could potentially be implemented?

- There are plenty of former researchers and lawyers in the Criminal Cassation Court, but I have never divided judges into "wings".

Ivan Mishchenko and Olena Kibenko work in commercial jurisdiction, and we have hardly ever crossed paths before. Not long ago, however, Ivan Mishchenko asked for help in organising work on legislation in the military sphere, and I have not refused him and will not refuse him in the future.

In terms of judges' cooperation, I would like to draw attention to the fact that, according to the Law "On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges", all organisational issues are developed and adopted by the meetings of cassation courts, and then the Supreme Court enforces the will enshrined in these meetings.

That is why if all the teams of the cassation courts work for the benefit of the Supreme Court, there will be no resistance.

In general, judges are very busy people and do not always want to do anything else but hear cases, so I think we need to protect and support proactive people who are trying to improve the work of the Supreme Court.

- Let's talk about judges' apartments. You partially answered the question after the plenum at which you were elected President. But some judges have been talking about getting apartments for years. This issue was raised at the plenum when Kniaziev was elected President, and now, as far as we know, it was discussed at a meeting of the Criminal Cassation Court, which nominated you as a candidate for the post of President. What is wrong with our judges that they raise this issue even in times of war with salaries of UAH 300,000?

We can't give apartments to the judges, I can't promise something that doesn't exist in nature

- One of the judges of the Criminal Cassation Court raised a general question about the social protection of judges, but no specific reference was made to housing.

This issue was raised at a meeting of the Administrative Cassation Court. One of the judges had a question about the provision of housing. I replied that the law stipulates that judges are to be provided with official housing, that the law has to be implemented and that we cannot ignore it. But we have to take into account the realities of life: martial law, financial and economic opportunities.

We can't give apartments to the judges, I can't promise something that doesn't exist in nature.

- Is there anything new you are planning to introduce while in office?

The results of the audit will undoubtedly lead to innovations that will affect the Court's activities

- First of all, you have to look at the situation in general, make an audit to see the whole picture of the activities of the Supreme Court, because before that I had only seen the direction of the work of the Criminal Cassation Court.

To this end, the Chief of Staff has been appointed on my initiative to begin this work, as the term of the previous Chief of Staff ended in March 2023. The first Deputy Chief of Staff was also appointed, a position previously vacant in the Supreme Court.

I hope that the lack of stability in the administration of the court that we have been experiencing for the last three months will finally come to an end and the court will work as efficiently as before.

It is also necessary to elect the President of the Criminal Cassation Court.

The results of the audit will undoubtedly lead to innovations that will affect the Court's activities. All these changes will be discussed with the judges and are aimed at improving the efficiency of the Supreme Court and restoring confidence in the institution.

- Have you met with the President or anyone from the President's Office?

- There were no meetings with the President, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada or anyone else. I didn't take the initiative, and neither did they.

- Did you contact the former President of the Supreme Court, Valentyna Danishevska?

- We spoke on the phone, and she is also very concerned about the situation. This is our common pain.

I SUPPORT THE PARLIAMENT'S RATIFICATION OF THE ROME STATUTE

- As you used to head the Criminal Cassation Court, I would like to ask you about the state of play in the courts regarding the conviction of Russian military personnel for war crimes. How many of these cases have been considered by the Ukrainian courts and how many sentences have been passed?

- We more broadly refer to these crimes as war crimes, although they are divided into the crime of aggression, genocide, waging and conducting an aggressive war, and violation of the laws and customs of war. This category of cases is very large, but only the first cases are currently being brought before the court of cassation.

According to the Prosecutor General's Office, more than 90,000 war crimes have been registered.

In terms of case processing, as of May 29 this year, the courts received 1,050 criminal proceedings for criminal offences against peace, human security and international law and order.

Of these, 15 cases are related to war propaganda. To date, the courts have already considered 13 proceedings.

There were 770 cases of justification and denial of Russia's armed aggression against Ukraine. More than half of the cases - 582 - have already been adjudicated by the courts.

When it comes to violations of the laws and customs of war, the dynamic is somewhat lower. We have received 114 such cases, and the courts have heard 34 so far.

Three cases have been filed for the planning, preparation, unleashing and waging of an aggressive war. None of them has yet been decided. There are 5 cases, 3 of which have been decided, on the issue of mercenarism.

The courts also have one pending case each on ecocide and genocide.

- Not long ago, in an interview for Ukrinform, former International Criminal Court judge Howard Morrison said that 90 Ukrainian judges had been trained in the UK, where they learned international standards for trying war criminals. In fact, Morrison oversaw this process. What is the result?

It is necessary to ensure the development of consistent approaches to the pre-trial investigation and trial of war-related criminal proceedings

- We met with Howard Morrison about a year ago. It is always easier for judges to talk to each other. And I am very grateful to international organisations for supporting us and organising training for Ukrainian judges. However, it was not in the UK, but in Warsaw. The judges have returned to their courts and are at work.

One of the most important issues at present is to ensure the unity of case law on criminal proceedings related to war crimes at the national level, harmonizing it with international practice. Therefore, during the training, it was important for us to coordinate our steps to ensure that we were moving in the right direction in terms of applying international practice. Our priority is to review criminal proceedings for war crimes, and it is one of the main topics for training. This work has been going on since the beginning of the war.

We also need to ensure the development of consistent approaches to the pre-trial investigation and trial of war-related criminal proceedings. To this end, prosecutors, investigators and judges should be trained to the same standards in order to develop a common understanding of the substantive and procedural rules of criminal procedure.

We need all of this for the world to see the decisions of Ukrainian courts in war crimes cases as fair.

- Does the Supreme Court cooperate with the International Criminal Court on the issue of Russian war crimes? In theory, they will deal with cases involving the Russian leadership, while the rest should be dealt with by Ukrainian courts...

- In March 2023, the priorities for international cooperation of the Supreme Court were announced at the United for Justice International Conference. One of the points was cooperation with the International Criminal Court. As a criminal law specialist, I wondered what it would look like. There is no doubt that we are ready for the cooperation and will do everything possible in this direction. But we must have an understanding of what the International Criminal Court is, what the Rome Statute is, which Ukraine, by the way, has not yet ratified.

And if we are in favour of active cooperation with the ICC, then there is the question of ratifying the Rome Statute. I support the Parliament's ratification of the Rome Statute.

Alla Shershen, Kyiv

Photo by Yevhen Kotenko

Ukrinform. 09.06.2023

URL: https://cutt.ly/WwemEdvb