Wsiewołod Kniaziew, Prezes Sądu Najwyższego Ukrainy: „Wstyd mi za decyzję członków Naczelnej Rady Sądownictwa, którzy ustąpili dwa dni przed wojną” (ang.)


O sądownictwie w Ukrainie w warunkach wojennych, w renomowanym tygodniku Dzierkało Tyznia (Lustro Tygodnia) w rozmowie z redaktorką Inną Wiedernikową opowiedział prezes Sądu Najwyższego Ukrainy – Wsiewołod Kniaziew, który objął kierownictwo Sądu Najwyższego Ukrainy w grudniu 2021 r., a w lutym 2022 r. wydał zalecenia dotyczące działalności wymiaru sprawiedliwości w sytuacji wojennej.

Sądownictwo przystąpiło do wojny w kluczowym momencie reformy głównych organów sądownictwa. Obecnie wszystkie procesy reformowania Komisji Wysokich Kwalifikacji Sędziów (HQCJ) oraz Naczelnej Rady Sądownictwa (NRS) są zamrożone. Część uprawnień – nie określonych w Konstytucji – została przekazana Prezesowi Sądu Najwyższego. W rzeczywistości to on jest dziś uosobieniem władzy sądowniczej na Ukrainie i stabilność systemu w tych trudnych czasach zależy od sygnałów, jakie Wsiewołod Kniaziew daje wielotysięcznej armii sędziów.

Wywiad w wersji angielskiej opublikowany został na internetowej stronie Sądu Najwyższego Ukrainy


Court and War

— Mr. Kniaziev, if possible, outline very schematically how the judicial system was reformatted in the situation of war.

— The system has changed a lot. Sixty judges joined the Armed Forces or the Territorial Defence. Hundreds of court staff officials are at the front. Many judges – women with children – went to Western Ukraine or abroad. Gradually, they are returning, but the shelling of cities and the continuation of hostilities are slowing down this process very much. The husband of one judge recently tried to return to his house in Bucha and struck a mine.

Talking about the functioning of the judicial system, there are three main types of courts depending on the territories in which they are located. The first one is represented by the courts that are under occupation. It is impossible to administer justice there in any way. The Supreme Court has already made a number of decisions on changing the jurisdiction of cases considered in these courts. The second one is represented by the courts located in the territories where active hostilities are taking place. Everything happens differently there. Where the situation is critical, operational decisions to suspend the activity of courts are made by the assembly of judges, as well as territorial divisions of the State Judicial Administration. The third type is represented by the courts in the rear, the activities of which, in fact, have not changed.

There is a proactive map on the website of the Supreme Court, which indicates the types of territories. I hope that information about the launch of courts in the liberated by the Armed Forces regions will appear there soon.

During the war, the courts have considered 418,000 cases (as of 9.04.2022).

— Are there statistics on judges – „IDPs” and those who have gone abroad?

— To be honest, we do not have such statistics at the moment. As for the Supreme Court, several judges who were abroad at the time of the first phase of the war are now returning to the capital. The rest are already in Kyiv and consider cases.

Many judges of the first and second instances from the occupied territories, and often after the literal destruction of court buildings, left to Western Ukraine or abroad. We are now deciding to assign such judges to the courts located in the unoccupied territories and to which the cases of the occupied and destroyed courts have been transferred. As of today, we have started the process of temporary service trips of judges, starting their relocation to a new place of work.

— Do all courts work in Kyiv? If not, for what reasons? According to my information, there were no orders on changing the jurisdiction when the Deputy Head of the OPU with relevant competency, Andriy Smyrnov, in a recent interview called on the courts in the capital to finally start working.

— I think it’s a matter of wording that has not been understood quite correctly. The courts in Kyiv have worked and continue to work. Indeed, during the serious shelling of the capital, cases were not considered in open court. After all, a person from Bucha or Irpin, and even within Kyiv itself, could hardly come to the court hearing. However, in the normal course of the proceedings, issues related to the criminal process were considered – the continuation of sanctions, the application and change of precautionary measures, which was especially relevant for saboteurs and detained occupiers.

It is good that the current situation in Kyiv and the oblast contributes to the stabilization of the operation of courts. Meanwhile, in some courts of Kyiv oblast – in Bucha, Borodianka and other cities – it is currently impossible to restore justice administering due to the destruction or looting by the occupiers.

— Has the Supreme Court returned to its duties? Are you already in Kyiv?

— At the beginning of the war, the situation in the capital was very complicated and some judges of the Supreme Court actually took their families to safe territory. I also evacuated the family. However, in the second half of March, the Supreme Court began to resume its work, and in April it returned to its duties in full. I, as well as the Head of Staff of the Supreme Court, am in Kyiv and at work.

Since the buildings of the Supreme Court is a target for the aggressor, I decided that the judges and staff should be at work during reduced working week, taking turns performing their duties at home. We know about the sad story of the Commercial Court of Mykolaiv Oblast, which was situated in the building of the regional state administration: two employees of the staff were lost, one employee was wounded, a part of cases was destroyed.

During the war, the Supreme Court has issued more than one and a half thousand judgments. However, it is clear that pre-war productivity is unlikely to be achieved in the near future. Meanwhile, the flow of cases for a month and a half of war has decreased significantly. To the best of my knowledge, courts in whole Ukraine receive only ten percent of the pre-war number of cases.

— Is this a signal for you? As I understood, for Mr. Smyrnov it signified that the judicial system failed.

— If a person needs to apply to court, he will do it. Acceptance of correspondence at the post office did not stop for a day. Claims are accepted, distributed and considered to the extent possible, taking into account the safety of all litigants.

— Are they distributed manually or automatically?

— Of course, automatically. I am a supporter of democratic instruments in any, even the most difficult situation.

However, I will return to your question about whether the judiciary is coping. Most courts in Ukraine are in a relatively calm situation, their activities have not stopped for a single day. However, the flow of cases in these courts also decreased by 80-90 percent. Therefore, I do not agree with Mr. Smyrnov, who hinted that the judicial system is somehow not working. The reason is that there is a war. The focus of people’s attention is shifted to other things. There is no desire to argue on some minor issues, as for global affairs and issues where the law is violated, people are still applying to court. Other issues are left to „after the war”.

— Is it true that at the very beginning of the war, the strategic group of judges of the Supreme Court discussed the issue of returning to administration of justice „after the war”?

— No. Such a possibility was not discussed. It was only about the operational implementation of e-court for several categories of cases to ensure the safety of judges and litigants, as well as the remote administration of justice.

 Court and Judges

 — On Friday, the station in Kramatorsk was hit. Many people were killed and wounded. I will ask at once: were there judges among them?

— According to information at the moment, no.

— The situation in the South-East is critical. The evacuation of residents of four oblasts – Donetsk, Luhansk, Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk has been going on for the second week. Yesterday I talked to judges of Donetsk oblast and realized that there were problems. Despite the fact that you have given the most detailed and evaluated by human rights activists recommendations on how to act in case of approaching the front line. Who determines when the court should be evacuated? When and how to take cases out? And where, in general, should judges go, if Western Ukraine is already overcrowded?

— Here are some important questions. So take turns.

Unfortunately, in the first days of the war, the occupation of our territories was quite fast. In fact, this is a very difficult question. Firstly, how can we predict whether the city will be occupied? And secondly, understand correctly that the departure of the authorities is a very demotivating signal for citizens. This is a bad signal that you need to give up.

In other words, making decisions on the evacuation of judges, police, the Security Service of Ukraine, district and city administrations are very difficult decisions. And, according to the recommendations of the Supreme Court, they were to be made by court teams and territorial subdivisions of the State Judicial Administration in each specific community, given the current situation.

Meanwhile, the recommendations emphasize that saving the lives of judges and court staff officials is a priority. Each court has found and finds this difficult balance between professional duty and protection of one’s life. We already went through this with “DNR/LNR” in 2014. I know many chief justices who, until recently, issued judgments on the illegal actions of the occupiers in the occupied territories.

I cannot go out now and say: let us evacuate all courts just in case. This is probably the best solution from a security point of view. But worse – in terms of influencing the morale of people who continue to stay in these areas and protect them.

— And yet, where will the judges go, if they are evacuated from the South-East?

— We are in regular contact, the chief justices have all my recommendations. In case of evacuation, we have several options. The judiciary has rallied. Judges of Western Ukraine receive the families of colleagues at their homes. European judges’ associations, in particular those of Poland, Lithuania and Slovenia, help us a lot. They have housed many of our fellow judges — women and children. In addition, the Supreme Court has certain housing reserves (for 200-300 people) in quieter areas. We are also negotiating with the heads of universities whose dormitories are not full.

— And what about cases? What percentage is lost, and what is the threat?

— We practically did not manage to get cases out of the territories occupied at the very first stage of the war. Only due to the actions of the chief justices it was possible to take out documents on especially serious crimes and high-profile cases. Not everywhere, unfortunately. Moreover, we are talking about tens of thousands of cases, the removal of which requires a huge amount of transport. You know about the situation with the humanitarian corridors and when the Russians agreed them. Kramatorsk, by the way, was also declared as a corridor.

People should be taken out, not to mention cases …

Meanwhile, there are procedural mechanisms for reopening cases within the courts to which their jurisdiction has been transferred.

— Regarding quisling judges. Were there any cases, when judges in the occupied territories or in the combat zone issued illegal judgments after your order on changing the jurisdiction? If so, did you report this to law enforcement agencies?

— From the moment of adopting a decision on changing jurisdiction in a court, such court has no right to consider cases and adopt judgments. As far as I know, even if there have been such cases, it has happened solely due to the judges’ lack of understanding of the new realities and our recommendations. However, I am in touch 24 hours a day, and we correct and clarify all such errors in real time. As for the deliberately issued illegal judgments, I do not know about them at the moment.

— Mr. Smyrnov stated that the case of a judge who sided with the aggressor in Luhansk oblast had been documented. However, he opaquely hinted at many latent „bear lovers” in Ukrainian courts, including Kyiv. What are the mechanisms for identifying such judges, and what shall be done with them next? Only the HCJ may dismiss them, but we do not have it. Even if the SSU deals with quislings, this does not mean that they are deprived of their status.

— Today there are quislings in all law enforcement agencies and public authorities. Courts are not an exception. One case of treason is officially known. The judge and the head of staff in the occupied territory of Luhansk oblast conspired with representatives of the Russian Federation. As a result, a criminal case was opened under Article 111 on high treason. The investigation is underway. It is possible that several more individuals are being investigated.

In the meantime, according to my information, the vast majority of judges have left the occupied territories and are waiting to be transferred to other courts. As for your question about latent quislings, of course, it is not possible to read everyone’s thoughts. But, talking to judges of different levels, I feel that the majority have united in the desire to defend their country and work for it. Just like all over the country. Therefore, I still do not agree with the statements of the OPU representative. The crimes of the Putin regime are so obvious that most Ukrainians are reluctant to take on all this shame.

— There is a very fine line between the „honour of the regiment” protection and the need for a realistic assessment of the situation. In order to preserve our statehood. When it is absolutely clear that we are literally being destroyed. If you feel, so to speak, discomfort from the actions of a court or a judge, you may not dismiss him/her (due to the lack of the HCJ and HQCJ today no one may dismiss a judge), but you may transfer him/her to an inactive court and deprive access to the register?

— You have correctly identified the problem, which I see too. And it would be strange, if judges who are suspected and who have left the occupied territories have been given the opportunity to administer justice in other courts. Of course not. In this regard, the communication has been established with the SSU, which reports the necessary information and conducts a full inspection.

— Do you have data on how many judges have stayed in the occupied territories? And why?

— Such statistics are not kept. People were moving too fast and chaotically, and chief justices are literally keeping in touch in telephone mode. It is impossible to check exactly where everyone is.

Those who may be afraid of passing Russian checkpoints because of their status remain in the occupied territories. We have a case when a car of a judge of Chernihiv court, in which her whole family was, was shot right at the checkpoint. And some judges stay in touch and are waiting to be transferred to a new workplace.

— Human rights activists are currently very concerned about the closure of the register of judgments. Why should the whole register be closed, if it was possible to close the part concerning judges?

— The fact is that the occupiers gained access to the register in the occupied territories. In particular, to the electronic signatures of judges and passwords. In the situation of war, it is impossible to quickly understand where these signatures and passwords got, and whose ones exactly. We decided to close the register so as not to lose more. Information could simply be deleted, and the consequences for the economy and the rights of citizens, as well as for their lives and health, could be simply irreparable. Therefore, I believe that our actions were adequate to the situation.

Judges are now regaining full access to the register. They get it by their last names. We continue to register all judgments. This means that human rights defenders will receive all the information they are interested in after opening the register in a month or two. And let us not forget that the register contains complete information on the property and addresses of citizens, military units, defence facilities. A variety of cases has been considered.

— And yet, to put the matter on the risks from collaborators to rest and open a block of questions about the interaction of the judicial system with other branches of government,— the District Administrative Court of Kyiv (DACK). Putin made the decision on the attack in the fall, so the claim from Yanukovych in the District Administrative Court of Kyiv to declare illegal the Resolution Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (VRU) on his removal from power, filed in December 2021, is part of the operation to delegitimize the Ukrainian government. According to my information, the lawsuit miraculously got to Ablov, the Deputy of Vovk (all the judges almost went on vacation on the day of the „automatic” allocation). In case of a positive decision, we could have or can get two presidents. With all emerging consequences. However, Smyrnov stated officially, but without details, that the DACK was securely blocked. How is it blocked? Is it true?

— DACK has started to work and accepts the claims and renders judgments. Will it consider Yanukovych’s claim? I don’t think so. Because in the current conditions, even the most corrupt judges will not risk making such a decision as they will simply be raised on pitchforks. Meanwhile, realizing the importance of restoring administrative proceedings in Kyiv, I monitor the situation regarding this court on a daily basis.

— Vsevolod Serhiiovych, but the point is not whether you track it or not. The fact is that almost a year ago (!) a presidential decree was issued on the liquidation of the DACK. The point is that there is a corresponding draft law in the corresponding committee in the Parliament. In such case, what message do the authorities send to the judicial system? This is nonsense! And for a country at war, it is a case of high treason under Article 111. All that’s left is to fill in the last names. We could not assume that Putin would attack us. But he attacked.

What in the world is going on? Please explain it to the country, as the President of the Supreme Court.

— The situation with the DACK is a double-edged sword.

On the one hand, from NABU films, we know about the blatant corruption, as well as the actions of judges, which affect the decisions of the CCU and therefore the state security. And in order to put the matter to rest, exclusively political will is required.

On the other hand, from the outset I was opposed to the total liquidation of the DACK. The only correct solution is to limit its powers and cut off corrupt judges. For it is the section of jurisdiction of the highest state authorities that turns this court into a monopolist. And it is so with any group of judges. It’s not the first time this has happened.

Therefore, the distribution of powers between the various courts is a way out. And then it would not cause harm to the process of justice in this area. Since all this time we are talking about a judicial system where each court performs its function. Tens of thousands of cases of ordinary citizens may be „frozen” for an indefinite period in case of its liquidation.

— As a result, the beautiful political decision has not been implemented, and Vovk continues to administer „justice”. Are you personally one hundred percent committed to defending this position?

— In the subject committee, in addition to the draft law on the liquidation of the DACK, there is also a draft law on the transfer of some of its powers to the Supreme Court. And at some point, that’s a way out too. It is necessary to change only two sentences in the law in order to implement it.

Unfortunately, even with my current powers, I cannot influence the legislative branch of government. Yet once again, the SC is ready for the implementation of any of these laws, clearly indicating a more correct, in our opinion, stance.

The Court and the State

— Okay, let’s talk about the relations with the executive branch. The crisis always shows the most problematic areas in any system. Where is judicial system thin and where is it torn today?

— Nowadays, it is obvious that many procedures and processes do not correspond to modern realities. The first signals that many procedural rules need to be changed and simplified, of course, were given by the Covid. Eventually the war has pointed out the way. It concerns the use of information technologies while the case is under consideration. The issue, which has long been resolved in most of the developed countries of Europe and the world, is in its infancy here. On the course of the past four years, the electronic court has yet to be established by the relevant services. As a result, we find ourselves in a situation where it is physically impossible to reach the court, and there is essentially no electronic court.

The Supreme Court has drawn up an interim draft law in this regard, which makes remote hearings possible.

The big question is financing of courts. Allocated resources are very limited. And after the beginning of the war, even the allocated resources are being taken away. Don’t misunderstand: we are aware that money for the army is the main goal and top priority task. But today, the funding of postal correspondence is completely blocked for both the Supreme Court and the courts of first and second instance, which may cause the suspension of operation of any court. And this fact once again proves how important it is to introduce an electronic court. Both for the sake of access to justice and for budgetary savings.

— Who do you mean by the services responsible for the failure of the implementation of the electronic court system? Please be specific.

— Since I now see and control almost all processes in the judicial system, I can say that we are talking about specific units of the State Judicial Administration. Despite the huge amount of money — and it means hundreds of millions of hryvnias allocated for the entire previous period – the state could not reach even ten percent progress in this direction.

— I know that there were developments, and some elements of the system were even tested back in 2018. What has happened? Who is/is not currently helping you to set up an e-court system?

— I will not comment on the pre-war time, but as for the present: at the moment we are very actively cooperating with our Polish colleagues, who have recently switched to the electronic court format. Their system of court management is very similar to ours. Therefore, we are now working with them on the methodology. As for financial security, the issue is complex. Currently I conduct negotiations with a number of international organizations, including the EBRD, on this issue.

— And how much money should the West invest?

It is hard to say. This will become clear when we adopt the relevant amendments to the codes. The question is how deeply we will decide to delve into the e-court system. Either it will be rather fragmented and handle cases of a certain category or all cases will be considered electronically. Or only in those territories where war is being waged.

— Who are you discussing this issue with? What is general extent of organization of your communication with the heads of subject committees Serhii Ionushas and Andrii Kostin, as well as with the deputy head of the OPU Andrii Smyrnov? I’m not the first you are telling about this problem, am I?

— With the heads of parliamentary committees there is constant communication. Immediately after the conversation with you, I have a meeting with Andrii Kostin concerning the draft laws that need to be considered in the near future to optimize the functioning of the judicial system during the war. We are also working with Serhii Ionushas on amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code to ensure the consideration of cases related to war crimes. Communication is conducted on daily basis.

In the coming days, I will participate in a meeting of heads of factions, where I will also talk about the problems of the judicial system. We communicate with the OPU representative Andrii Smyrnov much less often, which is normal for a democratic country.

— Do the monomajority and the committee support the draft law mentioned by you and the ideas for the rapid implementation of the electronic court?

— So far, we do not agree on all issues, and there is currently no support from the Parliament for the implementation of remote hearings. Still, we will continue to engage in dialogue and defend our position.

I see. Just like with the DACK. Do you personally support full automation or partial automation?

— Full automation, as it is implemented in developed countries, is promising and positive in every respect (including anti-corruption). Nevertheless, it brings about questions of a completely different matter. While we argue about how to scan documents in the office, they have handed over first instance cases to artificial intelligence. At the same time, they answered the moral question of whether a person has the right to have his or her case reviewed by a person. Do you comprehend the size of the gap? Compared to these countries, we are simply at zero point.

However, we can now set a strategic goal and start moving in small steps. And to give the template cases (for example alimony and minor offenses) to the computer with the additional right to appeal to the judge in case of disagreement, thereby gradually reducing the expenditure of huge human and financial resources.

— The automation has been sorted out. And who are you negotiating with about the underfunding of the judicial system in general? With the government? Underfunding concerns primarily the staff of the courts? The problem was very acute before the war, when employees were dismissed on a massive scale because of their meagre salaries.  

— In fact, raising the issue of financing the staff of the judicial system, I understand perfectly well that during the war it is difficult and ungrateful to talk about money. But it is even more difficult not to talk about our main task: to preserve state institutions. The Court is one of the key ones. The situation is getting worse every day. The government withdrew UAH 1.5 billion from the aforementioned State Judicial Administration, which is about 12% of the annual salary fund. You have to either fire people or cut wages. The main risk here is that as a result, the judicial system will lose most of the qualified staff specialists.

Today, the salary of a court staff employee is lower than that of a supermarket cashier. Even though they are highly qualified civil servants, they take an oath, have certain restrictions and bear great responsibility. I would not like to permanently lose all of the intellectual potential. According to my information, about 10% of the staff employees are not ready to return to their workplaces.

Nowadays, all decisions about this are made by the government. We, for our part, are doing everything we can and looking forward to reciprocal steps.

— To continue the topic of optimizing the work of the courts in wartime: the aforementioned Smyrnov said that you can draw funds from the court fees.  And also, to use them to pay the salaries of the staff.

— I have already spoken on the subject of an objective reduction in the number of claims in the courts. If the number of claims filed is at the level of 10% of the pre-war norm, then the income to the budget is at the same level.

It is also worth explaining that Ukrainian courts are financed mainly from the budget and only partially (10%) from the court fees. But the situation in the developed countries is quite different. There, the courts are fully financed from the income from the court fees. However, in order for this mechanism to really work for us, it is necessary not only to make certain changes to the legislation, but also to significantly increase the rate of court fees. Each person, on average, goes to court once in their lifetime. To date, an appeal to the court costs him/her an average of UAH 200. Which is actually a very ridiculous amount to make a case for, pay for the Internet, use the information system, pay the salaries of judges, staff, security, etc.

Therefore, I am convinced that the court fee rate needs to be significantly increased. And the stakes were higher. They’ve been reduced in the last two years. Even though at higher rates, the demand for court services did not decrease.

At the same time, the increase in the court fee should not apply to preferential categories — pensioners, people with disabilities, single mothers, persons dismissed from their employment and others who are now completely exempt from this payment or pay the minimum fee.

If it is a commercial dispute or a dispute with a government body, then it is necessary to pay. Moreover, if the plaintiff wins the case, then under Ukrainian law the court fee is charged by the losing party. And it can also be a good incentive not to make unreasonable claims.

The Court and the Judiciary

— At the beginning of the war, two processes were launched in the judicial system: interviews for the positions of members of the High Council of Justice, as well as submission of documents for participation in the competitive selection to the High Qualifications Commission of Judges. Literally on the eve of the invasion, the members of the HCJ resigned. Selection has been stopped. As a result, there are no legitimate bodies of the judiciary in Ukraine — neither the HQCJ nor the HCJ. Some of the powers were transferred personally to the President of the Supreme Court. That is, you.

How does the judicial system cope with challenges, being essentially beheaded? No one can appoint, dismiss or bring to disciplinary liability a judge.

— That’s a big problem. Frankly, I was against the decision of the members of the HCJ to resign from their positions at such a critical moment for the state, just two days before the war. I voted against and persuaded everyone to stay and continue to work. I’m still ashamed of their decision.

— Right here you will be hated by stakeholders of judicial reform from NGOs. Explain why for you the nominal presence of the institution in the legal field is more important than its quality? More precisely, poor quality.

— Knowing the system from the inside, I have my own opinion about it. The vast majority of members of the HCJ are adequate and professional people. I do not have information about their income and expenses, as well as their property and travel. All this should be assessed by the Ethics Council of the HCJ with the participation of international experts, which was established during the reform.

— But you have information that these adequate people did not vote for the removal of the head of the DACK, Pavlo Vovk, from his duties.

— The thing is that personalities who pushed the council to such, in my opinion, deeply erroneous decisions had an influence in the HCJ. Without these people, it would be possible to keep the institution in working order while the Ethics Council would have been engaged in checking their aptitude and selecting new people. Not even a perfectly working institution at this stage is better than none at all.

— That is, you were for cutting off the rotten head both inside the HCJ and of the entire judicial system?

— Roughly speaking, yes. And this process has, in fact, already been carried out. The constitutional functions of the HCJ cannot be transferred to anyone. Because during martial law, it is not possible to amend the Constitution. We have a collaborator judge who needs to be prosecuted and later released. And now we are looking for an opportunity to make some delicate changes to the law to allow for the release and prosecution of collaborators. Non-release is also a direct signal from the system that everything is allowed. Do you understand?

That is what a working or a non-working institution means. That is, reform is a very subtle thing, where the primary concern is not only to change, but also not to cause harm in the pursuit of changes.

— What kind of judicial system should emerge from this war?

— There are three key points here.

Firstly, we have really entered the war at the peak of the reform of the higher bodies of the judiciary, which was objectively necessary. At the same time, let us not forget that in the background of the judicial system of Ukraine there are three million decisions that are made by courts annually and of which only 100 thousand reach the Supreme Court. This means that we have 2 million 900 thousand decisions that our citizens agree with and trust. And which are passed by our judges.

Yes, they are different, but the main negativity and corruption are focused on the level of decision-making regarding public authorities and large business, in so-called high-profile cases. At the same time (and we have already talked about this), there is often a lack of political will to solve these problems.

Secondly, the war is thousands of dead and a unified anguish for all. In addition, the great unity of the people and all branches of power is connected with the desire to defend their country. It is good in its purest form that cannot be overcome by any dictator.

Thirdly, if after everything that our country is going through, after everything that we feel when we see footages from Bucha, Mariupol, Kramatorsk, after everything that our children dream about after the end of the war, we will allow indifference, corruption, schemes and new „films” to appear again, then we will really lose our statehood. And then all of us aren’t worth a dime. Including the judiciary.

Дзеркало Тижня. 2022. 11 квітня


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Powiadom o
guest logo

Witryna wykorzystuje Akismet, aby ograniczyć spam. Dowiedz się więcej jak przetwarzane są dane komentarzy.

0 komentarzy
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments