Kuzmin, however, said that he
did not see the possibility for review of the convictions and imprisonment of
ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and ex-Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko.
Their release together with
an end to selective prosecutions of opposition figures remain the main
requirement for Ukraine’s leaders if the European Unio-Ukraine association agreement
is to be signed.
Kuzmin’s meeting with
analysts and representatives of law firms was organized by both the Ukrainian
Embassy in the United Kingdom and by a representative of Burson-Marsteller UK
This UK-based subsidiary states that its purpose is to “serve clients and
help them achieve their desired business results through Evidence-Based
communications.”
With respect to transparency,
it has the following to say:
“We undertake to be
transparent in all our professional contacts with external stakeholders. In
practice, this means we will identify our client in proactive external
professional contacts and materials produced or distributed for a client.”
“We will only work for
organisations that are prepared to uphold the values of transparency and
honesty in the course of our work for them.”
Transparency
It is not clear who is
footing the undoubtedly substantial bill for such opportunities for Kuzmin to
present the government’s position.
Ukraine’s Justice Ministry has just signed an agreement with the law firm Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates for services in the case of
Tymoshenko v. Ukraine. According to the explanation in the Public
Procurement Herald, 10.2 million UAH has been allocated from public funding “in
connection with the fact that the European Court of Human Rights in the case of
Tymoshenko v. Ukraine on May 31, 2012 and July 11, 2012 posed additional
questions.”
The ministry explained the
lack of a tender with many bidders as being because the same firm had already
provided services for the government. There is, however, no record of
that first contract in the Public Procurement Herald. Details of that
government-commissioned report on the first trial of Tymoshenko can be found here. The assessment given that report’s
objectivity and impartiality by Western countries and structures varied
markedly from the upbeat assertions on the Justice Ministry’s site.
There is no official
information as to who is paying for Burson-Marsteller UK. The firm promises to
“only work for organizations that are prepared to uphold the values of
transparency and honesty in the course of our work for them.”
The information is hardly
unimportant given that the Prosecutor General’s Office is not an elected
political body and should not be the mouthpiece for Ukraine’s leaders or its
courts.
Honesty
“We undertake never
knowingly to spread false or misleading information and to take reasonable care
to avoid doing so inadvertently. We also ask our clients to be honest with us and to never request
that we compromise our principles or the law.”
At the roundtable, Kuzmin
asserted that Ukraine’s authorities and he personally were working on
implementing the promises which Ukraine has given European institutions on
reforming national legislation and court proceedings.
He made much of the new
Criminal Procedure Code, saying that had it been in place, Tymoshenko and
Lutsenko would not have been in custody before the trial. He also claimed that
abuse of official position, together with other crimes not linked with violence
would not lead to terms of imprisonment.
He acknowledged “mistakes”
in the Tymoshenko trial and said that reforms to legislation would eventually
lead to some crimes for which officials have been imprisoned simply
disappearing from the Criminal Code.
Asked by Radio Svoboda if that meant that Tymoshenko and
Lutsenko would be released, he said no, that since sentences had come into
force, only a change in sentence, amnesty or pardon could free them. He
asserted that the trials and sentences in the Tymoshenko and Lutsenko cases had
overall complied with the procedural demands and laws current at the time.
He ignored the question
about selective justice.
There is no information as
to how the participants in this event were chosen, and nobody would even seem
to have pinned him down on, for example, selective justice and insisted on an
answer.
It was clearly not that
kind of occasion. In fact it would be good to find out just what kind of
occasion it was supposed to be and who the signatories to the contract for
services were. Given Burson Marsteller’s promises and apparent values, it
would seem appropriate for them to be upfront about what their “brand marketing
and corporate reputation” services entail.
Halya Coynash is a member of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
and her opinion can be found at http://khpg.org/index.php?id=1363784598.
