On Aug. 1, Kyiv’s Pechersk Court demonstrated absolutely frank disregard for the norms of the Constitution, which specifies the rights and freedoms.

Two motions filed by our father and husband and his defenders were rejected by judges with arguments that directly contradict the Constitution of Ukraine. It is difficult to assume that judges are not aware of norms of Constitution, which means that they knowingly made illegal and unjust decision.

As the trial is public and open, keeping him in cage humiliates his dignity and honor like he is some kind of wild animal in zoo.

First of all, we mean the motion about not staying in cage during the trial. As the trial is public and open, keeping him in cage humiliates his dignity and honor like he is some kind of wild animal in zoo.

In motion it was legally and correctly proved that keeping in cage is violation of right on respect of human dignity (according to Article 28 of Constitution of Ukraine). Besides, the Constitution excludes any limitation of this right, even by law (because it would obviously be anti-constitutional).

The court rejected this motion referring to norm of some departmental document of Ministry of Interior.

Also we should pay an attention to the mocking, cynical comment of the prosecutor during discussing this motion. According to him, Ivashchenko is being kept in cage to ensure safety of his life and health!!!

The second motion concerned the change of preventive measure to Ivashchenko. It was based on the fact that he needs specialized medical treatment in hospital (it is written in medical report on the results of independent complex medical examination). Also the administration of detention center officially announced that there is no possibility for such treatment in detention center due to absence of neurological department and neurologist (our father has spine problems aggravated after long stay in prison gave negative complications to his feet).

We offer to your attention an extract from Kiyv Appeal court`s decision from July 5 that changed the preventive measure to Anatoliy Makarenk: [the former customs service head who was arrested in July 2010 on suspicion of abuse of office.]

“…Makarenko and Shepitko [the former deputy head of the Kyiv regional energy customs service office was arrested in July 2010 on suspicion of abuse of office, involving the same gas deals in which the state seized gas from RosUkrEnergo, only to have it returned after a Stockholm arbitration court ruling.] were dismissed from their positions, they gave testimony concerning the circumstances of the case, witnesses in the case were interrogated and the examination and other investigations aimed at gathering evidence were conducted. So, at present they cannot prevent the establishment of the truth of the case. Defendants Makarenko and Shepitko previously were never judged, they are positively characterized, have permanent residence in Kyiv. Makarenko has a number of promotions, awards, awarded by the honorary title – "Honored Economist of Ukraine," suffers from a disease for which treatment there is no specialist in prison … It was forbidden for Makarenko to leave Ukraine until the end of pre-trial investigation and trial of this case. Thus, there are no facts in case to believe that they can evade the investigation and trial or prevent the establishment of truth. The severity of crime which Makarenko and Shepitko are accused of, and that would be sufficient ground for a preventive measure in the form of custody during the pretrial investigation, at this point is not actual anymore, because their proper behavior and appearance in court can be achieved by a preventive measure not related to detention. Under such circumstances, the preventive measure to Makarenko and Shepitko should be changed from custody on sign ban on permanent residence."

These and other arguments in support of this court decision are almost entirely the same as those that were cited by lawyers of Valery Ivashchenko in their motion.

But the decision of the court headed by judge Serhiy Vovk is quite different. The motion was rejected, and what concerns the inability to ensure our father with necessary treatment in prison, instead of the obvious logical, fair, lawful and humane solution – to release Valery Ivashchenko on signature bail, (so he could get access to medical care), the court expressed the claims to prison administration about the lack of possibility to provide such treatment in prison.

It seems that Appeal court and Kyiv Pechersk court use different legislation. Or it`s better to say that one uses legislation and another someone`s unlawful instructions.

Thus, the Pechersk court as a public authority (Article 6 of the Constitution) declined to perform the main constitutional duty imposed by Article 3 of the Constitution of the Ukraine: to be responsible to the individuals for its activities and to ensure their rights and freedoms "in this case – the rights and freedoms of Valeriy Ivashchenko.

All of us: relatives, friends – everyone who supports Valeriy Ivashchenko and believes in his innocence, were struck and outraged by the decision of the court from Aug. 1 – illegal, unjust, unfair.

All of us: relatives, friends – everyone who supports Valeriy Ivashchenko and believes in his innocence, were struck and outraged by the decision of the court from Aug. 1 – illegal, unjust, unfair.

We were sure that the judicial review of these applications (broadcasted by media, including TV) and the decisions made by court would attract the attention of the Ukrainian parliament’s commissioner for human rights. Unfortunately, the lack of any response from this institution, designed to protect human rights in our country (and created for this purpose), confirmed the rightness of skepticism of our father about this organization, who did not want to refer to them again.

Perhaps it is more important for Nina Karpachova and her employees to tell the press about their concern for the rights of people than practically to help them. I declare so because Karpachova twice told reporters that during her visits the jail, she “got familiar with the conditions of Ivashchenko" and "heard Ivashchenko," although she had never personally done this – she just sent her subordinates. And two appeals of Valeriy Ivashchenko to her concerning a gross violation of his rights, and one from his wife, Valentina Ivashchenko, were even not answered, not to mention a real help.

Although the issues raised in these motions relate not only to Valeriy Ivashchenko – they indicate serious systemic, fundamental violations of human rights guaranteed by International Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and confirmed and guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine.

Valeria Ivashchenko is the daughter of former acting defense minister Valeriy Ivashchenko.