Leonid KRAVCHUK: “It is so far premature to raise the question of the participation of candidates with an unspent conviction in elections”

It was reported the other day that the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) had already prepared its recommendations for the draft law on changes to the Constitution of Ukraine. The commission expects the Constitutional Assembly to take into account all the suggested corrections to bring the Ukrainian law a step closer to European standards. In particular, it is about whether convicted persons can take part in elections. Besides, European experts advise to revise the terms and procedure of gaining citizenship and to allow citizens of other countries to participate in the election campaign.

But the Ukrainian side took rather a dim view of the Europeans’ conclusions. For example, Justice Minister Olena Lukash told the BBC that a person with an unspent conviction has no right to run for the presidency because “a thorough analysis of the Constitution allows us to conclude that an individual who has been convicted or is serving a sentence will find it difficult or even impossible to become the head of state.” “It is a question of law application, which is clearly set out in the current law on presidential elections in Ukraine,” the minister concluded.

However, Article 103 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which is about criteria for presidential candidates, does not say at all that the candidate should not have been convicted for committing a crime. At the same time, the current law on the election of the president of Ukraine does have a provision that restricts the right of convicted persons to run for the presidency. This legal deadlock spotlights a number of problems in the Ukrainian law: the laws that contradict the Constitution of Ukraine, the need to additionally interpret the fundamental law’s provisions, discrepancies, and judicial precedents, which, after all, causes people to flout “the letter of the law.”

The Day discussed with Leonid M. Kravchuk, the first president of Ukraine, chairman of the Constitutional Assembly, whether it is realistic to introduce the amendments proposed by the Venice Commission (particularly those aimed at avoid the above-mentioned problems) into the Ukrainian law, whether the Constitutional Assembly will take into account the recommendations of international experts, and when we can expect the final draft concept of Constitutional changes to be made public.

Mr. Kravchuk, are the Venice Commission-proposed changes to the Ukrainian law reasonable, particularly as far as candidates with an unspent conviction are concerned?

“If we look at it through the prism of human rights, their interpretation, and common humanitarian and humane values, then we must, naturally, take into account and study this matter. But I cannot say exactly now to what extent we, Ukrainians, are prepared for this turn, with due account of our Soviet past, mental particularities, an outburst of crime, and many other factors. I am afraid that introducing a certain clause may create a situation when the court and its sentences will in fact lose their political importance and will be exclusively based on criminal liability. At least in this country, crime and politics are so closely intertwined that I, for example, cannot say for sure that there can be purely criminal cases. This tendency is especially noticeable in the cases of official, members of parliament, etc. Things are tangled and tied in a tight knot, so I think it is so far premature for us to raise the question of the participation of candidates with an unspent conviction – in the broad sense of the word – in elections.

“I know that some steps should be done in this direction, but, to answer this question in no uncertain terms, one must examine it very seriously. Therefore, when the Constitutional Assembly, including its commissions, working groups, and the organizational bureau, discusses the concept of changes to the Constitution of Ukraine somewhere in October, we will also pay attention to this matter in order to come to a clear-cut final conclusion against the backdrop of a broad-based debate. It is difficult for me to say now what this conclusion will be like, but we must undoubtedly examine, study, and take into account the situation which, as I have already noted, exists in Ukraine at a transitional stage. Yet it is only after a thorough study and analysis that we will be able to draw an overall conclusion.

“As for my personal opinion about this matter, I think we are so far unprepared, in a broad sense of the word, to examine it.”

What do you think about the Venice Commission’s advice that we should allow foreign citizens to take part in electioneering?

“I am against the participation of other countries’ citizens in our elections. My viewpoint on this is unambiguous. By doing so, we will only open Pandora’s box, which will result in nothing but all kinds of interference. Our neighbors, especially the too active ones, are bound to take advantage of this to directly interfere into our internal affairs.

“I am sure we have a sufficient number of our own laws, standards, and organizations that can regulate this process. There are some governmental bodies that control the overall situation, do not interfere or at least must not directly interfere, into this process. But I do not support allowing the electoral process to run counter to our national interests.”

The Venice Commission suggested that the Constitutional Assembly send it every proposal about changes to the fundamental law as soon as one has been drawn up. Is the assembly going to accept this suggestion?

“We have already accepted it. For example, we have preliminarily sent to the Venice Commission our draft law on legal procedure and the powers of judges. Besides, the Venice Commission chairman has also visited us. We made a deal at the level of the assembly, and the president of Ukraine supported us in this. Viktor Yanukovych also spoke to the Venice Commission’s leadership. I would also like to add that we preliminarily send our draft laws to the Venice Commission in order not to receive final conclusions but to take into account the tentative recommendations of European experts and then, after discussing them at the assembly, to adopt a final document that meets European standards. This is very important.”

What is on the Constitutional Assembly’s agenda now?

“We are on vacation now. But, speaking of the concrete results of our work, we have already discussed in the first reading the concept of changes to the Constitution and adopted certain documents which we have sent to all members of the Constitutional Assembly. We agreed to meet as soon as in the second half of October to finally adopt, after final        modifications, the concept of changes to the fundamental law. This means that Constitutional Assembly members are now chiefly busy working on the draft concept of changes to the Constitution. It is our main document to which I attach great importance. If we discuss all these matters as we planned and pass the final document, we will thus take a direct step to draw up the law on changes to the Constitution of Ukraine. After this we will submit it to the president of Ukraine, and he will, in line with his constitutional powers, forward this draft law to the Verkhovna Rada for adoption.”