10:43 04.08.2020

High Anti-Corruption Court issues 13 guilty verdicts, one not guilty for almost year of work – High Anti-Corruption Court's head

2 min read
High Anti-Corruption Court issues 13 guilty verdicts, one not guilty for almost year of work – High Anti-Corruption Court's head

For almost a year of operation, the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine has delivered 13 guilty verdicts, and now 172 criminal proceedings are under advisement, Head of the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine Olena Tanasevych said.

"Currently, some 172 criminal proceedings are under advisement on the merits of the charges brought against the High Anti-Corruption Court. For the vast majority of these proceedings, the court is at the stage of examining the evidence. From September 5, 2019 to the present, the court delivered 14 verdicts, namely, 13 guilty ones (seven of them on the basis of agreements on admission of guilt) and one non-guilty verdict," Tanasevych said in an exclusive interview with Interfax-Ukraine.

Speaking about the level of public confidence in the court, Tanasevych said that it "directly depends on the level of professionalism of judges, on the fairness and soundness of their decisions, on the modesty and restraint of judges in everyday life, on the culture of communication not only in the courtroom, but also in everyday life."

"To be a judge is a high honor, it is a lifestyle and a way of thinking," the court's head said.

She also said: "Unfortunately, in Ukrainian realities one can observe actions of purposeful discrediting of specific judges and the judiciary in general, or hear public criticism and sometimes outright lies and even swear words in the media or social networks."

According to Tanasevych, in order to create confidence in the activities of the High Anti-Corruption Court, a communications department was created, judges-speakers were elected, information on the consideration of cases is promptly submitted and online broadcasts of meetings are held.

"This large system of measures, in fact, is a forced step. However, it allows the court to cover its activities independently and resist distortion of information. I hope that this will allow moderate citizens to form an objective opinion about the activities of the court and will help maintain public confidence," she said.

Загрузка...
Завантаження...
AD
AD
AD
AD
Завантаження...
AD