An exclusive interview of President of the Council of Europe's Venice Commission (VC) Gianni Buquicchio with the Interfax-Ukraine News Agency Q. What is your general assessment of cooperation with Ukraine? Where do you see problems, and what arepossible ways to solve them? A: First of all, I would like to say that we have had very good cooperation with Ukraine for a very long time. The VC is very well known in Ukraine, and we have a lot of partners in your country. Even during his speech in New York at the General Assembly of the UN, President Viktor Yanukovych stressed the importance of cooperation with the VC. So the cooperation is good and very comprehensive. Today the cooperation is little bit less intense because of the election campaign, but I'm sure that immediately after the elections cooperation will go back to what it was in the past. Following the elections we expect to cooperate very closely with the Constitutional Assembly. Their work is very important. I've been informed that there are already some results, but these results must be confirmed soon, and as Venice Commission we would like be involved in this process. I hope that quick progress can be made, especially to strengthen the independence of the judiciary and local government. These seem to us to be the most urgent reforms. There are, however, problems as regards to the implementation of the Venice Commission's recommendations. As an example, some of the aspects of the judicial reform undertaken seem to us problematic, and there has not yet been a serious reform of the public prosecution system. Q. Coming back to the Constitutional Assembly and Constitutional reform, do you think it is wise just to make some amendment to the already existing Constitution or does it make sense to completely rewrite this important document? A: I don't thing it is necessary to write a new Constitution. A new Constitution can be written in very special, or I would say, even exceptional cases – after a revolution or after any other important and historic political changes. This is not the case in Ukraine. I always say for a long time that most Ukrainian problems can be solved by a revision of the present Constitution. I call on the Ukrainian authorities and the president to intensify this process. I remember that I met the Ukrainian president here in Strasbourg a few months after his election. He told me that he agreed with me on the necessity to revise the Constitution, but at that time he feared that the number of votes in the Verkhovna Rada would not be enough in order to push through a revision. Now the situation has changed, the Constitution Assembly was established and the work is in progress. Of course, we have to wait for the results of the election, but I hope that all political forces in the new parliament (whatever the results of the election) can understand the importance of a constitutional revision in order to improve many spheres, particular the sphere of the judiciary, local government and the Public Prosecutor's Office. These are urgent questions. The reform of the Public Prosecutor's Office in Ukraine for us is also an old problem, because for quite a long time we are telling the Ukrainian authorities to revise the public prosecution system and bring it more into conformity with European standards. You have to get rid of the Soviet concept of the Public Prosecutor's Office and to create a modern Public Prosecutor's Office like in other European countries. This is one of the most important things. The same for judicial reform. I'm talking about the reform of the judiciary that was adopted last year. It was not a good reform, because some elements of the judiciary cannot be changed without changes in the Constitution. You see where there is an interconnection. Concluding on this topic I don't see any need to have a new Constitution because in the present Constitution you also have good things, but it is important to revise the Constitution where necessarily. Q. You mentioned the Public Prosecutor's Office. In this regards I would like to know if the VC made an assessment of the law on amending the law on the Public Prosecutor's Office? What is the conclusion? A: Unfortunately, and this is surprising to me, because President Yanukovych told me some months ago that all the most important laws would be submitted to VC, this law was not submitted to us, we were not involved in the law and this also was criticized by the EU. And that's a pity. We don't know the law, but I fear that this reform is purely cosmetic and does not change much. We were, however, told that the Venice Commission would be consulted on a second, more comprehensive, reform law. The Venice Commission will adopt, at the request of PACE, an opinion on a draft law changing the law on the prosecution service that was prepared by the National Commission for Strengthening Democracy and the Rule of Law under the President of Ukraine. Since this opinion is not yet adopted, I cannot go into any details, but it is clear that the adoption of this draft would be an important step forward. Q: Will you contact Ukrainian authorities about this issue? A: We don't take any initiatives, we are there and waiting for calls. When a country needs us – we go. We cannot say to the Ukrainians "I want to examine or to give an opinion on this and that law." It's up to the Ukrainian authorities to ask us what they want. Also PACE can ask the VC to give an opinion on a specific law in a specific country. For instance the PACE asked the opinion of the VC on the law on freedom of assembly, prepared by the National Commission for Democracy. And we gave an opinion on that draft law that was fairly positive. But there is another draft law that we have not examined unfortunately… Q: Can you specify the other bill you have not examined? A: There is a request to examine a new draft law on the freedom of assembly prepared in the Verkhovna Rada. The request came from a committee of the Rada. But following our procedures the request has to come from the speaker, from Mr. Volodymyr Lytvyn. Most probably Mr. Lytvyn will ask for the opinion of the VC on this draft. Q: You mean this request was not according to procedure? A: Yes, exactly. Only a concerned body can ask for an opinion. We cannot give an opinion to a committee of parliament, we can accept request from state institutions – ministries, the president, the Verkhovna Rada and its chairman or the Constitutional Court and the Prosecutor General. This is not an uncommon situation. In many counties, I have to say, they do not know exactly our practice and our procedures. Q. A question about the language law… Did the VC make second assessment of the language law after the vote? A: No. The Ukrainian side did not ask the VC to give an opinion on the adopted law. We gave two opinions on two draft laws on languages and we did not see the law that was adopted. I thing that adopted law is quite similar to the second draft we examined. The problem of this question is: this is policy decision that must be taken by political forces, by the parliament in Ukraine concerning the role of the Russian language. The second draft that we have seen went in the right direction. But in our opinion it was not completely good because it will provide some benefits only to Russian and a few other minority languages. The problem is a political one, and it must be solved at a political level. The most important thing is to protect the Ukrainian language and give some preferences to other minority languages. Q: A question about the "homosexual law" recently passed at first reading in the Verkhovna Rada. How does this comply with democratic principles? A: The Venice Commission has not seen this draft law. Nobody asked us to examine the law and to give an opinion, but obviously there are problems with regard to the freedom of expression. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Mr [Thorbjorn] Jagland, has already expressed concern with respect to this initiative. Q. Coming back to the legislation for which Ukraine has received an assessment from the VC – I'm talking about the new electoral law. Despite the fact that VC gave quite a positive assessment to this law, it seems that problems have arisen during its implementation. A: I'm afraid that there has been some misunderstanding. We did not give any positive assessment of this law. We were talking about another electoral system. The Joint OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission opinion on the 2011 law on the elections of members of parliament is critical of a number of provisions of the law. The electoral system that was adopted was not the one which was recommended by the PACE in its resolution 1755. In addition, some previous recommendations stated in the OSCE/ODIHR reports and in the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR joint opinions remain unaddressed in the draft law, such as the lack of clear criteria and deadlines for defining the boundaries of electoral districts; lack of clarity on the possibility of challenging election results, and lack of full disclosure, before and after elections, of sources and amounts of financial contributions and the types and amounts of campaign expenditures. However, there is indeed one very positive aspect we did welcome: the law represents a broad consensus of both the majority and the biggest opposition forces. The law is quite complex, so there are certainly some difficulties with its implementation. I do not rule out that some of the problems are a direct result of the flaws of the law. However, I think that it is too early to give any assessment to the 2012 electoral process. I am sure that individual cases of violations are currently examined by the competent courts in charge of complaints and appeals. The final test of the law and its implementation will be the election that will take place at the end of this month. We will see how the electoral process goes by the end of the month. If it goes well, it is means that the law is a good one, If it does not… I would like to say another thing – a good law is not enough to have good electoral process. Q: You have already started to answer another of my questions - if a good law is enough to have good elections. A: A good election is when all political forces and public authorities responsible for the electoral process follow the rules established by the legislation and commit themselves to holding an election in line with democratic standards. So the law is there, it is good, but it is not enough. Q: There are a lot of good laws in Ukraine but Kyiv has been criticized for a lack of implementation… A: That's the truth, and it depends on the courts. The courts should give it more attention, [put] more emphasis on the correct implementation of the existing legislation. Q: But the courts also require reform… A: Exactly. It's a circle. That's why in my opinion you have to start with a good Constitutional reform and then everything will follow – the judicial, the prosecutor's office, the local government and other fields which need real reform. Q: During the elections we see a tendency for so called "electoral tourism" when in some constituencies voters began changing their place of voting en masse. The Central Election Commission has permitted a change to the place of voting without changing electoral address only within the same constituency. How does this comply with democratic rules for elections? A: Electoral tourism is not a good thing, and unfortunately it was widespread in Ukraine especially during the 2002 elections, and this practice is certainly against European standards. Now there is a good step taken by the Central Electoral Commission allowing not "tourism" but changing the polling station only in the same district. It is possible. Voting in a different polling station should be rather an exceptional situation and should be allowed only for a good reason. The decision by the Central Election Commission is therefore going in the right direction. Q: What are you expectations from this election? A: The only expectation I have as a president of the VC is that this election will be good, held in line with international standards, and will be better compared to the past elections in the country. Q: And if it is the opposite… A: It will be a pity - very disappointing for me and for the international community. Let's take the test at the end of the month, and then we will talk again.