Perils of the Lazarenko Family

The ex-Premier's lawyers are outraged by the fact that the court did not consider the possibility of in absentia proceedings, as per Article 110 of the Procedural Code, and they intend to file complaints with the Kyiv City and Supreme Courts of Ukraine. Under the law, a lawsuit is to be dismissed if the plaintiff fails to appear in court twice without providing valid reasons. Viktor Nikazakov fears that the third court session will have precisely this outcome.

The attorney further said that the May 13 hearing was to ascertain the whereabouts of documents that had "vanished" when Pavlo Lazarenko's property was confiscated. The former head of government's legal team have earlier complained about Ukrainian authorities' unauthorized entry of Lazarenko's dacha in Pushcha-Vodytisa, whereupon his property and valuable documents disappeared.

Pavlo Lazarenko's family is in the United States and the ex-Premier is still being held near San Francisco awaiting formal decision on his status as a political refugee. Lazarenko is also reported to be planning to vie in the presidential campaign in Ukraine, expecting Hromada support as its leader, informs The Day's Tetiana SHULHACH.

Swiss lawyer Paul Gulli-Hart kindly consented to a telephone interview with The Day:

Q: Is it true that Pavlo Lazarenko's status has changed and he is now under arrest rather than detention?

A: There is no difference between being under arrest or detention under US law, except for the choice of words. When Mr. Lazarenko appeared in the United States he was detained for violating the immigration laws.

After asking for political asylum he has passed through the first stage of litigation to determine whether he had a well founded fear of persecution - in other words, at this stage he had to convince the court that there are valid grounds to fear for his life and safety in Ukraine.

Presently, however, due to a referral from a Swiss judge requesting his extradition, the INS has handed Mr. Lazarenko over to federal authorities, but this did not change his legal status. He is still in custody, although for different reasons. Accordingly, the political asylum proceedings were suspended pending decision on the Swiss court petition.

Q: Our Deputy General Prosecutor Olha Kolinko says there in an "international arrest warrant" for Lazarenko issued in Switzerland, and hence he should be considered under arrest. What about this arrest warrant?

A: There is no such thing as international arrest warrant. All arrest warrants are exclusively national. An arrest warrant is considered international only when issued by Interpol, which is not the case.

As for Pavlo Lazarenko, there is an arrest warrant signed by Swiss investigating judge Laurent Kasper-Ansermet dated April 8, 1999. This document suffices to start extradition proceedings in the United States. The Swiss judge has forty days to submit the rest of the extradition case. From what I know these documents have not been delivered as yet.

Q: What caused the Swiss judge to do this? Could Mr. Lazarenko have violated some bail rules or the Swiss side unearthed fresh evidence in the case?

A: I don't believe that anything like that happened. Actually, I ask myself why that judge decided to ask for my client's arrest again in conjunction with the same charges. Pavlo Lazarenko was released from custody in Switzerland last December.

Q: Ukrainian General Prosecutor Mykhailo Potebenko publicly stated that Swiss judge Laurent Kasper-Ansermet pressed fresh charges against Hromada leader Lazarenko.

A: I read Judge Kasper-Asermet's warrant on April 8 of this year. As far as I could see the charges were the same. There is an interesting point, however. Under an agreement between the United States and Switzerland, a judge has no right to notify of any fresh charges against the defendant - in this case Pavlo Lazarenko. So, like I said, there were no further charges, not that I could see any in the document. I suspect that fresh charges would be pressed if Mr. Lazarenko returned to Switzerland.

One more thing: the Swiss judge is investigating a money-laundering case. Laundering money means that any such money was originally received illegally, by committing a crime, but this crime has to be proven first and only then can a money-laundering case be brought.

Quite honestly, I can't see at this stage what crimes Mr. Lazarenko could have possibly committed in Ukraine. This evidence must be provided by the Ukrainian side. As for your arrest warrant issued on February 18, 1999, it is poorly justified, and the Swiss judge won't be able to make any use of it.

Q: Have you considered the possibility of Pavlo Lazarenko's voluntary return to Ukraine provided, of course, the Ukrainian authorities guarantee his immunity and freedom?

A: No, we haven't. I think that under the circumstances my client would not take any such guarantees seriously.