The current situation with the selection of anti-corruption judges is dire, experts from civil society groups Anti-Corruption Action Center and AutoMaidan said at a news briefing on Nov. 16.
Anastasia Krasnosilska, an expert at the Anti-Corruption Action Center, said nothing had been done so far to ensure that the Public Council of International Experts or PCIE, a foreign expert panel intended to help in the selection of anti-corruption judges, would be able to function.
“We’re entering an active stage of the competition, and the work of the PCIE is about to begin, but the situation’s very bad,” Krasnosilska said.
Under the law, if a majority of the members of the High Qualification Commission and PCIE vote for a candidate, he or she will continue participation in the competition, as long as at least three of the PCIE’s six members vote for the candidate.
However, the members of the PCIE, which was appointed on Nov. 6, have not yet arrived in Ukraine, and it’s still not clear when they will come.
Moreover, no money has been allocated to fund the PCIE, Krasnosilska said.
Neither have the authorities ensured the PCIE will have access to candidates’ personal data and profiles, government registers, or the results of their practical examinations, Krasnosilska added.
The commission told the Kyiv Post that the PCIE would get access to High Qualification Commission materials “taking into account restrictions set by Ukrainian law.” However, it is not clear if these materials will include candidates’ personal data and their practical exam results.
Candidates for the High Anti-Corruption Court and for 80 extra jobs at the Supreme Court took legal knowledge tests on Nov. 12, and practical examinations on Nov. 14.
The results of the legal knowledge tests were announced on Nov. 13, with many tainted candidates and some candidates with a reputation for independence winning through to the next stage, experts said.
The High Qualification Commission is planning to announce the results of practical examinations on Nov. 26, Krasnosilska said.
However, the commission will not be able to properly assess the examination results of hundreds of candidates for the anti-corruption court and Supreme Court in a short timeframe, she argued. During last year’s Supreme Court selection, it took the commission two months to assess them.
Moreover, by quickly announcing the results of practical exams, the commission is trying to prevent the PCIE from assessing these results and from doing their work within the 30-day deadline set by the law, Krasnosilska said.
Under the law, the PCIE can initiate meetings on approving or vetoing specific candidates within 30 days of the announcement of the practical examination results.
“(The High Qualification Commission’s) scenario is to prevent PCIE members from doing their work,” she said. “The sooner the High Qualification Commission of Judges announces the results of practical examinations, the fewer the chances that the PCIE will be able to function.”
It’s likely that, when the commission announces the results of practical examinations, the PCIE will still not be ready, and its work will be paralyzed, Krasnosilska said.
Meanwhile, the validity of the Nov. 12 legal knowledge tests has already been questioned, and some believe there is evidence of rigging of the competition through those tests.
Many of the test questions could have had several correct answers or none, Public Integrity Council coordinator Vitaly Tytych and Judge Mykhailo Slobodin said. In this case the commission could have promoted some candidates by telling them which answers it deems right, according to Tytych.
