Yulia Tymoshenko case is one of topical issues in European policy today. Her apprehension and a subsequent conflict in the Ukrainian community became the subject of close attention from Europeans. Mostly all leaders of EU countries, and key officials of the European Parliament and European Commission have expressed their stance in this regard. At the end of March, the interim committee (chaired by Inna Bohoslovska) of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine published its reasons concerning a legal evaluation of Tymoshenko’s actions resulted in her apprehension.

On 10 April 2012, Inna Bohoslovska held a press conference on a topic “Why Tymoshenko is still in prison” attended by European journalists, experts and public members, at the premises of NCI European Parliament in Brussels. The journalists and community leaders found out about ultimate conclusion of experts at the interim committee worked during the past year under the auspices of the Ukrainian Parliament. The experts had spoken to Ukrainian MPs on 20 March 2012 and were approved by 266 of 450 MPs. Head of the Interim Investigation Commission Inna Bohoslovska underlined that Yulia Tymoshenko’s fault is that she:  

а) concealed from the public and government the facts of the conflict of interests and dependence on Russia, particularly, the debt of her privately-owned companies to the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation in the amount of USD 405 million, and a bribery case against her;

b) held secret talks with the Prime Minister of Russia and agreed to unfair contracts, thus, violating signed international treaties;

c) issued Directives on signing the contracts being aware of the Government of Ukraine having withdrawn from approving them, however the Cabinet of Ministers only – as a collegial body – is entitled to issue such directives;

d) brought pressure on the company head subordinate to her and made him sign the contracts threatening to fire.

Pursuant to a comparative analysis of the laws of Ukraine and other European countries carried out Ukrainian lawyers, it turned out that eleven EU members have clauses stipulating a criminal responsibility for similar crimes.

Inna Bohoslovska demonstrated to journalists an extract from a resolution issued by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of Russia on closing a criminal case against Yulia Tymoshenko. It read that Tymoshenko was involved in the case of bribing of Russian officials since January 1996 to September 1997. Inna Bohoslovska stressed that the Interim Investigation Committee had evidence from officials at the Central Bank of Cyprus confirming that “actual shareholders at Somolly Enterprisers Ltd acting as an intermediary between the United Energy Systems of Ukraine and the Ministry of Defence of Russia were Yulia Tymoshenko and other individuals.”

According to a resolution of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of Russia, the criminal case against Yulia Tymoshenko was closed in 2005 because of expiration of the period of limitation for a criminal persecution.

Journalists could also review a full experts’ report of the Interim Investigation Commission to be published in near future.