the republic came, yanukovych turned it back, he wanted it to be purely presidential, and they quickly, with the help of the constitutional court, which eliminated the changes to the 2004 constitution . there is a certain logic that there are people, they elect the parliament, the parliament then elects the cabinet of ministers accordingly, which approves before the parliament a program of actions and then they embody the next cadence in this there is a sense in principle of this electoral democracy, how do we see it ? was implemented. well, they vote for some program. we have been trying for 30 years to somehow come to such a model, and in the end, for example , as of now, we have a government. which well, it is not very important who are who are the members of the government

. further and it is clear that cabinet of ministers that is, the question is what is the question, the question is that if you do not have clear powers in the center of authority, and then, for example, the decision is not made in the government, then it is difficult to talk about any accountability, because if the decision was made by some an adviser to the deputy of some office, in fact, then it is not clear from whom to ask from whom from the prime minister well, for example, who will be there, even he can be removed in the end, this is the question. this is the key question for me here that we need to decide then whether we then do we want to strengthen the presidential vertical and then give them the functions of the executive power, or do we then want to , well, somehow make it so that we then have a stronger prime minister and they decide in the country everything related to, well, i don't know, not defense and dangers for me, this is a question, i will

ask you just to ask you about the icontra, where do we need to go, let's go with oleksand oleksandr only since the 1990s, the institute of the president and you are not yet used to the institute of the president, which you did not know its place in the structure states, but for the transitional period of the transition from the totalitarian system of the schedule of the union and so on, they came to the opinion that it is necessary to concentrate centrally in one hand in the army for and make the transition painlessly, and a wide range of specialists express the fact that we need a chancellor a so that the president performs his economic functions granted him a high rank, accepted citizenship , made international visits, and took such a point of view, but kuchma, as a former red director, insisted that no, i will have broad powers and as a result of a wide influence, well, a kind of compromise,

i emphasize once again the compromise of the spring and summer of 1996, the constitution of 1996 grew up, which in this part was imperfect, the government is accountable and controlled by the president and the verkhovna rada, which forms it accordingly, approving a certain proposal again of the president and a departure from that model was absolutely correct in order to make a parliamentary one by delegating powers voters delegate deputies deputies unite groups factions the majority forms the government and this government carries out the relevant planning. and for this, the constitution wrote that the direct responsibility of the president is foreign relations and the defense of the country, and in this way the president often used these powers and tried to restrain economic activity, which very much led to the instability of governments, maybe you studied, you know that every year in our country, from the period of 1992 to 2002,

kinakh seems to have stayed for one and a half years as the prime minister of anatolia, and the rest were all a year and they were changed only because of what crisis the president considered brothers on the responsibility of the prime minister of his own accord, the constitution of the new prime minister, the political forces use their candidate and this is already a horde of prime ministers, it lasted for quite a long time until they stabilized this situation, therefore the transition to a parliamentary presidential republic was absolutely correct, but he turned back and in 2010, when yanukovych wanted power and the entire presidential cycle was completely over, he determined his candidates for parliament and voted, and today it seems that such a right is not written in the constitution but thanks to the majority in the parliament, which has a monomajority, which in my opinion is harmful for the current stage of development of ukraine in such a way to have a discussion, there

is no dispute there, there is no search for the truth, but they decided in the president's office how to be in kyiv, then the parliament votes. not everything is so simple in the majority and then they are looking for the future, they are looking for other supporters of the majority, respectively, in order to appropriately try these solutions, and as a result, we have such an unforeseeable one, but no one knows how long , they do not see the composition of the majority, but it is written according to the statements that are heard at the meeting of individual political figures, i see that in individual votes they do not gather a majority, this tesla contributes to the development of parliamentarism in ukraine and thus the constitution fulfills today's whims to give it to the pro-government leaders let's say that there is a war and any changes of any kind what innovations to

the constitution we cannot implement now because the constitution directly prohibits that during the state of emergency any changes to the constitution are not made, well, but to talk about what needs to be done, it is absolutely necessary because i it seems that to a certain extent that we entered the war as a country with a poor economy, a very inefficient system of public administration and an oligarchic system, this is also a consequence of the fact that certain compromises were made in the constitution in 1996. well, what about me? again, mr. oleksandrovich, will you also continue the opinion that volodymyr stretovych started? i, too, am a supporter of more parliamentary forms of government and, in my opinion, we were lucky that we chose this mixed or semi-presidential form in 1996, because well, you don’t have to go far in the post-soviet space, whoever took the presidential formula immediately became dictatorships

. the powers of the president, it still unbalances this entire model, which is embedded in the constitution, and it will have to be corrected over time for the other side. to a clean parliamentary form of government. it seems to me that we are not ready yet because we do not have real ideological parties. unfortunately, for every election there are one-time projects of the leadership type for a specific politician, which disappear into nowhere after the elections, and in order for the parliamentary system well, where the president is purely domineering and the prime minister is, if number one, the state needs a stable party system for this, maybe over time we will come to this and learn this, but for now, it seems to me that it is better to tweak and correct these

problems with the semi-presidential system than to reconsider the cardinal one, and regarding the presidential system, there is literally one more sentence, i will say, in fact, none of the presidents, they, deep down, will never want to take responsibility, and in a presidential republic, the president is to blame for everything, because he, instead of the government, is in fact the president's cabinet is the government, his ministers, his ministers, he is responsible for everything, but our president is willing to take on such responsibility, i doubt it, everyone wants authority, but responsibility is not very passing absolutely eh, let's return this weapon from about such an institution as the constitutional court eh, this is one of the seven demands of ukraine's applicants, this is what they gave us in advance, but out of the seven, they also put forward demands that need to be decided urgently in particular, the constitutional court is mentioned about its reform, what kind of

reform do you think it should be, because different voices were heard, in particular, from the authorities, for example, at the height of this conflict, in the acute stage of the conflict with the constitutional court and office the president was even told by the foxes that let's cancel this institution of these darmoides in general, who are forever involved in politics and so on and so forth and we will live without the constitutional court. so, what are your thoughts on how important the constitutional court is and how to change it, because we really have a lot precedents when the constitutional court made, well, dubious decisions, well, i don't know, starting from uh, with the third term for kuchma and ending with this dissolution of the parliament, which did not complete its term, for example, in the 19th year, so how should it change and do we even need a constitutional court, let's also talk about this, mr. oleksandr, let's start it later, mr. volodymyr, for today, in this model that we have in the constitution, the constitutional court is an integral

element, if it is removed from there, well, in fact, that too introduces a significant imbalance in general ideas to unify the supreme constitutional court they sounded back in the 2000s, that is, here if there were no surprises the authorities are reproducing old ideas, our problem is not actually the court itself, but the judges of the constitutional court and how they are selected. will it remain in the year when the reform of the court was carried out, this reform of justice was carried out, and there was a requirement for the competitive selection of these judges, but since the 16th year, in fact, no one has held a competition, just a subject of power the powers of the president, the parliament, there are judges, or they imitated a competition or appointed judges without a competition at all, and the question arises again. well, what should we do with the constitutional court if we do not want to comply with even this requirement of the constitution, and of course in the 16th year, a mistake was made, in my opinion, which gave too much autonomy to the constitutional

court in terms of the fact that only judges can dismiss themselves, it was necessary to provide some kind of option, well, just in case, after all, we are not some a country with such a developed democracy and political culture as to protect the judges of the constitutional court, even more so without a competition, those appointed in the 16th year were not restarted here, those judges who were appointed by yanukovych remained to work the same tupytskyi was appointed in the 13th year, that's why i watch the reform, at least, so that in the 16th year it should be done properly. i think we would not have more such problems as we have today, but siri, one thing, in my opinion, the constitutional court is important for ensuring the supremacy in principle, the constitution should also be balanced, but in fact he and the president guarantee the supremacy of the constitution, of course, everyone oh, and if someone is to be pushed according to this existing model , it can be very, very bad

. at the beginning, to your question, the state should have a permanent court. perhaps we now have the constitution in its stable form, only six or seven changes were made . parliamentary duties it is written there about the need to draw up a deputy's mandate, the duties of a deputy regarding the definition of a faction, and so on, the formation of a coalition, but in this situation, the reform of the pension court is provided for not only now by our obligations to the membership in to the european union and even march of this year seems a little earlier. the decision of the venice commission, which considered the draft law, which entered the previous

conditions of the verkhovna rada, you remember. and they responded favorably to the fact that the president revoked his law on the removal of the powers of judges of the constitutional court, which is a democratic tradition, but here echoes from previous seas by a colleague that there is no mechanism provided for, that only the judges dismiss themselves, they themselves believe that their colleagues are not worthy of this high rank and there is a question about whether we need 18 judges today and this is put to the order today where the issue is being discussed to liquidate the permanent court not to make the appropriate collegium a chamber in the composition of the supreme court, i do not think that this is the right step from this question to the quality of the work of the permanent court, it is no coincidence that the composition of the first constitutional court, which was elected in october 1995 , was the strongest when each branch of government approached responsibly, then the delegation of

the best of its representatives to this high position, and so on what began, as kravchuk said, and we have what we have, they began to level this rank , especially this became apparent already in the 2000s , when yushchenko came, he inherited the constitutional court, which was formed by a bunch of people not based on personal merit, so to speak, but on the principle of personal loyalty, you can imagine that the deputy judge of the professional court was the well -known vasyl nimchenko, who today took an anti-ukrainian path and his ukrainian choice and description of which he is now outside the law this personnel composition is also happening and i want to remind the judge excuse the words of the classic from griboyedovsky and judges who is this composition of person who it would seem should be a standard model of the judicial position of the judicial status of the

judicial rank and who should stand guard over the constitution read brav and human freedoms as a citizen, the protection of state interests, and further according to the text, it was essentially leveled, do you remember the conflict of 2006, when there were protests under the supreme court under the constitutional court and stannik one the judges of the constitutional court also had an unpleasant history, and now tupytsky is already somewhere in the film it appears that he was going to commit a criminal offense, this is all a matter of the training system, and rightly so, the venice commission today says that we must return to the competitive selection to write judges and only then can we form it and the second observation that is raised today that the norm of 10 judges should vote for the constitutional court decision should be revised in the direction of the fact that it should be a majority of the formed composition of the essence because

10 - this is more than nine and a half from 18.9 + 1 more than half + 1 but when today, for example , there are 15 courts, it is also necessary to get 10 votes . meeting, but the english commission says that a simple arithmetic majority can in this situation solve the situation in principle, and it should be , once some branch of the government did not fulfill its duty in a timely manner and did not delegate its representatives to the body of permanent jurisdiction. well then let it remain in its interest, and the judges themselves, by a simple majority, will determine how to form the governing bodies of the court, well, on this day, actually, the day of the ukrainian constitution, i would suggest that you simply say literally one phrase at a time so that how you see the development of the constitution of the whole of ukraine for the near future,

let's just exchange these phrases and congratulations, let's finish this block, mr. oleksandr well, i wish our legislator to carry out the decentralization reform and finally introduce relevant changes to the constitution of ukraine this will help the state in many ways and territorial communities, it is also great that you mentioned this moment so absolutely and i am asking you, mr. volodymyr, for the most part today, not only is our decentralization unconstitutional because it is not mentioned in the constitution, we also have such the national anti-corruption bureau appointed by the president, remember the scandal with poroshenko, was created and appointed by the super with his constitutional authority. we have many issues that bypass the constitution. i want the constitution followed by everyone from the president to the head of the village under the head of a large enterprise to a small entrepreneur from small to large and then

there will be more order in ukraine and the words of the great skovoroda come to mind, the 300 years of which we are now celebrating the year who said do not teach the apple tree read ukraine to give birth to apples it is better to open the pigs from her. when this happens and there will be a completely different situation in ukraine. well, thank you very much for this conversation. let's move on, we have one more small block left. let's talk today about ukrainian prisoners, actually about ukrainian prisoners . mykola polozova, a lawyer, a lawyer, a defender, a public figure, and the founder of the search for prisoners project, contact us. mykola, can you hear us? good evening, good evening, tell me. a little bit about this initiative, the search for prisoners launched by human rights

defenders , lawyers, volunteers. unprecedented efforts to return ukrainian prisoners of war from russian captivity and the possibilities that civil society has , which lawyers have successful experience eh, we have left to work and of course, when eh we saw eh the most severe consequences of the large-scale invasion of russian troops when the number of eh ukrainian prisoners of war is already estimated to be in the thousands, there are second eh it is impossible to look at it indifferently, and in this sense, i and my fellow human rights defenders united our efforts and created such a project,

which is aimed primarily at the search for prisoners of war, since the russian authorities hide both their location and to provide them with both political and legal i would like to emphasize here that the main work on the liberation of ukrainian monopoly prisoners is carried out by the authorities of ukraine, and in this case, our initiative is the support of these actions, our modest contribution to the big business, well, actually, that is, this project that is shared by ukrainian and russian human rights defenders , public figures, lawyers . there are lawyers who are ready to cooperate with us who are ready on the spot to provide the necessary legal assistance to tribal warriors thanks to

their self -responsible work. cool off мы не можете это, er, too big a task, but we will do all we can to help. as much quantity and information as possible, at least part of the defenders of azov, in particular, are now outside australia, entering the territory of the russian federation, er, in their status is still a military one, prisoners of war can interfere like that, this is the first question, can you say something about it? well, the fact is that it is obvious to us that the russian authorities are trying to create fake tribunals in order to conduct demonstrative processes of a propaganda nature , of course, the etifeikovy tribunals will be conducted on the basis of real criminal cases, and here, in this case, our lawyers will be able to

implement thermal power provided by russian legislation in order to maximally help the ukrainian military, and you can actually tell how it works this search is s- the very mechanism eh we have eh currently working telegram channel on which there is a questionnaire form eh any person eh whose a relative, a close person was captured, can turn to this telegram channel, search for captives, compile the necessary questionnaire data, further, we process the application, and our lawyers begin the first search er, in the case of finding a specific prisoner of war, providing him with the necessary assistance

, in fact, you work with open sources. if a person receives confirmation that his relative is a close person in captivity, then what is the next algorithm of actions, first of all, this is the realization of communication with close friends оключаемого до решается вопрос указывания недвижимое legal assistance eh, now i understand that exchanges are taking place and this is primarily the shortest way to return, for example , captured ukrainian prisoners to ukraine yes, this yes, it works, therefore, i direct the main intelligence department of the ministry of defense of ukraine, in this case, we are in cooperation with the authorities of ukraine in order to coordinate

our work so that it does not harm this basic condition in any way. well, actually even then i allowed myself to ask regarding the dismissal of ms. lyudmila denisova. is this some factor that somehow affected your work or took it away ? big help, not only in the case of ukrainian military sailors, but also in the case of a number of ukrainian police officers , and of course, i regret that in such a difficult period for ukraine, there is no abortionist on duty. now, this will make it difficult for anyone to work. will correct well, by the way, uh, this ombudsman is from the russian side, uh, can she be called an ombudsman for human rights, well, without quotation marks, and everything that you

cooperate with her. as for the russian country, uh, for us, this is a job on the opposite side of the world. uh naturally, we do not receive any cooperation from that side, since we understand that all state authorities include unfortunately, the russian ombudsman is not aimed at ensuring the necessary protection of ukrainian prisoners of war in accordance with the geneva conventions literally yesterday and at the ukrainian in fact, one of the most influential ukrainian internet resources was founded by heorhiy gongadze, a legendary figure very important for ukraine, and he published an article that was interpreted in different ways. actually caused a great stormy discussion in social networks, in particular. it was an article about the fact that, according to various unnamed sources, denisova could exaggerate or invent how

there were cases, for example, rape by occupation troops in temporarily occupied territories . the article is also appropriate, to what extent all these standards were observed there. well, of course, it was immediately cited by russian propagandists as proof that there were no rapists in fact there were no actual crimes and others. well, there were also accusations that were not factually supported, that they might have abused their official position for some kind of personal enrichment. your opinion on this story with denys is great. on various cases that were written from the crimean tatars that were written from ukrainians about the order of prisoners that concerned the case of ukrainian military sailors with the ukrainian ombudsman eh was positive all the

necessary eh assistance that could be ordered on i am providing lyudmila denisova with this post. as for the second notes, i do n't have enough information to have an opinion about it. well, then i'll ask one last question, besides the prisoners of war, there is another thing like uh, including, for example, me, i just don't know what the correct status of these people is. for example , the story about the fact that there are about more than four hundred ukrainian children, for example, were taken somewhere, they are actually in some russian provinces, they are all together in some camps, they are kept in some camps, this is enough. wild stories. do you also

take care of these stories of these children and their status? wars, they are free yes, that's right, in addition to ukrainian prisoners of war, there is a problem of the presence in russian prisons of civilians who were taken out of the occupied territories, and this is mainly adult people a-a serious problems with those interned on the territory of russia from the occupied territory of ukrainian citizens of course the most complex static point of view a-a problems that concern children ah, it's documented. let's say the same thing. it's not a complicated login, but i'm sure that in the case of appeals that will concern children, we will also process these applications if possible. they will help.

thank you very much for your work. mykola polasu a lawyer about a defender, a public figure, a co-founder of the polon search project, he was in touch with us , and actually you heard that there is a telegram channel called polon search, where you can, for example, look for your relatives, your close acquaintances, if there is a suspicion that they are in captivity, if they are missing, in general, there was certain data that at least 1,000 ukrainian military personnel , in particular, are in russian captivity, well , it is obvious that the number is probably even higher, because at least the russians submitted about 2,000 more 2 000 are only those who came out of azovstal, well , this is a war, there are just as many prisoners, there are still russians in our captivity , recently we managed to exchange the

famous paramedic taira, and this is a very good thing. well , in we are on this. in fact, we thank everyone who watched. who watched from the broadcast press. it was with you . it was my honor. well, on this we go to the broadcast of radio freedom kremenchuk in mourning. western leaders called the attack on kremenchuk a complete horror and put the responsibility on russia. moscow claims what is she struck not at the shopping center, but at the weapons hangars, the gunmen of the russian federation continue to strike at military facilities

on the territory of ukraine, what conclusions will the west draw after