vlasenko and after that, dear colleagues, i ask to invite the people's deputies to the hall, we will vote for this bill. please, serhii volodymyrovych. thank you, mr. chairman, this law proposes that the ministry of justice determine which prisons and pretrial detention centers meet european conditions of detention. that is, it means that our other prisons and detention centers are not responsible, and the ukrainian authorities recognize this. this is the first story. but not the main thing, there is a much more important story, let's be honest, the conditions of detention and security, yes, this is the reason for refusal of extradition, but mostly we are refused extradition for completely different reasons. first of all, the first reason is the inability of the law enforcement system of ukraine to draw up procedural documents, as long as in the reports of suspicion, where it is written

, at an unknown time, in an unknown place, with unknown accomplices, a crime was committed, no european institution will accept it, will not accept it , it can be accepted here by manual wax, which turns a blind eye to everything, and no european normal, independent court will accept this. second, in fact, we should get rid of this habit of ours, when a person is called a criminal before the court, moreover. called by the highest officials of the prosecutor's office and the law enforcement system, let's take two of the most loud recent refusals to extradite, france , in the independence of whose court no one will doubt, refused to extradite a prisoner, not because there are bad conditions of detention, but because , as written in the court's decision, the ukrainian side did not prove that zhivaga...

will be tried by an independent court and that he will the right to protection is ensured. this is the verdict on all reforms, the so-called judicial reforms, which have been ongoing in ukraine for decades. this is a verdict when an independent french court writes, you have not proved that there is an independent court in ukraine, and that is why we do not hand over the relevant person for extradition. the second extradition, the most high-profile, which was refused, is naumov, where it was stated that the basic principles of the presumption of innocence were violated, that high-ranking officials had already accused him of being a criminal, yes , he may have committed acts that are subject to criminally liable, but in a normal european society, officials of the general prosecutor's office or someone higher up cannot call a person a criminal until the court sentence, but this is the key problem,

until the ukrainian law enforcement agencies learn to work professionally, they will not extradite even those people to us , who obviously committed criminal acts. thank you, please, briefly the position of the committee and let's go to the vote. thank you, thank you mr. chairman, the draft law is really needed, really it is necessary to resolve issues regarding the maintenance of the specified category of persons and providing the opportunity to the relevant state authority. which establishes and regulates the state policy in the field of serving a sentence, to provide the opportunity to establish appropriate categories of places of deprivation of liberty for serving a sentence, but this is exactly what happens, including for persons for whom a decision on their extradition has already been made, therefore the committee asks, in its conclusion, to support the specified bill in the second reading and in general, thank you. thank you, dear colleagues, we have finished the discussion of this draft law, i ask the people's deputies to take their seats and prepare for

voting, i propose to adopt in the second reading and as a whole with the necessary technical and legal amendments, the draft law on amendments to some legislative acts of ukraine, regarding ensuring the observance of the rights and freedoms of convicted citizens of ukraine, sent to ukraine to serve a sentence, etc. regarding which the competent authorities of a foreign state have made a decision to extradite them to ukraine for prosecution or execution of the sentence registration number of the bill 9451 ready to vote? i ask people's deputies to vote.

for 276, the decision has been made, the law has been adopted, congratulations, colleagues, let's move on , the next draft law is a draft law 54-56d on amendments to section 12, final and transitional provisions of the law of ukraine on the judicial system, the status of judges in the in connection with the decision of the constitutional court of ukraine dated february 18 , 2020 number 2.2020 regarding ensuring the continuity of the administration of justice by the highest court in the judicial system of ukraine. this is the second. we agreed, there will be three minutes for gerashchenko, three minutes for vlasenko, and there will be more amendments from demchenko, a few, briefly and we vote, please take your place, please, let's start, gerashchenko, iryna volodymyvna, 3 minutes. thank you, dear colleagues

, of course, an independent constitutional court is one of the mandatory conditions for a democratic european state, and it is no coincidence that the independence of the constitutional court is one of them. of the seven prerequisites for the start of official negotiations on ukraine's accession to the eu already year i will remind you that the law on the constitutional court was re-voted three times because they tried to introduce partisanship and the creation of an advisory council of experts with proposed candidates from the servants of the people. and we wanted to draw your attention to the fact that when the verkhovna rada of ukraine voted at the last plenary session. it was for the advisory council of experts, for its specific representatives, that two deputies from the servant of the people declared a conflict of interests. to be honest, this is a very symbolic sign, and it means that the servant of the people, except for the lady who already

nominated a servant from your faction as a representative to the constitutional court, you are going to fill this important court with party candidates, which will make the independence of the constitutional court impossible a priori. we call on colleagues from the servant of the people to refrain from forming a constitutional court based on party principles. it is obvious that the judges of the constitutional court should be professional, non-partisan, and independent, and this meets the requirements of the european union, and in principle , democratic rules. and, well, you have already delegated with violations, by the way, the law. mrs i refer to the constitutional court, and now two more deputies from the servant of the people, as we know, are applying for the positions of judges of the constitutional court, and i have a specific question from our faction to the speaker: does the fact that two deputies from the servant

of the people during the election mean representatives of the council of experts to the constitutional court from the servants of the people declared a conflict of interest , that they would be candidates...' in the judge of the constitutional court, and the faction would support them, this is the first, and the second, i want to remind you of the position of european solidarity. we, with my colleagues, in particular ivanna klimposhcensadze, maria ionova, iryna fries, immediately proposed that the advisory council of experts should consist of eight representatives, of which there had to be a part, these are international representatives, that is how the expert structure is formed, which selects candidates for judges of the anti-corruption court and it proved its effectiveness , independence, transparency, unfortunately, our position was not listened to when the law on the constitutional court was adopted, i ask for an answer, thank you, dear colleagues, look, i am asking again

everyone, come on, when we take the floor, we will report on the bill, despite the fact that the title of the bill has constitutional court, this bill is not about the constitutional court, it is about the supreme court and the supreme court of ukraine, dear colleagues, please, let's we will be more professional in this matter, but if the committee wants , please respond, dear colleagues, it is true, the draft law is aimed at settling the decision of the constitutional court, and it does not concern the constitutional court, but the supreme court, the supreme court of ukraine, higher specialized courts and employees working in these courts. thank you, thank you, thank you, dear colleagues, despite the fact that the name is the same court, the courts are different, please, serhii volodymyrovych, 3 minutes. thank you, mr. chairman, since 2016, we have been told the story that this is one of the most outstanding

reforms, when they created a new, in quotation marks, created a new supreme court without ukraine, when they simply did something that even yanukovych did not think of, when they simply dispersed the old supreme court of ukraine, simply destroyed it, and then they elected new people and said that this is now the new supreme court, we were told that this is an outstanding reform of modern times. they told, told, told, until the moment, until , as was rightly pointed out, the independent and fair constitutional court of ukraine said that this is all unconstitutional, that this so-called reform in general contradicts the basic principles of the ukrainian constitution, which turns out to be for 8 years, there have been two supreme courts in ukraine, one is the supreme court of ukraine, and the other is the supreme court without ukraine. we are probably the only one country in the world where such a story.

we were told that the creation of the grand chamber is a great victory, that it is the best judicial reform and so on, there they embroidered orders on their chests and shouted that this achievement was huge, and then nabu made statements that 13 judges of the grand chamber, under on suspicion of receiving bribes, the head of the supreme court is now in sizo, on suspicion of receiving a huge bribe, but again they keep telling us that this is... a better reform, i once again call on all of us to stop profaning, to disperse the old and to recruit new ones, or to invite foreigners who will tell us how to build a judicial system, or to invite some activists who will tell us how to build a judicial system, this is a road to nowhere, we have been told about it for nine or 10 years, and the result still the same, the judicial system works worse and worse. and worse and every day more and more negativity accumulates in the judicial

system. instead, we need to talk about systemic things, we need to talk about the fact that it is unacceptable that almost 200 higher education institutions in ukraine graduate lawyers, and every year about 1,400 lawyers, and this is an absolutely unacceptable number of people, because then it is these low-qualified people who go to the judge, go to the prosecutors, go to nabu, go to the investigators, and it is they who then generate these reports of suspicion, which absolutely do not meet any european criteria and is rejected by european criteria, it is these people who then go to court, then we wonder why the verdicts and court decisions are of such low quality, that is why i say once again, let's talk about professional reform, and not blur it with slogans, talking about others things thank you, dear colleagues, please, if you want, you can react, no, then

, i understand that demchenko will put his amendments into consideration first, yes, serhiy, give the floor to serhiy demchenko, what amendments do you want, the eighth amendment, first , then 38, 39, it's for consideration , and then for confirmation, you can't consider the eighth amendment, a second, and that's extradition, a second, i'm sorry, i took the wrong law, maybe you can, now. i 'll take a look, physically i can, legally yes too, because i'm just not the bill, now i am i'm sorry, i'll take the eighth, the eighth amendment, demchenko, the eighth and what else 38-39 , 38-39, please, you will report on them, yes, i will report briefly, you can first, set the time first. colleagues, we finally got to the issue that should

have been resolved long ago in this parliament from the very beginning and the previous one. amendment number eight refers to the consequence that arose due to the illegal actions of the relevant officials, when instead of renaming the supreme court of ukraine to the supreme court, a new supreme court was formed. as a result, many judges, left from the supreme court of ukraine, without work and all this time they are sitting, waiting to be allowed to work . the corresponding amendment number eight allows you to solve this problem in accordance with the decision of the ecthr, which , unfortunately, already exists today, which clearly indicated that these judges should continue to administer justice from the moment the supreme court of ukraine was renamed the supreme court, that is what this amendment is about , i ask you to support it so that this law corresponds to this norm of the decision of ecplmenyuk and others against ukraine. thank you please.

the position of the committee on amendment number eight, dear colleagues, the committee rejected this amendment, unfortunately, until now the time machine has not been invented, therefore, to return the opportunity to administer justice from the moment when the supreme court was renamed, there is no such physical possibility, therefore please reject, dear colleagues, the eighth amendment authored by demchenko was rejected by the committee, you have heard the arguments of the parties, author. asks to put it into consideration, i put the eighth amendment, i ask to vote, for 82, no decision has been made. sergey, the next 38, right? yes, thank you. thank you colleagues for your support, believe me, you will not be ashamed of who received the previous edit. amendment 38, subsequent to 39, it is connected precisely with the desire to solve

the problem of the existence of two supreme courts. unfortunately, if we vote on the draft law in this edition, the problem will not be solved, we will continue to have two supreme courts, the supreme court and the supreme court of ukraine, which is a shame and very unfortunate for the image of our country. i am sure if we this bill it if we do not resolve the issue now and do not vote on these amendments, which i will put into consideration, then we will have a corresponding issue later , when we will be told that we do not take you to the eu due to the fact that they have solved the main problem, precisely the trouble that created, created two supreme courts. law number 38 is aimed precisely at solving this problem, please support, thank you, the position of the committee is brief and we vote. the committee rejected this amendment. thank you, dear colleagues, the 38th amendment authored by demchenko was rejected by the committee, i will consider it, please people's deputies to vote.

for 68 , no decision has been made and the final amendment 39 please tell me, then, first, correction number 10, 9 and number 16, 9 and 16, please. amendment number nine, unfortunately, unfortunately, as of today, those employees who are left out of the bar, who have to go back to the supreme court, violates their rights, it determines that their fate will be unknown when we now vote on the law and what to do with them in the future , the head

of the legal department turned to this amendment, this problem, it noted that clause 4:2 contains signs of legal uncertainty, since it is not specified in it. what should employees do in the event of a lack of equivalent vacant positions, which will not contribute to compliance with the requirements of article 8 of the constitution of ukraine, regarding action in accordance with the principle of the rule of law. colleagues, those who support the eighth article of the constitution of ukraine and those who believe that the rights of employees of ordinary employees of the supreme court of ukraine, there is no, there is no need, in general, should not be violated, then this amendment should not be supported, amendment number nine, please put it on support, thank you, the committee took this amendment number nine into account and precisely the amendment number nine, it ensures the right to work and to the transfer of employees of the supreme court of ukraine, where it is said that they are transferred to the supreme court, dear colleagues, please pay attention now, dear people's deputies, take your seats, colleagues, in the box

vip guests, your seats. in the hall, dear colleagues, the ninth amendment , it is taken into account by the committee, at the same time, people's deputy demchenko asks to confirm such a decision, the ninth amendment was authored by committee chairman maslovov, you have heard the arguments of the parties, i confirm the ninth amendment, i ask people's deputies to vote. for 235 decisions have been made and the next one by factions, show me, please, and the next 16th one, i can bet right away, serhiy, demchenko,

briefly, please, demchenko, include it, colleagues, in my opinion, there should also be no amendment confirmed, because there is a position of the main legal department, which notes that the relevant amendment uses the term priority, which does not take into account the principle of legal certainty, is subjective. everything happens in our country on a first-priority basis, candidates for the court are recruited on a first-priority basis, judges are dismissed on a first-priority basis , at the same time, the higher commission of judges does not know what to do with this term, it currently puts everyone first... one by one, violating the relevant norms and uncertainties, which is indicated by the main legal management, please do not support this amendment, thank you, the position of the committee, please, committee this amendment. took into account that our higher qualification commission conducts qualification evaluations not only for judges of the supreme

court of ukraine, according to after we adopt this law, but also for other courts, so this amendment is important in order to be able to carry out the first priority qualification assessment, please take into account and confirm, dear colleagues, you have heard the 16th amendment authored by people's deputy maslov it is taken into account by the committee. people's deputy demchenko, he asks for confirmation, this is the decision of the committee, i put amendment 16 for confirmation, i ask for a vote, in favor of 230. one by faction, dear colleagues, we have completed consideration of this draft law, we are moving on to making a decision, dear colleagues, i put the proposal to adopt in the second reading and as a whole, with the necessary

technical and legal amendments, the draft law on amendments to section 12, final and transitional provisions of the law of ukraine on the judiciary and the status of judges, in in connection with the decision of the constitutional court of ukraine dated february 18, 2020, number 2 tr r 2020 regarding ensuring the continuity of the administration of justice by the highest court in the judicial system of ukraine, registration number of the draft law 5456d, i ask the people's deputies to vote. for 251, the decision was made, the law was adopted as a whole, i congratulate my colleagues, the error has been corrected , let's move on, 95-91, this is the second reading, we

had such an agreement at the conciliation council that there will be five amendments to the eu, from dvitrovych, two from pavlenka, one from syumar, one minute of krulka's speech and one correction from the voice, everything is correct. colleagues, this is the 95-91 draft of the law on amendments to some laws of ukraine regarding the recognition of the results of education of persons living in the temporarily occupied territories, in the temporarily occupied territory of ukraine. dear colleagues, please, vyatrovych, name the number of the amendment right away. dear colleagues, amendment number 23. first, i thank the committee for preparing the bill for the second reading and taking into account most of my amendments. suggestions, but unfortunately, for some reason, the amendment itself is not taken into account number 23, which was introduced by a large group of deputies. and the point is that institutions located in

the occupied territory or in the territory that has been occupied for five or more years cannot evaluate the results of education of people from the occupied territories, because the idea of ​​this law is for people from the occupation to integrate into the ukrainian environment , and if this amendment is not taken into account, there is a risk that immediately after the liberation of some territory , the employees of the ukrainian institution restored there will recognize... the study results of one or their own students, and this will dangerous profanation, so i ask you to support amendment number 23. thank you, please, the position of the committee, the position of the committee, reject this amendment, first of all, now there are no ukrainian educational institutions in the occupied territories, all higher education institutions have been relocated, after the deoccupation there is order, and those universities, who will be able to conduct this, the recognition of this knowledge, it will be accepted by the cabinet of ministers, i think that the cabinet of ministers will listen to this proposal, which was practiced, the position of the committee is not to be supported. thank you, dear colleagues, you have heard the position on the 23rd amendment

authorship of vyatovich and colleagues, it was rejected by the committee. at the same time, the author asks to be taken into account. please consider the 23rd amendment. no decision has been made for 72, please vyatrovych, what is the next number 48, the next amendment, sorry, unfortunately, i do not understand why we give it to the cabinet, when we can decide here now as a law, so amendment 48 provides that to the list of specialties, the results of studies that cannot be recognized in the occupation educational institutions... must necessarily include specialties in in the fields of military science, national security, public management and administration, pedagogy, law, history, political science,

russian philology, i think no one has any doubt that training in these specialties in occupation institutions cannot be recognized, therefore it is important to establish this law fuse, so i ask you to support this amendment, again, do not leave it to the level of the cabinet of ministers, the position of the committee, yes, as a co-author of this amendment, i completely understand it, moreover, we as a committee support this approach, and mr. volodymyr, those that you called specialties, it is absolutely logical that we should not recognize. it's just that we have a position that the cabinet of ministers should accept it, mr. volodymyr's position, that we should enshrine it at the level of law, so that the law and various military specialties, national security are not recognized there. the committee's position is to give it to the cabinet, volodymyr's position, well, i understand. thank you, dear colleagues, the 48th amendment, authored by vyatrovich and his colleagues, it was rejected by the argumentation committee, you have heard both sides, so i put it. on

taking into account amendment 48, i ask people's deputies to vote for 88 , the decision has not been taken, thank you, please, two more amendments, we talked, pavlenko, rostislav, no, first syumar, yes, please, one amendment syumar, just call the number , and number 34, first of all, i thank roman hryschuk and the committee for adequate communication, we basically clarified many things, i will tell you where this 25% quota came from, it came precisely from the norms on informal education, in fact, because if we take such a principle from there lay down, then it is not clear why we are laying down other principles here, but since

in this communication we reached an agreement that it will... will not apply to humanitarian subjects, first of all i want to confirm, after all from the interrogator, that here it is not it will not concern, for example, rights, yes, this is such a problematic point, because then it would be strange to have 75%, and i will ask, after these explanations, to support the amendment of my colleague rostislav pavlenko about 50%, thank you, that is, you do not insist on these on the vote i do not insist, if possible answer please committee position? yes, dear colleagues, this is the key provision of this law, and indeed there is a logic there regarding informal education, but we have to decide why we adopt this law, and we adopt this law in order to send a powerful signal to the occupied territories, look, ukraine will return, we want you to leave the occupied territories , if you have such an opportunity, despite the fact that you were there during the occupation, come here and we will make it as easy as

possible for you to work here and recognize your knowledge. we we will never recognize certificates of education obtained in the occupied territories, but we can recognize knowledge, if a person confirms his knowledge at some maximum, maximum level, we recognize it. thank you, please, pavlenko, ruslav mikhalavich. thank you, dear roslav oleksiiovych, amendments 43 and 49. regarding amendment 43, thank you, my colleague, victoria simar already. said what it is actually about, it's just that at the committee we really substantially revised this draft law, its quality significantly increased, both substantively and legal and technical, but it seems to me and my colleagues that considering precisely the content of education, what pupils and students actually learn from educational institutions in the occupied

territories, it would be more logical to recognize half of what they heard there, 50%, many experts agree with this position, especially those who work with the ministry of education and science, and therefore the proposal, dear colleagues , to support precisely the compromise position, regarding the recognition of not three quarters of everything that was learned in the occupation institutions, but the half that concerned , position of the committee, any please, yes, the position of the committee, 75%, this was a very controversial story, and mon and i also said, conditionally, if a person obtained, well, we do not recognize, but if he has knowledge at the master’s level, we can determine him at the most , for three three years of study, the fourth year, including thanks to your amendments that the fourth year should be saturated with humanitarian components in the ukrainian language, the history of ukraine.