14 February 2008, 10:41
Taking part in the Committee meeting was Olexander Medvedko, Prosecutor General of Ukraine.
Committee members discussed the Draft Resolution (Reg.No.1145) tabled by the People´s Deputy, S.Oliynyk.
Yuriy Prokopchuk, Chairman of the Subcommittee for Parliamentary Control and Legislative Support for the reform of the Prosecutor General´s Office Bodies, reviewing the Work Report submitted by the Prosecutor General, highlighted the shortcomings, primarily the low level of disclosure of criminal cases, and among them those which, due to their significance, arouse wide public attention.
Yu. Prokopchuk noted that the Committee constantly receives numerous complaints as to the operation of the Prosecutor General´s Office. This Office, therefore, must put ‘more effort into its work´.
The Sub-committee Chairman stated that he sees no grounds whatsoever for the dismissal of O. Medvedko.
The Prosecutor General admitted to faults and violations in his work. However, at the same time he reassured the People´s Deputies that he would respond to these complaints without delay, and ensure that all necessary steps to correct these complaints would be taken by the Prosecutor General´s Office.
Responding to criticisms, O. Medvedko cited data which, to his belief, is evidence of the successful operation of the Prosecutor General´s Office.
As regards disclosure of significant cases, O. Medvedko admitted the failure to disclose them. He stated, however, that despite the absence of any concrete results, the investigation has made some progress.
The Prosecutor General replied to questions from Committee members. The People´s Deputies were interested to know how the Prosecutor General´s Office characterized the actions of some of the People´s Deputies in The Verkhovna Rada, i.e. the seizure of the Electrical Control Unit Room, theft of the Verkhovna Rada Chairman´s card, etc.
O.Medvedko replied that an investigative examination is required for characterization of such actions, which has never before been undertaken, as no relevant applications were submitted to him.
By a 13-1 vote, Committee members rejected the Draft Resolution at issue.