VZCZCXRO5358
PP RUEHDBU RUEHSL
DE RUEHKV #0191/01 0341554
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 031554Z FEB 10
FM AMEMBASSY KYIV
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9271
INFO RUCNCIS/CIS COLLECTIVE
RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 KYIV 000191 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/10/2020 
TAGS: PGOV PREL UP
SUBJECT: POTENTIAL FOR POST ELECTION COURT BATTLES 
 
REF: KYIV 000064 
 
Classified By: DCM James D. Pettit for reasons 1.4 (b,d) 
 
SUMMARY 
-------- 
 
¶1. (C)  Prime Minister Tymoshenko's continued allegation of 
fraud in the January 17 first round presidential election, 
despite the OSCE's assessment that it was, for the most part, 
free and fair, raises the importance of the appeals process 
for the February 7 runoff.  The Chairmanship of the High 
Administrative Court (HAC), the arbiter of election cases, 
remains unclear.  Both the former Chairman, believed aligned 
with Yanukovych's Party of Regions, and the Deputy Chairman, 
believed aligned with the Tymoshenko bloc, claim to be Acting 
Chairman.  The (pro-Tymoshenko) Deputy Minister of Justice 
has told us (and said publicly) that the former Chairman's 
effort to remain in his post constitutes "the main threat to 
democratic and honest elections."   The turmoil in the HAC 
provides an opportunity for the candidates to move their 
appeals outside of the Administrative Court system to courts 
considered amenable to their interests: the Constitutional 
Court, believed favorably disposed to Regions, or the Supreme 
Court, whose Chairman is a former member of Tymoshenko's 
parliamentary faction.  The closer the result on February 7, 
the greater the chance for protracted legal challenges -- and 
a possible delay in the inauguration of the next president. 
Conversely, a clear win by front-runner Yanukovych (more than 
five percent) would likely leave little avenue for court 
challenges.  End Summary. 
 
 
PM CLAIMS FRAUD IN FIRST ROUND, WOULD APPEAL IN RUNOFF 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
 
¶2. (U)  Prime Minister Tymoshenko in a press interview on 
January 26 reiterated her claim that opposition leader Viktor 
Yanukovych's supporters were involved in electoral fraud. 
Her campaign has claimed since January 17 that three percent 
of Yanukovych's total belonged to her.  They have offered no 
proof, however.  Tymoshenko said that she chose not to appeal 
the results in order to avoid delaying the February 7 runoff, 
but promised to appeal to the courts if fraud occurs in the 
second round.  Tymoshenko and MPs from her parliamentary bloc 
continue to claim that Yanukovych is planning similar 
manipulation in the runoff vote. 
 
¶3. (C)  In contrast to Tymoshenko's claim of election fraud, 
OSCE ODIHR election monitoring mission head, Ambassador Heidi 
Tagliavini, told the Ambassador on January 29 that the 
election was "very good" and estimated that 95 to 98 percent 
of election commissions followed all election day procedures 
correctly.  Ambassador Tagliavini explained that Tymoshenko's 
continued insistence that large-scale fraud had occurred in 
the first round was "disturbing" and that a drawn out legal 
fight after the runoff election could further destabilize 
Ukraine's political system. 
 
 
FORMER HIGH COURT HEAD AND DEPUTY LINE UP SUPPORTERS 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
 
¶4. (U)  The leadership dispute (reftel) between former 
Chairman Pasenyuk and the Deputy Chairman Sirosh in the High 
Administrative Court (HAC), the final arbiter of election 
cases, remains unresolved.  The Rada has so far failed to 
pass the needed legislation to set up a new procedure to 
nominate and approve a HAC Chairman.  The Chairman of the 
Supreme Court Vasyl Onopenko, who is close to PM Tymoshenko, 
on January 14 held a press conference where he stated that no 
HAC decisions signed by Pasenyuk should be recognized as 
legal.  He said that he recognized Sirosh as Acting Chairman 
of the HAC until a new Chairman is "legally" appointed. 
However, in a blow to Sirosh, the Ministry of Internal 
Affairs (MOI) on January 16 confiscated the replacement of 
the HAC's official stamp that it had issued him the previous 
week after he reported the stamp was lost.  In a public 
statement the MOI said that it confiscated the stamp because 
it determined that the original was not lost, but in the 
possession of Pasenyuk. 
 
¶5. (C) The Prosecutor General's office on January 16 issued a 
legal opinion backing Pasenyuk as Acting Chairman until his 
replacement is named.  The Prosecutor General said that 
because no one has the legal authority to replace Pasenyuk, 
his term should indefinitely continue.  The Prosecutor 
General's office has no formal role in the HAC leadership 
dispute, but Prosecutor General Medvedko is aligned with 
Yanukovych.  The OSCE ODIHR legal advisor told us that the 
observation mission had issued its own legal opinion that 
recognizes Sirosh as the HAC Acting Chairman.  He explained 
 
KYIV 00000191  002 OF 003 
 
 
that Pasenyuk's term as chairman had expired therefore the 
Deputy should fill in until a new Chairman is appointed. 
 
 
REGIONS ADVISORS MINIMIZE HAC LEADERSHIP ISSUE 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
¶6. (C)  In a meeting with the Ambassador on January 28, 
senior Yanukovych campaign advisors claimed that the 
competing HAC chairmen would not pose a problem.  They 
explained that election cases would be heard by all 55 HAC 
judges, thus minimizing the role of the Chairman.  The 
Tymoshenko campaign's use of this issue was an attempt to 
discredit the election result and undermine the expected 
Yanukovych victory.   The advisors told the Ambassador that 
Yanukovych's legal team is fully prepared to defend the 
election results in the courts. 
 
 
DEPUTY JUSTICE MINISTER: "THREAT TO DEMOCRACY" 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
¶7. (C)  Deputy Justice Minister Yevhen Korniychuk told us 
January 27 that dueling HAC Chairmen constituted "the main 
threat for democratic and honest elections."  He repeated it 
publicly.   Pasenyuk's insistence on staying in his position 
was completely political in motivation; he seeks to serve 
Party of Regions interests, Korniychuk said.   The integrity 
of the election could, he insisted, be at stake.  Korniychuk 
told us he was in touch with Supreme Court Chairman Onopenko 
to find a way out of the problem by election day, but did not 
expect to be successful. 
 
 
WILL SYSTEM PREVENT MANIPULATION? 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶8. (C)  Olga Shumylo, Director of the International Center 
for Policy Studies, explained to us that the procedures of 
the HAC could help mitigate any attempts to manipulate 
election cases.  She said that prior to the end of his term 
in December, Pasenyuk had issued a ruling that all election 
cases would be heard by the entire HAC plenary of 55 judges. 
This would prevent the chairman or politically like-minded 
judges from handing the election to their favored candidate. 
Shumylo told us that the reporting judge in each case would 
be randomly assigned by computer. HAC Deputy Chief Judge 
Mihailo Tsurkan confirmed to us that random case assignment 
is in effect in the HAC and that the assignment process would 
be transparent.  He also explained that even if Pasenyuk 
rescinded his order that the full HAC plenary must hear 
election cases, appeals would be heard by five-judge panels 
assigned by the head of the second HAC chamber, which deals 
with election issues, not by Pasenyuk. 
 
 
COURT APPEALS AND A LOOPHOLE 
---------------------------- 
 
¶9. (C)  The dispute over the HAC Chairmanship opens a 
significant loophole for the presidential candidates to 
appeal their court cases outside the Administrative Court 
system, according to Shumylo.  Although the Law on 
Presidential Elections says that the HAC decisions can not be 
appealed, the procedures that the HAC uses to hear the case 
or the role played by the Acting Chairman could be appealed 
to the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Court.  Shumylo 
said that a candidate could use this avenue to have an 
unfavorable HAC decision thrown out. 
 
¶10. (C) BYUT MP (and member of Tymoshenko's legal team) 
Valeriy Pysarenko told us that while this move is possible, 
it would take "significant legal maneuvering."  He said that 
Tymoshenko will not appeal election results if the margin is 
more than five percent because "it just would not make sense" 
but that if the outcome is close they are ready to take the 
fight to the courts. 
 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶11. (C) Pysarenko's view is shared by many here: the closer 
the result, the greater the chance for protracted court 
battles and a potential delay in the inauguration of the next 
president.  Ukraine's nebulous legal framework leaves ample 
room for challenge in the event of a close result.  Both 
sides are gearing up for a fight should that be the case. 
If, however, Yanukovych were to win convincingly, by over 
five percent (some put the bar lower), that momentum -- 
absent credible reports of significant fraud by impartial 
observers -- would blunt the effect of the Tymoshenko 
 
KYIV 00000191  003 OF 003 
 
 
campaign's court challenges. 
TEFFT