Professor Petro Andrushko, PhD, says that Yulia Tymoshenko’s guilt wasn’t proved during the pre-trial investigation or trial in the so called "gas case", according to the Official web site of Yulia Tymoshenko.
"In its indictment the criminal investigation body doesn’t concretely identify what Yulia Tymoshenko exceeded – authority or official powers; and while exercising what functions did she exceed authority or official powers – the functions of a representative of government or organizational functions (duties)," he wrote in an analysis of Yulia Tymoshenko’s sentence, published in "Yurydychny Visnyk Ukrainy".
Professor Andrushko stressed that the answers to these questions are vital to the legal assessment of whether Yulia Tymoshenko’s actions did or did not constitute a crime of excess of authority or official power by committing actions that can only be committed collectively. Article 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine contains the phrase "excess of authority or official powers," which from a legal standpoint means that an official can exceed authority or official powers, but not both at the same time. "The investigative body charged Yulia Tymoshenko with simultaneously exceeding authority and official powers," he added.
According to the lawyer, the efforts of the investigative body focused primarily on substantiating that Yulia Tymoshenko’s actions constituted a crime. "Evidence of her innocence was ignored by the investigative body. I believe this indicates that the pre-trial investigation was one-sided and biased," he noted.
He also pointed out that pursuant to article 67 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the "court, prosecutor, investigator, and inquirer evaluate evidence according to their moral certainty which is based on thorough, complete and objective examination of the totality of circumstances in the case, being guided by law." "This requires that the court make a balanced assessment of evidence provided by the investigative body to justify the presence of a crime in Yulia Tymoshenko’s actions," he said.
However, as Professor Andrushko pointed out, the court rejected nearly all the motions by the defense to call and question witnesses, to add certain documents to the case, including expert findings, and testimony by defense witnesses was either deemed unacceptable, not taken into account, or `critically perceived by the court.`"