The HACC today continued hearing Yulia Tymoshenko's case on bribing fellow MPs. Tymoshenko's defense had asked to transfer the case to the Kyiv Court of Appeal on jurisdictional grounds, but the HACC's Appeals Chamber denied that motion on July 3.

The court reviewed a motion to extend Tymoshenko's obligations, which included appearing whenever summoned by SAPO prosecutors and reporting any change of residence.

The court denied the prosecutor's motion to extend her obligations.

The prosecutor argued that the list of obligations was not burdensome for Tymoshenko and that, since her bail had been paid in full, the prosecution saw no need to impose further obligations. The prosecutor also noted that within the next two months, the case could realistically move to the next stage — a hearing on the merits.

SAPO identified the following risks in the case:

• Flight risk. The defendant has declared substantial assets and has connections with numerous officials, and she holds a passport for international travel.
• Risk of influencing witnesses and experts. This concerns the testimony of individuals questioned as witnesses and Tymoshenko's pattern of discrediting all testimony already given.

The prosecutor also pointed to a draft law registered in the Verkhovna Rada that would decriminalize the very actions Tymoshenko is accused of — introduced, notably, by Mykhailo Sokolov, an MP from the Batkivshchyna faction that Tymoshenko heads.

Tymoshenko's defense argued that all the cited risks were copied verbatim from earlier motions, even though the circumstances of the criminal proceedings have significantly changed. Her lawyer noted that Tymoshenko had traveled abroad more than 30 times and returned on time every occasion, meaning there is no flight risk. The defense also said there was no evidence that Tymoshenko had pressured witnesses or experts or interfered with their testimony.

Her lawyer further noted that the motion to extend the obligations had not been approved by the Prosecutor General and was signed only by the SAPO prosecutor — and therefore, in the defense's view, should not be granted.

Tymoshenko herself cited three reasons to deny the motion. First, the prosecutor is asking to extend obligations that have already expired. Second, only two formal obligations remain at issue, which she considers unlawful and entirely unwarranted at the trial stage. Third, she argued that the risks cited by the prosecutor are purely abstract and unsupported by any facts.