The artificiality of the constitutional crisis was provoked by the Ukrainian authorities, not by the Constitutional Court itself.

Maryna Stavniychuk, the Head of the Rule of Law Committee at the UNBA, is convinced of this. On the air of the talk show "People Against" with Natalia Vlashchenko, Maryna Stavniychuk stressed once again that all compromises in overcoming this constitutional crisis should be found solely within and on the basis of the Constitution and laws of Ukraine.

According to the Head of the Rule of Law Committee at the UNBA, the solution to the constitutional crisis should not be dealt with by the political team that created it due to incompetence or because of influences from third parties.

During the broadcast, she reminded the Minister of Justice, Denys Maluska, that he had no authority to interfere in the activities of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine or comment on its decision.

"Does the Minister of Justice have the authority to evaluate the legality or illegality of decisions made by the Constitutional Court or to doubt the authority of the judges of the Constitutional Court? There is no such. Moreover, the Ministry of Justice is responsible for enforcing court verdicts and other Ukrainian courts` decisions, even coercive ones. You forgot about this. If you are a minister that works according to Article 19 of the Constitution of Ukraine, it is not your role to evaluate the decision of the Constitutional Court. You can take the floor at a meeting of the National Security and Defense Council and tell the President, you can sign the relevant decree within your powers, but now you are publicly trampling on the Constitution. Your actions now do not correspond to your powers." - Stavniychuk told Malyuska.

Maryna Stavniychuk stipulates that the way out of the constitutional crisis may be by conducting a full analysis of the entire anti-corruption system of the state and bringing it into line with the Constitution.

 "To save Ukraine in this difficult international situation, we all need to understand - the law is bad, but it must be obeyed. Even the one does not like the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, and it is also not impeccable for me, but I understand that it is final and enforceable. But if there is another position in the parliament - they can get together and decide. You are aware that the anti-corruption legislation, including the legislation on the e-declaration system in the state, violates human rights in many respects, it does not comply with the principle of the rule of law. We need to analyze this whole system and see: if we monitor the lifestyle of civil servants, it should be a procedure defined by law. It should not be a clerk from the National Agency for Prevention of Corruption, who will open the door to a judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine or someone else each time” - said Maryna Stavniychuk.

We want to recall that on October 27, 2020, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine ruled on the constitutional petition of 47 people's deputies of Ukraine regarding the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Law "On Prevention of Corruption" and the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In particular, Article 366-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which provides for liability for false declarations, was declared unconstitutional. The decision has provoked a strong wave of public criticism and speculation, and some experts see it as the beginning of a constitutional crisis. The UNBA has made a statement concerning its position.