Aristaeus, you said “Our world is not fair or just, there for accept the justice when it is here. She was wrong of many crimes against humanity, this was one way to bring her to justice.” – Whilst I accept totally the outcome of this case based around the facts, I just comment on the sentence, in all its possibilities. I do not accept at all your legal approach, which amounts to an arbitrary criminal utility form of application, which is unjust by definition. Remember there is more to the rule of law than statutes, there is the essence of a fair process for applying them. Basically you are slipping into the, experienced do gooder cop, who will bend the system to get their man. This all sounds great, the criminal is banged up. But with the inevitable high number of statutes on any countries legal books, it quickly turns into, use any law to suit my purpose as the do gooder cop. This would not be justice, just a license for arbitrary application of law, which is injustice by definition – you will never reduce crime by becoming a criminal, as you will never reduce terrorism by becoming a terrorist, ask the US and UK about that. I accept Ukraine’s judicial outcome totally, I just think they need convey the reasoning behind the sentence, because otherwise the world can misunderstand them - remeber they don’t live on an island.

Lock her up and throw away the keys! She was a CIA spy!

Simply put: she may be guilty of something, yet interesting that Yushenko betrayed her and that Yanukovich was her opponent for President! When the oil deals went bad, they found a good person to blame. Oh, interesting that Yanukovich is pro-Russian and still throwing Ms. Tymoshenko to the lions. Personally, I don't believe she should have ever been prime minister, just not that kind of person.

"Yulia, is sentenced for a fluffy deal with Russia, and Putin is her defender.  The world turned upside down!"

I wouldn't believe for two seconds that Putin is actually the defender of Tymoshenko. Naturally he is going to come out on her side in this because what else can he do? Yanukovich has used the gas deal - which may or may not have been dodgy but probably no worse than any other deals that have taken place in the past - as a pretext for getting her out of the way. But in the long term Putin may stand to gain by this. If the EU carries out its misplaced threat to sever treaties with Ukraine, next time Putin comes calling to tempt Ukraine into his own dubious orbit it may be harder to resist.
As for Yanukovich, just now the signs are not good for Ukraine: ominously, the opening of the new stadiuim in Kyiv at the weekend was not broadcast live on Ukrainian TV, quite possibly in order to edit out the chorus of boos which greeted his speech. On the other hand maybe the man is just very vain...

Count Cash wrote in #1
Ukraine, Ukraine…. What are you doing? Yes you have found the DVD sales lady guilty of a crime, and that is absolutely your business. Indeed you have a right to determine things according to your laws without interference, I support you 100% on that. However, what about this sentence, yes I can understand that overstepping her authority, on a big deal, really can and probably has caused immense suffering to ordinary people. However, I would suggest in sentencing her, you have to take into account her criminal mind and the extent that she could appreciate the consequences of her actions, including any negligent aspects. You may have done this, and decided, she knew exactly what she was doing, and how it would affect ordinary people…. Or that she was deliberately avoiding evaluating those affects. However, you need be very clear about this, and the conveying of the resultant message, if this sentence is to be judged just and appropriate. If she had enriched herself greatly, or scoffed at the affects on ordinary people, then the sentence seems fair, if not lenient. However, if it was just a technical breach, then this sentence is vastly disproportionate. But this is your affair, I can just comment! Our world is not fair or just, there for accept the justice when it is here. She was wrong of many crimes against humanity, this was one way to bring her to justice.

This may be the case similar to Al Capone's.  Put in jail for tax avoidance, his other well known crimes were not talked off.   In Yulia's case, how can anyone forget the happy-go-lucky days when she was the "Gas Princess",  had "earned" unknown billions at the expense of Ukraine,  had private jumbo jets taking her around, and a private army of bodyguards.  Her partier in crime is in US jail for a long time now.  The past in Ukraine has been "sanitized".  Orange revolutionaires, once in power, made sure no documents are left to compromise them.  But the habits of free-lance dealing did not change in fair Yulia.  Given the first opportunity to act upon in a big way in gas arena again, she slipped.  And these documents are not "lost".   The situation is rather funny.  Yulia's biggest support comes from the Ukraine that hates anything Russian, automatically.  Yet, their darling, Yulia, is sentenced for a fluffy deal with Russia, and Putin is her defender.  The world turned upside down!

I congratulate the Ukrainian court on passing this sentence on a politician who acted either maliciously or negligently or a combination of both, against the interests of Ukrainians. You should ask the people of Ukraine who have been forced to live in fuel poverty whether or not they agree with the sentence.  How many Ukrainians will suffer ill health due to such negligence? It is not surprising that EU leaders are critical of this decision.  They should be facing similar sentences for their part in the malicious negligence of the Euro Currency Project fraud and the suffering they have caused and continue to cause to citizens in their own countries.

Ukraine, Ukraine…. What are you doing? Yes you have found the DVD sales lady guilty of a crime, and that is absolutely your business. Indeed you have a right to determine things according to your laws without interference, I support you 100% on that. However, what about this sentence, yes I can understand that overstepping her authority, on a big deal, really can and probably has caused immense suffering to ordinary people. However, I would suggest in sentencing her, you have to take into account her criminal mind and the extent that she could appreciate the consequences of her actions, including any negligent aspects. You may have done this, and decided, she knew exactly what she was doing, and how it would affect ordinary people…. Or that she was deliberately avoiding evaluating those affects. However, you need be very clear about this, and the conveying of the resultant message, if this sentence is to be judged just and appropriate. If she had enriched herself greatly, or scoffed at the affects on ordinary people, then the sentence seems fair, if not lenient. However, if it was just a technical breach, then this sentence is vastly disproportionate. But this is your affair, I can just comment!