Inefficient work of the ombudsperson
21.05.2000
We have directed an appeal to the ombudsperson Nina Karpacheva. In the appeal we protested against the order of the Ministry of Interior on training special troops of the Ministry using as dummies the incarcerated in prisons, preliminary prisons and colonies. The training is carried out quarterly since 1998. This practice was described in the newspapers ‘Zerkalo nedeli’, ‘Den’, ‘Kievskiye vedomosti’, ‘Tiurma I volia’. The newspapers informed that the results were traumas of the incarcerated and complaints. In our appeal we suggested the ombudsperson to start checking whether this order agrees with the Constitution of Ukraine and with international documents on human rights. We appealed to cancel this order.
Ombudsperson Karpacheva directed out appeal to the Penitentiary Department at the Cabinet of Ministers, i.e. to the agency which is directly interested in the application of this order. Until now the order has not been cancelled and our appeal has not been answered.
Besides, we directed an appeal to the ombudsperson about the violation of terms of imprisonment in the detention blocks at precincts and directorates of militia. In particular, we wrote about detention blocks at the Kyivan directorate, where the terms of detention are often very long.
Detention blocks are not intended for long upkeep of the arrested, and, according to Article 155 of the Penal-Procedural Code (PPC) the arrested must not be kept in detention blocks longer than three days, and then they must be transferred to preliminary prisons. According to Article 236 of the PPC, if Article 155 is violated, then the court may cancel the prosecutor’s sanction for arrest. Unfortunately, courts seldom react to the violation of Article 155. In this connection we suggested the ombudsperson to turn to the Supreme Court with a request to analyze the practice of lower courts relative to Article 155. The ombudsperson redirected the appeal to the General Prosecutor’s office, i.e. to the interested agency. The General Prosecutor’s office sent this appeal to the prosecutor’s office of the district of Kyiv, where the violations are frequent. No legal assessment of the violations has been given.
So, in our opinion, a detained citizen must individually complain about any fact of keeping for more than three days in detention blocks, to mention this fact in the appellation as a violation of rights.
Unfortunately, we must draw a conclusion that the activity of the ombudsperson is little efficient and is a usual bureaucratic structure at the top of the legislative power.
Ombudsperson Karpacheva directed out appeal to the Penitentiary Department at the Cabinet of Ministers, i.e. to the agency which is directly interested in the application of this order. Until now the order has not been cancelled and our appeal has not been answered.
Besides, we directed an appeal to the ombudsperson about the violation of terms of imprisonment in the detention blocks at precincts and directorates of militia. In particular, we wrote about detention blocks at the Kyivan directorate, where the terms of detention are often very long.
Detention blocks are not intended for long upkeep of the arrested, and, according to Article 155 of the Penal-Procedural Code (PPC) the arrested must not be kept in detention blocks longer than three days, and then they must be transferred to preliminary prisons. According to Article 236 of the PPC, if Article 155 is violated, then the court may cancel the prosecutor’s sanction for arrest. Unfortunately, courts seldom react to the violation of Article 155. In this connection we suggested the ombudsperson to turn to the Supreme Court with a request to analyze the practice of lower courts relative to Article 155. The ombudsperson redirected the appeal to the General Prosecutor’s office, i.e. to the interested agency. The General Prosecutor’s office sent this appeal to the prosecutor’s office of the district of Kyiv, where the violations are frequent. No legal assessment of the violations has been given.
So, in our opinion, a detained citizen must individually complain about any fact of keeping for more than three days in detention blocks, to mention this fact in the appellation as a violation of rights.
Unfortunately, we must draw a conclusion that the activity of the ombudsperson is little efficient and is a usual bureaucratic structure at the top of the legislative power.