search  
print
About KhPG › Annual reports
26.05.2010

Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group. ANNUAL REPORT 2009

   

Contents

 1. Summary

2. Prevention of torture and ill treatment            

     2.1. Analytical, lawmaking and lobbying activities

     2.2. Development of a system of legal aid for victims of tortures

     2.3. Development and strengthening a network for preventing torture

     2.4. Awareness-raising and educational activities

3. Participation in a constitutional process

4. Improvement of the legislation and practice on access to information

5. Campaign against xenophobia and discrimination

6. History of dissident movement and political repressions

7. Publications

8. Financial information

  Appendix.  List of the grants         

  


1. SUMMARY

In 2009 the Kharkiv Group for Human Rights Protection (hereinafter, the Kharkiv Group or KHPG) continued to work in three directions:

·legal enlightenment and popularisation of law-protecting ideas;

·analysis of the status of human rights in Ukraine;

·help to citizens whose rights were abused, public investigations of facts of violating human rights.

In 2009 one of the most important directions of KHPG activities was prevention of torture and ill-treatment. It includes analytical, lawmaking and lobbying activities, awareness-raising and educational activities, as well as development of a system of legal aid for victims of tortures anddevelopment and strengthening a network for preventing torture. So, our experts prepared several chapters to a new draft of the Code of Criminal Procedure, amicus curie for the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in case on access to justice, took part in preparing and discussing all draft laws envisaged by the Concept and National Action Plan.We created quite strong working connections between regional human rights NGOs and lawyers in order to investigate torture cases. We have provided consultation and help to around 800 people, 58 among them were victims of torture and ill-treatment. We have carried out legal assistance within the framework of the activity of the Legal Aid Centre in 35 cases, 22 of which were financed by the Centre. Four judgments were adopted by the European Court of Human Rights in cases supported by the Centre. We conducted two public hearings on human rights observation in the MIA activities and in the penitentiary system. We also conducted the following educational events: two seminars for judges, three trainers for lawyers, one seminar for prosecutors, and school on human rights for the personnel of the MIA Department on monitoring human rights in the MIA activities. We held several press-conferences and other public actions devoted to prevention of torture and ill-treatment.

KHPG reception office for people, whose rights were abused, worked actively. Along with 2009 KHPG received 1742 written complaints about the violation of human rights by state bodies. We have finished 1180 cases and received positive results in 512 cases. In addition, we gave more than 2734 oral consultations.

In 2009 KHPG continued to develop law and practice concerning access to information, in particular access to archives. KHPG also continued a campaign against xenophobia and discrimination in Ukraine. In addition, we continued research of the history of dissident movement in Ukraine, preparation and publication of the books on this theme.

KHPG continued to fulfil functions of the Centre for the existing network, which connects regional right protecting organisations in all regions of Ukraine. KHPG gathered information on human right abuses, to lead analytical and law-educating activities. Facts of human right abuses and their primary analysis were described in the bulletin ‘Prava Ludyny’ (PL, twice a month, with a monthly edition in English). Our monthly ‘Prava Ludyny. Human Rights Education’ (HRE) included materials on teaching human rights to children and various social and professional groups.These editions distributed among NGOs and individuals which are interested in such themes as well as state bodies, mass media, libraries, etc.

The same channels were used for the distribution of law-educating literature, prepared and published in the Kharkiv Group separately or jointly with other organisations, various informative materials prepared by the Kharkiv Group jointly with other. Such materials we published in the form of books in 1000 copies. In 2009 KHPG printed 32 editions. Furthermore, KHPG satisfied 386 petitions from different regions of Ukraine about sending information materials on human rights and distributed these materials among participants of the educational events.

The disseminating information about human rights violations, activities of the Group and members of the network was run through KHPG website www.khpg.orgincluded Ukrainian, Russian and English versions. Average number of visitors was approximately 1000 per day.

Total expenditures of the Group were 3 983, 057UAH. Please, see list of donors in the Appendix.


2. PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND ILL TREATMENT

2.1. Analytical, lawmaking and lobbying activities

2.1.1. In general

On permanent basis, we have maintained our analytical work, including:

monitoring Parliament’s legislative work;

studying international documents and monitoring the practice of international bodies;

preparing draft laws,

preparing and/or providing consultation on preparing by-law;

giving expert opinions on draft laws, administrative practice and drawing up recommendations;

discussing models for NPM, based around their advantages and disadvantages;

cooperating with SPT and CPT;

carrying out a widespread information campaign to gain support for the implementation of OPCAT and creation of NPM;

During our activities, we have co-operated with the Ministry of Justice, in particular with a special department therein – the Office of the Governmental Agent in the European Convention on Human Rights in order to use the mechanisms created by the law “On the enforcement of the judgments and use of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights” to exert influence on legislative and norm creating activity of ministries and departments.

We have also taken part in drawing up other elements of the legal system, which are important for preventing torture, for example, participated in drafting a new Code of Criminal Procedure (see below).

We also conducted in depth analysis of the Criminal Punishment Execution Code and other related legislation from the prospect of rights and security of the prisoners and detainees.

We have also participated in discussion on and lobbying of drafts Law on Free Legal Aid System and related regulation, a new Freedom of Information Law, and laws related to hate crimes.

We have regularly taken part in developing recommendations on orders, instructions and other normative provisions of the MIA.

Also we have continued to prepare commentaries for publication on the compliance of national legislation and practice to international and regional standards of human rights protection. These commentaries are based both on theoretical studies, and on specific cases, the results of monitoring and reports from other human rights organizations. The Centre’s work (see chapter 2.2.2.2 below) has allow us to gather detailed information about not only facts of torture and ill-treatment, but also about the real functioning of system for prevention of ill-treatment, available remedies and their operating. The information collected by the PROs and Centre was also indispensable for drafting efficient amendments to legislation and well-grounded lobbying for changes through public pressure campaigns and other forms of awareness-raising activity.

The examples of our analytical activities are presented below:

 2.1.2. Preparation of the chapters to a new Code of Criminal Procedure

Our legal experts have taken part in preparing of several chapters to a new draft of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine (CCP): chapters on police arrest and jail or bail hearings, evidence rules, including admissibility of confessions, amendments to legislation on psychiatric detention, detention of vagrants, administrative detention, detention pending extradition and other types of deprivation of liberty. After several meetings aimed to effective discussion of the new draft, 14 October 2009 Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine approved it. At the same date the draft appeared in the internet site of Ministry of Justice for public discussions. 17 October 2009 the representative of Secretary General of Council of Europe made special mention as to the draft and noted that it should be adopted as soon as possible.

In order to improve the draft and to reveal probable discrepancies, we plan to discuss it with different target groups, i.e. judges, prosecutors, advocates etc during future trainings and seminars in 2009 and 2010, make notes and provide to Ministry of Justice (or appropriate Parliamentary Committee, if it would be the case) for considerations.

In November 2009, during second training session for lawyers we tested the provisions of new CCP with lawyers and legal experts, in particular, provisions concerning jail or bail hearing. We prepared practical cases for participants and discuss application of provisions of the draft. We compared the new provisions of CCP with the provisions of European Convention of Human Rights and principles lied in case-law of European court in order to reveal probable advantages and disadvantages of new CCP.

 2.1.3. Preparation and discussion of the draft law on NPM

Our experts took part in discussion concerning NPM during the period in question; it took place in Kiev. We gave our recommendations to the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine as to the draft of the Act on NPM, prepared comments on existing mechanisms of the control over places of detention and proposals on models of NPM that include detailed analysis of advantages and disadvantages of each model. We take active part in modification of the text of the draft Act to the date. The draft Act foresees the creation of a new body called National commission for prevention of tortures. Unfortunately, these procedures last longer that we expected mostly due to the State authorities’ behaviour. Ministry of Justice to the date sends the draft law to many different state bodies in order to receive their recommendations and/or comments, which takes exorbitant time; we believe that it is not necessary to involve irrelevant state authorities in preparation of the mentioned draft law, because in any case it will be examined in contour committee and verified many more times after its registration in the Parliament. We also proceeded to discuss the draft at conference that took place in Lviv in November 2009. The conference gathered national and international experts in order to examine current tendencies, challenges and practical aspects of the implementation of the OPCAT.

2.1.4. Preparation and discussion of the drafts law (ECHR case-law against Ukraine)

Lawyers of KHPG took part in preparing and discussing of the draft law directed to execution of two judgments of the European Court against Ukraine – Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine and Kucheruk v. Ukraine. Due to lack of clear national legislation on force feeding (European Court held in case of Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine that force feeding of the applicant had violated Article 3 of the Convention) and flagrant denial of psychiatric medical help in detention centre Ministry of Justice of Ukraine discussed that draft law on the round table in Kiev in November 2009. Our experts have taken active part in this discussion. We already gave our recommendations as to mentioned draft law to the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.

 2.1.5. Changing internal MIA normative acts

Our lawyers have prepared recommendations and comments to draft laws of Ukraine and propositions to functional MIA instructions, in particular:

“As to changes to some Acts of Ukraine as to force feeding of a person according to court decision as to medical diagnosis”;

“As to changes to some Acts of Ukraine concerning provision of psychiatric medical help for detainees”;

“As to the procedure of civil investigation following the applications concerning violations of Human Rights by MIA officers;

“As to the measures concerning prevention of illegal violence in MIA”;

“Problems of compliance with the person’s right for her home or other ownership”;

“Necessary changes to joint Order of MIA and State Department on Execution of Punishments № 300/73 of 23.04.2001”;

“Addendum to Order № 300”. “As to organization of investigative bodies in MIA”;

“As to elimination of disparities of the Instruction adopted by Order of MIA № 181 of 28.04.2009”;

“Draft of Instruction as to detention of a person suspected in committing crime in MIA establishments“;

“Propositions to provisions of functional MIA instructions”

2.1.6. Preparation of amicus curiae for Constitutional Court of Ukraine

In May 2009 Constitutional Court of Ukraine asked KHPG to express its legal opinion concerning the availability of legal assistance for the citizen during his/her questioning as a witness or in case of his/her summon to the State authority. Lawyers of KHPG have expressed their position and some of their remarks were taken into account and were reflected in the judgment of Constitutional Court of Ukraine of 30 September 2009. Following that judgment the provision of Article 59 of Constitution of Ukraine should be interpreted wide, i.e. “Everyone has a right for legal assistance” means the availability of legal assistance, guaranteed by the State, for everyone without any illegal interferences and irrespectively to the nature of its legal status between state authorities.

 2.2. Development of a system of legal aid for victims of tortures

2.2.1. Providing legal consultation by KHPG’s Public reception office

During 2009 KHPG Public reception office has provided consultation and help to 1691 people in question. About 53 among them were victims of torture and/or ill-treatment. 69 were complaining on arbitrary detention, arrest or violations during investigation. 206 people complained as to total ignorance of their complaints and/or applications to competent state bodies. 66 people complained on exorbitant lengths of proceedings before national courts and failure to enforce judgments at law.

 

2.2.2. Providing legal assistance and representation to victims of torture and ill-treatment

The legal officers provided assistance and representation of victims of human rights violations, including representation before ECtHR. During 2009 the European Court delivered 13 judgments in cases of the Legal Aid Centre and 5 judgments against Ukraine became final.

In period reported the following European court’s judgments in cases supported by the Legal Aid Centre became final:

On 23 January 2009 - Soldatenko v. Ukraine judgment. The Court held that the applicant’s extradition to Turkmenistan would be in violation of Article 3 of the Convention and established de facto moratorium on extradition to Turkmenistan; there have also been violations of Article 5 § 1(f) and Article 5 § 4 and violation of Article 13 of the Convention. The case became precedent for further case-law of the Court in cases concerning non-refoulement principle/

On 13 February 2009 - Muravskaya v. Ukraine judgment. The Court found that there was a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb due to inappropriate investigation of death caused by third persons.

On 18 March 2009 - Lutsenko v. Ukraine judgment. The judgment concerned use as evidence for conviction of statements received from the person under duress. The Court held that there was violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention as the rights of the defence were restricted to an extent which compromised the fairness of the proceedings as a whole; therefore, it found violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

On 18 March 2009 – Kats and others v. Ukraine judgment. The Court found violation of Article 2 of the Convention due to lack of medical assistance resulted in death and ineffective investigation of the events. Violation of Article 5 of the Convention was also established.

On 18 March 2009 – Novik and others v. Ukraine judgment. The Court found violation of Article 5 of the Convention referring to its conclusions in Soldatenko’s case.

The following judgments of the European Court were held in period reported:

On 19 February 2009:

Shabelnik v. Ukrainejudgment (no. 16404/03). The Court held that Ukraine violated Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention due to use of statements of the applicant received under duress and without his lawyer

Doronin v. Ukrainejudgment (no. 16505/02). The Court found violations of Articles 5 § 1, 5 § 3 of the Convention due to manipulation by national law with aim to avoid judicial control over detention and due to long detention.

Roman Miroshnichenkojudgment (no. 34211/04). The Court held that Ukraine had violated Article 5 § 3 of the Convention due to long period of detention without sufficient reasons.

On 12 March 2009:

Svetlorusov v. Ukrainejudgment (no. 2929/05). The Court held that Ukraine had violated Articles 5 § 1 (f), 5 § 4, 5 § 5 of the Convention in the grounds similar to those in cases of Soldatenko and Novik.

SergeyVolosyuk v. Ukraine judgment (no. 1291/03). Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention due to long and unsubstantiated detention on remand; violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court also found violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of monitoring the applicant’s correspondence and punishment him for uncontrolled transfer of his complaint against administration to superior state body.

On 15 October 2009

Chaykovskiy v. Ukrainejudgment (no. 2295/06). The Court held that Ukraine has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention with respect to the withholding by the prison authorities of the enclosure of the Court's letter to the applicant;

Dubovik v. Ukrainejudgment (no. 33210/07). The Court found a violations of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention due to lack of detailed and foreseeable legislation on detention pending extradition. The Court found also that Ukrainian law does not afford the applicant an enforceable right to compensation, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention;

Okhrimenko v. Ukrainejudgment (no. 53896/07). The Court held that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant's handcuffing during his stay in hospital;

Polishchuk v. Ukrainejudgment (no. 21231/04). The Court held that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement, therefore it found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

On 19 November 2009:

Glinov v. Ukrainejudgment (no. 13693/05). The Court held that monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence violated Article 8 of the Convention.

Kabulov v. Ukrainejudgment (no. 41015/04), de facto moratorium on extradition to Kazakhstan. The Court held that the applicant’s extradition to Kazakhstan would be in violation of Article 3 of the Convention; Ukraine violated Article 13 of the Convention; that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s detention from 23 August to 13 September 2004; that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s detention from 13 September 2004 onwards. The Court held that there were violations of Articles 5 § 2, 5 § 4, 5 § 5 of the Convention. It held that Ukrainian Government failed to respect their undertaking under Article 34 of the Convention.

On 10 December 2009:

Koktysh v. Ukrainejudgment (no. 43707/07), ban on the applicant’s extradition to Belarus. The Court held that there has also been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the material conditions of the applicant’s detention in the ITT and the SIZO. The Court held that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s medical treatment in detention; that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the conditions of the applicant’s transportation; that there has been a violation of Articles 5 § 1, 5 § 4, 5 § 5 of the Convention; It held that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention about his conditions of detention.

Kreydich v. Ukrainejudgment (no. 48495/07). The Court found violations of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. These findings were primarily based on the lack of sufficient legal basis for the applicants’ detention pending extradition proceedings and of a procedure through which the lawfulness of that detention could be examined by a court. The Court also repeated that Ukrainian law did not afford the applicant an enforceable right to compensation, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention.

The lawyers of Legal Aid Centre have prepared 22 applications to the European Court. All these applications have been supported by the Centre.

The Centre also provided assistance to 13 applicants before the European Court irrespective of priorities covered by its mandate and financed by the European Court under its legal aid scheme.

The lawyers of Legal Aid Centre have prepared 10 communications with the Government during the period in question. The Centre foresees that from 5 to 10 cases to be communicated during next stage of this project.

The lawyers of the Centre and lawyers involved in cases under contracts have also been engaged in numerous proceedings on national level. The cases included, for example, representation of Mr. Yaremenko, Mr. Lutsenko and Mr. Shabelnik before Supreme Court in extraordinary proceedings following the judgment of the European Court on violation fair trial rights. Also proceedings concerning access of lawyers and NGO’s representatives to prisoners were commenced and are pending. The lawyers also represented the victims of ill treatment and other violations of HR before domestic authorities in cases concerning torture, excessive violence from the side of police, lack of medical treatment in detention facilities and other violations of prisoners’ rights. The lawyers frequently visited prisoners in detention facilities for the purpose of their effective representation and protection against possible repress.

 

2.3. Development and strengthening a network for preventing torture

2.3.1. Public hearings on human rights observation in the activities of the State Department on Execution of Punishments

Preliminary we planned to organize two-day seminar for scientists, experts-criminologists and representatives of the Department on correspondence of the penal law and practice to international standards.

However, on 19 August 2009 the Head of the State Department on Execution of Punishments was changed. Olexandr Galinskiy became by new Head. Comparing to the former Head, he showed more openness to collaboration with civil society organizations. We decided to use the opportunity and conduct wider public hearing. Due to much more quantity of participants we decided to administer public hearings during 1 day instead of 2-day seminar but make it more intensive.

In order to prepare the Hearings KHPG passed 10 copies of the book Problems of rights of prisoners in criminal-executive system of Ukraine to SDEP and sent them to 27 regional departments of SPED as well as to NGOs that were going to participate at the Hearings.

We organized and held public hearings on observance of human rights in the framework of activities of the State Department on Execution of Punishments on 28 September in Kyiv. There were 120 participants, including 27 Heads of regional departments of SDEP, 80 representatives of NGOs from Kyiv and other regions of Ukraine. Participants discussed problems of prisoners’ rights and directions for improvement of legislation and practice concerning rights of condemned and accused persons. Mr. Galinskiy emphasized that such public hearings help penitentiary system to improve observance of human rights and that they should be organized more often. Many participants had opportunity to ask questions and express their position concerning relevant issues.

There were many presentations. Among authors were Deputy Minister of Justice Valeriya Lutkovska, Head of the Department on Oversight for Legitimacy in SDEP’s activities, Valentin Nedil’ko, Head of the Department of the Prosecutor’s General office of Ukraine, Yevgeniy Zakharov, KHPG’s co-chair, Arkadiy Buschenko, lawyer Andriy Gel, Mikhail Romanov, Irina Yakovets, scientists and others.

We have distributed many publications to all participants and received gratitude for KHPG initiatives.

Media coverage

State Department on Execution of Punishments, “Observe of Human Rights”: http://www.kmu.gov.ua/punish/control/uk/publish/article;jsessionid=41AADBCC7B8E7C7F5BD3F95FAE7F4C36?art_id=65132&cat_id=45347;

State Department on Execution of Punishments, “Information as to issues on Public hearings”:

http://www.kmu.gov.ua/punish/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=65307&cat_id=45347;

Ukrainian civil association, Centre for Human Rights protection “Freedom”:

http://www.odnasprava.org.ua/?menu=info&id=25&idnew=176.

 

2.3.2. Public hearings on human rights observation in the MIA’s activities (EU, IRF and Germany Embassy funding)

KHPG also organized and held public hearings on observance of human rights in the work of the MIA on 2 October in Kyiv. In order to prepare the hearings KHPG announced holding the hearings in the beginning of July and collected summaries of presentations at the hearings correspondingly directions of MIA activities. KHPG staff compiled these summaries in book “Human Rights Observation in the MIA activities”. KHPG published this book in 500 copies (A4 Format, 292 pages). KHPG also prepared and published book “Selected judgments of the European Court of human rights on appeals versus Ukraine concerning MIA” in 500 copies (A4 Format, 148 pages). Each participant of the hearings received these two books and many other publications.

It should be noted that KHPG organised and held public hearings together with the partner state body MIA HR Department.

There were about 400 participants, including 27 Heads of all MIA’s regional Department, 25 representatives of the MIA, representatives of Kyiv and regional NGOs, journalists. The hearing was attended by the Minister of Internal Affairs Yuri Lutsenko who said in his opening address that rights violations by MIA officers remain a serious problem for the Ministry. He said that in 2008 there had been over 40 thousands complaints to the police over 3.7 thousands of which were found to be valid. He considered this figure to be “unacceptably high”, and added that in 2009 the MIA has initiated 400 criminal investigations against its staff.

Participants of the hearings worked in 8 sections:

1-st Section

Right to life within the context of MIA’s activity, prohibition of torture or other ill-treatment. Right to liberty and security. Conditions of detention in the pre-trial detention centres

2-ndSection

Right to privacy. Access to information at the disposal of MIA.

3-rd Section

Home violence and MIA’s activities. Combating human trafficking. Child rights.

4-th Section

Education of Human Rights within the context of MIA’s activity. MIA’s activity and public control. Public Boards.

5-th Section

Protection of property that concern MIA. Complains as to illegal activities of MIA’s officers.

6-th Section

Combating discrimination, racism, xenophobia. Rights of aliens, refugees in MIA activity.

7-th Section

Freedom of assemblies and associations and MIA activity.

8-th Section

Gender parity. Rights of MIA’s officers

Participants of the hearings discussed many problems of human rights in the MIA’s activities.  They adopted recommendations to MIA. These recommendations were considered by the Public Council on Human Rights at the MIA on 10 December and adopted in a whole.  Collegium of the Ministry (main decision-making body of the Ministry) will consider these recommendations and find the way of their practical realization in view of changing MIA internal normative acts.

Media coverage

Radio “Svoboda”: http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/article/1842278.html

Crimea’s MIA: http://www.crm-mia.gov.ua/forum/viewtopic.php?t=927

Vasil Kostiv, Minister’s assistant of regional control in Ivano-Frankivsk region:

http://www.vkostiv.if.ua/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=38

Internet page “Goroganin”: http://nikportal.net/story.php?id=2277&pers=user

(Nikopol, Dnipropetrovsk region)

“MIA: we have to create real Human Rights protection structure from Soviet repression machine” (Stakhanov, Lugansk region): 

http://www.stakhanov.org.ua/2009/10/02/mvs-ukrayini-mi-povinni-peretvoriti-iz.html

News TV channel “ICTV”: http://ictv.ua/facts/news-ukrayina/647147/

Newspaper “Vgoru”: http://vgoru.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8319

(Kherson)

Internet site of MIA in Zakarpatska region:

http://www.zak-umvs.gov.ua/pages/09.10.09/blank05.htm

Internet blog of Sofiyivska district Rada (Dnipropetrovsl region):

http://www.sofrada.dp.ua/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=424&Itemid=1

Internet site of MIA:

http://poshuk.mvs.gov.ua/mvs/control/main/uk/publish/article/253306;jsessionid=EC37D7DFB971C299DFA9A256EA67181B

Web site of MIA in Kherson region:

http://umvs-kherson.gov.ua/hronika/hronika.php?page=koz1410.html

Informational portal proUA.com: http://ua.proua.com/news/2009/10/02/110057.html

Newspaper “Reporter”: http://www.reporter.rovno.ua/politic/120(Rivne)

Internet site “Anticriminal choice” - “MIA has to be more open to society”:

http://www.anti-crime.org/articles.php?ni=21954

UNIAN: http://human-rights.unian.net/ukr/detail/192444

Internet blog «4post.com.ua»: http://www.4post.com.ua/politics/145284.html

“Field of truth”: http://www.polepravdy.te.ua/?page=news&newsid=383&sub=(Ternopyl) and others.

 

2.3.3. Monitoring visits

Representatives of our organization and our partners have taken active part in monitoring visits on regular basis. We also regularly participate in the discussion of improvement of modus operandi of MIA mobile groups and in lobbying of creation of similar control mechanisms at other state agencies.

Successful experience of mobile groups was recognized by international organizations and international community. Thus, when reporting Ukraine in the UN Human Rights Committee representatives of twenty-three countries mentioned a serious achievement of the mobile work groups. Council of Europe Commissioner Thomas Hammerberg also supported the joint initiative of the Ukrainian police and the public. This finding gives reason to anticipate the extending this activity to other law enforcement agencies that have place of detention, especially to the State Department of Ukraine for Execution of Punishments and other government agencies, which include institutions in which the host is certain restrictions on freedom - the Ministries of Health, Defence, Labour and Social Policy, Education and Science of Ukraine and others.

 

2.3.4. Public campaign on cases of Oleksandr Yaremenko and Stanislav Lutsenko

Mr. Yaremenko and Mr Lutsenko (see chapter 2.2.2.2 above) won their cases at the European Court of Human Rights.

In Yaremenko case the Court was unimpressed by the trick of the investigators in changing the charge, as well as by the interrogation of Yaremenko without a lawyer, finding this a flagrant infringement of the right to defence, especially since Ukrainian legislation makes the participation of defence counsel mandatory in cases where the possible sentence carried the death sentence (later life imprisonment). The authorities, by manipulating the charge, had justified Yaremenko’s (supposedly voluntary) rejection of a defender. The European Court found that Yaremenko’s allegations of ill-treatment had not been properly examined. The Court took into consideration his statements that the testimony had been obtained by unlawful means and judged that its use in a judicial examination violated his right to remain silent which safeguards the justice of the trial. The Court also noted that the lack of any discrepancies and inconsistencies in the detailed testimony given by Yaremenko and the other accused S. regarding the circumstances of the 1998 killing led it to surmise that this testimony had been well coordinated and received against the will of the accused.  The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the failure of the authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations that he was ill-treated by the police and prosecutors, and of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

This summer Ukraine’s Supreme Court, in re-examining the case of Mr. Yaremenko, effectively ignored the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment. It ordered that all reference to evidence received unlawfully be removed from the court rulings, but left the actual rulings unchanged. Nobody had expected such a judgment from the Supreme Court since it would have been most logical and sensible to return the case for new judicial examination. We have seen a brazen sabotaging of a European Court judgment which to put it mildly does not improve Ukraine’s image on the international stage. What possessed the Supreme Court to behave in this manner. It had a wonderful opportunity to make a huge step towards significantly improving criminal proceedings in general by implementing the European Court’s judgment in the case of Yaremenko v. Ukraine. And now this will be seen by lower instance bodies: the police, the Prosecutor’s office, the courts as overt encouragement of torture and violation of the right to a fair trial, as a sign to go on as before.

The situation in the law enforcement bodies has not changed significantly. Confessions obtained by means of unlawful violence, physical or psychological, are used as proof of guilt and the passing of verdicts on the basis of dubious evidence a common situation. A sociological survey of unlawful violence in the Internal Affairs structures carried out in 2009 by the KISR and KHPG found that there were more than 600 thousand victims of physical violence during criminal investigations each year. It is clear that the criminal justice system requires serious change; however that is a separate discussion.

The case of Mr. Lutsenko the Supreme Court of Ukraine refused to review at all.

 

2.3.5. Presentation of the annual report «Human Rights in Ukraine – 2008. Human Rights Organisations’ Report»

25 June 2009 KHPG together with the UHHRU made presentation of the Human Rights in Ukraine Report 2008 in Ministry of Justice of Ukraine in Kyiv. The annual report has been prepared UHHRU and KHPG with cooperation of 30 human rights organizations from all regions of Ukraine.

The presentation came on the eve of International Day in support of Victims of Torture. No accident since the continuing use of torture and ill-treatment remains a serious problem in Ukraine.

While one of the positive features of the last year has been increased cooperation with the Ministry of Internal Affairs, its creation of a special Department for Monitoring Human Rights, the problem of torture of people in police detention in order to extract a confession has yet to be resolved.

Virtually no progress at all can be seen in the State Department for the Execution of Sentences, and Ukraine continues to be in breach of its commitments before the Council of Europe with regard to this Department’s status. The same problems continue year in year out: the Department is closed off and resistant to change, the complaint system is seriously inadequate and continuing protests by prisoners are often denied or misrepresented, and virtually never responded to in an adequate manner.

Not surprisingly socio-economic issues were very much in the foreground during the year,with the divide between rich and poor widening. The rise in prices and in communal charges meant that the number of those living in poverty rose. The government is clearly not prioritizing defence of human rights, and it is not surprising that people feel themselves to be unprotected.

One of the most disturbing areas where the lack of will to carry out reforms is most evident is with regard to reforming the judicial system. Vital changes which have long needed to be implemented are simply not being passed. On the other hand, 2008 saw outrageous examples where politicians made their disregard for the independence of the judiciary flagrantly clear. Together with the fact that even when justice is apparently achieved, and court rulings issued, around 70% of them are not being enforced.

The continuing use of excessive surveillance can be seen by a significant increase since 2005 in the number of warrants to intercept communications issued by appellate courts. There were 15 thousand in 2005 and more than 25 thousand in 2008. These figures significantly exceed analogous figures in European countries where more than one thousand orders are issued per year just in France and the Netherlands. A third of the warrants in 2008 were received by investigative units of the Security Service [SBU].

A particular area of concern during 2008 and into 2009 has been over encroachments on freedom of speech. The National Expert Commission for the Protection of Public Morality became extremely active in the second half of the year, and has issued some extraordinary decisions, including a conclusion that a novel by renowned writer Oles Ulyanenko is pornographic. All of this is taking place with a law which is dangerously vague and unforeseeable, and an apparent wish to intrude in areas which cannot be considered necessary in a democracy.

One vital institution for human rights protection should be the office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson. The level of activity is woefully inadequate, as evidenced even by the failure to provide a report each year as required by the law. On Wednesday 24 June, the fifth “annual” report was presented in parliament, and has only just become available to the public today. One of the many areas where the Ombudsperson could be playing an enormous role is in national preventive mechanisms as per the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture; however, the list of missed opportunities is much longer.

All of this is frustratingly similar to the responses from other government institutions. Many reforms, often prepared with the participation of human rights organizations, need only political will, yet this is lacking.

The report covers other areas of concern, including environmental rights, the rights of refugees and others.

Similar presentation was made on 6 July 2009 in conference hall of hotel “Kreshatik”. It was devoted to human rights observation in the law enforcing bodies’ activities. We invited representatives of these bodies, ambassadors of EC Countries and the USA, representatives of international organisations, members of partner and other human rights NGOs, journalists. We organised simultaneous translation from Ukrainian into English. KHPG experts and state officers discussed different aspects of human rights in the MIA, prison Department, Prosecutor offices. On this conference we also presented our new publication Problems of rights of prisoners in criminal-executive system of Ukraine.

KHPG organised both presentations together with the partner organisation Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union.

In addition, 6 July 2009 KHPG organised the meeting of all our regional partners in order to coordinate our join work concerning prevention of torture and ill-treatment. We discussed direction of activities, created methodology of its fulfilment and examined practical issues as well as administrative arrangements concerning equipment and services for regional partners.

 

2.4. Awareness-raising and educational activities

2.4.1.School on human rights for the personnel of the MIA Department on monitoring human rights

We conducted the four-day workshop on human rights for personnel of the MIA HR Department on March 25-28. There were 35 participants from this Department. In the last two days 10 leaders of human rights NGOs, who conduct joint actions with the Department workers, joined them.

In the course of KHPG’s previous educational programs we formed a team of experienced trainers who succeeded in turning separate lectures into an integrated presentation of inter-connected topics, and also develop methodology based on role-play and simulations. KHPG experts Arkadiy Bushchenko, Vladimir Kaplun, Ludmila Klochko, Gennadiy Tokarev, Yevgeniy Zakharov and MIA experts Yuriy Belousov, Andrew Chernousov, Denis Kobzin, Kateryna Levchenko, and Oleh Martynenko were involved as moderators, lecturers and trainers.

Personnel of the MIA department for monitoring human rights adherence within the MIA will be made up of former police officers and human rights activists who will in formal terms become public officials. Workers from the first category need knowledge of human rights in context of the MIA’s activities. Workers of the second category need knowledge of MIA’s activities’ specifics. Workers of both categories need discussions and recommendations concerning relations with officers of the MIA, media, NGOs. For the above purposes, we conducted the School on human rights where various aspects of the work of new MIA department were discussed.

Lectures and seminars focused on the following:

1. What are human rights?

2. What is human rights protection?

3. The role of human rights protection organizations.

4. Mechanism of human rights protection and prevention of human rights violations.

5. Organization of advice centres for persons whose rights have been infringed by police officers

6. National Human Rights Institutions and NGOs: opportunities for cooperation.

7. Principles and methods of cooperation between officers of the MIA departments and human rights NGOs.

8. Cooperation of the MIA department and media.

9. Dissemination of information regarding the MIA department activities. Development of the MIA department site http://umdpl.info.

10. Probable human rights violations in the different spheres of MIA activities:

illegal violence during criminal investigation, in particular, torture and cruel treatment;

illegal deprivation of liberty;

violations concerning privacy of information;

violations concerning privacy of communications;

violations concerning inviolability of person and home;

struggle against human trafficking;

struggle against domestic violence;

cases of xenophobia and racial prejudices in all spheres of police activity;

violations of rights of refugees and asylum seekers;

violations of the rights of people with HIV and AIDS as well as drug addicts;

and others.

One of aims of the School was to discuss specific features of the MIA department activities and difference between national human rights institution and other state bodies as well as enhancing cooperation between MIA department and human rights NGOs. In particular, we discussed the functioning of national prevention mechanisms according to the Optional Protocol of the UN Convention against Torture as a typical example of the national human rights institution. Participants of the MIA mobile groups, MIA officers and human rights activists discussed joint human rights monitoring visits to places of deprivation of liberty. In addition, members of the public councils attached to regional departments of the MIA talked about their experience of public control over police activities.

Each participant of the School received many KHPG editions concerning human rights in the MIA’s activities.

 

2.4.2. Two-day seminars for judges

According to the project we have to hold one 2-day seminar for judges in Kyiv. But our partner, Academy of Judges of Ukraine, proposed to hold two seminars in Kharkiv and Donetsk in the buildings of Appeal Courts instead of one seminar in Kyiv. We agreed with this proposition.

The seminar for judges was included in the programmes of the Kharkiv and Donetsk regional division of the Academy of Judges within the framework of courses of continuing professional training for judges.

We therefore conducted two-day seminars for judges. Particular attention was paid to the problem of confessions given under duress, as well as standards for considering the question of whether or not to remand in custody, and considering complaints about alleged unlawful actions of the police.

The seminars (on 11-12 November in Kharkiv and 2-3 December in Donetsk) were devoted to study of relevant international provisions and case-law on human rights, approaches to the their protection, different aspects of judicial review of the activities of the executive authorities and implementation of international standards in domestic practice, use of new procedures created by the Code of Administrative Procedure, implementation of the Law on Execution of the decision of the European Courts of Human Rights, practical aspects of jurisdiction, effective legal assistance to the victims of violation, especially detainees and prisoners and other practical problems of adjudication. Seminar in Kharkiv involved the judges from Kharkiv, Sumy and Poltava regions. Seminar in Donetsk involved the judges from Donetsk, Zaporijjya and Luhansk regions. The duration of each seminar was two days: two sessions lasting four hours, i.e. 8 hours a day.

Both seminars for judges had identical program; however different perception.

We considered the following topics:

11 November / 2 December, Wednesday 2009

Right to liberty and security, legal aspects of Article 5 of the EC, review of the judgments of European court against Ukraine which concern violations of Article 5, conceptions of new CCP, general requirements for fair trial, “civil rights”, “criminal accusation” under terms of the Article 6 of EC, criminal judicial proceedings, additional guarantees under Convention, presumption of innocence, admissibility (permissibility) of the evidence existing in the case (international-national aspects).

12 November / 3 December, Thursday 2009

Conditional early discharge and substitution of the unexpired term by more lenient penalty: theory and practice, assessment of the prisoner’s correction, procedure of the judgment’s enforcement, recommendations for application of the restrictions while one’s under administrative control, specifics of cases that concern Article 391 Criminal Code of Ukraine, general conception of new CCP, presentation and discussion.

Seminars were attended by 26 judges in Kharkiv and 35 judges in Donetsk.

Among lecturers of the seminar were Mr Buschenko – legal expert of KHPG, Ms Yakovets – scientist of Academy of law of Ukraine, Mr Lishchina – lawyer, former legal officer of the European Court, Ms Klochko – head of Public Reception office of KHPG.

It is necessary to mention that participants (judges) in Donetsk seminar appeared more perceptive than their colleges in Kharkiv seminar. One could imagine that judges from Donetsk, Zaporijjya and Luhansk regions more likely to receive necessary information and collaborate with NGO’s; however practice is different.

 

2.4.3.  Seminar for prosecutors

On 14-15 December 2009, in the National Academy of Prosecution of Ukraine, Kiev we conducted 2-day seminar for prosecutors “The role of prosecution in preventing tortures in establishments of the State Department on Execution of Punishments”.

We considered the following topics:

14 December 2009, Monday

Criminal nature of tortures, prohibition of torture, review of the judgments of European court against Ukraine which concern tortures, access to information at the disposal of prosecutors which concerns tortures, problems of prosecution activities taking into account the judgments of ECtHR against Ukraine, disciplinary practice in the establishments of the State Department on Execution of Punishments.

15 December 2009, Tuesday

Monitoring of illegal violations in law-enforcement authorities, precedents in the EC judgments, prevention of tortures in the establishments of the State Department on Execution of Punishments, other measures of compulsory nature.

Among lecturers of the seminar were Prof. Kuts – Deputy Head of the National Academy of Prosecution in Ukraine, Mr Zakharov – Co-chair of KHPG, Mr Buschenko – legal expert of KHPG, Ms Lutkovskaya – Deputy Minister of Justice and former agent of the Government at the European Court, Mrs Yakovets – scientist of Academy of law of Ukraine, Mr Shevchuk – Professor of Kyiv-Mohila Academy and former judge ad hoc of the European Court.

The seminar was attended by 60 prosecutors

 

2.4.4. Training for lawyers

In 2009 we have conducted year's training courses for lawyers. The courses combined training sessions and distant education. Twenty five lawyers from various regions of Ukraine participated in the courses. The main goal that our organizations pursue is to improve networking among lawyers involve in HR litigation and to enhance their profession capacity.

First training (first training session)

Within the scope of year’s educational course for lawyers, which consists of two 5-days full-time tuitions and the distance course of education, we have conducted the first training for lawyers in Kharkiv, Ukraine with 18 participants (lawyers and jurists from different regions of Ukraine). First training had lasted for 4 days from 21 to 24 April 2009.

We considered the following topics:

1-st day (21 April 2009) Tuesday

Human Rights (general review using interactive forms of education), international mechanisms for the protection of human rights (lecture), problems of national legislature in connection with lack of mechanism provided for by Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention for the protection of human rights (discussion, interactive), provisions provided for by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (lecture).

2-nd day (22 April 2009) Wednesday

Simulation of a crime (conducted with the help of interactive forms of education), practical work in small groups, professional questioning by a lawyer (educational practical program), technology of conduction of interrogation by a lawyer (lecture), different aspects of collaboration with State authorities, collaboration with assistant for Human Rights of the Minister of Interior of Ukraine.

3-rd day (23 April 2009) Thursday

On-spot investigation (important aspects), advantages and disadvantages of the national legislature concerning forensic examinations, forensic-chemical examination, essential violations of law, practical work in small groups.

4-th day (24 April 2009) Friday

Practical work in small groups, forensic-medical examination (practical aspects), and important issues connected to review of examinations, essential mistakes and mechanism of lodging an appeal on forensic examinations.

First training (distant course)

Yearly course also covers distance course of education which mainly consists of practical tasks. We are conducting the distance course from April 2009 to the date. Practical work includes tests on theory of European mechanism for protection of Human Rights, written tasks that should be made by precise deadline. We created the special dispatch group in the internet so our experts, lecturers and participants could have an ability to discuss the tasks within the scope of distance course.

First training (second training session)

We conducted the second training session for lawyers within the scope of the yearly course from 15 to 19 December 2009. We provided to the participants detailed information concerning Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, Article 1 of the Protocol № 1 of the European Convention. We provided them with the support in developing of their practical skills of applying to the European Court of Human Rights.

We considered the following topics:

1-st day (15 December 2009) Tuesday

Structure of the application to EC, attorney’s work on international and national level, discussion of new project of Criminal Code of Procedure (hereafter CCP), practical tasks (work in groups, preparation of an application to EC), patient’s rights (movie and discussion).

2-nd day (16 December 2009) Wednesday

Right to life, material aspects of Article 2 of the European Convention, prohibition of torture, material aspects of Article 3 of the European Convention, procedural aspects of Articles 2 and 3, effective remedies, practical tasks (work in groups, preparation of the application under Articles 2 and 3 of EC), discussion of new project of Criminal Code of Procedure (hereafter CCP).

3-rd day (17 December 2009) Thursday

Right to liberty and security, legal aspects of Article 5 of the EC, review of the judgments of European court against Ukraine which concern violations of Article 5, right to respect for private and family life, practical tasks, different aspects of Article 8 of EC (work in groups, preparation of an application to EC under Article 5 and Article 8), collaboration with assistant for Human Rights of the Minister of Interior of Ukraine.

4-th day (18 December 2009) Friday

Protection of property (Article 1 of the Protocol 1 of EC), procedures before the EC, protection of the detainee’s rights, review of the judgments of European court against Ukraine which concern violations of detainee’s rights, practical tasks (test the provisions of new CCP with lawyers and legal experts, in particular provisions concerning measures of restraint), discussion club, observance of HR in MIA’s activities.

5-th day (19 December 2009) Saturday

General requirements for fair trial, “civil rights”, “criminal accusation” under terms of the Article 6 of EC, criminal judicial proceedings, additional guarantees under Convention, presumption of innocence, admissibility (permissibility) of the evidence existing in the case (international-national aspects), practical tasks (work in groups, preparation of an application to EC under Article 6).

Second training (first training session)

From 26 to 29 November 2009 we conducted training course for new 17 lawyers. Analyzing the effectiveness of our previous courses we decided to include more practical tasks for participants.

We considered the following topics:

1-st day (26 November 2009) Thursday

Human Rights (general review using interactive forms of education), international mechanisms for the protection of human rights (lecture), terms of admissibility of the application to EC, structure of the application to EC, practical tasks (work in groups, preparation of an application to EC).

2-nd day (27 November 2009) Friday

Right to life, material aspects of Article 2 of the European Convention, prohibition of torture, material aspects of Article 3 of the European Convention, procedural aspects of Articles 2 and 3, effective remedies, practical tasks (work in groups, preparation of the application under Articles 2 and 3 of EC), Observance of HR in MIA’s activities, patient’s rights (movie and discussion).

3-rd day (28 November 2009) Saturday

Right to liberty and security, legal aspects of Article 5 of the EC, review of the judgments of European court against Ukraine which concern violations of Article 5, practical tasks (work in groups, preparation of an application to EC under Article 5), collaboration with assistant for Human Rights of the Minister of Interior of Ukraine, procedures before the EC.

4-th day (29 November 2009) Sunday

General requirements for fair trial, “civil rights”, “criminal accusation” under terms of the Article 6 of EC, criminal judicial proceedings, additional guarantees under Convention, presumption of innocence, admissibility (permissibility) of the evidence existing in the case (international-national aspects), practical tasks (work in groups, preparation of an application to EC under Article 6).

Yearly course also covers distance course of education which will mainly consist of practical tasks. We will start to conduct the distance course from January.2010. We created the special dispatch group in the internet so our experts, lecturers and participants could have an ability to discuss the tasks within the scope of distance course.

We plan to conduct the second training session for lawyers within the scope of the yearly course until April 2010. We plan to give to the participants more detailed information concerning Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9-13, Article 1 of the Protocol № 1 of the European Convention.

Among trainers of the seminar were Mr Buschenko – legal expert of KHPG, Ms Yakovets – scientist of Academy of law of Ukraine, Mr Lishchina – lawyer, former legal officer of the European Court, Ms Klochko – head of Public Reception office of KHPG, Mr Yavorskiy – Director of Ukrainian Helsinki Union of Ukraine.

 


3. PARTICIPATION IN A CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS

 On March 31 President of Ukraine, Victor Yushchenko, proposed to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine his personal draft of the Constitution (see

http://www.president.gov.ua/content/const_proekt.html) where he only used several statements of the KhPG draft. Therefore, we decided that we could propose our draft to the Ukrainian society and publish it to spark civil discussions. We feel that our draft is much more in line with the needs of the country than all other published drafts prepared by various political forces: the President, the Communist Party, Party of Regions, Yulia Timoshenko’s Block, All-Ukrainian Union “Liberty”, and MP Anatoliy Gritsenko. In April we published on our WEB-site two versions of our draft, with and without additional comments to each article (see http://khpg.org/index.php?id=1240744292and http://khpg.org/index.php?id=1240658218). We also prepared page-proof of the commented version of our draft in Ukrainian. In addition, we translated a first part of the draft, devoted to human rights and fundamental freedoms, into Russian and English.

In May we published three books: firstly, the commented draft of the Constitution in Ukrainian in 200 copies, secondly, first part of the draft in Ukrainian, English and Russian, and thirdly, «The Constitutional Process in Ukraine». On 26 May we hold public hearings «Human Rights. Model for the new Constitution of Ukraine». There were 65 participants, 30 from the State institutions (Ministry of Justice, Ombudsman office, Higher Administrative Court, General Prosecutor Office, MPs, Constitutional Court, and Secretariat of President) and 35 human rights activists. We discussed section on human rights in the draft. According to the remarks and propositions during discussion we changed Articles 5, 16, 18, 22, 33, 34, 37, 38, 41, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 57, 60, 66, 69, 112 of the draft. We published a new version of the commented draft in Ukrainian in 400 copies and sent it to the state institutions, political parties and blocks, regional libraries, libraries of the educational legal institutions, judges of the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court, etc. In addition, we finished to translate the draft into English and placed our website: http://khpg.org/en/index.php?id=1247500411

In addition, we prepared an assessment of the draft of the Constitution by President of Ukraine, Victor Yushchenko. This article “Constitutionalism in Kiev” was published in the issue No. 5-6 of the journal “Krytyka” (“Criticism”) and placed our website:

http://khpg.org/index.php?id=1248945106

 

4. IMPROVEMENT OF THE LEGISLATION AND PRACTICE ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION

 KHPG has conducted analysis of national legislation that regulated access to information in Ukraine, and also has monitored practice of its application. We prepared recommendations on improvement the legislation and changing the practice. We prepared a new draft law “On Information”, which was coordinated with draft law “On Access to Public Information in Ukraine”. We also prepared propositions for amendment the laws “On Print Media (Press) in Ukraine”, “On State Secret”, “On Government Service of Special Communications and Protection of Information”, “On Cabinet of Ministers”, “On Local Government”, “On Legal Status of Territory, that Suffered from Radioactive Pollution in Result of Chernobyl Catastrophe” and “On Status and Social Protection of Citizens that Suffered from Chernobyl Catastrophe”. We discussed new draft law “On information” with media experts during two round tables and finalised it according to remarks given. The draft law was introduced in the Parliament for consideration. Andriy Shevchenko, member of the Parliament, registered the draft law on 15 May, 2009.[1]Furthermore, we conducted civil campaign directed against illegal security classification of information, in particular, indication some types of information with restricted access with stamps “for service use only”. We have published the book «Freedom of Information. Improvement of Legislation and Practice»with results of our work and distributed them.

In the end of 2009 KHPG started a new project devoted to access to archive. We intend to study international experience in question. We have translated a Germany law on access to Stasi Archive.

 

5. CAMPAIGN AGAINST XENOPHOBIA AND DISCRIMINATION

 KHPGcontinued to carry out constant monitoring of hate speech and xenophobic behaviour, verifying all information received and following the response of the authorities to reported xenophobic or racist treatment.

The monitoring was carried out in four regions of the country: Crimea; Slobozhanshchyna [Kharkiv, Poltava and Sumy regions]; Halychyna [Lviv, Ternopil and Ivano-Frankivsk regions]; Kyiv and Kyiv region. We worked together with two our partner organizations in Lviv and Sevastopol.

The monitoring involved identifying “hate speech” in the press and on the Internet, as well as xenophobic and racist actions and the response of the authorities, in particular, law enforcement agencies, to such cases. Each incident involving the publication of “hate speech” was thoroughly investigated from the point of view of the conflict between freedom of expression and the prohibition of insults on a racial or ethnic basis; in appropriate cases, by approaching the victims or their families, as well as the authorities. After being verified, material was made public via the KHPG site, partners and the media.

In addition, KHPG assessed “xenophobia” and “racist” materials where, in fact, grounds for such qualification were absent. We placed such our assessments at KHPG site in Ukrainian (sometimes, additionally in Russian) and in English. We also placed these articles on other resources such as “Maidan”, “Telekrytyka”, IMI, Zaxid.net and others.

KHPG held public hearings and press-conferences in Lviv on 4 March 2009, Kyiv on 11 March 2009 and Simferopol on 16 March 2009. KHPG experts and experts from partner organizations presented results of the monitoring and discussed them with participants of the hearings. Preliminary KHPG printed brochure with the analytical reports of KHPG and partners. Each participant of the hearings received this brochure.

On 15 May KHPG held public hearings «Improvement of Legislation Combating Discrimination, Racism and Xenophobia in Ukraine» jointly with the Ukrainian Office of the International Organization of Migration, Ukrainian Office of the UN Commissioner for Refugees and American Bar Association (project «Rule of Law Initiative»). KHPG distributed own editions and discussed results of the project.

 

6. HISTORY OF DISSIDENT MOVEMENT AND POLITICAL REPRESSIONS

 

One of the most KHPG activities in this direction in 2009 was educational events devoted to  Holodomor 1932-1933 in Ukraine and Kuban. We printed additional circulations of the brochure «Can Holodomor 1932-1933 in Ukraine and Kuban be classified as genocide?» in Ukrainian and Russian and distributed it for participants of numerous seminars and public discussions in question. It should be noted that this research has been translated into Polish and published in Poland.

In addition, we continued to take audio-interviews from the former dissidents, as well as from the people from their closest environment. We also transcribed the interviews, agreed with authors and placed it to website http://archive.khpg.org During 2009 we transcribed 44 cassettes, 90 minutes each. These are interviews from 28 people. Furthermore, we copy and arrange related materials for our archive. These interviews are base for preparation biographies references for the third part of the Ukrainian Dictionary «Who is Who in Dissent?»

We prepared and published memoirs and articles by outstanding Ukrainian and Russian dissidents Mykhailo Horyn’ «Light a candle» and Larisa Bogoraz «Sleeps of memories».

In 2009 KHPG started to cooperate with the Ukrainian Security Service Archive. New director of the SSU archive Volodymyr Viatrovych and his team started to declassify archive documents on Soviet political repressions. KHPG experts started to learn archive files of persons who did not rehabilitated. They also started to learn declassified archive documents devoted to dissident movement in Ukraine. We plan to publish these materials with comments by participants of dissident movement in 2010-2011.

In 2009 KHPG published guideline described archive documents of the SSU Archive «SSU Branch-Wise State Archive: Guide-book» and journal «From Archives of the VUCHK-GPU-NKVD-KGB» No.1 for 2009 with materials on political repressions in USSR.

The materials obtained in the framework of the programme were printed in the KHPG periodic editions and other media, including all-Ukrainian newspapers, such as «Dzerkalo tyzhnia”, «Den’», «Ukraina moloda», «Fakty» and others.

 

7. PUBLICATIONS

 Developing Ukrainian human rights network and executing functions of the resource centre, KHPG continued preparation, publication and distribution of different editions separately or jointly with other partners. Regular contributors of the network sent information on violation of human rights and analytic materials to Kharkiv, where this information was placed on our web-site http://www.khpg.org  after which the following bulletins was compiled and published electronically or in hard copies: twice a month the bulletin «Prava Ludyny» with a monthly English review and the monthly «Human Rights Education». We published information on abuses and a primary analysis in the bulletin «Prava Ludyny». More profound analytic materials, results of the monitoring and translations would be published in the separate editions.

Bulletins were sent according to mailing list to regional human rights protecting and other related NGOs, to central and local state bodies, to press services of political parties and movements, to law schools, to newspapers and other mass media as well as to lawyers and teachers of secondary schools. In addition, they were placed on the KHPG’s web-site. The copies were sent by e-mail to the readers having electronic addresses and by snail-mail to others. KHPG also distributed among the users of the network literature on human rights, prepared and printed by KHPG separately or jointly with other organisations. There were 358 written requests about sending such materials. We satisfied all requests.

In 2009 we prepared, printed and distributed in 1000 copies the following books:

According to the Project KHPG prepared, published and distributed the following books:

1. European mechanisms for prevention of torture and ill-treatment, А5, 288 pages, 1000 copies.

The book includes a new official translation of the European Convention on Human Rights and Protocols to the Convention, the Ukrainian Law on ratification of the Convention, , materials on preparation of appeals to the European Court on Human Rights, Recommendation REC(2006 13 of the Committee of Ministries of the Council of Europe on using imprisonment after detention, judgment Afanasiev vs. Ukraine of the European Court and other judgments, European Convention on prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, materials on the CPT’s activities, CPT standards.

2.UN mechanisms for prevention of torture and ill-treatment, А5, 400 pages, 1000 copies.

The book includes the UN Convention against torture, brochure on the UN Committee Against Torture, model complaint form for communications under Convention Against Torture; the fourth periodic report of Ukraine to the UN Committee Against Torture (2001), parts of the question/answer hearing on Ukraine at the CAT, KHPG report to the CAT on the fourth periodic report, recommendations of the CAT to the Government of Ukraine as a result of the considering; the fifth periodic report of Ukraine to the UN Committee against torture (2007); list of the CAT questions to the Ukrainian Government, response of the Government, parts of the question/answer hearing on Ukraine at the CAT; KHPG report to the CAT on the fifth report; recommendations of the CAT to the Government of Ukraine as a result of the considering the fifth periodic report.

3. Problems of rights of prisoners in criminal-executive system of Ukraine, А5, 368 pages, 1000 copies.

The book includes detailed analysis of the Ukrainian penal law and practice in comparison with the international obligations of Ukraine. 

4. Assessing the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institution, А5, 120 pages, 1000 copies.

The book represents the characteristics of effective national institutions and the international standards for their work, set out in the Paris Principles. It proposes benchmarks, based on these Principles, and suggests how quantitative and qualitative indicators can help institutions to improve their performance and measure the impact of their activities. Translation from English into Ukrainian.

5.Performance & Legitimacy: National Human Rights Institutions, A5, 208 pages, 1000 copies.

The book examines the degree to which national human rights institutions in different countries are successful in carrying out their mission to promote and defend human rights. Translation from English into Ukrainian.

6. Ukrainian law and practice in the light of the CPT Standards, A5, 288 pages, 1000 copies.

We translated from English into Ukrainian CPT Reports on the fourth and fifth periodic CPT’s visits to Ukraine in 2002 and 2005 as well as answers and comments of the Ukrainian Government to the CPT’s questions concerning these visits. The book consists of these translated materials.

7. Systematized Digest of Judgments of the European Court on Article 3 of the Convention (revised edition), A5, 412 pages, 1000 copies.

8. Systematized Digest of Judgments of the European Court on Article 5 of the Convention (revised edition),A5, 432 pages, 1000 copies.

9. Annual report of human rights organizations “Human Rights in Ukraine – 2008”, in Ukrainian and English, A4 format, 304 and 284 pages, 1000 and 500 copies.

10. Human Rights in Activities of the Ukrainian Militia, A5, 296 pages, 1000 copies;

11. Human Rights Observation in the MIA activities, A4, 292 pages, 500 copies;

12. Realisation of human rights and freedoms in activities of the MIA in modern conditions, A4, 500 pages, 200 copies;

13. Selected judgments of the European Court of human rights on appeals versus Ukraine that concern MIA, A5, 148 pages, 500 issues;

14. Selected judgments of the European Court of human rights on appeals versus Ukraine that concern State Department on Execution of Punishments, A5, 96 pages, 500 issues;

15. Arkadiy Buschenko. Application of Articles 3 and 5 of the ECHR in the national court practice, A5, 216 pages, 1000 copes,

16. Aleksandr Yaremenko  case, A5, 64 pages, 500 copies;

17. Istanbul Protocol, A5, 85 pages, 1000 issues.

18. Mykhailo Horyn’. Zapalyty svichu, A5, 382 pages, 1000 copies.

19. SSU Branch-Wise State Archive: Guide-book, A5, 136 pages, 1000 copies.

20. From Archives of the VUCHK-GPU-NKVD-KGB, No. 1, 2009, A5, 304 pages, 1000 copies.

21. The Constitutional Process in Ukraine. 2005-2008, A5, 320 pages, 1000 copies.

22. The commented draft of the Constitution of Ukraine – 2009. Human Rights Perspective. A5, 144 pages, 1000 copies.

23. Human Rights. A model for a new Constitution of Ukraine, A5, 170 pages, 1000 copies.

24. Larisa Bogoraz. Sleeps of remember, A5, 260 pages, 200 copies.

25. Racism and xenophobia in Ukraine: reality and inventions, A5, 192 pages, 1000 copies.

26. Combating discrimination and racism: international agreements, A5, 356 p., 1000 copies.

27. Observance  of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Ukraine, A5, 396 p., 1000 copies.

Participants of all educational events received these books and other KHPG editions. In additions, the books were passed to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and their regional departments, Ministry of Justice and their regional departments, State Department on Execution of Punishment and their regional departments, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, all Appeal Courts, the Security Service and General Prosecutor’s office, their regional departments, Ombudsperson’s Secretariat, law educational institutes, central and regional libraries as well as the libraries of institutes and partner human rights NGOs. Usually we use a post service. Mailing list consists of 730 addresses.


8.FINANCIAL INFORMATION

 

On 1 January 2009 KHPG had 25,000 USD and 185,456 UAH. During 2009 KHPG received six grants indicated in the list below. Total amount is $164,907.5+ €204,091Euro + 218,150 UAH.

Total expenditures in 2009 were 3 983, 057UAH.

On 31 December 2009 balance was 69,939.61 UAH.

 

Appendix. List of the grants

 

 The name o the project: Development of public reception offices of human rights organizations

The period of financing:1 January 2009– 31 October 2009

The project costs:  €2,160

The donor of the project: Oxfam Novi (the Netherlands) through UHHRU

 

The name of the project:Campaign against xenophobia and discrimination in Ukraine

The period of financing 17 March 2008 – 16 May 2009

The project costs: $15,090

The donor of the project: U. S.Embassy in Ukraine

 

The name o the project: Campaign against Torture and Ill-treatment in places of imprisonment

The period of financing:1 May 2008– 30 April 2009

The project costs:  $99,941

The donor of the project: Open Society Institute (Budapest)

 

The name o the project: Promoting the implementation of a comprehensive system for the prevention of torture and ill-treatment

The period of financing:1 May 2009– 30 April 2010

The project costs:  $99,810

The donor of the project: Open Society Institute (Budapest)

 

The name o the project: Educational base for prevention of torture and ill-treatment

The period of financing:1 July 2009– 30 December 2009

The project costs: 218,150 UAH

The donor of the project: The Embassy of Germany

 

The name o the project: Creation of a national system for preventing torture and ill-treatment in Ukraine

The period of financing:20 December 2008– 19 December 2011

The project costs: 696,680(69,73% from total project amount), first transche is  201,931.

The donor of the project: European Commission

 

The name of the project:Providing Information and Analysis of Human Rights in Ukraine

The period of financing:1 February 2009– 31 January 2010

The project costs: $46,100

The donor of the project: National Endowment for Democracy (USA, Washington D.C.)

 

The name o the project: Preparing propositions on improvement of law regulation and practice of access to archives

The period of financing:1October 2009– 31 May 2010

The project costs$19,300, first amount is $9,000.

 The donor of the project: International «Renaissance» Foundation (Ukraine, Kyiv)

 

The name o the project: Holding the All-Ukrainian Public Hearing «Human Rights Observation in the MIA activities»

The period of financing:1September 2009– 31 October 2009

The project costs$9,905

 The donor of the project: International «Renaissance» Foundation (Ukraine, Kyiv)



[1]
see http://gska2.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb_n/webproc4_1?id=&pf3511=35230

 

 

 

Recommend this post
X




forgot the password

registration

X

X

send me a new password


on top