war crimes in Ukraine

The Tribunal for Putin (T4P) global initiative was set up in response to the all-out war launched by Russia against Ukraine in February 2022.

Similar articles

Armed raid and surreal charges in Russian attempt to silence renowned Crimean Tatar journalist and Crimean Solidarity coordinator Lutfiye Zutfiyeva Russia imports its own citizens, drives out Crimean Tatars, other Ukrainians to claim its 'right' to CrimeaUkraine launches investigation into third Russian execution of Ukrainian prisoners of war in a week Insane sentence and 18 months of agonizing silence after Russia abducts two friends for opposing its war against Ukraine Nothing is sacredRenowned Crimean Tatar lawyer detained and prosecuted for informing of illegal conscription into Russian army Major report on Russia’s devastation of Mariupol demands that Putin and military leaders are held to answerUkrainian journalist abducted, tortured and sentenced to 13 years for writing about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child condemned violations of the rights of Ukrainian children by the Russian Federation71-year-old Ukrainian seized on fake 'spying' charges dies in Russian captivity Russian FSB tortures three Ukrainians for ‘saboteur plot’ arrests in occupied Crimea Huge mass ‘sentences’ after fake trial of Ukrainian POWs whom Russia accused of its own war crimes Russia has turned Crimea into a huge prison for political prisoners and hostages from Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblastsHorrific sentences against Crimean Solidarity journalists for telling the world of Russia’s crimes in occupied Crimea Prison for ‘likes’ in the social networks? How people are punished in Ukraine for justifying Russian aggressionRussia sharply increases charges against Ukrainian sportsman tortured into ‘confessing’ to rail sabotageRussia tortures nine Ukrainians from Kherson for grotesque ‘international terrorism trial’ Russia moves to confiscate possessions for condemning its war against Ukraine or for opposing occupation of Crimea ‘Ukraine is not Russia’: Judge expresses opposing view over pensioner’s prison sentence for a ‘like’ How does the European network help Ukrainian prisoners?

New version of the Law “On information” - going over old ground

The new version does not fully supply the needed changes, but is an improvement, and the very fact of its having been tabled could provide the stimulus to achieve the relevant changes when preparing legislative changes to the second and third readings

Ukraine’s information legislation undoubtedly needs updating. It could be said that parliament initiated this process by passing in its first reading the draft law “On access to public information”. The author of this, Andriy Shevchenko, has also proposed a new version of the Law “On information”. If the law on public information could be called revolutionary, this new one is more a correction of current norms of the same law.

The proposed changes are, first of all, in the definition of information as presently in the law on information, as well as in the Civil Code (surprisingly enough this was not refined when drawing up the latter.) The new version reads: “Any piece of information the content of which can be given in sign or symbol form and stored on a physical medium external to the human mind”. This definition seems closer to the modern concept of information than that in the current law (“news about events or phenomena which occur in society, the State and the environment”)

The general principles of the new version also include new norms, such as one prohibiting the classifying of information for more than 30 years. It stipulates the duty of legislative, representative and other elected or appointed public authorities to provide the public unobstructed access to their meetings. At present the issue of access to meetings is particularly relevant at local level, however the obligation to hold open meetings is imposed only for local councils and not for their executive bodies.

The penchant seen in the current law for overloading the document with theoretical provisions has been carried over into the new version. For example, listing types of information and defining each will hardly help protect any person’s rights, but could quite possibly promote the existence of several unnecessary statistical or other reporting forms on types of information.

It is yet again proposed to leave the concept of the right of ownership of information in the understanding of use, disposal of and ownership of, although the questionability of such a concept has long been discussed.

The new version gives a list of journalists’ rights which is very close in content to that in the law on the press. This is a necessary step since the laws on other forms of media do not have such a list, which can lead to journalists and freelancers in such media outlets simply not having their rights recognized.

The definition of value judgments has virtually not been changed and remains inadequate, this being a significant flaw which is not compensated for by improved access to information.

The new version does not fully supply the needed changes, although it is an improvement. The very fact of its having been tabled could provide the stimulus to achieve the relevant changes when preparing legislative changes to the second and third readings.

Abridged from a text by Roman Holovenko, the Institute for Mass Information,

 Share this