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.




1. General overview

Citizens’ right to participate in elections and referendums in 2011 was exercised in four areas.

First, by direct participation in the elections. About 1 500 extraordinary and mid-term elections to the local self-government bodies of various levels took place in 2011.

Second, through the attempts to initiate and carry out three All-Ukrainian and about 10 local referendums. It is noteworthy that in 2011 we registered only two local referendums. Other attempts to exercise the right to hold local referendums failed.

Third, by defending election rights and rights to participate in referendums in the courts of different instances. Last year over 200 court hearings dealing with the violations of human rights, which occurred during local elections of 2010, elections of 2011 and attempts to initiate a referendum.

Fourth, in the course of elaborating new law on people’s deputies’ elections.

According to State Registry of Voters[2], which provided election committees with the lists of voters for the elections in 2011, 1361 elections were held by mid-November and 135 more were scheduled till the end of the year.

In the majority of mid-term elections (1066), members of village and settlement councils were elected in 2011. Extraordinary elections of village and settlement heads ranked second in the total number of elections (178). Then, in decreasing order come mid-term elections of raion councils’ members (3,9%), city councils’ members (1,8%), members of the councils in the cities of raion significance (1,7%), extraordinary elections of city mayors (0,6%), mid-term elections of ARC Supreme Council members and oblast’ councils’ members (0,4%) and city districts’ councils’ members (0,2%) (See table 1). Most approximate estimates show that about 4–5 million voters could exercise their election right during these elections.

Тable. 1. Number of local elections to self-government bodies as of November 2011

Types of elections






elections of ARC Supreme Council members and oblast’ councils’ members






elections of city heads






elections of members of the councils in the cities of state and oblast’ significance






elections of city districts’ councils’ members






elections of raion councils’ members






elections of members of the councils in the cities of raion significance






elections of village and settlement heads






elections of village and settlement councils’ members (single-seat electoral districts)


1 066






1 361





Source: Voters’ registry dept

Note: 135 elections more were scheduled till the end of 2011

Based on independent observers’ reports, mass-media data and elections-related court rulings, we can arrive at the following conclusions.

Number of election rights’ violations at the local elections of 2011 was about ten times lesser than respective number in local elections of 2010.

Certain violations were characteristic of both current and last year local self-governments’ election campaigns, i. e. issues with voters’ lists, refusals to register candidates or their representatives, attempts, sometimes illegal, to remove candidates from registration, illegal campaigning, “buying” the voters’, violations at the time of voting and ballots’ counting. However, this violations were rather sporadic, than systematic, depending on political situation in a given territorial community and on economic factors (e. g. if a community owned valuable land plots, violations of voters’ rights were registered during extraordinary elections of the head).

Predominant majority of elections took place quietly, without significant violations, ignored both by public at large and by administrative resource.

In total, we found 82 court files related to elections-related disputes in the 2011 elections (Unified State Registry of Court Rulings[3]) (See table 2).

Table 2. Local elections-related cases (2011) considered in courts










Beginning of electoral process






Appeal against decision on holding elections








Official refusal to fund mid-term and extraordinary elections







Violation of elections’ universality principle






Correcting and amending voters’ lists







Violation of the principle of free, fair and accessible elections






Refusal of election boards to register candidates or their representatives, removing candidates from registration by committees and courts’ decisions








Banks’ delays in opening candidates’ accounts needed for the election campaign








Violations in campaigning procedure








Bribing of voters








Violations in ballots’ counting








Non-recognition of elections’ results







Violation of right to fail appeal and objectivity of the electoral process






Various formal obstacles in accessibility of justice








Unsatisfactory level of operation in election committees, their failure to respond to complaints








Election committees’ refusal to register an elected official








Difficulties in replacing the candidates elected by partisan lists in multi-seat electoral districts.







Failure to implement the principle of deputies’ accountability






Спроби виборців відкликати депутатів













The table was compiled on the basis of data from the Unified state Registry of Court Rulings as of December 2, 2011.

Notes: 1. Elections were counted as of start of December 2011.

       2. Only court cases,(not all the elections) including appeals, were taken into account

Analysis of court rulings showed that violations of citizens’ election rights occurred at all stages of the electoral process.

Voters’ lists and refusals of election committees to register candidates or their removal from registration raised the largest number of problems (17,1% and 21,9% respectively), leading to the violation of elections’ accessibility and universality principles.

We identified a whole set of court rulings, which based on formal criteria, refused to file cases of violations (9,8%), and court actions concerning inactivity of election committees, which refused to duly consider complaints related to violations of election law (6,1%).

We believe that these actions violated the principle of efficiency and fairness of the appeal system in the course of elections.

As opposed to election campaign of 2010, other registered violations were of minor significance.

2. Right to free and fair elections

2.1. Voters’ lists still are the source of violations

Average voters’ attendance at the mid-term and extraordinary elections as a rule does not exceed 20-30%, while at some mid-term elections it amounted to merely 3%[4]. Despite this fact, however, one of the most acute problems, addressed in court by the citizens in the course of elections, was their absence in the voters’ lists (17,1%).

Voters submitted their complaints to court on the day of elections, when, due to contradictions in legal documents, they were unable to exercise their right to participate in the elections. Thus, p. 2 art.22 of the Law of Ukraine “On Elections of the members of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea Supreme Council, local councils and city, village and settlement heads” (hereinafter — Law of Ukraine “On Local Elections”) reads that “ on the day of elections changes and amendments into the amended voters’ list can be introduced only by court ruling”. Meanwhile, according to p. 3, art.173 of the Code of Administrative Legal Proceedings of Ukraine, claims concerning voters’ list amendment can be submitted no later than 2 days before the elections day. Confusion arises from unclear terms: “voters’ list”, “preliminary voters’ list” and “amended voters’ list”, all of which need legal clarification. Only then this crucial issue will be resolved and courts will be able to add voters to the list by their ruling on the elections day.

Voters’ registry departments worked over the year to put an end to the confusion with voters’ lists. As a member of CEC Olexandr Shelestov mentioned early in 2011, about one million of potential multiple inclusions of voters’ names were discovered since automated system of voters’ registration has been introduced (2009), and subsequently 930 598 multiple inclusions were destroyed.[5]

Over the year 2011, CEC passed 26 resolutions, entrusting the departments of voters’ registration with the task of destroying multiple entries, after discovering multiple inclusions of voters’ names into the lists. Only in October and early November about eight thousand entries were destroyed.[6]

Incidentally, the departments themselves faced serious financial constraints. In many regions administrative reform led to the downsizing of staff in the State Voters’ Registry early in the year. Under the circumstances the All-Ukrainian NGO Voters’ Committee of Ukraine on May 4 2011 had to make a public statement in support of the State Voters’ Registry Department staff.

This statement read, in particular: “Over the period between the elections Voters’ Committee of Ukraine noted improvement in the quality of voters’ lists, first of all, due to the commitment of the majority of registration bodies’ staff, who, more often than not, have to work in minimally required number. However, State Voters’ Registry still has a long way to go. That’s why any reduction of staff in this entity will surely deteriorate the quality of the voters’ database”.

Voters’ Committee of Ukraine appealed to oblast’ and raion state administrations, city councils, under which State Voters’ Registry bodies operate, to stick to the number of employees, defined by the Cabinet of Ministers and to reject any attempts to downsize the departments, as public observers argued that this action “will directly affect the voters’ lists, and, consequently, election rights of the public”. [7]

2.2. Refusal of local administration to provide funding for electoral process
as a new type of election rights’ violation

Changes in electoral law and return to the mixed system at the local level led to new types of violations of citizens’ election rights. Thus, under the Law of Ukraine “On Local Elections”, scheduled, extraordinary and first local elections are to be funded from the State Budget. Funding of mid-term elections in single-seat districts is the responsibility of local budgets. Election committees of different levels had to bring their pleas to court at least three times last year (in Slovyansk, Donetsk oblast’, Horodyshche, Cherkassy oblast’, Plesetske village council, Vasylkiv raion, Kyiv oblast’), requesting the ruling that would oblige local self-government bodies to pay for the electoral process. In all these cases courts supported the claims and defended election rights of the citizens.

2.3. Election committees actively exercised their right to refuse the registration
and to remove the candidates from the registration

The abuse of authority in the committees remains a source of numerous violations of the election rights. Almost 22% of all disputes, brought to court in relation to local elections of 2011, dealt with election committees refusal to register candidates or their official representatives or removal of candidates from registration, if these latter had several notices for breach of the electoral law. The notices, though, were often given for minor breaches, or even violations committed by unknown person on behalf of a candidate. It happened in October 2011 to the member of the CPU, candidate to the Supreme Council of the ARC from a single-seat majority electoral district No. 13 at the mid-term elections.

The election committee discovered the fact of the repeated breach of electoral law by this candidate and removed him from registration by its decision of October 31. The decision was based on the fact that fliers promoting the said candidate were posted on a building which is considered a historical monument. Only a week later, on November 7, several days before the voting, circuit administrative court of the ARC, upon consideration of all the facts, took into account the fact that on the eve of the alleged violation the CPU office in Simferopol was robbed. Therefore, one could not claim with certainty, that the fliers were posted on the historical monument on the candidate’s order. They might have been placed there by unknown persons to provoke the CPU candidate’s removal from registration. Therefore, the decision of election committee concerning candidate’s removal from registration was found illegal.[8]

We observed the same practices, applied by the election committees at the elections, which took place in the atmosphere of political confrontation or acute competition. Sometimes their actions could be explained by only two reasons: either election committees acted for the benefit of certain candidates, or they were simply incompetent.

Here are some more examples. Thus, on November 13, 2011, Novooleksandrivka village election committee (Zaporizhzhya raion, Zaporizhzhya oblast’) refused to register a citizen as candidate for village head position, arguing that she submitted among other documents her own statement, reflecting her property status and incomes, instead of the respective certificate from tax inspection, as required by the amended Law on Elections, which came in force after the Taxation Code of Ukraine was passed. Instead of requesting the said document, obtained from the tax inspection, the election committee denied the citizen her right to run for the village head position. Zaporizhzhya raion court (Zaporizhzhya oblast’) on November 17 nullified this illegal decision of the election committee.[9]

On November 18, deadline for submitting the documents for the registration of candidates for mayor’s position in Vyshneve, Kyiv-Svyatoshyn raion, Kyiv oblast’, the city election committee denied registration to eight candidates altogether. According to TV channel “24”[10], the reason for refusal was well-known — errors in the submitted papers. The commentary contained the information that “all eight candidates represented opposition parties”. On the claim of one of the candidates — Yuriy Lisnychy, representative of the “European Party”, the court found the election committee decision on Mr.Lisnychy removal illegal. According to further information, the election committee planned to appeal the ruling. The unregistered candidate’s characteristic statement was quoted:

“Even if they register me, even if my claim is satisfied, they will register me on the 26th, I’ll be served the decision on the 27th and without either members of election committee or observers present; my bank account won’t be opened, and, practically, I will be deprived of the opportunity to fully exercise my constitutional right of campaigning”.

As opposed to the last year elections, the majority of these contradictory (to put it mildly!) decisions were later nullified by the court rulings.

2.4. The violations of observers’ rights were “inalienable” part of the high profile elections

According to the Voters’ Committee of Ukraine, on November 13, at the mid-term elections of the deputy to the Supreme Council of the ARC in the electoral district No. 13 (Simferopol) the heads of some election committees contrary to the electoral law in force, restricted observers’ movement within polling stations. Thus, at the station No. 48 the committee decided to demarcate a so-called “working zone”, with access denied to journalists and observers. Similar situation was registered at the station 59. There mass media observers were given the farthest corner of the premises and forbidden to approach the desks of the committee members. [11]

Fortunately, these were just isolated instances in 2011.

Thus, only minor violations of citizens’ election rights, promptly rectified by the court rulings, were registered at the local elections of 2011. However, due to the short-term nature of electoral process citizens often failed to fully participate in the elections.

2.5. Law on People’s Deputies Elections was passed without prior public discussion
or due transparency

On November 17, 2011 people’s deputies of Ukraine by the majority of votes passed the Law on People’s Deputies’ Elections. 366 deputies voted in favor of the law, including Party of Regions — 187, CPU — 24, People’s Party — 20, “Reforms for the Future” group — 19, non-partisan — 18, “BYUT-Batkivshchyna” — 62, NUNS — 36.

The Draft Law preceding the actual Law, was devised by the working group headed by the Minister of Justice Olexander Lavrynovych and submitted to Venice Commission. In early November a Provisional special committee was set up to harmonize various draft laws registered in parliament.

On opposition representatives’ request amendments, allegedly minimizing the risk of electoral fraud, were introduced. Meanwhile, “political” issues — proportional-majoritarian system, minimum number of members at 5% level, banning party blocks from elections — remained as proposed by governmental bodies.[12]

Passing of the new law on elections was preceded by dramatic developments. Public at large and independent experts, attempting to influence the elaboration of legislation for parliamentary elections of 2012, set up Public consortium of electoral initiatives and organized a broad discussion of the electoral reform. 1 359 experts from all over Ukraine participated in public discussions, focus groups and expert polls.[13] The Head of Board of Voters’ Committee of Ukraine NGO Olexander Chernenko characterized their expertise and opinion as precious resource. Nevertheless, their input was ignored by the working group headed by the Minister of Justice Olexander Lavrynovych, by Provisional special parliamentary committee and by the people’s deputies themselves, when they cast their ballots.

The Head of Board of the Public Network OPORA Olga Ayvazovska commented on the outcomes of the working group operation:

“The President took electoral reform outside the Parliament by announcing broad expert discussion: however, the actual discussion on proposed proportional-majoritarian system never took place. This tendency is detrimental to the legitimacy of the process and engenders distrust towards its results”.

The Head of Board of Voters’ Committee of Ukraine NGO Olexander Chernenko pointed out:

”Although Venice Commission recommendations underlined the expediency of proportional system of open regional lists, we are again stuck with the system, which discredited itself at the former election campaigns”.[14]

“The most sensitive areas of election campaign of 2012 are: the process of defining electoral districts, compiling the voters’ lists, steering the voting process and counting the results. The possibility of pressure on mass media is also present, as well as problems with bringing election committees’ violations’ claims to courts. However the major risk is represented by the mixed system, which stipulates administrative influence on the election results” — stated Denys Kovryzhenko, Director of legal programs, Laboratory of Legal Initiatives.

Public at large believes that despite all the contradictory norms, the new law on elections will not hinder fair and democratic elections.

This opinion was expressed, in particular, by the Head of Board of the Public Network OPORA Olga Ayvazovska. It is possible, however, only under condition of power strucutres’ non-interfering into the electoral process. As a result, we might see total lack of real competition in pre-election campaigning:” The administrative resource makes it possible to “clean up” the districts from the popular candidates. Different methods are used: from persecution by law-enforcement or taxation entities to plain bullying at the everyday level. Hence, the country leadership is primarily responsible for the results”[15]

3. Right to participate in referendums

3.1. People’s initiative in holding referendums is fictitious

Last year our citizens tried to initiate three All-Ukrainian referendums.

The organizers of the first All-Ukrainian referendum wanted Ukrainian citizens to answer four questions:

“1. Do you support early termination of authority of the Supreme Rada of Ukraine of VI convocation?

2. Do you support holding pre-term elections to the Supreme Rada of Ukraine within 60 days after making public the results of free expression of people’s will at the All-Ukrainian referendum initiated by the people?

3. Do you support early termination of authority of the President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych?

4. Do you support holding pre-term elections of the President of Ukraine within 60 days after making public the results of free expression of people’s will at the All-Ukrainian referendum initiated by the people?”

Organizers of the second referendum proposed another question for discussion: “Do you support the pension reform, i. e. increase in retirement age to 60 years for women and 65 years for men?”

Advocates of the third referendum planned to propose the following question for All-Ukrainian discussion: “Do you support the ban on sales/purchases of agricultural lands and introduction of respective amendments to the Land Code of Ukraine?” The contents of this question sometimes varied.

Meetings with the goal of setting up task forces took place in all the regions of the country. The initiative concerning All-Ukrainian referendum on finding out public opinion on the ban on sales/purchases of agricultural lands was the most popular.

All these initiatives, however, were hampered by the power and never came to anything. We can define three main groups of obstacles in the way of initiating All-Ukrainian referendums.

First group of obstacles: banning of public meetings with the goal of setting up task forces (Brovary, Kyiv oblast’, Vilnohirsk, Dnipropetrovsk oblast’, Chernivtsy etc).

Second group of obstacles: refusal of self-government officials to submit the documents related to the setting up of task forces for the organization of All-Ukrainian referendum on people’s initiative to CEC, in compliance with the law (Dnipropetrovsk, Nova Odessa, Mykolaiv oblast’, Izyum, Kharkiv oblast’ et al.).

However, the most instrumental in creating the obstacles was CEC, which denied registration to one hundred sixteen task forces for the organization of All-Ukrainian referendums.

As a result, over the years, our citizens have been unable to exercise their right to hold All-Ukrainian referendums on people’s initiative.

3.2. Local referendums are possible only with local authorities’ good will

According to the State Voters’ Registry only two local referendums were held in 2011, and one of those was considered invalid.

Our very approximate estimates led us to conclusion that at least eleven attempts to hold local referendums in 2011 failed. Chernivtsy residents tried to organize a local referendum five times, Pervomaysky residents (Kharkiv oblast’) — twice; several attempts were made by activists in Odessa, Luhansk, Oleksandrivsk, Kherson, Dniprorudny (Zaporizhzhya obalst’).

In all these instances the local authorities found various pretexts to deny the registration for initiative groups and the permission to collect residents’ signatures in favor of a local refe­rendum.

Members of initiative groups in vain appealed the local authorities’ decisions in the courts of appeal. Characteristically, the judges refuted the representatives’ claims on the basis of counter arguments.

Thus, Chernivtsy circuit administrative court by its ruling of June 30, 2011,[16] on the basis of article 174 of the Code of Administrative Legal Proceedings of Ukraine, regulating specific features of appeal procedure, actions or inactivity during elections and referendums, namely: under p. 6, art. 172 of the Code of Administrative Legal Proceedings of Ukraine, claims can be submitted to administrative courts within 5 days after decision was passed, action committed or inactivity permitted, left the claim of initiative group members from Chernivtsy without consideration, arguing that it was submitted after the expiration of the prescribed date. This decision was supported by Vinnitsa administrative court of appeals on July 4.[17]

Zaporizhzhya circuit administrative court by its ruling of November 18, 2011, on the same basis rejected the claim of the initiative group from Dniprorudny (Zaporizhzhya obalst’).[18]

On the other hand, Odessa administrative court of appeals, when approached by an initiative group of Kherson voters, in its ruling of July 11, 2011, arrived at the opposite conclusion: “Hence, the initiative group for local referendum acquires the status of electoral process or referendum process subject only after obtaining the registration certificate; therefore, the ruling of the first instance court concerning the initiative group claim, under the provisions of the Code of Administrative Legal Proceedings of Ukraine, regulating resolution of electoral process and referendum process-related disputes — is erroneous”.[19] As a result Odessa administrative court of appeals nullified the ruling of Kherson circuit administrative court, under which Kherson mayor was obliged to register the initiative group.

Most dramatic turn of events was observed in Chernivtsy.[20] In 2011 territorial community of Chernivtsy five times tried to initiate the local referendum. On every attempt the local authorities prevented them not only from organizing the referendum, but also from even starting the collection of signatures in support of people’s initiative. Alleged procedural violations at the public meeting dedicated to local referendum were used as a pretext. In order to deny registration to an initiative group or to make court appeal impossible in case of denial, various methods were used: from meticulous verifications of voters’ lists and protocols, recordings of initiative groups’ meetings to issuing incorrect denial documents to hinder the court appeal and delay the resolution of the matter.

Leonid Tarasenko, a lawyer from the Center of people’s advocacy, offered the following comment of the situation:

“The initiative group for local referendum has no right to appeal in court the mayor’s refusal to register it, as this initiative group is not registered. The law in force stipulates that initiative group is recognized as such, after it has been elected at the public meeting; after that it submits the required documentation to the city mayor to obtain the right to collect citizens’ signatures in support of referendum. Without this registration the initiative group simply cannot collect the signatures, but still is considered set up. These provisions were completely ignored.”

Thus, we arrive at the conclusion that local authorities in different parts of Ukraine systematically violate main principles of democracy, spelled out in the Constitution of Ukraine and Law of Ukraine “On All-Ukrainian and Local Referendums”, preventing their communities from initiating the referendums. Local officials actively hamper any manifestations of direct democracy.

4. Conclusions

In 2011 the overwhelming majority of elections took place quietly, ignored by general public, without either serious violations or active interference of administrative resource. Violations, registered in the course of elections, were isolated rather than systematic.

The main sources of violations included low level of competence among election committees’ members, their probable bias towards certain candidates, and imperfection of electoral law, which opened the door for the election committees’ abuses, e.g. refusals to register candidates or their removal from registration for minor infringements.

A new type of election rights’ violation, i.e. refusal of local authorities to fund mid-term elections, came into being.

The majority of wrong-doings were rectified through court procedures. The judiciary system in the few elections-related disputes of 2011 worked rather efficiently.

State Voters’ Registry departments worked hard on improving voters’ lists, although the State Voters’ Registry bodies operated under the threat of staff downsizing and reduced funding.

It is noteworthy that faults, specifically adding the voters’ names into the lists on the voting day, under various regulatory acts represented the violations of voters’ rights to vote.

Inability of citizens to exercise their rights to initiate and hold All-Ukrainian and local referendums on general or local initiative remains one of the major problems related to the observance of election rights in Ukraine in 2011.

Groups of citizens trying to initiate and hold referendums come across systematic obstacles, created on the regular basis both at the local and national levels.

Passing of the new Law “On Elections of People’s Deputies of Ukraine” became a crucial event in 2011. It was not warranted by the objective necessity, but called to resolve specifically political issues of authorities in power.

Ignoring their own promises, the authorities never held broad public discussion on electoral law reform; the results of discussions, launched by general public, were ignored as well.

Despite the lack of transparency and public participation in passing of the election law, it was supported by the constitutional majority in the Supreme Rada. The public observers believe, however, that despite all the contrary provisions, the new electoral law will not become an obstacle for fair and democratic elections, if the authorities do not interfere into the electoral process.

Broad use of administrative resource poses a major threat for the electoral process of 2012, and, specifically, for fair, free and transparent elections.

We point out once more that the authorities won’t take into consideration majority of recommendations offered by general public. As a result, the election rights of the citizens are systematically violated.

Year 2012 poses a new challenge for the Ukrainian state and society. Only by joining our efforts we’ll be able to decrease the number of election rights violations.

5. Recommendations

1. We stress the expediency of appropriate legal regulation of the procedure for holding national and local referendums. Authorities should be restrained in their capacity to hinder citizens’ expression of free will by participating in the referendums.

2. Sufficient funding and governmental support for the better operation of the State Voters’ Registry has to be guaranteed. Any attempts to cut down funding and reduce the number of staff in the State Voters’ Registry are unacceptable.

3. It is of utmost importance to provide voters, left outside the lists for whatever reasons, with the opportunity to exercise their right to participate in the elections, by court rulings.

4. Codification of the electoral law shall be continued. The principle of political expediency should be rejected; broad public discussion on electoral process, with the participation of scholars, electoral process organizers, specialized NGOs representatives should be launched. Electoral Code should take into account negative experience, acquired in the election campaigns of 2009–2010, and bring isolated and contradictory election laws to uniformity.

5. Further improvement in the procedure of appeals against electoral law violations remains topical. We believe that existing practice of remanding the appeals to electoral process subjects on the basis of formal or technical errors, while the case is clear on its merits, presently creates a serious obstacle to the renewal of citizens’ election rights.

6. Training and upgrading of the election committees’ members at all levels has room for improvement. The training should be permanent with dropout of those who failed.

7. Ensuring public officials’ non-interference into the electoral process remains the main task.

8. Law enforcement bodies should pay more attention to the cases of citizens’ election rights’ violations.



[1]  Prepared by Dementy Bely, head of Kherson oblast’ CVU ofrganisation.

[2]  Information site re scheduled elections and referendums in Ukraine on the official site of State Voters’ Registry!cm_core.cm_index?option=ext_static_page&ppg_id=193&pmn_id=118

[3]  Unified state Registry of Court Rulings

[4]  A Regional and a Communist won at the mid-term elections to Komsomolsky raion council, with voters’ attendance 3% .– PIK– November 14, 2011.

[5]  Olexandr Shelestov State Voters’ Registry — progress in compiling voters’ lists //Visnyk Tsentralnoi Vyborchoi Komisii — 2011 — No. 1 — p. 35 — 38

[6]  According to the official site of State Voters’ Registry

[7]  Quoted from the official site of the Voters’ Committee of Ukraine 2947&lim_beg=105

[8]  Registry of court rulings

[9]  Registry of court rulings

[10]  TV channel 24 on situation in the town of Vyshneve, Kyiv oblast’ про ситуацію у місті Вишневе Київської області

[11]  Voters’ Committee of Ukraine noted multiple violations at the ARC Parliamentary elections

[12]  Rada passed a Law on elections by constitutional majority // Dzerkalo tyzhnya — November17, 2011. 

[13]  Quoted from the official site of the Voters’ Committee of Ukraine 3165&lim_beg=0

[14]  NGO for the umpteenth time stress the lack of public discussion on amendments to the law on ptople’s deputies’ elections — 28.09.2011 — official site of the Voters’ Committee of Ukraine 3102&lim_beg=30

[15]  Quoted from the official site of the Voters’ Committee of Ukraine 3165&lim_beg=0

[16]  Registry of court rulings

[17]  Registry of court rulings

[18]  Registry of court rulings

[19]  Registry of court rulings

[20]  Nadiya Zelinska “Right to local referendum — deprived of the right”// Center for people’s advocacy

 Share this