 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Subscribe to e-mail news
 
|
28.09.2006 Regional Aspects of the Human Rights Situation in UkraineUkrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (UHHRU) Regional Aspects of the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine Kyiv, 2006 This book is published with the financial assistance of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation through the Swiss Cooperation Office in Ukraine. The views expressed in it are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation Editor – Volodymyr Yavorsky Copy Editors – Victoria Onyshchenko, Marina Hrabovska Translation - Halyna Koynash Authors of the study Dementiy Bily, Chair of the Kherson Regional Branch of the Committee of Voters of Ukraine Oleksandr Bukalov, “Donetsk Memorial” Oleksiy Svyetikov, Luhansk Regional Branch of the Committee of Voters of Ukraine Yury Chumak, Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group Maxim Shcherbatyuk, UHHRU Volodymyr Yavorsky, UHHRU The book gives an overview of regional features pertaining to the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Ukraine. The report is based on information gathered both by UHHRU and by regional human rights organizations from 2004 to 2006. Particular attention is given to the human rights situation in the Kharkiv, Luhansk, Donetsk and Kherson regions. © Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (UHHRU), 2006. I. Overview of regional features of the human rights situation
Introduction The Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (UHHRU), in cooperation with many other human rights organizations, from 2004 – 2006 prepared two annual reports on the overall human rights situation in Ukraine. This report is aimed at identifying certain regional features pertaining to the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Ukraine. The need for such a report is determined by existing political processes, and we believe that the conclusions drawn can be useful for understanding the overall picture of the development of the country. The study once again highlighted an interesting regional aspect of the human rights movement, this being that we do not have a great deal of information from western regions of Ukraine. The considerably greater number of human rights organizations and activists in the East has determined the stronger focus on eastern regions of Ukraine in this report. There are a number of reasons for this, including historical factors. This does not at all mean that the situation with rights and liberties in the West of the country is on a fundamentally different level and that there is thus nothing to worry about. A survey was recently published by the Razumkov Centre for Economic and Political Studies under the title: “East and West in the context of the 2006 electoral campaign: differences, contradictions, prospects for unity”. The survey considered the fundamental social factors dividing the country: the attitude to the Soviet past and in general to Ukrainian history; perception of Ukraine’s future; the attitude to particular manifestations of Ukrainian patriotismó; opinion as to the status of the Russian language and foreign political orientation. We concentrate here on one of the basic criteria defining the level of democracy within a country, namely the observance of political, civic and socio-economic rights and freedoms. Our report contains in the main only conclusions with important factual data only presented occasionally. More information backing the conclusions drawn may be found in the regional reports of the local human rights organizations, as well as in the Annual Human Rights Organizations’ Report “Human Rights in Ukraine”. 1. Civil and Political Rights and Fundamental Freedoms[1]
The right to liberty and security, freedom from torture and the activities of the law enforcement agencies The safeguarding of personal liberty and a low level of crime are basic factors influencing relations between individuals and the state. The failure to guarantee this right arouses distrust in relation to the authorities and leads to a sense of personal vulnerability and an atmosphere where individuals are in fear of the authorities. On the other hand, a person with such an inner state of fear will be much more inclined to accept the idea of an authoritarian strong leader, than the idea of democracy. An atmosphere of fear restricts the freedom to freely express ones views and the will to defend ones rights and stand up for justice. According to a study made public based on archival documents from the department of internal security of the Ministry of Internal Affairs during the period from 2000 to 2003, the largest number of convictions among law enforcement officers for the crime of “excess of powers or official authority” (connected with unlawful methods of investigation) were in the Luhansk region. Next in terms of numbers of such cases were Kyiv and the Zaporizhye, Chernihiv and Kherson regions.[2] These figures of course do not take into account the natural concealment of such crimes and the absolutely majority of cases where people “get away with it”. According to sociological research published in the work, the hypothesis is put that the number of victims of unlawful violence from the police could be considerably higher in the Lviv, Kyiv and Odessa regions than in the Kharkiv or Donetsk regions. However the authors are more inclined to explain this by the fact that in the latter two regions there was a several times higher percentage of refusals to answer such questions, this suggesting general fear of expressing ones opinion about the law enforcement bodies.[3] Therefore if they had received all answers to these questions the situation would have been quite different. This sociological research also found that the largest number of inhabitants believing unlawful violence to be widely practised by the police were in the Lviv region (72%) and the smallest percentage – in the Donetsk region (45 %). However in the latter region, a very large number of respondents were unable to give a clear answer to this question which could suggest not only lack of information, but also fear of the police.[4] Although in the Lviv region there was the lowest percentage of people who rejected the use of unlawful physical and psychological violence by police officers (47 % against 63 % in the Kharkiv region). The same figures were also received from processing a more integrated Index of acceptability of use by police officers of unlawful violence.[5] However overall, the results of the sociological research did not find significant regional patterns. In terms of the level of crime the first place is shared by the Zaporizhye and Luhansk regions. This information was provided by the Minister of Internal Affairs Yury Lutsenko on 15 December 2005 to the Verkhovna Rada during a review of the issue of the alleged use of unlawful methods of investigation in relation to witnesses in the case of Boris Kolesnikov. This information was obviously based on statistics of criminal investigations launched as well as other operational information. However if one looks closely at the statistics on sentences in criminal proceedings, the situation is a little different. Thus over 2005 more than 10 thousand criminal verdicts were handed down in eastern regions, with the Donetsk region easily taking first place. It would seem that the correlation is also retained as regards the number of cases not reviewed at the beginning of 2005 and at the end of that year which show that the situation is fairly stable and has remained such at least from 2004 – 2006. Obviously these figures should be looked at through the coefficient of the differences in population in the regions however certain figures are 4-7 times different which will clearly not fundamentally alter the situation. For example the population of the Volyn region is approximately 4 times less than that of the Donetsk region, yet the number of sentences for crimes committed is over 6 times less. It is also worth noting that the population of the Lviv, Kharkiv and Luhansk regions is roughly similar, yet the Lviv area had half as many verdicts handed down in criminal proceedings. Table: Review of criminal cases by local courts in 2005 for particular regions[6]
The figures for consideration of criminal cases by first instance appeal courts show an even greater regional disproportion with a clear domination of eastern regions. The figures for consideration of cases involving administrative offences with the coefficient of size of the population in the regions taken into account are more even, this again confirming the reliability of the former assertion regarding statistics for criminal cases. Confirmation of a considerably higher level of crime in the East and South of the country is also provided by the figures for consideration by courts of criminal cases involving crimes committed by organized groups. The lead here is taken by the Kharkiv region, followed by the Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk and Zaporizhye regions. We would note that as far as this index is concerned, the Luhansk region, when the population coefficient is taken into consideration, shows a fairly low figure. In western regions this.index is at least 5 times lower than in the above-mentioned eastern regions. All of the figures given suggest that the crime level is significantly higher in eastern and in a part of the southern regions. This cannot be explained by economic problems since the less economically developed southern and western regions have lower ratings. The actions of law enforcement agencies are also more aggressive in the East, with a greater amount of physical violence being applied, a larger number of cases involving excess of authority and official power, and more unlawful detentions. The right to a fair trial The right to a fair trial provides the most effective means for defending a violated right. Through guaranteeing this right, the individual becomes more independent of the state, relying on his or her own abilities in standing up for his / her rights and interests. This promotes the development of independent individuals who are the mainstay of a democratic society. In the opposite case, where the right to a fair trial is not guaranteed, individuals may seek to find their own justice which leads to a rise in crime, or through political avenues, becoming thereby dependent on the local political elite presently in power. In our opinion, problems in exercising this right lead directly to a loss of confidence in legal avenues, in the possibility of achieving justice with the help of the judiciary, and cause people to argue that a strong, powerful and perhaps even totalitarian regime is needed which they believe will restore the justice they dream of with its own authoritative decisions. According to figures from the State Court Administration in 2005 the biggest workloads were those of judges in the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea, the Odessa and Chernivtsi regions and the cities of Kyiv and Sevastopol where the average monthly load is 139 – 165 cases and court documents per judge. In some local courts this turnover is considerably higher: the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court – 232.9, the Artemivsk District Court in the Luhansk region – 269.2, the Sykhivsky District Court in Lviv – 282.9, the Bilyayivsk District Court, the Bolhradsk and Ovidiopolsk District Courts of the Odessa region – 264.5, 279.7 and 315.1, respectively, the Shevchenkivsky District Court in Chernivtsi – 234.9 and the Darnytsky District Court in Kyiv – 238.5. In the Vinnytsa, Zhytomyr, Transcarpathian, Kirovohrad and Sumy regions the average monthly turnover for judges was from 83 to 99 cases and court documents. Some local courts, specifically the Yurivsk District Court in the Dnipropetrovsk region, the Velykobilozerksk and Rozivsk District Courts of the Zaporizhye region, the Pidhayetsk District Court of the Ternopil region, the Blyznyukivsk, Lyubutynsk and Pechenizk districts of the Kharkiv region, had even smaller loads (less than 40 cases and court documents).[7] The most cases to be reviewed with infringements of the time periods stipulated by the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Code of Administrative Justice of Ukraine were by local courts of the Dnipropetrovsk region (35.9%), the Crimea (31.2%), and the cities of Kyiv (31.2%) and Sevastopol (29.5%). A similar trend can be seen in the sociological study carried out by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology..
Table 5.2.3. The average duration of a court case, the average number of visits to the court and average overall official costs by region[8]
The largest percentage of cases which were still awaiting consideration after periods of over 3 months (not including cases where the proceedings were terminated) at the end of 2005 were recorded in local general courts of the Dnipropetrovsk (47.9%), Poltava (43.1%), Kharkiv (38,7%) and Rivne (37.9%) regions and Sevastopol (38.2%). Particularly worthy of note is the trend towards reduction observed in cases where the periods for assigning cases for pre-trial review or for review in the court are infringed. Thus, with infringements of the periods for pre-trial consideration, stipulated in Article 241 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) of Ukraine, the times were set for 3.6 thousand (1.7%) criminal cases (in 2004 the figure was 5.4 thousand), while with infringements of the periods set down in Article 256 of the CPC there were around 10.1 thousand (4.8%) criminal cases (in 2004 there were almost 14 thousand). Out of the general number of cases ending in proceedings which infringed the time periods established by Article 241 of the CPC, most cases were fixed by local general courts of the Poltava (3.2%), Lviv¿ (4.4%), Kharkiv (3.3%), Khmelnytsky (3,2%) regions; with infringements of the periods set down in Article 256 of the CPC – by local courts of the Dnipropetrovsk (13.0%) and Kharkiv (10.3%) regions. Such infringements in the administration of the justice system are attributable not only to unsatisfactory organization of court processes, but in some places to objective circumstances: the lack in some courts of a sufficient number of courtrooms which comply with the requirements of the “Instruction on the procedure for transporting and holding those accused (or convicted) in accordance with the requirements of court bodies”, approved by the joint order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, the Supreme Court, the Prosecutor General’s office and the Security Service of Ukraine from 16 October 1996 ¹ 705/37/5/17-398 1-3/503/239; the fixing of timetables for transporting those remanded in custody to the court for consideration of their case; untimely execution by law enforcement agencies of rulings on forcing witnesses, victims or other parties to a court process to come to a court hearing; as well as the complexity and many stages of a certain percentage of cases which require considerable time for a court’s consideration. A large number of cases outstanding at the end of 2005 were seen in the local courts of Sevastopol (29.7% of the number of cases to be dealt with during 2005), the Kharkiv (24.1%), Odessa (23.1%) and Donetsk (21.8%) regions, while the number of cases left over and not considered for a period of over 6 months (not including cases where the proceedings were terminated) in local courts of the Kharkiv region were 27.8%, the Dnipropetrovsk region - 35,9%) and in Sevastopol – 46.7%. Over 2005 deterioration was seen in the quality of consideration by the courts of civil and administrative cases. The number of rulings, decisions and resolutions by local courts revoked or amended at appeal stage during 2005 came to 29.3 thousand, or 2.6 percent of the overall number of court decisions handed down by first instance courts during that period (in 2004 the figure was 1.9%). The largest number of court rulings to be revoked or changed were handed down by local courts in Kyiv (5,0%), as well as in the Kirovohrad region (4,2%), the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea (4,1%), the Odessa (4,1%) and the Transcarpathian (3,9%) regions. As of 1 January 2005 within the framework of measures allowed for by regional programs, 127 courts had been provided with premises this constituting 68.3 percent of the number planned. In such areas as the Volyn, Transcarpathian, Dnipropetrovsk, Kirovohrad and Lviv regions measures from the above-mentioned programs for providing courts with premises have already been fully implemented. One building remains outstanding for courts in the Vinnytsa, Donetsk, Zhytomyr, Kyiv, Rivne, Ternopil regions and Sevastopol. It should at the same time be noted that the condition of many buildings provided to courts is fairly questionable and does not always render normal exploitation feasible. For example, out of the total number of buildings received by courts 95 percent are in need of repair, while more than half (53 %) have less than the needed amount of space. Measures taken to provide courts with premises were extremely unsatisfactory in Kyiv and the Kharkiv, Kherson, Cherkasy and Chernihiv regions.. According to information from the territorial departments of the State Court Administration, 28 courts were not provided with premises due to lack of money, and 26 courts were left without premises due to failings or inactivity of local executive bodies This factor is cited by the territorial departments in the Vinnytsa, Zhytomyr, Zaporizhye, Mykolayiv, Poltava, Sumy, Kherson and Chernihiv regions and in Kyiv.[9] These and other figures show that, despite the large case load in courts in the western regions, the quality of the rulings passed is superior to that in the East and South of the country. In addition the stipulated time limits for court review are adhered to much more often in the West of Ukraine. These conclusions present a certain impression regarding the possibility of defending ones rights, suggesting for example that the situation is to a large extent better in the West according to many criteria. It would appear that this in turn has an impact on the level of trust in the authorities, in the possibility of achieving justice, as well as on the sense of personal security. It is precisely this sense of personal security that changes the accent in people’s mentality, when they rely less on the state, understanding that there is a lot that they themselves can achieve. This we believe is accordingly reflected later in the greater dependence of the eastern and southern electorates on the authorities, in the significant amount of expectations from the authorities, as well as in the popularity of populist social slogans. Freedom of religion and worship Freedom of religion and worship is an expression of the individual’s inner freedom and shows to what extent the authorities have an impact on limiting this freedom. One can say overall that the fundamental situation is the same in almost all regions. The classic violations are restrictions in registration of religious organizations, discrimination when allocating land for building places of worship or renting premises for religious purposes, discrimination in determining the users of existing churches, discrimination in carrying out social work or receiving various permits, etc. Regions differ only in whose favour the authorities commit such violations. At the same time we would note that the influence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC MP) is in the main strong in the East and South of the country, that of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC KP) – in the Centre, while the Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic and Autocephalous Churches are stronger in the West and partly in the Centre. Any encroachments on “alien” territory immediately lead to religious conflict. There is quite often religious conflict over attempts to limit the rights of religious minorities. Areas with the most problems are the Lviv, Odessa, Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv regions, and the Crimea. Given such a territorial division, religious figures traditionally support the dominant political elite established in the area. Particularly intense political activities are carried out by representatives of the UOC MP, who act either on behalf of the Church itself or of civic organizations created to defend the Church’s interests. Often such activities are accompanied by incitement to religious enmity through the creation of various types of obstacles in the way of other religious organizations’ religious activities. From March to August 2004 in three parts of Ukraine – the East, the West and the Crimea – monitoring surveys were carried out using questionnaires circulated among the population and specialists regarding the level of religious tolerance in the areas where the respondents lived. Most of those surveyed – whether ordinary individuals (believers or non-believers) or specialists – had encountered cases of discrimination on religious grounds. The survey produced telling results. In the West of the country 79% acknowledged the presence of religious discrimination, while in the East the figure was 85%. It is true, however, that in the Crimea the analogous percentage was only 29%, i.e. a third of those asked. This response might incline one to think that in the area of inter-faith relations the Crimea is the most peaceful part of Ukraine. It is known however that this is far from the case. Lack of unawareness of cases of discrimination does not guarantee that there are no such cases, but rather suggests a blockade on information about this in the media. It is one matter when members of the general public living in the region state this, and quite another when the words come from specialists. Nonetheless, according to the results of the survey, 21% of the specialists from the Western area, this being considered the most fraught with conflict in the religious sphere, claim that they have not encountered instances of discrimination on the basis of religion. Although it is unlikely that people living in the West of Ukraine have heard nothing and know nothing about the confrontation between Greek Catholics and Orthodox believers, about the complicated relations between the different branches of the Orthodox Church, or about the intolerant attitude to some Protestant schools, and so forth.[10] Nonetheless the authors of the survey came to the conclusion that the situation with public opinion was more likely than not dictated by lack of information of people in the East and the South. In other words the media remain silent about incidents involving violations of rights. For example, when asked to give specific examples of discrimination or violations of the right to worship, in the West those surveyed showed considerably greater awareness of the situation. Especially pronounced lack of knowledge about incidents involving restrictions on religious freedom was noted by the authors of the study in the Crimea. Various specialists state that the issue of religion is one of the issues dividing the country however it would seem that this is being caused rather by the deliberate activities of particular individuals and organizations than by a potential lack of acceptance by members of the public of other religions. For example, among individuals throughout the country there is no obviously negative attitude to the UOC MP, the UOC KP, or the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. Overall the vast majority accepts them in equal measure as representatives of Orthodox Churches and they are equally respected. Problems arise when there is a battle of will between these people over the division of religious property in the region, or when representatives of one of these churches take an overtly antagonistic position to others and “set” people onto another Church. The most vivid example of this was the situation of confrontation which arose recently in Kharkiv (more details can be found in the section on this region) where members of one of the churches was directly involved in creating conflict. Another category of problems which are typical of particularly the Crimea and the Dnipropetrovsk and Odessa regions comes into play when the authorities will not take any steps in the religious sphere without agreeing them with representatives of the UOC MP. In other words, religious conflict in Ukraine is the result of the deliberate actions of members of particular religious and political organizations, and not of the existence of true contradictions between the religious beliefs of different individuals. Religious conflicts are entirely artificial and often connected with simply property, and not religious issues. The state authorities in this hold an absolutely impartial position of non-interference, not ensuring protection of religious minorities and thus promoting the rise in religious enmity. One can conclude that the religious issue is more being used for the deliberate division of the country by certain forces, than actually an issue of the development of objective processes in society. This is promoted by the total lack of action and passivity of the authorities at the national level who most importantly do not obstruct the incitement to religious enmity. Freedom of expression and press freedom Freedom of speech and of the media ensures the free exchange of information and debate on socially significant issues among the public. Observance of this freedom has a direct impact on the exercising of political choice during elections and on the objective assessment of the situation in the country and accordingly on the worldview of a person and his or her thoughts regarding the future development of the country. As of October 2005 the State Committee on Television and Radio Broadcasting had registered or re-registered 22,794 regular publications, 9,948 of which were publications on nationwide, regional and / or foreign spheres of circulation; `12,846 were locally circulated. The overwhelming majority of printed regular publications with local spheres of circulation were newspapers: 10,740 titles with a further 2,106 journals and magazine-like publications[11] Up to October 2004 eastern and southern regions of the country lived in conditions of information vacuum. Freedom of speech was strictly limited with the help of the administrative machine by pressure on journalists and media outlets. In view of this, to a large degree, the media reflected one position, with criticism hushed up and members of the public having one single path of social development foisted upon them, since public debate was effectively non-existent in those regions. In central and particular in western regions, the level of media competition was much higher and administrative pressure on a considerably smaller scale, this being reflected even in the quantitative indices of monitoring of violations of the rights of journalists and the media. From the beginning of 2005 the situation improved significantly in the national media. Changes have also occurred in local media outlets, although at a much slower pace. The number of incidents of direct physical persecution of journalists has fallen substantially, as has the use of state controlling bodies to exert pressure on the media. Yet all specialists from human rights organization testify to the much greater amount of critical information which has appeared in the media. Media outlets more often present differing points of view. However from March 2006 this positive trend began to slow down and the media is again finding itself confronted by different forms of pressure, although not to the same extent as in 2004. One of the biggest problems remains pressure from the owners of media outlets, and most often from state bodies that are founders of the outlet. In many places state and municipal media outlets are virtually the only providers of local information. However the news in such outlets is presented in a one-sided manner, from one position in terms of the power structure, and practically no criticism appears. The authorities or other owners view the media outlets as a mouthpiece of propaganda, and not as a source of information. In view of this the issue of reform of the state and municipal media is one of state significance since how effectively the democratic processes in the country can develop is dependent on the outcome of this reform. We would note in passing that the largest number of state and municipal media outlets is to be found in the Donetsk region. Table. Generalized information on municipal print media outlets in Ukraine[12]
One should note also that information about the amounts of budgetary support for municipal printed media outlets in 2005 can also say a lot: most money was received by media outlets in the Donetsk (over 11 million UH.), Kharkiv (over 9 million UH.), the city of Kyiv (over 8 million UH), the Vinnytsa, Dnipropetrovsk and Odessa regions (over 4 million UH), while the least money was spent in the Rivne, Sumy and Zhytomyr regions, and in Sevastopol (less than 1 million UH).[13] It is difficult to explain these figures logically, yet if one tries to compare these with the number of media outlets in the regions and it becomes clear who is looking after their own information mouthpiece, and how. Effectively the state pays for the media support of one of the political forces – the Party of the Regions since the financing is much higher in those areas where the media outlets sing the praise of this party. In terms of regional characteristics, eastern and southern regions continue to restrict freedom of speech in the local media to a greater extent. As a result of so-called editorial policy the necessary material is selected, this usually containing one point of view or criticizing exclusively political opponents. In conditions of greater control, media outlets become the mouthpiece for convenient political propaganda, and not a place for public discussion. In such conditions it is exceptionally easy to use such outlets for inciting separatist moods convenient for the political force in power in that area.. Access to information Access to state information is a fundamental right for democracy since it serves as a vital artery for free democratic choice of politicians and, therefore, of the way the country develops. The degree to which this right is guaranteed determines the measure to which members of the public are truly aware of the advantages and shortcomings of those in power. Research shows that the authorities, especially at the local level, do not make available information from which one could find out about incidents of corruption or they conceal those violations of rights and freedoms which are most widespread in the given region. The state authorities at the local level and bodies of local self-government feed people with only the information which they consider necessary. The local media unfortunately, for a number of the reasons cited above, do not compensate for this lack of information, while the national media do not pay local problems any significant amount of attention. At the national level the situation with access to information is improving and ever more information appears about the work of courts, controlling bodies, and the Ministries are also developing their policy on information. However the situation at the local level is considerably more difficult. Given the lack of information, members of the public often have an inaccurate impression about the observance of rights and freedoms in their area. Basically when they make their political choice, they do so lacking full information about the objective state of affairs. Furthermore, their political views are formed under the influence of information which is not objective. This is easy for the political forces which have influence in the region to exploit. Substantial problems with access to information exist in virtually all regions, and the less populated a particular area, the more serious are the problems which arise. However for the overall picture it is worth noting that the lack of official information in combination with the problem of competing local media outlets leads to a dearth of information which is effectively exploited by the political elite who fill the vacuum with propaganda in their favour. Therefore, where in western regions the competition among local media outlets is greater, the lack of sufficient information is compensated by information from competing media outlets. The dearth of information, however, in the East and especially in the South of Ukraine is catastrophic. Freedom of peaceful assembly and association Violations of freedom of peaceful assembly are observed in virtually all regions. The more politically active a region is, the more violations are recorded. At the local level the authorities often use regulations they have passed on holding peaceful gatherings, these significantly limiting the right to peaceful assembly. A classic infringement is the direct prohibition on the holding of demonstrations, political rallies or other peaceful gatherings in certain places and streets, with special places being assigned for such events. The places designated are, however, sometimes right on the outskirts of the city or at a stadium defeating the very purpose of the event. Such regulations we believe are in contravention of many parts of the Constitution. One such regulation passed by the local authorities in the Luhansk region was even revoked by the Supreme Court of Ukraine following an appeal lodged by human rights activists. Yet in the majority of cities the violations are virtually identical. The greatest number of such violations over the last two years occurred in Kyiv, the Crimea, Lviv and Dnipropetrovsk. Up till the end of 2004 in the eastern and southern regions numerous violations were observed of freedom of peaceful assembly in the fact that people were forced to take part in various political demonstrations, political rallies, etc. However in 2005 and 2006 there were only isolated incidents of this. It is also difficult to identify any regional features as regards observance of freedom of association. Violations here are also fairly typical. Often the biggest problems arise in registering civic, charitable or other local organizations. According to information from the Ministry of Justice, at the end of 2003 the largest numbers of branches of political parties were registered in the Donetsk region: 81 regional, 423 – district, 648 districts of a city and 1,026 – city formations. The least numbers of such formations of political parties were registered in the Chernivtsi region: 73 – regional, 409 – district, 108 – districts of a city and 157 – city formations. The largest numbers of legal civic organizations with local status are to be found in Kyiv (3.8 thousand organizations), the Lviv (over 1.5 thousand organizations), Odessa (around 1.3 thousand), Kharkiv (1.0 thousand), Donetsk (990) and Luhansk (930) regions, as well as the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea (over 680 organizations). The least civic organizations with local status are legally registered in the Poltava (311), Khmelnytsky (337), Ternopil (396), Chernihiv (390), Sumy (448) and Volyn (458) regions. These proportions have not changed significantly. The figures show that the Lviv, Donetsk and Kharkiv regions traditionally have a high level of political and civic activity, with a broad network of political and civic organizations. Up till the end of 2004 there were numerous cases where people were forced to join political parties. This compulsion was exerted by local state authorities or the administrations of large enterprises. In the main these cases were observed in the East and South and considerably less in the West of the country. Similar instances were recorded before the 2006 parliamentary elections however they were already more the exception and isolated occurrences. The largest numbers of trade unions in Ukraine legally registered over 12 years of independence were in Kyiv – 64. The leaders in terms of numbers of trade unions registered by offices of the Ministry of Justice are also the Odessa region – 54, the Donetsk region – 47 and the Kharkiv region – 28. The least numbers of trade unions in Ukraine, beginning from 1991, were formally registered in the following regions: Khmelnytsky – 1, Ternopil – 2, Volyn and Chernihiv – 3 each, Mykolayiv, Rivne and Sumy – 4 each. In the Kirovohrad regions over 12 years not one trade union was registered.[14] In this context it is also worthy of note that in the western region there are virtually no strong human rights organizations. On the other hand organizations with a social direction work considerably better, especially those created by religious organizations. The lower presence of human rights organizations is not however attributable to a lesser number of rights violations in the West than in the East. The reasons are more likely to stem from historical factors. For example, in the West the main essential problem was considered to be the lack of state independence and due to this the national liberation movement, which was a political movement, developed significantly. In the East the traditions of the Russian human rights movement of dissidents played a considerable role. 2. Specific regional features regarding the observance of social and economic rights[15] Differences regarding the observance and protection of social and economic rights are to a large extent determined by the differing level of economic development in the West and East of Ukraine. The eastern region which can broadly be labelled industrial has two centres – Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv. Here over seven Soviet decades a powerful industrial complex was created, largely serving defence requirements. Intensive movement of the population created a specific multi-ethnic environment with a high degree of inter-ethnic tolerance. One can separate the Donbas region since the problems engendered by its “single profile” coal direction are highly specific. Here there are particularly acute problems with finding jobs for the surplus population and changing the profile of traditionally single-profile mining towns. For this reason of enormous importance for the Donbas region is, among other things, the formation of social policy. A circumstance that determines Ukraine’s regional diversity is the way in which modernization and the move from an agricultural to an industrial type of economy took place. Modernization of that part of Ukraine which was already within the USSR was carried out in the 1920s and 1930s largely through force directed from the Russian centre, without the proper economic justification and calculations. As a result of this some areas ended up over encumbered with industrial plants, while others remained agrarian. Modernization of the Western Ukrainian region was carried out without any appropriate understanding and considerable faults in the post-War period. At the present time the different between the economic development of the West and East of Ukraine is extremely noticeable. Over 15 years of independence, not only have economic ties not become closer, but in fact the disproportion in development of different regions which stems from Soviet times has become worse. Industry in the West of the country has undergone a huge crisis, while in the East – if one thinks of the “economic reforms” of Leonid Kuchma, “massive national capital” was created. To give one indicator: export possibilities per head of population, according to 2005 figures, in the Western region of the country amounted to 281 US dollars, while in the East this was 1,295 dollars, or almost five times more. For reference, the figures for the Centre were 594 dollars, and for the South – 360 dollars.[16] The West and Centre of the country were always more agricultural, while the South and East were industrialized. From this we find differences in the ratio of rural and city populations, with this being 53% to 47% in the West and 16% to 84% in the East. In the Centre the figures are 39% to 63% and in the South — 34% to 66%. [17] Again as a result of this we have disproportion in levels of employment and wages. Last year in the Ternopil region the average monthly salary was 2.4 times lower than in Kyiv, and the unemployment level 15 times higher. This is why people from the West are continuing to travel to countries in Europe to earn money. People from the East and South go to Russia.[18] It is important to note that the economic cooperation between regions is negligible. Industry of the South and East is dependent on Russian supplies, particularly of energy and work in the main with Russian partners, while the industry of other regions is similarly connected with their neighbours. In addition, inhabitants of the various regions of Ukraine are effectively deprived of geographic mobility, or to put it more simply, the possibility of freely moving around the country, and thus simply seeing each other. The first fact is the cost of moving, the second – the lack of a free market of accommodation for the labour internal migration and studying youth. As of 2005 the number of passenger inter-city moves, in comparison with 1990 halved, in particular by rail – even one and a half times, by river transport – five times, by roads – four times.[19]
Socio-economic disproportion and regional disintegration In Ukraine to this day there remain two interconnected combined negative tendencies in regional development. The first is socio-economic disproportion in regional development, the second that of regional socio-economic disintegration. Certain basic characteristics can be identified in the contemporary state of socio-economic disproportion in regional development. There is, as already mentioned, unevenness in the territorial distribution of Ukraine’s economic potential, as well as steadily increasing interregional differentiation according to basic economic indicators. Regions also differ significantly in terms of how attractive they are to investors. Finally, there remain substantial differences in revenue to the local budgets per person, and regional differentiation increases according to basic parameters of social development. In only six regions – the Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhye and Kharkiv regions and in Kyiv itself one has 48.4% of the basic means of the country, 65.4% of industrial production and 49.2% of the investments in basic capital.[20] The following examples of the basic areas and extent of socio-economic disproportion can be given to demonstrate how deep the disproportion is. In terms of the amount of sold industrial production per person in 2004, there was 14.5 times more in the Donetsk region than in the Chernivtsi region. If one takes the amount of exported goods, then the divide between the Donetsk and Chernivtsi regions is 97 times; there was 10 times more direct foreign investment per head of population as of 1 January 2005 in the Kyiv region, excepting the city of Kyiv, than in the Chernivtsi region. If one takes investment in Kyiv into account, then there is a difference of 37.5 times; business activity in 2003, measured by the number of small businesses per 10 thousand people shows a difference between the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea and the Ternopil region of 1.9 times, and with the city of Kyiv of 4.5 times; tax and other revenue to the local budgets in 2003 per head of population between the Dnipropetrovsk and Ternopil regions there was a gap of 2.5 times, and with the city of Kyiv of 7 times; spending of the local budgets in 2003 per head of population between the Crimea and the Luhansk region were 1.4 times.[21] The deepening disproportion between western and eastern regions of Ukraine hinders the implementation of a single economic and social policy in the country, and prevents the use of the advantages of territorial division, specialization and consolidation of employment. It is accompanied by a weakening of interregional economic links, promotes the entrenchment of major regional differences in the course of social and political processes, prevents using the potential of interregional and border joint production, obstructs the resolution of environmental problems, etc. The second trend is that of regional socio-economic disintegration. This process reflects a change in the internal consolidation of the economic realm, the weakness of interregional economic links as a result of the closed nature of regional economic complexes and the increased role of foreign economic links replacing those within the country. Both these aspects of disintegration pose a threat to the unity of the country and are the economic basis for separatism. The main reasons for disintegration are the lack of an effectively functioning Centre, together with the lack of will to move away from “manual control” by the regions, the aspirations of regional leaders to excessive political and economic independence, the shortcomings in legal backup, the lack of a well-founded policy for regional development within the state, inadequacies of inter-budgetary relations, high politicization of the economy and the lack of reliable information. The negative consequences of this disintegration are: the increase in regional differentiation; the increase in regional disproportion; a substantial decrease in interregional commodity turnover; a reduction in interregional passenger turnover, especially by air; a sharpening of social problems and social tension, and others.[22] The right to an adequate standard of living For any direct analysis of the implementation and protection of particular socio-economic rights, one should note that the problem of poverty and of ensuring the right to a decent standard of living remains one of the most burning of all issues regardless of the part of the country concerned. This is confirmed by the results of a survey carried out by the Razumkov Centre within a study made of regional features of ideological and political orientation of citizens of Ukraine within the context of the election campaign. In response to the question in the sociological study: “What issues are the most relevant for you personally during the course of the elections to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine?”, 63.9% answered that for them these were fighting poverty, and ensuring a decent standard of living for citizens; 60.9% mentioned the creation of new jobs, overcoming unemployment; 53.8% spoke of ensuring access to high-quality education and healthcare.[23] However at the same time these issues show major differences for the West and the East of Ukraine. Of regions with a particularly high poverty level, one should mention the Khmelnytsky, Rivne, Chernihiv and Volyn regions (with over 37% of the population living in poverty). The situation is not much better in the Ivano-Frankivsk, Ternopil, Mykolayiv and Odessa regions. Of the regions where the situation is much better Kyiv and the Regions of the East of Ukraine stand out.[24] After analyzing the level of average wages over the regions it becomes clear that it is in the western regions of Ukraine that the levels of pay are the lowest. As an example one can cite the following average monthly earnings around the regions: Ternopil region – 731 UH, Volyn region - 815 UH., Khmelnytsky region – 830 UH, Zhytomyr region. – 836 UH., Vinnytsa region. – 836 UH. At the same time, the highest average monthly earnings were received in the city of Kyiv – 1,784 UH, Donetsk region – 1,225 ãðí., Dnipropetrovsk region. – 1,184 ãðí., Zaporizhye region. – 1,125 UH., Luhansk region. – 1,055 UH. One thus sees that the pay in eastern regions and Kyiv is around double that in western regions. In determining the regional aspects of overcoming poverty, it is important to look at the figures for the growth in average earnings against the actual size of the minimum subsistence level for able-bodied individuals, as well as for those employees who are paid wages lower than or at the level of the legally established minimum wage. Making a detailed analysis of the first indicator, we see a substantial different between eastern and western regions of Ukraine. We have, for example, the Ternopil region with 66.7%; the Chernivtski region - 61,8%, the Khmelnytsky region – 68,6%, while at the same time the Dnipropetrovsk region has 115,7%, the Donetsk region – 114,7% and the Zaporizhye region - 110,0%. An analysis of the second indicator enables us to see that the largest number of people who are not even paid the legally established minimum wage (in June 2006 the minimum wage stood at 350 UH) live in the western regions of Ukraine. In the Ternopil and Khmelnytsky regions, for example, the percentage of those in this category reached 13%, while in the Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk regions, the same figure was barely 4%.[25] And this is only the percentage calculated for employees who have worked the full month. If one takes all employees, then the percentage of those who receive less than the legally established minimum will at least double, just as will the difference between eastern and western regions of Ukraine. However it is interesting that sociological research shows that in terms of status identification, it is inhabitants of the eastern regions of Ukraine who place themselves on the lower end of the scale of material wealth, a little higher than southern and central regions. The highest rating for level of material well-being was given by inhabitants of the western regions. Yet if one looks at the actual data on socio-economic position, the situation is directly opposite.[26] As far as the debt on payment of wages is concerned, there are much greater problems in regions of the East of Ukraine. It is a telling fact that in western regions this indebtedness is on the decrease, while in eastern regions it is rising. The State Department of Statistics reports that 25 of each 100 UH not paid were in the Donetsk region.[27] Further confirmation of the rise in indebtedness against wages in eastern regions is provided by the press service of the Kharkiv Regional State Administration which reports that the average monthly salary of a member of staff in January – June this year was 901 UH, being 32.2% more than in the same period in 2005. At the same time, however, the situation with paying off debts against wages remained difficult. As of 1 July 2006 the overall amount of debt against wages for the region was 45.7 million UH, and it had risen in June by almost 2 million UH (or by 4.5%). Debt against wages is rising also in Luhansk. According to figures from the weekly monitoring of the central department for employment and social security of the Regional State Administration, the overall amount of debts on payment of earnings at business enterprises in the Luhansk region as of 28 July came to 104.8 million UH and had risen during the week to 10.2 million UH, or by 10.8 percent. The amount of unpaid wages for the economically active enterprises of the region came to 53.8 million UH and had increased by 53.8 million UH and had risen over the week by 8.6 million UH, or by 19%. The greatest increase in indebtedness from wages was at enterprises of a state or state-corporative form of ownership, and there during the week the debt had risen by 6.5 million UH (by 34%) and came to 25.6 million UH. At enterprises of a municipal or municipal-corporative form of ownership there had been a reduction in debt by 1.8 million UH (by 17%) and as of 28 July the amount stood at 8.8 million UH. [28] The right to social protection Having an effective system of social protection for the population is of importance for all of Ukraine. The efficient running for social security funds, the Pension Fund, the social protection of the unemployed, those who suffered as a result of the accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant is a matter of concern for each region of the country regardless of its geographical location. As an example, one can cite the regional analysis of the functioning of the system for assigning and allocating subsidies to the population. This analysis shows the importance of such protection both for the Donetsk, and the Ternopil regions, this being seen by the large number of people who apply for such subsidies in these regions, and also the amount of subsidies allocated.[29] However there are fairly specific regional features of social protection, this especially as regards social protection for those working in the mines who are constantly not paid their wages, or do not receive regressive payments or lump-sum payments following industrial accidents or work-related illnesses. And the problems involved with defending their rights are much more serious since they permanently confront the deficit of budgetary resources for various payments to miners. Moreover in eastern regions there are many cases where wages are divided applying a coefficient of the labour force participation (CLP). This division is carried out with violations of the labour norms and is dependent to a large degree not on the labour input, but on personal relations with the brigade leader and other such people. Only at the M. Barakov mine is the division of pay carried out by the brigade and each worker signs that he has read the CLP approving this. The latter was confirmed by information from employees of the mines as a result of verbal surveys and questionnaires among workers in mines in the Luhansk region. At some mines of the region there are no provisions on CLP, yet it is applied (the Nikanor-Nova Mine). In the majority of cases the content of such provisions contravenes legislation, and is not familiar to most of the mine’s workers (the provisions on CLP in the “Bilorichenska” Mine, the “Knyakhinynska” Mine, the Mine of the 50th anniversary of the USSR, of the closed joint stock company “Krasnodonvuhillya”). There is a similar situation in other mines. Even the norms of these provisions are not complied with. A lot of workers do not know about the size of the CLP assigned them, or are afraid to ask in case they annoy the boss. A large percentage of workers do not know that there is a provision on division of pay in accordance with CLP, while others do not know how and according to what rates their wages are calculated. Members of trade unions do not explain to the workers how their wages should correctly be calculated. Most often they themselves don’t know and show no desire to find out.[30] If a worker dares to look into the legitimacy of the rules for calculating his wages according to the CLP, in the majority of cases he is subjected to “special” conditions of work. He immediately turns into a permanent violator of work discipline, safety norms, he is moved to other pits, his wages are reduced, unwarranted disciplinary penalties are imposes, they send him to receive certification again, and the especially defiant lose their jobs. This means that any attempt by a worker to stand up for his labour rights carries the risk of being subjected to administrative repression and of lowering or completely losing his social status as an employee.[31] It is also important to note another problem of the eastern regions of Ukraine, in the first instance of the Donbas area, this being the violation of the labour rights of employees of liquidated enterprises to receive the wages owed them. For example, at enterprises which have undergone liquidation and have been removed from the Single State Register of Businesses and Organizations of Ukraine (SSRBOU) not all ex-workers receive the money owned in unpaid wages. The norm of point 6 of Article 31 of the Law “On restoring solvency…” unlawfully allows for the possibility of removing workers’ ability to receive the wages owed them. This is successfully made use of, for example, at the Luhansk car assembly factory, at “Emalzavod” in the city of Luhansk, and others. There are violations of the norms of Article 11 of the ILO Protection of Wages Convention Norm ¹95. There are also problems involving repressive measures against miners, and also cases where norms are introduced into a collective contract which worsen the provisions for workers compared with current legislation.[32] For western regions in turn issues involving the development of social protection in rural areas and the development of the social infrastructure in the countryside are of immediate relevance. During the period of reforms of agricultural enterprises the social sphere in the countryside found itself on the verge of collapse. This was due to the crisis state of the economy, the drastic reduction in state funding, the insolvency and indebtedness of agricultural enterprises. This state of affairs made it impossible to meet the needs of the rural population as regards social, cultural and everyday services, and as a result made the creation of decent living conditions in the countryside highly problematical. In connection with this, in order to ensure the further functioning and development of the social infrastructure in rural areas, the need arose for reforms which involved resolving issues regarding new owners of social objects of collective agricultural enterprises. One of the biggest problems in rural areas is ensuring water supplies. Water supplies were traditionally regarded as a social service and were always provided at very low cost. And in rural areas where agricultural enterprises took over almost all expenses, the service was free. Over the last ten years the cost of these services has risen sharply, while the quality, in contrast, has seriously deteriorated. In order to ensure an uninterrupted supply of services, restoration was needed of networks which had been neglected during the so-called transitional period, technical components and aggregates which were old and worn out needed to be replaced. Obviously all of that entails considerable expense. The inability of the former owners to ensure repair and updating work, to maintain the parts of the water and heat supply system in a proper state led to the networks becoming run down, to deterioration in the quality of the services, and sometimes to water supplies being stopped.[33] The majority of the population using centralized water supplies complain about the quality of drinking water. The quality of the water is virtually not controlled; the norms for consumption are often excessive, due to the lack of water meters, the lack of specialists, and sometimes as a result of the will to change anything. Low pressure and accidents in the water pumping system lead to frequent problems with water supplies. In rural areas the most negative impact on the development of social infrastructure came with the restructuring of agricultural enterprises when the parts of the social infrastructure which had been maintained at the expense of these enterprises became “not needed”. Due to the high level of poverty among the rural population consumers of services were unable to pay more. It is difficult for people to reconcile themselves with such a situation, they cannot understand why it is necessary to pay for what was provided free, why it’s necessary to increase the cost of services of low quality, particularly given that the level of income was falling, and not rising. According to the Institute of Demography and Social Research, the increase in the level of poverty in rural areas over the last years has taken on a permanent nature. In 1999 it was 29.3%, in 2000 - 31, 3%, in 2001 ð. - 35, 2%. Overall for the period from 1999 to 2003 the level of poverty in rural areas rose by 3.8%. Due to excessive increases in the price of crucial services, people were forced to reduce the level of use of these services, or give them up completely. This has led to a worsening in the sanitation and epidemiological situation, a rise in illness among the population, etc.[34]
The right to work Figures for the level of unemployment are needed for understanding the regional features of the observance of the right to work in eastern and western regions of Ukraine. According to information from the State Department of Statistics for January to September 2005 overall the average monthly number of economically active members of the population aged between 15 and 70 was 22.3 million, of whom 20.7 million people, or 93,0%, were engaged in economic activity, the rest did not have work, however were actively looking for it and were ready to take a job, that is, according to the methodology of the International Labour Organization (ILO) qualified as unemployed. The average monthly number of people unemployed stood at 1.5 million, or 7.8% of the number of economically active members of the population of the above-mentioned age range. The highest level of unemployment was seen in the Ternopil and Rivne regions,, while the least was found in Kyiv and the eastern regions.[35] For western regions of Ukraine an enormous socio-economic problem requiring constant monitoring and reaction is the travelling abroad by people from this area in search of work. As an example we can cite the Irshavsk district of the Transcarpathian region which is one of the biggest supplies of labour abroad. The types of earning are clearly marked out depending on the amount which a potential worker is prepared to spend on obtaining a visa to this or that country. There are no statistics on the number of overseas workers in the area, however it is not difficult to make approximate estimates. Out of 52 thousand able-bodies members of the population 16 thousand are officially employed, with approximately thousand more working unofficially, while a large percentage of the remaining 34 thousand are abroad. The mass exit of the labour force has led to a deficit in the area of specialists of “non-intellectual” professions. For example, local enterprises of light industry cannot find employees even for 150 dollars per month, while wood-processing factories cannot “tempt” cabinet makers for even 1,200 UH (a little over 200 USD). As well as the economic problems that this entails for western regions of Ukraine, there is also a seriously negative social and cultural impact. It is as a rule one member of a family who goes off in search of this work (which may last two, or four or seven years). Italy and Greece, where a particularly large number of these workers from the Transcarpathian region work, are considered best for women. While “the weaker half” finds a job and sends money from abroad each month and thus automatically turns into the breadwinner of the family, “the stronger half” proves for ever ready to accept his secondary role and adequately use his unexpected freedom. Sometimes this leads to conflict with unexpected outcomes. People (especially if they are not held together by young children) after returning from their work abroad become different, and seem alien to each other. Some during that time find themselves new partners abroad and even formalize relations there (“forgetting” to get divorced at home), while their “other half” who remained at home may behave similarly.[36] For eastern regions of Ukraine observance of the right to defend ones interests via trade unions is more immediately relevant since the majority of enterprises and mines are in the East of Ukraine. Trade unions are therefore more active in these regions, and accordingly any problems with registration, and obstruction of their activities more common. As an example one can cite the fact that while undertaking the project “Monitoring discrimination of specific categories of employees – miners in socio-economic practice in the Luhansk region”, the Public Committee for the Defence of Constitutional Rights and Freedoms found that the rights of independent trade unions were not fully recognized by employers, representatives of state structures and “official” trade unions. Basic conditions for work are not provided, nor is the information requested given, and representatives of independent trade unions are not included on the Board of the Luhansk Regional Social Insurance Fund for Temporary disability, on the regional commission on monitoring timely payment of wages and other social payments, or the regional Council for social partners. Nor are they invited to board meetings where issues on labour and socio-economic rights of works are being reviewed. Incidents involving the obstruction of trade union activities are known to have occurred in relation to the Independent Miners’ Trade Union (IMTU) at the “Partisanska” Mine, the IMTU of the “Ivetiy” Mine, the IMTU of the “Nikanor-Nova” and the Confederation of Free Trade Unions of the Luhansk Region.[37] At the same time in eastern regions one also has an opportunistic position taken by the official miners’ trade unions (Trade Union of Coal Industry Workers – TUCIW), as well as by some organizations of the IMTU, conscious betrayal by trade unions of the interests and labour rights of hired workers, In collective contracts minimum guarantees are approved, based on a minimum wage of 101.2 UH, 118 UH, 140 UH, 165 UH. At the present time only at the “Nikanor-Nova” Mine are the norms of the Branch Agreement being fulfilled as regards the observance of minimum guaranteed wages. In the Krasnodon region only two trade union organizations (the IMTU of the M.P. Barakov Mine, and the Mine of the 50th anniversary of the USSR presented demands for adhering to the minimum guaranteed wages set down in the Branch Agreement. In Krasny Luch the trade union committee of the IMTU of the “Izvestiy” Mine merely sent an appeal to the director of the mine concerning the need to adhere to the Branch Agreement as regards ensuring minimum guarantees of payment of wages. Other measures to fulfil the norms of the Branch Agreement were not taken. It is possible that such a situation actually suits the management of other trade union leaders. The central committee of the Trade Union of Coal Industry Workers confined themselves to registering a labour dispute, while the Council of Heads of the IMTU only approved a resolution on the need to fulfil the norms of the Branch Agreement in this area. The right to peaceful enjoyment of ones possessions The high level of industrial development of the East of Ukraine also determines the enormous importance for those regions of the observance of the right to peacefully enjoy ones possessions, with this issue becoming especially acute with some changes in the regime. All the more so since in court practice in 2005 there were not just isolated instances when on the court applications from prosecutor’s offices, and sometimes from state bodies dealing with privatization themselves, acts privatizing state enterprises were declared invalid, that leading to effective “re-privatization (full or partial). And this became a matter “of life or death” for many enterprises of the eastern regions. Here it would be useful to cite as examples the re-privatization of Kryvorizhstal, the Nikopol Ferroalloy Plant and a number of other state enterprises which had been privatized with violations of the above-mentioned rules. For example, in the case of Kryvorizhstal, the Economic Court in Kyiv[38], and later the Appeal Economic Court in Kyiv and the Supreme Court of Ukraine passed rulings on the illegal privatization of the metallurgic enterprises since during the process of privatization there had been significant infringements of Ukrainian legislation relating to privatization, in particular, the periods of notification of a tender had not been kept, there had also been infringements in establishing additional conditions for the tender, in the procedure for allowing bids, forming the packet of shares, the expert studies and in the announcement of the winner of the tender. At the same time for western regions of Ukraine where the number of large enterprises is not large the right to peacefully enjoy ones possessions has not become as burning an issue, with the exception of cases where there has been a struggle for the spheres of influence on various regional energy outlets of the western regions of Ukraine. One should also note the enormous number of cases brought by residents of eastern regions of Ukraine and leading to judgments from the European Court of Human Rights concerning the non-fulfilment of state obligations in enforcing the rulings of domestic courts. The majority of these judgments are connected with the non-payment by state enterprises of wages to their employees and, accordingly, the right to peaceful enjoyment of ones possessions. One can put in this category the judgments on the merits of the cases of Piven v. Ukraine, Zhnovnir v. Ukraine, Voitenko v. Ukraine, Shmalko v. Ukraine, Derkach and Palek v. Ukraine, Sharenyuk v. Ukraine, Katsyuk v. Ukraine, and others. The number of such cases increases every year.
The right to education One cannot fail to mention the importance of guaranteeing state education, particularly in rural areas, which is especially relevant to the western regions of Ukraine. The problems of rural schools are truly great, with this applying both to the staffing of schools, and to an actual base for holding lessons in schools. The staff shortages are caused by extremely bad socio-economic provisions for teachers and weak social protection. As an example one can mention the fact that rural teachers have to teach three – four, sometimes five different subjects in order to receive fulltime pay. Sometimes this is not enough, and then they work at home simply to make ends meet [39] Particular problems are presented by mountainous areas, these being most of all the Chernivtsi and Transcarpathian regions. Due to the difficult geographical and weather conditions there are virtually no schools there, and only boarding schools, and children from small villages need to somehow get there. The state has allocated school buses for this purpose however they need to be maintained by the local authorities. There is not always enough money for repairing the vehicles, for petrol and for paying the drivers, and sometimes drivers simply refuse to work for the low wages. It therefore happens that children from outreaching villages only study half the academic year.[40] At the same time, in order to safeguard the constitutional right to education, the state creates libraries. It must be noted that the distribution of these libraries differs according to the region of Ukraine. For example in the Ternopil region the number of libraries per 10 thousand voters is 10.67%, in the Ivano-Frankivsk region – 6.75%, the Lviv region – 6.59%, while in the Donetsk region the figure is 1.38%, the Luhansk region – 2.36% and the Dnipropetrovsk region – 2.0%.[41] We thus see that the library provision for the population in the eastern regions of Ukraine is significantly lower than that in the western regions, which has impact also on the opportunities for self-education and academic activities of Ukrainian citizens.
The right to healthcare There are also regional features when it comes to protection of the right to healthcare, and here it is particularly vital to speak of the spread of two major epidemics – of AIDS and of tuberculosis. According to WHO estimates, Ukraine is one of the countries with the fastest increase in the number of those infected with HIV. The number of new HIV cases registered rises each year. In 2004 the figure was 12,491, nearly 25 % higher than in 2003 (10,009 cases) and virtually double the number in the year 2000 (The Ukrainian AIDS Centre, 2005, EuroHIV, 2005). The overall number officially registered as living with HIV at the present time has reached 85,655, this being almost 200 times greater than the equivalent figure ten years ago.[42] According to official figures, the rate of HIV infection varies according to regions of Ukraine. If one takes the spread of the infection as reflected by the figures of those officially registered in 2004 (per 100 thousand of the population, we have the following breakdown: Over 90 people infected in the following regions: Khmelnytsky, Cherkasy, Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhye, Mykolayiv, Odessa, Kherson, and in the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea; From 41 to 90 people infected in the following regions: Lutsk, Zhytomyr, Chernihiv, Kyiv, Vinnytsa, Kirovohrad, Poltava and Kharkiv; Up to 40 people infected in the following regions: Sumy, Rivne, Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk and Uzhhorod.[43] The official figures for registered cases of HIV infection only give a part of the real picture with regard to the spread of HIV/AIDS in Ukraine. This also applies to the figures of the spread of HIV in the regions. Since HIV tests are voluntary, one cannot exclude the possibility that as a result of different levels of awareness among the population and the territorial proximity and availability of HIV services in some regions, people are more active in seeking HIV tests. Thus, in view of the predictions and opinions of specialists, one can assume that those regions of Ukraine which have a lower number of registered cases of HIV infection in fact have higher figures for the real spread of HIV/AIDS among the population. One can conclude from these figures that the problem of protecting the population from the spread of HIV infection is more acute in the eastern regions which are particularly suffering from the epidemic. The situation with tuberculosis in Ukraine is always rather serious. Tuberculosis is not only a medical problem, but also a social issue reflecting the socio-economic state of the country, the cultural and educational level and well-being of the population, the level of development of the healthcare system, including the phthisiology [tuberculosis treatment] services. This disease has recently given rise to serious concern in Ukraine and from the Ukrainian Ministry of Health in particular. Since 1995 an epidemic of tuberculosis has been seen in Ukraine, which is unrelentingly spread and which is one of the main medical and social problems at present. The spread of all forms of tuberculosis has been registered, and the number of people with the disease constitutes 1.4% of the population of the country. At present tuberculosis in Ukraine is the cause of the greatest number of deaths from infectious illnesses. Since 1991 when a steady increase in cases of tuberculosis was first noted, the mortality rate has risen 2.7 times and stands at 22.6 per 100 thousand of the population. The number of those contracting tuberculosis has since 1991 increased 2.4 times. Over 2004 the rate of infection rose by 4.4% and came to 80.9% of the population. Tuberculosis among children in comparison with the previous year rose by 2.2% and stood at 9.3 per 100 thousand children. In 2004 38,403 new cases of tuberculosis were diagnosed. The highest numbers of those suffering from any of the forms of tuberculosis were seen in the south-eastern regions of Ukraine: in the Kherson region – 166.2 per 100 thousand of the population; in the Mykolayiv region – 114.9; in the Luhansk region – 112.4; in the Donetsk, Kirovohrad, Kharkiv and Odessa regions the figure exceeds 90 per 100 thousand of the population..[44] At the same time for western regions of Ukraine of particular importance is healthcare through the development of medical services in rural areas. However despite certain efforts of the state aimed at developing this, these services remain in a pitiful state. There is neither the material and technological base, nor the professional specialists, nor available medicines. According to information from the Ministry of Health, at present there are almost 300 villages with populations between 500 and 1000 people in Ukraine with no clinics whatsoever. The Minister of Health Yury Polyarchenko admitted that over the last 10 years nothing has been done for rural doctors and therefore there is a huge shortage of qualified personnel in rural areas..[45] Another problem which is particularly acute in central and western regions of Ukraine is the poor regulation of relations regarding surrogate mothers and there is, as a result, poor protection of Ukrainian citizens in this sphere. This is confirmed by the head of the Department of the Mother and Child N. Zhylka who agrees that these relations are poorly regulated and states that at present a group of specialists is at work drawing up a draft law “On production of reproductive health”. However at the present time there are still women who become surrogate mothers in Ukraine: they agree to clearly worse conditions for themselves, or the need to look after their families becomes more important and they themselves decide on this step.[46]
3. Conclusions All of the figures given suggest that the crime level is significantly higher in eastern and in a part of the southern regions. This cannot be explained by economic problems since the less economically developed southern and western regions have lower ratings. The actions of law enforcement agencies are also more aggressive in the East, with a greater amount of physical violence being applied, a larger number of cases involving excess of authority and official power, and more unlawful detentions These and other figures show that, despite the large case load in courts in the western regions, the quality of the rulings passed is superior to that in the East and South of the country. In addition the stipulated time limits for court review are adhered to much more often in the West of Ukraine. These conclusions present a certain impression regarding the possibility of defending ones rights, suggesting for example that the situation is to a large extent better in the West according to many criteria. It would appear that this in turn has an impact on the level of trust in the authorities, in the possibility of achieving justice, as well as on the sense of personal security. It is precisely this sense of personal security that changes the accent in people’s mentality, when they rely less on the state, understanding that there is a lot that they themselves can achieve. This we believe is accordingly reflected later in the greater dependence of the eastern and southern electorates on the authorities, in the significant amount of expectations from the authorities, as well as in the popularity of populist social slogans. One can say overall that the fundamental situation is the same in almost all regions. The classic violations are restrictions in registration of religious organizations, discrimination when allocating land for building places of worship or renting premises for religious purposes, discrimination in determining the users of existing churches, discrimination in carrying out social work or receiving various permits, etc. Regions differ only in whose favour the authorities commit such violations. At the same time we would note that the influence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC MP) is in the main strong in the East and South of the country, that of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC KP) – in the Centre, while the Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic and Autocephalous Churches are stronger in the West and partly in the Centre. Any encroachments on “alien” territory immediately lead to religious conflict. There is quite often religious conflict over attempts to limit the rights of religious minorities. Areas with the most problems are the Lviv, Odessa, Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv regions, and the Crimea. Religious conflict in Ukraine is the result of the deliberate actions of members of particular religious and political organizations, and not of the existence of true contradictions between the religious beliefs of different individuals. Religious conflicts are entirely artificial and often connected with simply property, and not religious issues. The state authorities in this hold an absolutely impartial position of non-interference, not ensuring protection of religious minorities and thus promoting the rise in religious enmity. One can conclude that the religious issue is more being used for the deliberate division of the country by certain forces, than actually an issue of the development of objective processes in society. This is promoted by the total lack of action and passivity of the authorities at the national level who most importantly do not obstruct the incitement to religious enmity. Up to October 2004 eastern and southern regions of the country lived in conditions of information vacuum. Freedom of speech was strictly limited with the help of the administrative machine by pressure on journalists and media outlets. In view of this, to a large degree, the media reflected one position, with criticism hushed up and members of the public having one single path of social development foisted upon them, since public debate was effectively non-existent in those regions. In central and particular in western regions, the level of media competition was much higher and administrative pressure on a considerably smaller scale, this being reflected even in the quantitative indices of monitoring of violations of the rights of journalists and the media. From the beginning of 2005 the situation improved significantly in the national media. Changes have also occurred in local media outlets, although at a much slower pace. The number of incidents of direct physical persecution of journalists has fallen substantially, as has the use of state controlling bodies to exert pressure on the media. Yet all specialists from human rights organization testify to the much greater amount of critical information which has appeared in the media. Media outlets more often present differing points of view. However from March 2006 this positive trend began to slow down and the media is again finding itself confronted by different forms of pressure, although not to the same extent as in 2004. One of the biggest problems remains pressure from the owners of media outlets, and most often from state bodies that are founders of the outlet. In many places state and municipal media outlets are virtually the only providers of local information. However the news in such outlets is presented in a one-sided manner, from one position in terms of the power structure, and practically no criticism appears. The authorities or other owners view the media outlets as a mouthpiece of propaganda, and not as a source of information. In view of this the issue of reform of the state and municipal media is one of state significance since how effectively the democratic processes in the country can develop is dependent on the outcome of this reform. The largest number of state and municipal media outlets is to be found in the Donetsk region. This same region also receives a disproportionately large amount of financing for state and municipal media outlets. In second place is the Kharkiv region, followed by Kyiv, and the Dnipropetrovsk, Odessa and Vinnytsa regions. In terms of regional characteristics, eastern and southern regions continue to restrict freedom of speech in the local media to a greater extent. As a result of so-called editorial policy the necessary material is selected, this usually containing one point of view or criticizing exclusively political opponents. In conditions of greater control, media outlets become the mouthpiece for convenient political propaganda, and not a place for public discussion. In such conditions it is exceptionally easy to use such outlets for inciting separatist moods convenient for the political force in power in that area. Research shows that the authorities, especially at the local level, do not make available information from which one could find out about incidents of corruption or they conceal those violations of rights and freedoms which are most widespread in the given region. The state authorities at the local level and bodies of local self-government feed people with only the information which they consider necessary. The local media unfortunately, for a number of the reasons cited above, do not compensate for this lack of information, while the national media do not pay local problems any significant amount of attention. There are considerable problems with access to information in virtually all regions, and the less populated a particular area, the more serious are the problems which arise. However for the overall picture it is worth noting that the lack of official information in combination with the problem of competing local media outlets leads to a dearth of information which is effectively exploited by the political elite who fill the vacuum with propaganda in their favour. Therefore, where in western regions the competition among local media outlets is greater, the lack of sufficient information is compensated by information from competing media outlets. The dearth of information, however, in the East and especially in the South of Ukraine is catastrophic. The consequences of problems with access to information can be clearly seen by viewing sociological surveys which often do not reflect the real state of affairs. For example, it is strange to see that the population of the eastern and southern regions consider themselves to be the poorest, whereas theirs are the richest regions. The population of the western regions, on the contrary, regards itself as more socially secure although at state level they are the poorest. The same can be found when it comes to observance of political and civil rights and freedoms. In the East and South, according to sociological surveys, people consider that there are not many violations, yet the facts suggest quite the contrary. And in the West in exactly the opposite way people exaggerate the problems in this sphere. Violations of freedom of peaceful assembly are observed in virtually all regions. The more politically active a region is, the more violations are recorded At the local level the authorities often use regulations they have passed on holding peaceful gatherings, these significantly limiting the right to peaceful assembly. A classic infringement is the direct prohibition on the holding of demonstrations, political rallies or other peaceful gatherings in certain places and streets, with special places being assigned for such events. The places designated are, however, sometimes right on the outskirts of the city or at a stadium defeating the very purpose of the event. Such regulations we believe are in contravention of many parts of the Constitution The greatest number of such violations over the last two years occurred in Kyiv, the Crimea, Lviv and Dnipropetrovsk. The figures show that the Lviv, Donetsk and Kharkiv regions traditionally have a high level of political and civic activity, with a broad network of political and civic organizations. It should be noted that in the regions the administrative coercion to take part in peaceful gatherings or to become members of political parties which was typical of the East and South of the country has virtually disappeared. There is definitely socio-economic disproportion between the western and eastern regions of Ukraine, as well as regional disintegration, this being confirmed by the differences in the levels of economic development of these regions, and also in the degree of cooperation between the East and West of the country. In addition, it should be noted that there are problems with social provisions which in many cases do not take the regional features of western and eastern regions of Ukraine into consideration. This contributes to many problems arising with the social protection of employees of large enterprises, miners, as well as agricultural workers. One must also mention the high level of unemployment and the low number of jobs created in the western regions of Ukraine, the high percentage of the population of those regions who seek work abroad. At the same time, the eastern regions of Ukraine have no less pressing problems of indebtedness against wages for employees of state enterprises, inadequate protection of the interests of those working in large enterprises and the mines by the official trade unions, together with obstructions to the work of independent trade unions. In the East of Ukraine protection of the right to peacefully enjoy ones possessions remains a problem in the majority of case through shortcomings in legislative regulation of nationalization, privatization of property in Ukraine, and also through the existence of laws which obstruct the payment of wages to employees of state enterprises. In the West of the country the functioning of rural education remains a burning issue, especially in “mountain” regions. The poor financing of the infrastructure of rural schools and of their staffing is leading to the effective destruction of education in rural areas. At the same time, for eastern regions the there is a problem with libraries which needs to be resolved in order to provide the possibility for self-education and academic activities of the inhabitants of the regions. One must, finally, note the regional features of the right to healthcare seen in the problems of the high prevalence in eastern regions of Ukraine of HIV/AIDS, as well as of tuberculosis, and in the dying out of rural medicine and legal regulation in protecting reproductive health in Ukraine in western regions. 4. Recommendations to the authorities The procedure for reforming local state and municipal media outlets should be expedited through privatisation or a significant change in their system of financing and management in order to ensure independent editorial policy. The revision and passing of a new version of the law on information should be speeded up in order to improve legislative guarantees for access to state information and to also prepare a state program for local authorities and bodies of local self-government to keep the public informed of their activities. In drawing up national development programs the need to overcome socio-economic disproportion and regional disintegration in eastern and western regions of Ukraine must be taken into consideration. There need to be more clearly defined priorities of state policy on religion, while the main tasks of the latter should be to eliminate any instances of incitement to regional enmity, the prohibition of political activities by religious organizations and civic organizations created for religious purposes, the protection of religious minorities, as well as the preparation of a National Strategy on returning religious property and on using places of worship which are owned by the state or municipal authorities. Attention is needed to the regional disproportion in court workloads. In reforming the social sphere, regional features of the social protection of employees of large enterprises, miners, as well as of agricultural workers, must be taken into consideration. It would be expedient to draw up a nationwide integrated program for overcoming the problems of rural schools and medicine and for ensuring the development of the infrastructure in these areas. II. Particular features regarding observance of the human rights in certain regions 1. Observance of the human rights in 2005: a Luhansk perspective Our research showed that the human rights situation in the Luhansk region changed significantly in 2005 and the beginning of 2006. This can be explained first of all by expectations and fears connected with the change in regime. It indicates that human rights issues in Ukraine have a political background, rather than being rooted in educational or worldview factors. In actual fact the regional power elite is perfectly well informed as to both human rights issues and the principles for defending such rights, and has no particular need of legal elucidation. Ukrainian legislation defending the rights of the individual is also reasonably developed. Attempts to improve the legislation because it is not being implemented properly amounts, in our opinion, to running around in circles. The main reason why the law is applied inadequately (or is virtually not applied) is the essentially clan structure of the authorities. This is a political not a legal problem, This “disease” is not localized geographically therefore its seriousness only differs to some degree between the East and West of the country. However in the Luhansk region, in view of a different public worldview (differing assessments of the relationship between individual and public values), the problems with violations of human rights are more acute than in the Lviv region. The clan power structure lies behind the ineffectiveness of legal protection of human rights specifically because officials in such a system act under the general “umbrella” of all branches of power together, and the outcome of any conflict is determined not by people with different types of competence and departmental affiliations, but depends rather on the will of one specific group of individuals. This relates not only to the opportunity for any individual holding office to have any forms of violations “pardoned”, but in turn also to these individuals’ obligation to look after others within the power system. This can be at their own initiative or on orders “from above”. The main thing in such a system is not the law, but deals between officials. As of the beginning of 2005, the most influential leaders of the Luhansk region were the Head of the Regional Council Viktor Tikhonov and the Head of the Regional State Administration Oleksandr Yefremov around whom revolved the most powerful economic leaders of the regions and virtually all local people in power. As well as them, one could also add to the informal centre of “influence” in the region the Head of the Appeal Court Leonid Fesenko who effectively controlled the courts and was able to determine the outcome of any court proceedings in the region, and the rector of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Academy Edward Didorenko who had decisive influence on the regional police. The dismissal of Oleksandr Yefremov and appointment to the post of Head of the Luhansk Regional State Administration Oleksiy Danylov was, in our view, the most productive of any possible moves for Viktor Yushchenko’s team towards dismantling the old “umbrella” system of power in the Luhansk region. Of the local supporters of the new President, only Danylov had enough people behind him to make the significant changes to the staff of the Tikhonov – Yefremov guard. Due to this, those who remained lost their customary administrative support and … began looking for other such support. This formed the basis of an effective assault of the apparatus on the position of Viktor Tikhonov who back in April 2005 was already threatened with dismissal from his position as Head of the Regional Council. This came when a deputies’ group from “Nasha Ukraina” [“Our Ukraine”] appeared in the Council numbering almost 50% of the deputies. That was the most difficult time for the Tikhonov-Yefremov group however it managed then to retain sufficient influence. It responded to the incursion by its opponents by accusing the latter of violations of human rights. This was publicly denied by the Danylov team who asserted their adherence to the principles of “Maidan”[47] The result of this war of people in office was a substantial degree of attention to the negative duties of the state with regard to human rights. The observance of these rights is directly dependent on the administrative power structure and violations of them in the Luhansk region had been of a fairly widespread nature. This applies first and foremost to the right of ownership (the right to freely enjoy ones property) which the regional authorities in Yefremov’s time had often disregarded. This had not always been concealed and sometimes such violations were openly declared through decisions of a public legal nature. The existence de facto of two conflicting power structures (who furthermore both used human rights slogans in their struggle with one another) led to a situation where in 2005 incidents of such violations at the regional level were almost not recorded. They also decreased significantly at the local level. And it was only after the elections of 2006 that the “administering” of others’ property again began spreading, an example of which being the “voluntary” tribute to the veterans of World War II on Victory Day by Luhansk businesses. The existence of political confrontation (and the post-“Maidan” “mood” of the new regime) had a positive impact also on the implementation by the state of some other negative duties. For example, three conflict situations between the authorities and the media (one at a regional level over the closed joint stock company LOT and two at a local level with district newspapers) in no way ended in unconditional victory for the authorities. Furthermore they led to such strong public attention that the Danylov administration fairly rapidly abandoned attempts to “build” a loyal information environment. Nor did Moskal do this in his position as Governor, thanks to which (not in the last instance) the Luhansk media during the 2006 elections (according to the results of our monitoring) were virtually free. There were more political rallies and gatherings in 2005 than at any time previously – whenever meetings had taken place earlier, they had been held anywhere, using sometimes far from impeccable means. However there were virtually no attempts to ban them either by administrative means or through the courts. Another factor which led to significant positive changes in the human rights situation in the region was the particular role played by Yury Lutsenko as Minister of Internal Affairs. The changes in leadership of the Department of the MIA and in the heads of several city and district police stations, and the especially large-scale certification of officers, with the publishing of calls to members of the public to provide any information known to them about abuses, the regular declarations regarding the intention to reform the system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs led to a situation of uncertainty in the police milieu. This was to have a positive impact on the level of protection of members of the public against police torture. However with regard to the violations of other rights as well, the behaviour of Luhansk’s police officers showed an improvement, at least during the period from March to September 2005, inclusively. During that time we recorded considerably less violations of negative duties relating to Articles 2 (the right to life), 3 (the prohibition of torture) and 5 (liberty and personal security) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [hereafter the Convention] than either before or after that period. In our subjective assessment, no substantial changes took place in the Luhansk region during the same period in terms of the state’s implementation of its commitments under Articles 6 (the right to a fair trial) and 13 (the right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. This is an indicator of the lack of significant changes in the state institutions responsible for the observance of these human rights. Despite some staff changes in the system of the prosecutor’s office, in the majority of cases these involved internal moves, with the appointment of individuals with analogous qualities who made no impact on the work of those institutions. As for the courts, there were not even any formal attempts to change anything, and Leonid Fesenko continued to control this sphere until he was registered as a State Deputy in May 2006. The dismissal of Oleksiy Danylov from the post of Head of the Luhansk Regional State Administration led to the swift reestablishment of the “umbrella” configuration, and to the consolidation of representatives of the old elite. Not that this was difficult to predict, and the presence in the Governor’s position of Hennady Moskal was in no way an impediment to this. On the contrary, it was specifically against him, an outsider with no real local support (who did nothing to gain such support) that the consolidation of “former” staff took place. It embraced both those who had remained in their posts and those who had previously been pushed “into the reserves” by Danylov’s team. Together with the restoration of the system, one could observe certain deterioration in the situation regarding the observance of Convention human rights. The political changes of the previous year did not always bring about positive changes in the observance of human rights in the region. For example, in our assessment, the situation with access to information worsened significantly, and this was true in virtually all, including civic, institutions. If in 2004 we received substantive responses to formal requests for information in around 70% of the cases (package requests for information which were sent out simultaneously to all institutions of the region with a specified profile, to all prosecutor’s offices, city and district councils, etc), in 2005 the number of such responses fell to 30%. Another fact can be mentioned: it was in 2005 that numerous cases occurred where representatives of the media were not allowed into events which were legal and open, including press conferences. Such “restrictions” were, in our opinion, the consequence of a fierce information battle between different groups in power. These were trying in such a fashion to reduce the number of information opportunities for criticism of their opponents. In our estimation, there was a significant worsening in 2005 in the implementation in the Luhansk region by the state of its positive duties concerning the defence of Convention human rights. We believe that this was connected with the partial loss of leadership in the region, as well as with the insufficient experience and qualifications of the management staff appointed in 2005. The results of monitoring of specific rights
The right to life. One can describe as positive the fact that instances where enforcement officers used firearms occurred only on the border during attempts to organize the fight against contraband, and this was largely in the first half of 2005. In open sources information was not found about the use by the police of weapons in 2005 which would make it possible to rate as high enough the observance by the state on the territory of the Luhansk region of the negative duty foreseen in Article 2 of the Convention. With regard to observance of the positive duty of defending the right to life, the results of our monitoring were significantly worse than in 2003 and 2004. We would, however, note that this might be the result not only of a worsening in the level of management at the regional level, but also of the fact that information about such cases which previously did not reach a wide audience was used by opponents of the groups in power for the purposes of their political battle. For example, information about the death of a person arrested in the Lysychansk police unit as a result of not being provided with time medical aid was circulated by the Mayor of Lysychansk Valery Bondarenko at the time when the new head of the city department of the Lysychansk city department of internal affairs was attempt to launch criminal proceedings against the Mayor connected with his activities during the presidential elections in 2004. The information publicized by the press service of the Luhansk Regional State Administration about the death of patients of the Svativsk psychiatric hospital from emaciation (through hunger) was also excessively politicized. At least the information release about the checking into these facts also included information about the activities of the chief doctor of the hospital during the elections of 2002 and 2004 as head of the district electoral commission. The accident in January 2006 in Alchevsk was also used widely by political forces for mutual recriminations. However from the point of view of the defence of human rights the death of an inmate of an ITT [temporary holding facility] as a result of not being given medical aid demanded not so much a check by the prosecutor’s office of the elements of a crime in the actions of police officers, but rather the undertaking of an official investigation and the implementation within the MIA system of measures aimed at reducing the risk of such incidents in the future. Similarly, with regard to the information from the Svativsk psychiatric hospital, mere prosecution even of the actually guilty officials would be insufficient to safeguard to proper level of implementation by the state of the positive duty to protect the right to life. However the most typical violation of Article 2 in the Luhansk region can be considered to be the inappropriate level of information provided the population by the state on the risk to life arising as a result of man-made or natural disasters. This concerns the Alchevsk accident, as well as the fire at the rubbish dump in Oleksandrivka and the reports which nobody refuted about an allegedly dangerous level of radiation in Toshkivka.
The prohibition of torture In contrast to previous years, in 2005 the regional media did not provide any information at all about incidents which could be qualified as torture or ill-treatment by the police (and therefore as a violation of Article 3 of the Convention). Immediately noticeable is the fact that over 2004 (up to 1 February 2005) the public reception centre located in Severodonetsk of the Luhansk Regional Branch of the Committee of Voters of Ukraine 10 cases were documented of ill-treatment by the police, whereas from 1 February to 1 October 2005 there was only one case. The lack of reports in the regional media about unlawful physical influence being exerted on people may thus be a reflection of the real situation, of an actual reduction in the number of such cases due to the circumstances within the police force of the Luhansk region as a result of the change in the regime in Ukraine and in the region. However at the present time such cases are again becoming more common and over the period from the end of 2005 to the beginning of 2006 there had already been several such appeals to the public reception centre of the Luhansk regional Committee of Voters of Ukraine. Liberty and security of person There have not been many appeals alleging unlawful detention in all the years that we have been carrying out human rights monitoring (aside from during the presidential elections in 2004 when reports of unwarranted detentions of supporters of Viktor Yushchenko were an everyday occurrence). There were few such reports also in the Luhansk regional media. In 2005 there were no such appeals at all. Ukrainian legislation in fact allows police officers to detain anybody, while the right to a swift review of complaints over such detentions is not guaranteed. A vivid example of this was seen in the actions of the Ukrainian Prosecutor General in detaining the Head of the Donetsk Regional Council Boris Kolesnikov. However, in our opinion, the majority of people who end up in such a situation see their main aim as being to ensure their own release and having achieved this aim are convinced that they have defended their rights. There is thus no experience of seeking the appropriate moral compensation for cases of unwarranted detention in the region. It would be necessary to have strategic litigations on this account, and to achieve their high public profile.
The right to a fair trial The situation with access to the courts in the Luhansk region did not change in 2005, with such access remaining relative for the majority of citizens. The typical violations of the state’s commitments with regard to Article 6 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) observed on a large scale in 2005 in the Luhansk region were:
Typical in this respect is the restriction on the right to freely choose one’s defending lawyer in criminal cases, legalized by the interpretation of the Supreme Court (in violation of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention and the judgment of the Constitutional Court No 13 rn/2000 from 16.11.2000). This decision from the Supreme Court can effectively be viewed as the self-defence of a corrupt court system in Ukraine in which the main function of many lawyers is to pass bribes from the accused person to the judges. In our opinion it is precisely for this reason that the number of people permitted to take part in criminal proceedings is artificially restricted. In addition the real level of competence of many court lawyers in the Luhansk region is extremely low. We have recorded, furthermore, many cases where lawyers knowingly act against the interests of their clients, and bear no responsibility for behaviour so incompatible with their duties.
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion The situation in 2005 did not change in the slightest, and officials of the state authorities and of bodies of local self-government demonstrate their attempts “to be closer to God” by abusing their official position. Instead of going to churches (mosques, synagogues, etc) as ordinary citizens, they go there with resources which have been entrusted to them by their voters or by the central authorities. The public authorities do this in such a way as to gain benefits not only in Heaven, but also in this world. That means that they support the church which the majority of their voters belong to. This clearly violates equality as regards religious affiliation (with some citizens receiving more resources, and others – none at all). Ukrainian legislation provides liberal norms for ensuring freedom of conscience, including the separation of religion from the state and from schools. However the authorities, including those in the regions (both those in power in 2004 and those who took over in 2005) directly involve the Church both in state matters and in issues of general education and upbringing. This of course harms the interests of the religious and denominational minorities who do not receive such “state tasks”. Moreover, the authorities have traditionally involved religious figures in political activities. In 2005-2006 (although not as actively as during the 2004 elections) the Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate directly supported certain political forces, while the Orthodox Church under the Kyiv Patriarchate supported others. Both Churches in this way violated the rights of some of their members whose political choice did not coincide with the choice of the Church hierarchy.
Freedom of expression The situation with freedom of speech in the Luhansk region changed significantly through 2005. During the first two months following the appointment as Head of the Luhansk Regional State Administration [RSA] of Oleksiy Danylov there was considerable administrative and legal pressure on the media from the new RSA and its “freelance” supporters. For example, pressure was expressed by suspended financing from the regional budget for the newspapers “Izvestia Luhanshchyny” [“News from the Luhansk Region”] and “Nasha gazeta” [Our newspaper”], and by removing the licenses of LKT [Luhansk Cable Television] and LODTRK [Luhansk Regional State Television and Radio Company]. Similar encroachments were observed in Slovyanoserbsk and Lutuhino and Stakhanov where there were attempts to remove journalists from their posts as editors of printed media outlets. The results of this campaign for the RSA itself were both negative (widespread and entirely justified accusations of violating freedom of speech) and positive (the appointment of a new director of LODTRK). By May the new authorities had stopped these attempts to create a favourably disposed information environment at the expense of applications to the police and administrative pressure. However in May something occurred that we would describe as political interference in the activities of the media. The main conflict arose around the closed joint stock company LOT [the company of the Luhansk State Regional Television and Radio Company]. The special nature of the interference lay in the fact that both parties were structures of the authorities (of the Regional State Administration and the Regional Council, respectively), political forces (orange and white and blue), and a broad circle of journalists who held diametrically opposed views. These consolidated forces tried on the one hand to stop the activities of the media (in the given case, of the closed joint stock company LOT), and on the other to not let this happen. As a result of the fierce conflict which lasted a month both parties incurred substantial losses. Danylov’s side lost reputation (or more accurately gain the reputation of being a suppresser of freedom of speech), while the Tykhonov-Yefremov side lost control over the main television company of the region. However the latter retained considerable strength in the media realm of the Luhansk region, both on television and in the printed media. From June 2005 in the Luhansk region “freedom of speech reigned” and there were no significant events before the 2006 elections. With a few exceptions, admittedly, one of these being the closure of the newspaper “Ogni Severodonetska” [“The Lights of Severodonetsk”], criminal actions against employees of “Serdyta gazeta” [“Angry newspaper”] and systematic occasions where journalists were obstructed in taking part in events. And of course there remained the practice, first introduced under Oleksandr Yefremove, of inviting selected journalists who would cover an event in the designated fashion.
Freedom of assembly One can state that in the Luhansk region in 2005, as compared with previous years, there was a marked improvement as regards the observance by the state authorities of the negative duty linked with the right of free assembly. We did not record one case where a decision was taken by bodies of local self-government to ban or restrict the holding of political rallies, gatherings, etc. The sole exception was the ban declared by Severodonetsk deputies on holding mass actions in front of the building of the executive committee however this decision did not come into effect. In addition, we recorded a single instance when the court passed a ruling to limit the right of assembly of two the participations in the electoral campaign on the eve of the elections. They had submitted applications to hold political rallies in the same place and at the same time, and they were banned from holding them on the central square in Luhansk. They were asked to change the place where they held their pre-election meetings. As far as the implementation by the state of its positive duty to safeguard the right of assembly is concerned, the situation in the Luhansk region did not change in any significant way. It is particularly noteworthy that attempts to hinder the holding of actions through indirect means were made primarily by the local authorities. For this they used traditional methods which had been applied previously: creating impediments through broadcasting in the place where a rally was being held unrelated recordings, organizing counter-events being run at the same place and at the same time, depriving them of premises, etc. unfortunately we also recorded cases where criminal actions were applied against participants in mass actions. This happened most often during the 2006 elections. Oleksiy Svyetikov The Luhansk Regional Branch of the Committee of Voters of Ukraine 2. Particular features of the human rights situation in the Donetsk region The Donetsk region is one of the strongest areas of Ukraine economically and industrially. The region, which comprises only 4.4% of Ukraine’s territory, is home to around 10% of the country’s population and also contains over 20% of its industrial potential. Human rights problems also have their specific features in view of these and other circumstances.
The right to life There are a large number of risks which threaten observance of the right to life in the region. A serious threat to the life of the region’s inhabitants is posed by the extremely bad environmental situation. During a visit to the Donetsk region in July 2006 President Yushchenko commented that the state of the environment was a real threat to the health of the area’s population. In the region there are 60 tonnes of harmful emissions per square metre which is 8.8 times higher than the average for Ukraine. The region has the most polluted sewage of anywhere in the country. 1% of the region’s territory is occupied by waste, with 22 million tonnes of toxic waste products accumulated. As a result of the unhealthy environmental situation the population of the region has over the last ten years decreased by 10% The following facts give an indication of the level of illness in the region. In 2004 238,803 people were treated in outpatient clinics, 918,285 people were hospitalized and operations were carried out of 237,482 patients. The average life expectancy in the region is 73 for women, and 61 for men. The region’s birth rate stands at 7.6 per thousand of the population, while the number dying is 17.5 per thousand. Another example of the flagrant violation of the right to life in the region is the practice of hired killings which has continued now for over a decade. The person who orders a killing and the actual killer as a rule go unpunished. The second half of the 1990s was marred by the murders of well-known and influential figures in the region such as Yevhen Shcherban and Akhat Bragin. A little later came the extremely prominent murder of the journalist Ihor Aleksandrov. In 2005 society again returned to the subject of contract killings when the police began actively investigating the events of the last decade. Clearly the main reason for the murders was a struggle for dividing up property. According to H.. Moskal, the then Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, around 80% of property was divided up through shootings, explosions, intimidation and extortion. Through the joint efforts of the Donetsk regional prosecutor’s office and the police in solving murders committed over the last years, the places have been found where the victims of criminal confrontations were buried at the end of the 1990s and beginning of the 2000s. One of their reports stated that the bodies of more than ten businessmen who had disappeared without trace had been found. As H. Moskal reported, five killers had been arrested who had confessed to 30 contract killings. At the end of 2005, the head of the Donetsk regional department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) stated that “they had broken the most influential, bloody and vicious criminal gang whose leader was Givi Nemsadze. The members of the gang owned more than 200 businesses in Donetsk and in other regions of Ukraine. Between 1990 and 2002, members of the gang had carried out a series of prominent contract killings of at least 57 people. Over the last few years there have not been any high-profile murders in the region, however it is clear that with regard to observance of the right to life, any changes are as yet negligible and it would be premature to speak of any positive trend.
The right to a fair trial Court statistics show that the courts in the region are more severe than in other regions. For example, i32.9% of those charged with a criminal offence in 2005 were sentenced to periods of deprivation of liberty (in 2004 the figure was 33.9%), whereas the same figure for Ukraine stands at 27.8% (27.9% in 2004). Places of deprivation of liberty in the Donetsk region hold 15% of all prisoners in the country whereas the population of the region is only 10% of the entire population. The heightened level of criminality results both in a relatively higher risk to the safety of members of the public, and in the higher demand for social services for those released from imprisonment. The roots of this situation go back to the period of the creation of the region as overly proletarian, aimed at developing industry, with industrialization being carried through at the expect of other spheres of normal life. For this reason, for example, one can observe an abnormally high level of paternalism among the region’s inhabitants. In the mentality of many workers there is an idea entrenched that any social problems must be resolved by the “management” – the director, boss, head of the city council, etc. It is the managers who have to take charge of everything, including observance of human rights. The distancing of a substantial part of the region’s population from showing their own initiative and the specific kind of evasion of responsibility for deciding any socially significant issues do not promote the inculcation of a tradition of protecting human rights which are to a certain degree based on citizens’ personal responsibility, on their conscious approach to resolving public issues. In 2005 thanks to the tumultuous political events in the country, citizen became noticeably more active. Another trend began to be felt more with individual members of society more actively asserting their rights or at least saying that there rights were being violated. For example bodies of the regional prosecutor’s office during the first half of 2005 considered approximately 20 thousand appeals from members of the public, 4 thousand more than in the previous year. Over the entire year in 2005 44,882 appeals were sent to the prosecutor’s offices, this being 20% more than the reading for the previous year. More and more often a sense of personal dignity prompts individuals to defend their rights, also using international mechanisms. A fair number of the region’s inhabitants have in recent times approached the European Court of Human Rights for justice. Donetsk residents O. Kechko, the Hordeevs, S. Salov, as well as Viktor S. from Holovka and I. Dubenko from Artemivsk have won their claims in the European Court. There has also been a shift in the activity directed at defending human rights of law enforcement agencies. Within the framework of their professional activities, the regional prosecutor’s office in 2005 carried out more than 4.5 thousand checks of law enforcement agencies in the region, resulting in disciplinary proceedings for infringements of legislation being brought against approximately 3.5 thousand police officers, 234 officers of the tax police, 37 employees of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and 39 customs officers. In 2005 57,766 crimes were registered in the region with almost 44 thousand people suffering as a consequence. Prosecutor’s office staff restarted 1,157 criminal investigations into crimes which had previously not been added to the formal register. Political bias of court institutions has manifested itself also in the somewhat specific zeal with which the staff of the archives of the Donetsk Regional Appeal Court could not find the criminal cases and copies of the sentences, regional court resolutions and even the party case of Viktor Yanukovych. There are also violations by personnel of the penal system. For example, in 2005 it was reported that a teacher from the Mariupol juvenile education colony had beaten a seventeen year old adolescent, inflicting bodily injuries. The Donetsk regional prosecutor’s office has launched criminal proceedings over the use of torture against a prisoner. At the beginning of 2006 the head of the Donetsk Regional Division of the State Department for the Execution of Sentences was arrested for taking a bribe of almost 9 thousand dollars. During the presidential elections the Donetsk region was considered to be virtually the leader in vote rigging. After the elections the mass media periodically reported individual cases against those guilty of the electoral fraud. For example, in Torez criminal investigations were launched in three cases involving vote rigging – in one of the voter lists the names of people who had died were entered. The Donetsk regional prosecutor’s office launched criminal investigations into cases of unlawful use of ballot papers, knowingly inaccurate vote counting during the first and second rounds of voting in the 2004 presidential elections. Bags with electoral documents were handed for storage to the archives of the Maryinske district state administration. During a review of these documents in April 2005 it was discovered that in 158 boxes the main and additional voter lists were missing, as were the ballot papers for the presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovych for the second round of voting. Other infringements were also uncovered. However virtually nobody has been seriously punished. An interesting way the local authorities had of interpreting freedom of speech was shown by the events of 31 October 2003 when Viktor Yushchenko, at the time still only leader of the political bloc “Nasha Ukraina” [“Our Ukraine”] visited Donetsk. In Donetsk mass expressions of protest were organized against the holding there of a congress of the block. During the visit, the entire city was inundated with billboards of an offensive nature, Later, in July 2005, the city mayor Oleksandr Lukyanenko apologized to Viktor Yushchenko. During a press conference on 29 July 2005 the prosecutor of the Donetsk region Oleksy Bahanets reported that criminal proceedings had been brought against the advertising agency “Plasma”. The Voroshylovsky District Court in Donetsk ordered the agency which had been involved in hanging the notorious billboards to pay Viktor Yushchenko 500 UH (around 100 USD) in moral compensation. Over 10 months in the Donetsk region criminal charges have been laid against 123 state officials, 58 of whom occupied high positions: three employees of the regional state administration, 11 mayors, two heads of district state administrations, 16 heads of settlement councils. Over every complaint regarding unlawful activities by police officers, an internal investigation is carried out. In 69 cases criminal proceedings have been launched. 3,220 cases involving bribes were uncovered, with the amount in 4 cases exceeding 10 thousand UH, and in 5 cases, over 30 thousand UH. Over six months in 2005 37 criminal investigations were initiated into evidence of corruption, this being 2.5 times more than for the analogous period in the previous year.
Detention, the right to personal security Remand in custody as a preventive measure is used in the region fairly often. The problems with which pre-trial detention centres [SIZO] and temporary holding facilities [ITT] come up against receive little coverage in the press. The conditions in SIZO and ITT are excessively harsh. More about this can be found in the “Donetsk Memorial” “Observance of prisoners’ rights in Ukraine in 2005”. In connection with incidents found by the Donetsk regional prosecutor’s office involving violations when detaining people and holding people in custody unlawfully, 173 police officers have had disciplinary proceedings brought against them. Prosecutor’s checks established cases of administrative detention in the absence of administrative proceedings, or of an offence. They also recorded numerous incidents of unlawful administrative detention by police officers in order to ascertain whether the particular person was involving in committing a crime. According to information from the prosecutor’s office, the practice is also widespread when bring people to law enforcement agencies of using special means and applying measures of physical coercion. Those being detained are handcuffed, geren gas is used, as well as combat fighting techniques. In 2005 officers of the internal security unit of the regional police uncovered 70 crimes in the law enforcement agencies. In 27 temporary holding facilities (ITT) of the region which come under the jurisdiction of the MIA and are intended for 1.024 people, on 1 July.2006 18,049 people were being held, and overall from the beginning of 2005 49,118 people had gone through ITT. According to figures from the Donetsk Regional Division of the State Department for the Execution of Sentences, in the three SIZO [pre-trial detention centres] of the region as of 1 July 2006 4,789 people were being held (the figure on 1 January 2006 was 5,318). The number of those suffering from tuberculosis in penal institutions in the region fell during the first half of 2006 from 1,555 to 1,260, however the number of inmates who were HIV-infected rose from 1,066 to 1,195. The conditions in SIZO and ITT are overly harsh. For example, during the trial in October 2005 of young people who had made escape attempts in summer of that year, one of them, in explaining the reasons for his action, said that other prisoners constantly demanded money of him and his friends, and took most of their parcels. The mother of one of the young men said that her son had written in his letters to her that prisoners had tried to force her son to have sex with them. She asserted that she had given money to the administration to have the conditions here son was kept in improved, but there had been no result, and the medicine that she had handed in for him had not reached her son. The regional state administration at the end of 2005 adopted a five-year Program “Public security and prisoner reform”. The Program envisages the development of interaction with civic organizations, replacement of vehicles in the penal institutions, purchase of medical equipment, etc. The problems concerning people detained and the observance by the police of procedural norms became the subject of intense public interest when an extremely prominent figure ended up in custody. This was the arrest of the head of the Donetsk Regional Council, Boris Kolesnikov. He was taken into custody on 6 April 2005 and released on a signed undertaking not to abscond on 2 August, having spent almost four months in a SIZO. The Prosecutor General had laid charges accusing him of committing a crime – extortion, the transfer of others’ property by an official using his or her official position and making murder threats. The events connected with his arrest received enormous coverage from April to August 2005. According to the Minister of Internal Affairs Ihor Lutsenko, information about Kolesnikov had at one time been provided to the head of the Donetsk regional people Volodymyr Malyshev who was later to take charge of Rinat Akhmetov’s security. The issue of violations of the law in detaining individuals was widely used by supporters of the arrested top official: there were reports in the media about how supposedly a brigade of 18 law enforcement officers had unlawfully detained people in Donetsk in order to “beat testimony out of them” against the the head of the Donetsk Regional Council, Boris Kolesnikov. The Head of the Donetsk regional division of the Department on Fighting Organized Crime (UBOZ) refuted these rumours and assured people that the investigation was being carried out in accordance with procedural norms and entirely within the context of the law. Despite certain positive moves in the activities of the law enforcement agencies, in particular of the prosecutor’s office, flagrant violations by them of civil liberties still occur. For example, the prosecutor’s office of the Petrovsky district in Donetsk over almost a year failed to send Ms E. a formal statement refusing to launch a criminal investigation into her complaint regarding violations during the arrest and detention of her son. And the Petrovsky Court in Donetsk is refusing to provide her son with their rulings regarding their refusals to reconsider the preventive measure applied against him.
Freedom of speech, access to information Up till recently the situation with the media in the region was characterized by fairly strict control exerted by the authorities. It is therefore no wonder that the typical feature of the overwhelming majority of media outlets is their loyalty to the local authorities. At the same time, in 2005 the spectrum of opinions and positions which were presented in the leading newspapers of the region became noticeably broader. One should mention as significant the fact that at a seminar of managers of regional organizations of the Union of Journalists in summer 2005, it was reasonably critically noted that the majority of local publications controlled by city and district administrations are dependent on the latter in everything, first and foremost economically, and are forced to write laudatory odes to local heads and to keep quiet about any critical material. The majority of publications are in the Russian language since the Donetsk region is predominantly Russian-speaking. According to the results of a survey by Mykola Havrylov’s sociological service 78% of those asked believe that newspapers must be published in Russian, while 6% think they should be in Ukrainian, and 13% consider that they should be in both languages. The Donetsk region cannot boast of a noticeable number of independent media outlets. In addition attempts by journalists to speak honestly and openly sometimes end tragically. The most prominent case was the murder of the journalist Ihor Aleksandrov and the attempt by the authorities to falsify the true motives for the killing, and to convict a person of the crime who in fact, as it turned out, had nothing to do with the killing, and later also the strange death of this person falsely accused of the murder. Articles with fairly hard-hitting criticism of local representatives of the political elite are regulated published by the newspaper “Ostrov” [“Island”]. During the presidential campaign, the Ukrainian Postal Service refused sometimes – in breach of its contractual commitments – to distribute the newspaper, and press distributors were prohibited from selling it, meaning that it sometimes could only be bought under the counter. Virtually all publishing houses in the region refused to print the newspaper. Over the last year it has been printed and sold without any obstacles. An independent source of information is the region’s Internet website “Ostrov”. However, up till April 2005 some providers of cable television networks in Donetsk did not include TV Channel 5, which had been disconnected by many owners of cable networks in the region back in mid 2004. The explanation offered that they acted under pressure from the authorities in order to not lose the possibility of working at all would appear convincing. In the local press publications have appeared which describe various responses by executive bodies, and sometimes also by the judiciary, to attempts by journalists to honestly carry out their duty. Yet another example of the acute situation with freedom of speech in the Donbas region was the ruling of the Petrovsky District Court in Donetsk on a suit lodged by six judges of the Donetsk Appeal Court against the journalist Anatoly Yeryomenko. The judges, whose names were not even mentioned in his journalistic investigation, having recognized themselves as among the key figures in his publication, took offence and demanded compensation for the alleged material and moral damages incurred to an overall sum of 60 thousand (ten thousand each). The Petrovsky District Court, presided over by Oleksandr Funzhiy partially allowed the judges’ claim. This incident gained wide public attention. In the newspaper “Donbas” for 1 October 2005 a case is described where a journalist from the newspaper in the town of Snizhne turned to the town prosecutor S.V. Miironov in connection with a road accident in which a lad was killed, and where a police officer had been implicated, however was refused any information. In the city court in Uhledar a hearing was held over a claim lodged by the Uhledar Mayor Viktor Khanyn against the city newspaper “Alternativa-Plus” and its editor Natalya Ivanova. The reason was a newspaper publication which, the Mayor considered, had caused damage to his honour and professional dignity. The newspaper had described demonstrations where people were protesting against an increase in communal charges. The Mayor took offence that the journalist presented him as the ruining force of the municipal housing system, and demanded compensation of 49 thousand 150 UH. He also asked for a delay in payment of duty be “in connection with the difficult material situation”. If his suit is successful, Natalya Ivanova believes that her newspaper will simply cease publication, since the amount demanded is equivalent to her budget for seven months. The issue of limitation of “freedom of speech” is used in the region by politically partisan media outlets supporting the authorities which are closely linked with certain local political circles. Attention paid them by law enforcement agencies since the “orange events” such outlets explain giving a purely political interpretation. For example, in connection with the launching of criminal proceedings by the regional prosecutor’s office over demands made by officers of the limited liability (LLC) company “Astra-TV” (the television and radio company “Kyivska Rus”) of the right to the property of the Director of the LLC “TRC Klas”, the General Director of “Astra-TV” Olena Skydan stated: “Since the political grounds for the persecution directed against me are clear to all, I reserve the right to ask for political asylum in Russia”, the newspaper “Zhizn” [“Life”] reported, No. 99 from 14 July 2005. The newspaper does not however give the facts which could be interpreted as political persecution. There are no noticeable problems with access to information in the region. Over the last two years “Donetsk Memorial” has sent more than a hundred formal requests for information to various state bodies or to bodies of local self-government. The information asked for has virtually always been provided. In the single case when the formal request was turned down by the head of the Kyivsky District Council in Donetsk S. Beshulya, after a suit was filed with the court, the information was received. However after this again Mr Beshulya refused to provide the information sought in subsequent formal requests even after the prosecutor’s office in the district found his actions to be in contravention of the Constitution of Ukraine and legislation on information. As of mid 2006 the long court wrangle with the Kyivsky District Council and with Mr Beshulya is still dragging on.
The right to freedom of expression The beginning of 2005 in the Donbas region, as indeed in the whole country, was turbulent and full of political rallies and public actions. During the events of the end of 2004 and January 2004 a large number of individuals claimed to have been forced to attend rallies in support of one of the candidates. At that time an attempt to erect an orange tent on the central square in Donetsk met with opposition both from supporters of the presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovych, and from the local authorities. An application was even lodged with the court to stop the “small architectural forms” being erected in Donetsk. However after the appearance on the square of white and blue tents, the application was withdrawn and several white and blue tents stayed there without obstruction for almost the whole year. According to the Mayor of Donetsk Oleksandr Lukyanenchenko the fact that there are still tents in the city is a manifestation of the highest level of democracy. He sees nothing criminal in this. It is one thing when people were living in them and making din, and another when there is an empty tent. He does not plan to waste his time on wrangles that nobody needs, on going through the courts and helping some advertise themselves. He simply tires not to notice such things since there are other, more important issues. The responses from local authorities of a number of cities and districts of the region to the formal request for information from “Donetsk Memorial” claim that the authorities have not placed any obstructions to holding political rallies or on people expressing their points of view. Yet, for example, in the town of Krasny Lyman a ruling was adopted by the executive committee of the town council on 21 December 2000 which designates specific places where political parties and civic organizations can hold political rallies, demonstrations or other mass events, these places being only the territory near the Artem House of Culture. At the same time there is a ban on holding such actions on five streets, Gvardiyska Square and Kirov Square. On the other hand, since the beginning of 2005 there has been a noticeable increase in the level of interaction and cooperation between the local authorities and organizations of civic society. An example of such active interaction can be seen in the creation with the active participation of both the authorities and civic organizations of a Public Council attached to the regional state administration. The Committees set up within the work of this Council have been headed by representatives of leading civic organizations. The Public Council has organized public hearings on the problem of AIDS in the region. Political rallies and protest actions usually pass without impediment. For example, in front of the building of the regional prosecutor’s office a protest action whose participants accused the regional prosecutor of inaction and deliberate freezing of three prominent cases, and symbolically buried criminal cases which had been left to gather dust. In Snizhne a political rally was held by illegal miners, those who extract coal in “pits”, illegal places for extracting coal, dug right in gardens and plantations. Approximately 3 thousand people in Snizhne work on such “pits”. Of the 11 mines in the city only two are working. Income from “pits” can be four or five times higher than the salary at the mines. The regional branch of the Party of the Regions and its youth section, taking the opportunity posed by the celebration of the Europe Days in Donetsk, held information “pickets” entitled “The Party of the Regions for European values” in Donetsk on Lenin Square on 21 and 22 May. The “picket” participants handed out leaflets with a statement from the regional branch of the Party of the Regions and T-shirts specially prepared for the action, the Party’s press centre reports. The purpose of the action was to draw the attention of the Ukrainian and international communities to human rights issues and political repression in Ukraine. “On Europe Day we wish to express our support for such European values as democracy, freedom, human rights”, the press release from the Party’s press centre reads, In the opinion of the former deputy head of the regional state administration Yury Hrymchak, there is no systematic opposition in the region in the normal understanding of the term. “There are some people who see fit to behave not entirely correctly, or even unlawfully”, Yury Hrymchak is quoted as saying on the “Ostrov” website on 17 May 2005.
Social rights Social issues in the Donetsk region are in many ways the same as though throughout the whole country. At the same time there are a number of specific features connected with the high level of urbanization and the development of industry. The distinguishing feature of reports on human rights violations are really seen in the violations of a particular group of rights, the vast majority of these being violations of social rights. One can gauge the priorities of inhabitants of this area from a sociological study carried out among people living in the Donetsk region by the Donetsk Information and Analytical Centre at the beginning of October 2005. The most burning issues were seen as being the low quality of communal services (48%), high prices for communal services (18%) high unemployment and prices (13% in each case), environmental issues - 11%. In response to the question whether they had approached bodies of local self-government, in 45% of the cases people had lodged complaints, 58% stating however that their appeals had not achieved any result. The answers to the question what could prompt citizens to participate in public life were interesting. 28% replied that they would be encouraged by a guarantee that their activities would have some result; 25% - the possibility of improving the quality of life of citizens; .13% - the opportunity to earn money; 11% - violation of rights and the desire to have these restored. The sense that participation in public life was an element of democracy was typical for only 4% of those surveyed. The nominal pay in the Donetsk region in June 2005 was 969.15 UH. This was the second highest – after Kyiv –figure in Ukraine (in the Volyn region the analogous figure was 604 UH). In a region with 4.7 million people there are 917,434 children and young people under the age of 17 (20%). From the demographic point of view this is a negative indicator, with the population simply dying out. In Donetsk there are 5,800 single mothers bringing up 6,600 children, 78 families with many children and more than 50 thousand people with different categories of disability status. The number of orphaned children and children without parental care in the region rose from 7,899 in 1991 to 15,494 in 2004. According to figures from the department of employment and social issues of the Donetsk City Council in 2005 the number of families receiving housing subsidies was likely to constitute 8.4% of the total number of families. One of the interesting attempts made by Donetsk residents to defend their social rights was the complaint made to the court against the decision of the Donetsk City Council to raise the tariffs on housing and communal services. Two people from Donetsk lodged a complaint with the court arguing that the new tariffs did not correspond to the quality of the existing communal services and the decision of the Donetsk City Council was suspended since, in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code, the filing of a claim suspends the legal force of the act which is being appealed against. True, the city council’s decision was soon declared lawful. Over recent years the problem of individuals without a place of residence has become more acute. In Donetsk since 1994 there has been a shelter for the homeless financed out of the city budget. The majority of those living there are people recently released from places of deprivation of liberty. Over the short amount of time that a person spends in the shelter, this not usually exceeding one month, they receive temporary registration, help in obtaining official documents, and some even get accommodation. This initiative from the city authorities was a solution for the social problem of homeless people which for Ukraine was rather the exception than the rule. A fairly serious problem for the region is the spread of drug addiction, alcoholism and HIV infection. In the Donetsk region there are 16,719 registered drug addicts of whom 463 are minors. Over 8 months of 2005 3,580 criminal cases were launched over drug-related crimes, including 773 for selling drugs, 126 for keeping special drug dens. 70% of the alcoholics in the Donetsk region are people under 30, half of them suffer from acute alcohol-related psychosis, or more commonly, “the shakes”. Doctors are more and more often seeing adolescent or even child alcoholism. Over 10 months of 2005 minors committed 2,239 crimes, a significant number of which were while in a state of alcoholic intoxication. In the Donetsk region one adult in every hundred is HIV-positive, as well as more than two and a half thousand children. In the region laboratory tests have identified 25,300 people infected with HIV, and just in 2004 there were 4,209 people new cases of people becoming infected with AIDS. The Donetsk region is fourth in the country for the spread of HIV per hundred thousand members of the population after the Odessa, Mykolaiv and Dnipropetrovsk regions. “There is not one district, not one town and not even one settlement in the Donetsk region where there have been no registered cases of people being diagnosed as HIV positive. The carriers of the HIV infection are people who inject drugs, who work in the sex industry, and also prisoners. Even donors and pregnant women have been found to be HIV positive. In the region among pregnant women over the entire period of the epidemic from 1995 the HIV infection has been found in 3,041 pregnant women who gave birth to 1,958 babies. The diagnosis was confirmed in 201 babies. In addition, HIV in 14% of the cases of infection is complicated by tuberculosis. Over the entire period of the epidemic, more than 3,316 people have died of HIV in the Donetsk region, of whom in the case of 345 people the direct cause of death was tuberculosis” More than 90% become infected with HIV between the ages of 15 and 39.
The right to strike, unemployment As of the beginning of 2005 in the employment centres of the region 64.3 thousand people were registered as unemployed, or 2.3% of the population of working age. However this is only the tip of the iceberg. There are many who, while not having a job, prefer to look for work themselves, without approaching the state authorities. Studies of the economic activity of the population show that the actual number of economic active members of the population in 2004 was 2,250.4 thousand, or 61.9% of the total number of the population. The number of people unemployed throughout the region was 164.4 thousand or 7.3% (in 2003 – 8%) which is almost three times the figures for those officially registered. In July 2005 Mykola Havrylov’s sociological service carried out a survey of citizens from the region. One of the region’s problems is the presence of “kopanky” [“pits”] – places where coal is illegally obtained. Over half a year the prosecutor’s office launched 116 criminal investigations, however only in relation to the hired staff of such “pits”. Strikes occur in the region by minors protesting at non-payment of the debt against their wages, but they are rather an exception, and not widespread practice.
Human trafficking Since the region has a fair number of businesses, the problem of people travelling abroad to earn money is not as widespread in the region as, for example, in Western Ukraine. However some such cases do occur bringing with them incidents of human trafficking. Over 9 months of 2005 in the region units fighting crimes connected with human trafficking launched 86 criminal investigations (over the entire year in 2004 there were 63 such investigations launched). Over the whole country from the beginning of the year 1,104 criminal cases were launched over this crime. With regard to the situation with human trafficking, the Minister of Internal Affairs Ihor Lutsenko stated: “I couldn’t say that the situation in the Donbas region is the worst. However I noticed that there have been no tourist agencies established dealing with the supply of human beings abroad. In Donetsk in virtually any newspaper one can find advertisements offering intimate services. I am therefore not satisfied with the activity of the recently created department, although systematically it does its work.” Certain elements of public control over the activities of law enforcement agencies carried out in the Donetsk region in 2005. One of the steps towards introducing public control was the creation of Public Councils attached to the management levels of law enforcement agencies. However the inclusion in their makeup of members of the public took place without any openness, and the Public Councils under regional departments of the MIA and the regional division of the State Department for the Execution of Sentences were headed by former employees of those structures as representatives of veteran organizations. The activity of such Public Councils is difficult to notice, perhaps because there is no activity. At the initiative of the Public Council attached to the regional state administration, in April 2006 at a board meeting of the regional state administration the question was raised of public control over law enforcement agencies. During consideration of this issue it was stated that on the one hand of the regional division of the MIA works liaising with civic formations, primarily in the sphere of protection of public order (254 formations), with Cossack civic organizations and with the leadership of garden-plantation societies. The regional division of the MIA supported the implementation of monitoring by the civic organization “Donetsk Memorial” of the parliamentary elections in closed police institutions. On the other hand, the management level of Internal Affairs had held 26 working meetings with state deputies, 164 with deputies of local councils, 233 with representatives of bodies of local self-government, yet the lists of such contacts contacted no civic organizations. It is possible that this is partially attributable to the fact that in the region, as in fact, in Ukraine as a whole, the public sector can not boast a huge number of qualified civic organizations. Work has begun in the region of a mobile group attached to the MIA whose members include representatives of the department of the MIA, a law institute and civic organizations. This group periodically visits district police stations in the region, finds out about other activities and with the conditions for people detained in ITT [temporary holding facilities]. Public monitoring of what happens in penal institutions is carried out by specially created supervisory commissions attached to the authorities. These commissions have been established in the region and their level of activity and influence have increased significantly since the inclusion in the regional supervisory commission of representatives of civic, and in particular, human rights organizations. According to information from the regional division of the State Department for the Execution of Sentences, in 2005 with the participation of these commissions 6,932 applications for early conditional release, were reviewed, 4,399 applications for concessions were submitted to the courts, while the option of replacing a sentence by one that is milder was reviewed in the case of 5,687 prisoners. These commissions fulfil a significant role in providing assistance to penal institutions. However it is worth stressing that providing assistance is not yet the control that is at issue, and in this the work of the commissions needs to be improved. A certain impression about the level of observance of the law by officers of law enforcement agencies cam be gained by the results of prosecutor’s checks. The regional prosecutor’s offices carried out more than 4.5 thousand supervisory checks in law enforcement agencies of the region. As a result of these, disciplinary charges for infringements of legislation were laid against around 3.5 thousand police officers, 234 officers of the tax police, 37 employees of the SBU [Security Service] and 39 customs officers In view of the above, one can state that although certain progress can be observed in the Donetsk region in introducing public control over law enforcement agencies, the effectiveness of the public sector remains nonetheless unsatisfactory. This can be attributed both to the weak development of the sector of civic organizations, the small number of such organizations involved in the given area of activity at a sufficiently professional level on the one hand, and also by the cases reflecting a purely formal approach from some law enforcement structures to organizing work to promote the exercising of public control. Oleksandr Bukalov The Civic Organization “Donetsk Memorial” 3. Regional aspects of the human rights situation in the Kharkiv region Introduction The Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group carries out regular monitoring of observance of human rights in the Kharkiv region. The main purpose of the monitoring is to ascertain the present human rights situation in the Kharkiv region, to identify and analyze the typical problems and publicize general conclusions. We scrutinize the actions of the authorities in terms of their observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, sending formal requests for information to state authorities and bodies of local self-government, institutions and organizations and analyze the responses received. We engage in dialogue with the authorities and present specific proposals on improving the situation in the region. The KGPG Public Reception Centre also provides consultations to members of the public on defending their rights and legitimate interests. In the research into regional specific features of the implementation and observation of human rights in the Kharkiv region in 2005-2006, as well as in determining their likely causes and possible consequences for the country, the following methods for collecting data were used:
The results of the study are presented below. Freedom of conscience and religion In the Kharkiv region believers make up 52-54% of the population of the region, around 1 million 400 thousand people. The majority of believers (approximately 1 million 300 thousand) are members of different Orthodox Churches. Over the last year the number of religious organizations in the Kharkiv region increased by 3%. At present in the region there are around 740 religious organizations of different denominations and faiths. The largest number of believers in the Kharkiv region are members of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate, there being 265 communities of this Church. Virtually all religions practised in Ukraine are represented in the Kharkiv region, as are almost all ethnic groups. The region’s inhabitants are therefore accustomed to living side by side with people who practise other religions. One can say that public opinion on these issues in our region in 2005 were reasonably tolerant. However in 2006 after the parliamentary and local elections, in which the main victor in the Kharkiv region was the Party of the Religions which had led its campaign under the banner of unity with Russia, the number of cases involving the rejection of other faiths by members of the dominant Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate [OUC MP] increased. For example, on 22 July 2006 in Kharkiv, the so-called “Orthodox community” with the blessing of the local eparchy of the Moscow Patriarchate organized a picket of churches of the Kyiv Patriarchate – the Church of St. John Bohoslov and of the Vyshhorodska (Volodymyrska) Icon of the Mother of God, and also the Kharkiv department of the eparchy. The picketers expressed protest at the very existence of churches of the Kyiv Patriarchate in Kharkiv and threatened to block them in order to stop services from being held there. On 25 July in Kharkiv the Church of St. Mykola (St Nicholas) the Miracle-Maker of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church was desecrated, and this was not the first such occasion. The congregation was unable to worship together. Instead of countering this lawlessness, the local authorities themselves encourage such actions. At one political rally, the Head of the Kharkiv Regional Council and member of the Party of the Regions Vasyl Salygin promised that he would do all he could to ensure that in Kharkiv there was “only one legitimate Church – that under the Moscow Patriarchate”. And the Head of the Frunzensky District Council in Kharkiv Tetyana Topchy supported protests from some of the district’s residents against the building in the park “Zustrich” [“Meeting”] of a Buddhist temple. In the given case one is speaking of denying the rights of a considerable number of Kharkiv residents (there are Buddhists not only among the Vietnamese community, but also among “native” Kharkiv residents) to worship and practise their religion alone or collectively and without constraint, which are fundamental elements of the freedom of personal philosophy and religion, enshrined in Article 35 of the Constitution of Ukraine. The right of access to information One of the problematic aspects in exercising the right of access to information in Ukraine is having the right of access to official events. The procedure for accreditation of journalists with the district state administrations in the Kharkiv region is not especially well defined, at least not by the administrations themselves. According to information received from the responses of the district state administrations to formal requests for information from KHPG, one gains the impression that this procedure is “generally accepted”, that is, in the majority of these bodies it is not regulated by internal normative acts at all. It is true that last year the Kharkiv Regional State Administration tried to adopt new rules on accreditation which on the one hand were designed to better regulate the procedure, however on the other, created unwarranted and superfluous obstacles to journalists’ activities. However this plan never developed beyond the planning stage. The situation with access to normative legal acts of local executive bodies and bodies of local self-government has improved significantly over recent times thanks to technical progress, since those interested are helped by the information placed on the websites of these bodies. Obviously, that is, where these websites have been created. In this respect the websites of the Regional State Administration and the Kharkiv City Council are fairly strong and full of information. In order to find out how directly the right of access to information is safeguarded in the Kharkiv region, KHPG staff sent formal requests for information and applications to local authorities and bodies of local self-government in the region throughout 2005. Overall during the second half of 2005 57 requests for information were sent (to the Regional State Administration, 26 district state administrations, twice with 7 requests to the city executive committees of cities of regional significance, regional departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs [MIA], the SBU [the Security Service of Ukraine], the prosecutor’s office, of the Ministry of Justice, Statistics, the Court Administration, the Tax Administration, of the Environment and Natural Resources, to the State Department for the Execution of Sentences, to the departments of Employment and Social Security, of Healthcare, to the attestation commission for judges, to the department on issues of nationality of the Regional State Administration, to the attestation and disciplinary commission of the Bar, and to the Appeal Court). 45 responses were received, 41 on time, that is, within the legally established period of one month. Only three institutions notified within the 10-day period stipulated in the Law “On information” as to whether the request for information would be complied with or rejected – the Regional State Administration, the regional department of the MIA and the Borovska District State Administration. In all 12 bodies did not respond to the formal requests for information, among them the regional department of information (!). 23 requests for met, 22 refusals to provide information were received (from 8 district state administrations, 2 city executive committees, the regional departments of the SBU, of Statistics, of Employment and Social Security, of Healthcare, the Court Administration, the attestation and disciplinary commission of the Bar, and the Appeal Court). These figures indicate a fairly low level of legal knowledge and responsibility among officials of the Kharkiv region. Freedom of speech If one compares the situation with freedom of speech in 2004 with that in 2005, then progress will be entirely clear. One of the unquestionable achievements of the Orange Revolution has been the wider freedom of speech which has been seen in the independent mass media, and increasingly in state and municipal media outlets. All of this was clearly seen during the electoral campaign to the Verkhovna Rada in 2006 which began already at the end of 2005. There was equal presence on the television screens, in the newspapers, and on the radio, of representatives of parties supporting the regime in power and of the then opposition (the latter, incidentally, even more so given the considerable financial resources of the Party of the Regions). However, since the elections the situation has slowly begun changing and unfortunately not for the better. For example, on 26 April the media group “Objektiv” disappeared from the Kharkiv television screens for a long period and its staff all handed in their resignation due to their opposition to the restricted independence of the editorial policy. This was linked with the fact that the owner of the television and radio company [TRC] “Simon” which owns 75% of the founding capital of the media group “Objektiv”, the businessman Oleksandr Dovhan joined the local authorities, becoming a member of the executive committee of the Kharkiv City Council. Later “Objektiv” resumed its broadcasts, but with totally different staff. Pressure has begun on journalists of local municipal media outlets from newly elected councils, where the Party of the Regions are now in the majority. For example, on 25 May 2006 the second session of the newly formed Krasnohradsky District Council of the Kharkiv region adopted Decision No. 22-5, according to which the work of N.O. Zinchenko in her position as editor of the newspaper “Visti Krasnohradshchyny” [“News from the Krasnohrad area” was declared unsatisfactory and she was dismissed from the post without a statement of legitimate grounds and motivation for such a decision. The Head of the District State Administration who is a co-owner of the newspaper has stood up for the editor. Deputy of the Verkhovna Rada from the Party of the Regions Dmytro Shentsev, having been invited to a session of the Kharkiv Regional Council, attacked and hit Andriy Avdoshin, a press photographer from the agencies «Associated Press», «ITAR-TASS» and «Photolenta». Avdoshin made a statement to the police regarding the incident. Overall in June 2006 4 attacks on journalists were recorded, this being a high figure since the Orange Revolution. There was a brazen attack on an employee of ATN [“The Agency of Television News” on 22 July at night. An unknown assailant stabbed the coordinator and editor of the ATN website, Alla Yevdokymova, inflicting two deep knife wounds and then robbed her. Among positive trends was the court ruling in favour of journalist Yury Chumak (Bulletin of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group “Prava Ludyny” [“Human Rights”]. His civil suit had been lodged against the President of Ukraine over the lack of response from the Head of State to his journalist’s request for information. The suit was allowed by the court which is a positive precedent for the Ukrainian justice system. The right to peaceful assembly In the Kharkiv region, judging by the temporary Provisions on the procedure for consideration by city executive committees of issues regarding the organization and holding of gatherings, rallies, marches and demonstrations provided in response to a formal request for information, standard regulations were drawn up and passed by local councils in 2000. at least the Provisions provided by the Kupyansk, Kharkiv and Chuhuyiv executive committees have the same structure and definitions and their actual texts are almost identical. They only differ in the places for holding peaceful gatherings, and sometimes in the period stipulated for submitting statements about the holding of peaceful meetings. In Kupyansk and Kharkiv – no later than 10 days prior to the event, while in Chuhuyiv – five days before. Applications must be considered and approved by a coordinating group of the body of local self-government. Moreover the interested party is notified in writing of the group’s decision no later than 5 days, and the body heading a strike one day before the time of the planned event. However there can be a need for an urgent response to certain events, and then organizers of a picket or march run a big risk of ending up in the role of infringers of the above-mentioned Provisions. All of these Provisions are unfortunately hardly unassailable from the point of view of democracy and the law. It is true that the draconian nature of certain norms of the Provisions is rendered meaningless by their being entirely disregarded by the same bodies of local self-government. For example, in the same Chuhuyiv throughout 2005 there were at least 2 peaceful gatherings where the period of notification was less than 5 days before the event, yet the actions were not prohibited and no preventive measures were used to prevent their being organized. It is inexplicable then why documents need be adopted at all which, not only are not intended to be implemented, but also violate current legislation. According to information from the Kharkiv Regional Department of the MIA (letter ¹ 90/3423 from 8 December 2005) not one person was detained over six months of 2005 for violating the procedure for organizing gatherings, political rallies, street marches and demonstrations. There were also no criminal investigations launched over the offence set down in Article 340 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (unlawful obstruction to the organization or holding of gatherings, political rallies, street marches and demonstrations) during the same period. Social and economic rights A number of situations of conflict in the Kharkiv region have arisen specifically as a result of these rights being infringed. One issue which gained a lot of publicity last year was that of illegal building. For example the residents of No. 12 on Lenin Avenue approached the “authorized bodies” demanding that a stop be put to the seizure and reconstruction of basements which was leading to the destruction of the foundations. In their “cry for help” posted on the “Maidan” website they wrote: “the work being carried out is putting the life and safety of residents at risk” and asked for “help and protection from the arbitrary rule of Kharkiv functionaries”. There were several dozen similar appeals, letters and complaints in 2005 in Kharkiv. It should however be noted that sometimes such cases took on a campaigning nature, and during the elections also had their political slant which undoubtedly prevented an objectively review of the cases. At the end of 2005 in many populated areas of the Kharkiv region the executive bodies of local self-government decided to increase charges on communal services for the upkeep of accommodation. This provoked vehement protest with numerous pickets, rallies and other protest actions. In Chuhuyiv the town council under the weight of public pressure was even forced to cancel the town executive committee’s unpopular decision. However this did not succeed in Kharkiv. Already after the 2006 elections, the newly-elected Kharkiv Mayor Mykhailo Dobkin from the Party of the Regions, who had won thanks to his promise to reverse the increase on housing charges, did not keep his promise. However it would appear that this step had been dictated by social populism since already in the second half of the year the city authorities had begun to speak out firmly on the need “to justify” the raising of rents. Inhabitants of the Kharkiv regions also experienced enormous problems with exercising their right to health care. In the first half of 2006 in Kharkiv for one visit to the outpatient clinic network the budget allocated only 12 kopecks. The city paid on average 15 UH 97 kopecks on health care per resident of Kharkiv, 93 kopecks were allocated per day for food in the city hospitals, and for medicine for patients in hospitals and clinics of the city – 2 UH 90 kopecks per day. In 2006 the overall amount of the consolidated budget for health care for Kharkiv city was 270 million UH. Of this sum, 76% goes on salaries, 10% payment for energy, 7 % for other expenditure (rubbish collection, communications services, etc) and only 7% is allowed for providing patients with medicines, food, and on the actual development of the medical establishments. Over the last 3 years doctors have observed a steady worsening of the state of health of Kharkiv residents. Over this period the number of people with chronic illnesses of the heart and vascular system, the breathing organs, digestion, the endocrinal and nervous systems, hearing and sight has increased by a third. In view of such financing of the system of health care and the worsening of the state of the environment, such a situation cannot be considered surprising. Each year more than 300 Kharkiv residents end their own life. In the main those who kill themselves are not immature adolescents or the poor, but entirely well-placed people aged between twenty and forty. Experts note that over the last five years the suicide rates have fallen, however Ukraine will still be among those with the worst figures in this area because since the beginning of the nineties people have not felt socially and economically secure. The Kharkiv region is third in the country (after the Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk regions) for the number of War veterans. At the beginning of 2000 316 thousand 531 War veterans lived in the region, while at the beginning of 2006 this figure was 191 thousand 751 veterans. Among them are 19.4 thousand people who were involved in military actions, 15.5 thousand war invalids and 142.1 thousand War veterans. In 2005 all War veterans had medical checkups, and over 4 months in 2006 90.6% of the overall number had been examined, Our fellow Ukrainians more and more often turn to the courts, sometimes even the European Court of Human Rights, to have their violated social and economic rights restored. .The cases on which the European Court passed judgment in 2005 included some claims from Kharkiv region inhabitants. Aside from the Afanasyev case, all the others were linked with drawn-out non-payment of wages owned and the inability of the Ukrainian courts and the State Bailiff Service over the appropriate period to ensure that the infringed rights were restored. The European Court found that in the cases of Lyutykh v. Ukraine, Drobotyuk v. Ukraine, Krutko v. Ukraine, Rudenko v. Ukraine, Kozaryevska and others v. Ukraine and Miroshnychenko and Hrabovska v. Ukraine, Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms had been violated. In all the above-mentioned cases the European Court ordered payment of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The right to a safe environment Detailed information was received in response to a formal request for information from the State Department of the Environment and Natural Resources regarding the state of the environment in the Kharkiv region in connection with the right of citizens to a safe environment. According to the State Department, the number of appeals it receives from members of the public is not very large. For example, in 2003 it received 194, and in 2004 – 274, while “by direct telephone calls” – 93 and 92, respectively. These appeals were connected with emergency situations or with new buildings which are overloading the existing communal throughways, potentially leading to major accidents, or simply being carried out by felling forests and parks, although all of those in the Kharkiv region, as follows from the reference information from the State Department of the Environment are designated as category II. Only 8% of the territory of Kharkiv is covered by greenery whereas in accordance with normative documents there should be no less than 10%. The activities of the law enforcement agencies In 2005, after the victory of the Orange Revolution, the activities of the Kharkiv Regional Department of the MIA became more open and transparent. Many top- and middle-level heads of law enforcement agencies were replaced. A Public Council attached to the Regional Department of the MIA was created, and the work of the Public Liaison Centre, the press services of district departments of the MIA, etc were activated. However, with all these external positive factors which, in comparison to Kuchma’s regime, demonstrate police openness, one should note that the internal (not for outsiders to see) methods and means of work of the law enforcement agencies, unfortunately, often remain the same old ones. For example, according to KHPG’s information, during this period there were numerous complaints alleging unlawful actions and torture by police officers both in Kharkiv, in the district police stations (Moskovsky, Dzherzhynsky, Kominternivsky and Ordzhonikidzevsky), and in the region (the Pechenizky district police station). And according to a report from the Head of the Public Liaison Centre in the Kharkiv region from 23 November 2005 ¹8/4-3825, in response to a formal request for information from the KHPG:
These figures are only the official tip of the iceberg which characterizes the situation as regards the observance of human rights in agencies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In addition, some idea about the state of affairs in this area is provided by information about the number of applications to the KHPG Public Reception Centre in 2005: of 989 appeals from members of the public received through the year 134 (or 13.54%) alleged unlawful detention and arrest, torture and ill-treatment, the lack of reaction of the police to complaints. The Kharkiv Institute of Sociological Research presents shocking figures. According to its information, 62.4 of those surveyed from among people who had previously been detained by the police had been subjected to ill-treatment. Of them 44.6% had had their arms, legs or neck twisted, 32.8% of those detained had been beaten or kicked, while 3.8% alleged that torture and ill-treatment with the use of special items had been applied against them. However evidence of society’s malaise can only be seen in the fact that 30% of those surveyed “relate with understanding” to the police’s harsh behaviour with relation to those detained. It is typical that victims are more and more often turning for defence of their rights not only to the prosecutor’s office and local courts, but also to the European Court of Human Rights. In fact in 2005 the Court in Strasbourg issued its judgment against Ukraine on the claim brought by Mr Afanasyev and prepared by lawyer of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, Arkady Bushchenko. Evidence of the level of police officers can be provided by a terrible event which took place on 3 August 2006 at the metro station “Moskovsky prospekt”: a police officer out of jealousy shot and killed a young girl and young man, severely injured another man, and after this turned the gun against himself. Throughout 2005 the Kharkiv Regional Tax Inspection also gained notoriety. Information published in the media became available to the public about an “attack” by the Kharkiv tax officers on Luhansk businesspeople. The case of Losiyevsky and Dovhan became common knowledge throughout Ukraine as a result of the publication by the Internet website “Ohlyadach” [“Observer”] of an article by the prominent journalist O. Yeltsov: “Abduct, torture, fell, ransom”. However the tax officers rather than apologizing to their victims resorted to their usual technique of “not displaying dirty linen”. Not just that, they actually lodged a claim defending honour and dignity against the Kharkiv newspaper “Pyatnytsa” [“Friday”] which had reprinted Yeltsov’s article from “Ohlyadach”. The court case is still continuing. Unfortunately, in Kharkiv – the “cops’ city” – it still happens quite often that law enforcement officers – officials who should be defending human rights, themselves become ever more persistent violators of the law. The situation is no better in penal institutions. Despite the claims made by the staff of the penal system that a lot is being done to improve conditions, the real epidemic of protest actions of those remanded in custody in the Kharkiv region in 2006 suggests the contrary. On 8 May 21 men, the oldest - 50, the youngest – 19, slashed their wrists after an employees of the operations unit of the SIZO [pre-trial detention centre] carried out a search in one of the cells. According to information not confirmed by official sources, on the evening of 11 May a remand prisoner in the Kharkiv SIZO sewed his lips together. According to official information from the Kharkiv division of the Department for the Execution of Sentences, on 23 May at 10 a.m. a man hanged himself in the SIZO. On 17 June a prisoner of the Temnovsk Penal Colony No. 100 committed suicide by plunging from a building crane. The rights of national and linguistic minorities According to the Department on Internal Policy of the Kharkiv Regional State Administration, no conflict on ethnic, racial or linguistic grounds was observed from 2003 to the first half of 2005. In the Kharkiv region, at very minimum, there are 32 organizations of national minorities, and in all over the territory of the region according to the 2001 Census there are representatives of 111 nationalities. 70% are Ukrainian, 25.6% Russian. 0.5 % – Belarusians, Jewish people and Armenians each make up 0.4%, then 0,2 % – Azerbaijanis, 0,15 % – Georgians, 0,14 % – Tatars. In Kharkiv itself there are 3 general education schools with intensified study of Korean, Vietnamese, Hebrew and Yiddish, as well as the lyceum “Shaalavim” with heightened study of the history and religion of the Jewish people. In the Kharkiv region there are also 14 Sunday schools, 3 studying the Azeri language, 2 – Armenian, 2 - the Roma language, as well as 1 school each learning the Modern Greek, Polish, German, Karaim, Tatar, Georgian and Osetin languages. There are 62 higher educational institutes in the Ukrainian language and 10 in Russian. In the region there are 974 general education schools. Teaching is in Ukrainian in 654 schools, or 67%, while Russian is used in 146 schools. 174 schools have classes with Ukrainian and Russian. In all, 202,415 school students study in Ukrainian, i.e. 67%, and in Russian – 115,948, or 33%. There are 420,9 thousand students studying a national minority language as a subject Of these, 137,300 are studying Russian, 555 – Hebrew, 402 – Polish, German – 45,878, Korean – 114, Vietnamese – 72, English – 214,547, French – 17 843 and Spanish – 150. During the period of this report, there were 860 libraries functioning in the region. Of them one – the Kharkiv State Scientific Library named after V.G. Korolenko – has a section of literature in languages of national minorities. In all there are 14,240.3 thousand books of which 5,063.6 thousand are in Ukrainian and 9,176 thousand are in Russian. The state of affairs as regards inter-ethnic and linguistic relations in the Kharkiv region is fairly peaceful. The relations between members of different groups of the population are reasonably tolerant. However during the last elections, from the end of 2005 to the first quarter of 2006, the Kharkiv City Council decided to play on the language issue, triggering off an avalanche of “language sovereignties” in Eastern Ukraine. The Russian language was declared regional and one that could be used in official dealings. The Mayor Volodymyr Shumilkin (incidentally, a member of “Nasha Ukraina”) did not get re-elected by Kharkiv residents however he and the local deputies left quite a “headache” for his successors. The newly-elected Regional Council passed a similar ruling giving the Russian language regional language status already within the Kharkiv region, without adding the relevant articles to the budget to carry out this innovation. The subsequent protests from the prosecutor’s offices regarding the unlawfulness of such rulings were rejected by the City and Regional Councils. Clearly the situation with observance of rights in this sphere may deteriorate still further given the fact that the new local authorities see fit to make public statements bordering on the xenophobic. For example the Kharkiv Mayor Dovkin was recently recorded as saying: “I love Kharkiv… However perhaps because so many people have come here from the region, it has become much worse”. The onslaught of anti-Ukrainian forces has prompted a response in kind. There are not large numbers of ultra-right Ukrainian nationalist forces in the Kharkiv region however they sometimes make themselves heard. For example, on 14 July 2006 in Kharkiv there was a march “Ukraine against occupation”, directed against immigration, and in this both against illegal immigration, and for restrictions on immigration in general. It was held under the banners “Ukraine for Ukrainians!”
Conclusions Summing up, one can conclude that the human rights situation in the Kharkiv region somewhat improved in 2005. Certainly administrative pressure from the authorities eased and the use of law enforcement agencies as instruments of the political struggle stopped. The practice of limiting freedom of peaceful assembly disappeared and the situation with freedom of speech improved. However, these positive changes did not have time to take on a permanent nature and become irreversible. The first half of 2006 saw a certain deterioration in the state of affairs regarding the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Kharkiv region. The party gaining the most votes in the parliamentary and local elections in the Kharkiv region was the Party of the Regions, certain members of which, having come to power, are trying to restore the system of relations with the public which was dominant under Kuchma’s regime. Evidence of this can be seen in the steady assault on freedom of speech and the increase in incidents of religious and inter-ethnic intolerance. The situation as regards social and economic rights is similar to that in the country overall, with wide social divides, unemployment in the cities and areas of the region, and the decline of the healthcare system. However the economic growth registered over recent times gives some home for an improvement of the social and economic situation. Yury Chumak, KHPG 4. The Human rights situation in the Kherson region The Kherson region is one of the least populated areas of Ukraine. In a region which in size is larger than the Donetsk region, there are only a little over one million people. Of these 36% are concentrated in the three biggest cities of the region – Kherson (316.3 thousand people), Nova Kakhovka (50 thousand), and Kakhovka (38 thousand), while almost 40% live in the region’s villages. The Kherson region is facing a severe crisis in industry with around half of its enterprises working at a loss. The agricultural activity in the region is carried out in conditions of a virtually ruined infrastructure, a run down irrigation system, worn-out material and technological base of the agricultural industry structures, the technological level of which dates back to 40 – 50 years ago. The problems of water-logging are compounding the crisis in agriculture which is in any case carried out in a zone of high risk farming. The water-logging by subterranean water in the region covers an overall area of 18 thousand hectares. The effects of this are experienced by 9 districts and Kherson city. There is a high level of unemployment in the region, particularly in rural areas, as well as a chronic problem of indebtedness against wages. The total amount of the debt on wages in the region on 1 January 2006 stood at 21.5 million UH of which 9.2 million UH were owed by working business enterprises. Despite all the “Stakhanov” methods of the authorities for paying off the debt, the working enterprises over the year were only able to reduce their debt by 4.3 million UH, with the reduction of the amount by 1.2 million occurring in the last thirty days of 2005 when the election campaign was already in full swing. There are also acute social problems in the region. As aptly expressed by the Head of the Kherson Regional State Administration B.V. Silenkov, the Kherson region is “socially overloaded”, with every third adult inhabitant of the region being entitled to various types of concessions. Indeed, of 1 million 131 thousand people living in the region as of 1 September 2005, 197 thousand were younger than 16, while another 309 thousand were old age pensioners, disabled, or receiving assistance for other reasons. As a result of the acute crisis in industry and agriculture, of unresolved socio-economic and environmental problems in the region, the local authorities are not able to ensure an adequate level of observance of many of the human rights which the Constitution guarantees. According to the results of monitoring of human rights and freedoms in the Kherson region carried out by the Kherson regional branch of the Committee of Voters of Ukraine, the most vulnerable rights in the region in 2005 were property rights (30.7% of all reports of violations in the region’s mass media), and the right to life (23.3 % of all reports of violations). In addition, the following rights were infringed more than others: environmental rights (5.6%), the right to work (5.4%), the right to engage in business activities (4.4%). One must also note positive trends in the sphere of human rights observance. The monitoring which involved several different aspects (studying the reports on violations of human rights in the media; analysis of the results of the work of public reception centres; studies of the official material from the authorities; surveys of public opinion, etc) revealed a significant reduction (several times lower) in violations of the so-called political rights – the right to freedom of peaceful assembly (in 2005 0.4% of all reports of human rights infringements); freedom of association (0.3% of all reports), freedom of thought, conscience and religion (0,7%), the right to participate in the management of state affairs, and to participate in the elections in 2005 made up 0.7% of all reports, although the election campaign was in full swing from autumn in the region which had in previous years been one of the main sources of violations of political human rights. In general, a study of the trends in the election campaign of 2005 – 2006 allows one to conclude that the nature of human rights violations during the elections for the first time had become different. The centre of infringements during the election campaign shifted from political pressure, forms of censorship and obstructions to the free expression of will towards violations of the right of access to information minimally guaranteed by the state, social and labour rights. The holding of different levels of elections on the same day, the unsatisfactory work of the authorities in organizing the election process, the low professional level of members of the territorial and district electoral commissions, representatives of the authorities, employees of municipal media outlets, the bad quality of the voter lists, the lack of official information about the participants in the election process which is guaranteed by the state, the excessive detail of the procedure of voting and vote counting which was one of the causes of the mass violation of the labour rights of members of the electoral commissions, the low level of expertise of judges in electoral disputes, the lack of will to adhere to the letter and spirit of the law - all of these factors were causes of wide scale infringements of human rights during the election process of 2005 – 2006 rather than pressure from the authorities and pressure on voters and other participants in the election process by political or criminal groups. One feature of the political campaign of 2004, and of 2005-2006 in Ukraine was the manipulation of national and language issues. Therefore the situation as regards observance of these rights received particular attention from our monitoring group. The Kherson region includes people of many nationalities. 15 nationalities or peoples are represented, with the majority Ukrainian (82%). The second place in terms of names is held by Russians (14.1%). In some parts of the region there are areas with Crimean Tatars and Turk-Meskhitin people living together. In the regional centre there are also other ethnic groups living in communities, for example, Vietnamese people. In previous years there was intense inter-ethnic conflict, for example, in the Chaplynsk district. In 2005, both from official reports and on the basis of our monitoring of the media, there was not one report of violations of the rights of national or linguistic minorities or the right to protection from discrimination. Representative surveys of public opinion carried out by the sociological laboratory of the Kherson regional branch of the Committee of Voters of Ukraine (CVU), showed that the region’s inhabitants assess the level of tension in inter-ethnic relations as being low. For example, according to a survey of public opinion undertaken on the eve of the presidential elections (500 people living in the Kherson region were questioned through a quota route selection system, with a margin of error of no more than 5%), only 2.3£ of those surveyed were concerned about the issue of linguistic discrimination (difficulties in teaching children in their native language, shortage of books and press in their native language, the cancelling of broadcasts of television programs in their native language, impediments to communicating in their native language, etc). In the ranking of problems in the survey, “linguistic discrimination” was in last, 26th, place. This year’s campaign to have the Russian language granted regional language status run by deputies of local councils from the Party of the Regions, the Communist Party and Nataliya Vitrenko’s Bloc “People’s opposition”, was thus based on purely political motives. However at the same time the relations between representatives of ethnic groups living together, in the first instance, Turk-Meskhitin people and Crimean Tatars with the local authorities are not in the public eye. There were no checks carried out among representatives of the local authorities, bodies of local self-government, law enforcement officers etc to ascertain whether they have an adequate understanding of the languages of the ethnic groups living in compact communities in areas of the region, despite the fact that at least the state guarantees representatives of national minorities the opportunity of community with representatives of the authorities in their own native language. Another special feature of the Kherson region is its multi-faith status and widely developed tradition of Protestantism. The Kherson region is historically considered to be one of the regions from which Ukrainian Protestantism stems. Some of the local Protestant communities have been present in the region for over 100 years. The history of persecution of Protestant communities also goes back a long way in the region. Even a few years ago the practice was widespread in the region of refusing to receive foreign Protestant ministers and restricting the holding of public religious services. Incidentally the refusal to permit the holding of a public religious service at the beginning of 2000 led to the banning of the activity in Kherson city of one Charismatic Protestant community. At the present time (as of 1 January 2006), according to the department on issues of internal policy of the Kherson Regional State Administration, “the religious network of the Kherson region comprises 782 religious communities. The largest percentage of these communities belong to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate (327 communities, or 41.8%), while the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Kyiv Patriarchate has 72 communities (9.2%) and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church - 41 communities (5.2%). The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (Uniate) comprises 16 communities (2%), while the Roman Catholic Church in the Kherson region is represented by 14 communities (1.8%). 34.5% of the religious communities of the region (270 communities) belong to 16 Protestant denominations. There are 74 congregations (9.5%) of Charismatic Christian groups in the Kherson region. There are also 27 communities (3.5%) of Muslims, 24 of which belong to the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Ukraine, 3 to the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of the Crimea. There are also 8 Jewish communities. New for the region are communities of Buddhists, Hare Krishna believers and adherents to Sakhadzhi Yoga. In 2005 the most acute problems in this area were:
The monitoring group also registered inequality in the treatment by representatives of the authorities of different religious faiths. For example a session of the Kherson City Council refused to allocate a building for worship to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Kyiv Patriarchate on a 49-year lease basis on the grounds that a few hundred metres away there were already Orthodox Churches under another Patriarchate and there was supposedly no need to build another (“Politychna Khersonshchyna” [“Political Kherson Region” from 22 August). The Department on Fighting Organized Crime (UBOZ) launched a criminal investigation against the officials of the sport association “Dynamo” which had sold the property complex of the sport association through the commodities market in open bidding. One religious community bought the complex. As a result in the premises purchased by the community, a number of operational activities were carried out without the appropriate documentation being formalized, psychological pressure was brought to bear against the leaders of the religious community, and the UBOZ press service in the Kherson region displayed a disrespectful attitude to this community when it issued an official announcement in which it stressed that the building had been sold to, we quote, “one of the non-Orthodox religious congregations”, and “the investigators are obviously interested not in moral and ethical aspects (!! – DB), of the affair”. The moral and ethical aspects interested local newspaper journalists who dedicated several items to the topic of the sale to a “non-Orthodox religious congregation”. Instances became widely known where representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate were singled out from other religious communities by the Head of the Regional State Administration B.V. Silenkov. At the beginning of 2005 he held public meetings with the local leaders of this Church, while ignoring official letters from representatives of other religious communities of the region asking for meetings to discuss issues of religious life in the region. However with time, thanks to the wide coverage of these events in the press, such a selective approach was abandoned. There remains a fairly high level of violations of the right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech in the region. Kherson Regional CVU Monitoring Group recorded 22 reports of violations of the right to freedom of expression and of the rights of journalists to carry out their work, this being 2.9% of the total number of reports of violations found in the region’s media. These violations were effectively standard for the political situation in the country. In 2005 and 2006 the most widespread violations in this area were:
As a result the newspaper lost several law suits, including one where it was ordered to pay 100 thousand UH in moral compensation. Its reporter was beaten in broad daylight, with the incident not being investigated properly by the law enforcement agencies. In spring 2005 the newspaper “Chesne slovo” ceased to exist. 2006 saw a continuation of the regrettable practice of law suits against local publications. A specific feature of our region was the continued effective confrontation between the Head of the Kherson Appeal Court A. Ivanyshchuk and a number of publications which could result in the closure of several more newspapers if the law suits, which are presently being considered in second instance courts, are successful. .
Similar situations, albeit in a less extreme form, can be seen in the interrelations between the district administrations with labour collectives of district municipal media outlets. Cases were recorded, for example, in the Bilozersk, Beryslavsk, Vysokopilsk, Skadovsk, Tsyurupynsk and some other districts of the region. In contravention of current legislation on the activities of the media, there were unilateral attempts by heads of local authorities to introduce amendments to valid carters of editorial boards, statutory agreements on co-founding print publications, and incidents were recorded involving censorship of particular material in district newspapers. The real reason for the majority of these situations of conflict lay in attempts to remove those in charge of newspapers which during the 2004 presidential campaign had expressed a different political point of view from that of the politicians who came to power at the beginning of 2005. On the one hand the lack of legitimate mechanisms of political influence by local leaders on district municipal media outlets on the other the total dependence of municipal media outlets on financing from local budgets, the fact that the newspaper is unable to exist without by itself without support from the authorities, all of these factors were the causes of high-profile conflict, attempts to impose dictatorial control from the heads of the Administrations and opposition from groups of employees. If in previous years, the rule of the head of the district administration had been taken as read, in the post-Maidan [i.e. post Orange Revolution] situation such dictatorial control arouse opposition and the conflicts took on a serious nature. Among the main findings from the human rights monitoring carried out by the Kherson regional branch of the CVU were the serious problems identified with access to information. This problem is not unique to the Kherson region, and cases where access to information was restricted were found by human rights organizations throughout all of Ukraine. It is disturbing that the local authorities refuse to provide information regarding the observance of precisely those human rights which are most often violated in the region. We were not able to receive adequate information, with formal requests for information being either rejected or simply ignored when we asked for information about the real situation as regards the observance in the region of property rights, the right to life, the life to approach the authorities, the right to protection against torture and ill-treatment, the right to a fair trial. Over all, we were unable to receive 65% of the information which citizens are entitled to and which we formally requested from the authorities, with unfounded reasons being given from representatives of the authorities or with the formal requests being ignored. Predictably, the law enforcement agencies proved impenetrable to public scrutiny. Of 384 formal requests, only 24% were met, there were refusals to provide the information in 27% of the cases, while the others were ignored (the most standard responses received were: “there is no stipulation requiring the provision of information”, “confidential data” and “restricted access to official documents in order to safeguard confidentiality of the investigation, a fair court hearing or to protect citizens’ rights”, although the information requested was exclusively of a generalized nature). We would cite one “story” from investigating the human rights situation – attempts to gain an objective picture regarding observance of the right to protection against torture and ill-treatment. The Kherson regional branch of the CVU monitoring group, having found reports in the press of cases of torture and ill-treatment, sent formal requests for information to prosecutor’s offices, Internal Affairs bodies and to medical establishments. We asked for information about the number of call outs of ambulances to closed institutions, the number of people taken from closed institutions to hospitals, the number who had approached medical establishments with injuries which they alleged to have been due to the actions of law enforcement officers, the number of allegations of coercive actions by employees of law enforcement agencies while suspects are held in custody, the number of police officers disciplined for coercive acts in relation to people detained, the number of criminal investigations launched under paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 127 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine – seventy requests for information in total. We received responses to 14 requests. In 24% of the cases our requests were turned down on the grounds of secrecy, while 56% of the requests were simply “not noticed”. The most “active” in refusing to provide information about the observance of this human right proved to be the regional prosecutor’s office. Instead of the replies guaranteed us by the Constitution and national legislation, the members of our monitoring group became involved in a game of fob-off replies. We submitted formal requests for information, we were either answered or not, but claiming that answers had been sent; we made formal complaints, the appeals were sent to the respondents who again refused us our right to receive the information required. We even received a letter which spoke of the “inexpediency” of providing us with information about the situation with regard to the observance of human rights in the region. The answer is worth citing: “given that we do not know how the information we give you will be used, the fact that the questions which you ask are not specified, the regional prosecutor’s office considers it inexpedient to provide you with information about its work”. And another gem from our correspondence with the prosecutor’s offices: “the media is prohibited from interfering with the work of the prosecutor’s office”. Such a situation, in our view, is explained by the outdated forms of a “Soviet way of thinking”, the traditionally semi-military lack of openness of the prosecutor’s office, and the total lack of democratic changes. Perhaps the most symbolic was the response of one of the district prosecutor’s offices which in summer 2005 refused to provide information about the number of criminal investigations in connection with election fraud in its district. The prosecutor replied that the information would not be provided since the regional management had not given their consent to this. And therefore “there is absolute no point in poking it with articles of legislation.” To change this situation, general efforts are needed and a well-planned political campaign for reforming the offices of the prosecutor at a nationwide level. Perhaps among other measures it would be worth implementing the preparation and publication by the prosecutor’s office of Reports on the main threats to human rights, and to force the authorities to provide the information which is at present not available to the general public.
Overall conclusions of the monitoring The monitoring of the situation regarding human rights and civil liberties in the Kherson region revealed serious problems with the observance by the local authorities of specific rights and freedoms, in the first instance with the right of access to information about the human rights situation. The local authorities in our opinion are not adequately dealing with the duties they have been vested with to safeguard the observance of human rights.
Recommendations to the authorities The authorities should introduce extensive reporting on the situation regarding the observance of human rights and freedoms in the region. The public reports need to publish the main threats to our rights and effective methods for safeguarding them. It is extremely important to have a principled stand from officials of law enforcement agencies in investigating reports of ill-treatment of citizens by members of the police; Mechanisms of effective public control over investigations of torture and ill-treatment alleged in closed institutions must be implemented. One of the conditions for achieving an improvement to the human rights situation in the region must be thorough work with state officials on studying the demands of legislation, the application of the latest recommendations of lawyers, human rights groups and experts. We would recommend that representatives of the authorities carry out constant monitoring of the media as an effective source of information on the observance of rights and liberties. Analysis and response to the information published can enable them to assess their own measures more objectively. It is essential to ensure active involvement of the public in all possible ways – through the creation of effective public councils and boards, the holding of professionally prepared public hearings and debates on normative acts, though carrying out public expert studies, research etc. Dementiy Bily Chair of the Kherson Regional Branch of the Committee of Voters of Ukraine Regional Aspects of the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine
Contents I. Overview of regional features of the human rights situation Introduction
II. Particular features regarding observance of the human rights in certain regions 1. Observance of the human rights in 2005: a Luhansk perspective............... 2. Particular features of the human rights situation in the Donetsk region........ 3. Regional aspects of the human rights situation in the Kharkiv region........ 4. The Human rights situation in the Kherson region....................... Information about Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union Ukrainian Association of public organizations The Association was established on the 1st of April 2004 and registered by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine in June 2004. The aims of the Association’s establishment are realization and protection of rights and freedoms by promoting practical implementation of humanitarian articles of the Final Act of the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) adopted in 1975, other international standards based on it and international obligations accepted by Ukraine in human right and freedoms sphere. Union is non-profit and non-partisan organization. UHHRU is associated member of International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights that unites Helsinki Committees of different countries. The Association was founded by the following 15 human rights public organizations that have long history of cooperation within the soft caolition of human rights organization in Ukraine: 1.Vinnytsya city public organization “Vinnytsya human rights group” 2.Ukrainian Community of political prisoners and repressed, including Committee “Helsinki-90”. 3.Public Committee for protection citizens rights and freedoms (Lugansk city) 4.Ecological club “EOL” (Odessa region) 5.Economic and social problems institute “Respublika” (Kyiv city) 6.Congress of National communities of Ukraine 7.Youth public organization Legal and Political research centre “ SIM” (Lviv city) 8.City public organization “For professional help” (Poltava region) 9.Sevastopol human rights group 10. Kharkiv regional union of soldiers mothers 11. Kharkiv group for human rights protection 12. Kherson city reporter’s association “Pivden” 13. Kherson regional organization of the Committee of Voters of Ukraine 14. Centre of regional politics research 15. Chernigiv Committee of protection of citizens constitutional rights Now organization consists of 23 members from all regions of Ukraine that hold leading positions in protecting human rights in their regions. Union’s activity: § Constant monitoring of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Ukraine; § Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in courts and state bodies; § Conducting researches in human rights field, also drafting the laws and by-laws; § Conducting educational seminars, trainings and conferences; § Promoting human rights organizations network in Ukraine. Contacts Olehivska str. 36, office 309 04071, Kyiv Phone/fax: (+38 044) 4174118 E-mail: office@helsinki.org.ua Internet: www.helsinki.org.ua [1] Written by Volodymyr Yavorsky, UHHRU . [2] „ Unlawful violence in law enforcement agencies: Sociological, legal and historical analysis ” / Team of authors; General Editor Fellow Member of the Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, Doctor of Law, Professor O.N. Yarmish; Foreword by Y.V. Lutsenko and H. Udovenko. (in Ukrainian, with conclusion also in English) – Kharkiv: National University of Internal Affairs, published by the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, 2005. – 212 p. p 44. [3] Ibid, p. 84. [4] Ibid, p. 86. [5] Ibid, pp. 101-102. [6] Information from the State Court Administration of Ukraine. Available at the SCAU website: http://www.court.gov.ua. [7] Statistical overview of the work of Ukrainian courts of general jurisdiction during 2005. The department for organizing work on maintaining court statistics, paperwork, and court archives of the State Court Administration of Ukraine. Available at the SCAU website: http://www.court.gov.ua. [8] „Corruption and provision of services in the Ukrainian court system”. Analytical report on the results of a survey. The Kyiv International Institute of Sociology. 2006. [9] On the implementation of programs of organizational backup for the work of the courts for 2003 – 2005 (as of 1 January 2005). Letter of the SCAU from 31.01.05 ¹ 6-484/05 [10] The Level of religious freedom and tolerance in regions of Ukraine (based on a survey). Religious Panorama, ¹8-9, 2004. The material was prepared as part of the project “Affirming tolerance in Ukrainian society by means of cross-regional and multi-dimensional monitoring of religious processes”, which is supported by the International Renaissance Foundation. [11] Information on the activities of the print media from the press service of the State Committee on Television and Radio Broadcasting from 13.10.2005 ðîêó. Available at the Committee’s website: http://comin.kmu.gov.ua [12] Information from the State Committee on Television and Radio Broadcasting as of 19.09.2005. Certain figures seem doubtful since the amounts in the first lines do not add up; some media outlets founded by rural and settlement councils have clearly not been taken into consideration. Available at the Committee’s website: http://comin.kmu.gov.ua [13] Information from the State Committee on Television and Radio Broadcasting on the amounts of budgetary support for municipal printed media outlets in Ukraine. : Available at the Committee’s website http://comin.kmu.gov.ua [14] As of the end of 2003. [15] Prepared by M. Shcherbatyuk, UHHRU [16] L. Shahina “On the country, state and citizens in a transitional period” // Dzerkalo tyzhnya -¹31(610) Saturday, 19-25 August 2006 (in Ukrainian and Russian) http://www.zn.kiev.ua/nn/show/610/54246// [17] . Shahina “On the country, state and citizens in a transitional period” // Dzerkalo tyzhnya -¹31(610) Saturday, 19-25 August 2006 http://www.zn.kiev.ua/nn/show/610/54246// [18] Social and economic development of Ukraine (regional view) for January – July 2006 (in Ukrainian) http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/ [19] . Shahina “On the country, state and citizens in a transitional period” // Dzerkalo tyzhnya -¹31(610) Saturday, 19-25 August 2006 http://www.zn.kiev.ua/nn/show/610/54246// [20] Policy for regional development in Ukraine: specific aspects and priorities. Analytical report (in Ukrainian). Ê.2005ð. http://www.niss.gov.ua/book/Varnaly1/index.htm [21] Policy for regional development in Ukraine: specific aspects and priorities. Analytical report (in Ukrainian). Ê.2005ð http://www.niss.gov.ua/book/Varnaly1/index.htm [22] Policy for regional development in Ukraine: specific aspects and priorities. Analytical report (in Ukrainian). Ê.2005ð http://www.niss.gov.ua/book/Varnaly1/index.htm [23] East and West of Ukraine in the context of the election campaign – 2006: differences, contradictions, prospects for unity. A study carried out within the framework of the project “East and West Ukraine: overcoming the rift, forming a common national identity”. The project was undertaken by the Razumkov Centre with the participation of the European Institute of Zurich University with the support of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), represented by the Swiss Bureau of Cooperation in Ukraine. [24] The socio-economic situation in Ukraine in 2005 (in Ukrainian) http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/ [25] Social and economic development of Ukraine (regional view) for January – July 2006 (in Ukrainian) http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/ [26] V.S. Krysachenko, M.T. Stepyko, O.S. Vlasyuk and others: „Ukrainian social realm” (in Ukrainian) http://www.niss.gov.ua/book/Krysachenko/index.htm [27] Social and economic development of Ukraine (regional view) for January – July 2006 (in Ukrainian) http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/ [28] Information held by UHHRU index.php?id=1154619398 [29] Social and economic development of Ukraine (regional view) for January – March 2006 (in Ukrainian) http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/ [30] “Monitoring discrimination of specific categories of employees – miners in socio-economic practice in the Luhansk region” (in Ukrainian) index.php?id=1129034229 [31] “Monitoring discrimination of specific categories of employees – miners in socio-economic practice in the Luhansk region” (in Ukrainian) index.php?id=1129034229 [32] Monitoring discrimination of specific categories of employees – miners in socio-economic practice in the Luhansk region” (in Ukrainian) index.php?id=1129034229 [33] N. Tymoshenko “On the issue of the functioning of parts of the social infrastructure in rural areas” : The Institute of Social Development. (in Ukrainian) http://icp.org.ua/ukr/aspekt/aspekty/infrastr/2004/11/22/do_pitannja_funktsio_60.html [34] N. Tymoshenko “On the issue of the functioning of parts of the social infrastructure in rural areas” : The Institute of Social Development. (in Ukrainian): http://icp.org.ua/ukr/aspekt/aspekty/infrastr/2004/11/22/do_pitannja_funktsio_60.html [35] Social and economic development of Ukraine (regional view) for January – September 2005 http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/ [36] V. Martin: “Abroad I thought a lot about why Ukraine didn’t live like Western Europe”. Now I’ve understood”. // Dzerkalo tyzhnya.-¹4(583) Saturday, 4-10 February 2006 ðîêó (in Ukrainian and Russian) http://www.zn.kiev.ua/nn/show/583/52487/ [37] “Monitoring discrimination of specific categories of employees – miners in socio-economic practice in the Luhansk region” (in Ukrainian) index.php?id=1129034229 [38] Ruling of the Economic Court in Kyiv from 22.04.2005 Yuridychna gazeta, 2005, 05, ¹ 9 [39] N. Kuryata-Stasiv “The village school: to be or not to be?” http://www.svidomo2006.org.ua/analytics/r815.html [40] N. Kuryata-Stasiv “The village school: to be or not to be?” http://www.svidomo2006.org.ua/analytics/r815.html [41] The Kapranov brothers: “The Law of the Kapranov brothers” Ukrainska Pravda http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2005/12/15/36660.htm [42] The epidemic situation with HIV/AIDS in Ukraine. The International Alliance on HIV/AIDS in Ukraine http://www.helpme.com.ua/ua/article/id.392/cid.1/default.print [43] The epidemic situation with HIV/AIDS in Ukraine. The International Alliance on HIV/AIDS in Ukraine http://www.helpme.com.ua/ua/article/id.392/cid.1/default.print [44] M. Listrovy. The problem of tuberculosis in Ukraine. The Medical newspaper “Health in Ukraine” http://www.health-ua.com/articles/1035.html [45] The Minister of Health is convinced that rural medicine has a future http://www.podrobnosti.ua/health/2006/01/21/279554.html [46] Y. Rybka, I. Hartmann “The state allows women to bear others’ children, but doesn’t monitor the process” http://www.liga.net/news/208086.html [47] “Maidan” is the word for square, but is used figuratively to refer to the spirit of the Orange Revolution with millions asserting their right to have their democratic choice heeded [translator’s note] To post any message or commentary, you will need to register, giving an
email, or enter under your username if you are already registered.
Your email will not be published or passed on to anyone. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| © 2010 UHHRU All rights reserved |
This website was created with financial support by International
Renaissance Foundation (Ukraine) and works with financial support by Open
Society Institute (OSI, Budapest) While using our material please provide the reference to the site (for internet - hyperlink) e-mail:contact@helsinki.org.ua |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
