Instruments of Response of the Commissioner for Human Rights

<< Back

Instruments of Response of the Commissioner for Human Rights

In conformity with Article 150 of the Ukrainian Constitution, the Commissioner for Human Rights is vested with the right to address constitutional appeals to the Constitutional Court. This right of the Commissioner is elaborated in Article 15 of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, namely: “The instruments of response of the Commissioner concerning violations of provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, the laws of Ukraine, and the international treaties of Ukraine on human and citizens’ rights and freedoms shall be the constitutional appeals of the Commissioner and the appeals of the Commissioner to bodies of state authority, bodies of local self-government, associations of citizens, enterprises, institutions and organizations, irrespective of their forms of ownership, as well as to their officials and officers.”

A constitutional appeal of the Commissioner is an instrument of response addressed to the Constitutional Court to resolve issues of conformity with the Ukrainian Constitution (constitutionality) of laws or other legal acts of Parliament, acts of the President and the Cabinet of Ministers and acts of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, as well as to request official interpretations of the Constitution and laws.

The Commissioner’s appeal is submitted to bodies of state authority, bodies of local self-government, associations of citizens, enterprises, institutions and organizations, irrespective of their forms of ownership, as well as to their officials and officers so that within one month they take measures to remedy the detected violations of human rights and freedoms.

Constitutional Appeal of the Commissioner for Human Rights
concerning the unconstitutionality of articles 7 and 8 of the Law
On State Guarantees of Restoring the Savings of Ukrainian Citizens

In conformity with Article 150 of the Ukrainian Constitution and Article 40 of the Law On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, I herewith appeal to the Constitutional Court that it consider the matter regarding compliance with the Ukrainian Constitution (constitutionality) of some of the provisions of the Law On State Guarantees of Restoring the Savings of Ukrainian Citizens of November 21, 1996 with amendments introduced by the Law of January 17, 1997 (Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rrady Ukrainy [Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Herald], No.8, pp. 60-61) and the Law of March 24, 1998 (Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy [Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Herald], No.35, p. 240) on establishing phased disbursement of personal savings of citizens depending on the age of the depositor and the amount of the deposit.

The reason behind the appeal is that the Commissioner for Human Rights as well as the bodies of the legislature, executive and judiciary are lately receiving a growing number of applications by citizens concerning protection of their property rights and restoration of their personal savings in the outlets of the State Savings Bank of Ukraine. This issue is being systematically raised by Ukrainian citizens and the mass media and has gained an extremely negative sociopolitical nature with international repercussions.

In their letters, citizens note that all their appeals to local bodies of executive power, bodies of local self-government, the outlets of the Savings Bank of Ukraine, courts of general jurisdiction and central bodies of executive power concerning the liabilities of the state to preserving the personal savings of citizens and guarantees of their compensation in compliance with Article 2 of the Law On State Guarantees of Restoring the Savings of Ukrainian Citizens failed to achieve positive results. Even in cases when a depositor is gravely ill, out of a job for a long time, or when he dies and has to be buried, or in other cases of an emergency, depositors are being denied the right to receive their personal savings in the outlets of the Savings Bank.

For this reason citizens, in compliance with the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights (Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy [Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Herald], No.20, p. 99), appeal to the Commissioner for Human Rights with requests to have their human rights and freedoms protected as proclaimed by the Ukrainian Constitution and raise with the Constitutional Court the issue on the unconstitutionality of some of the provisions of the Law On State Guarantees of Restoring the Savings of Ukrainian Citizens.

First of all, this concerns Article 7 of the said Law, under which the savings of citizens are to be restored by phases, depending on the age of the depositor, the amount of the deposit and other circumstances. According to Article 8 of the Law, the list of groups of depositors, the priority of disbursement of savings, and the amount of disbursements are established by the Cabinet of Ministers within the limits of outlays provided for by the State Budget of Ukraine.

Article 8 of the very same Law stipulates that in case of death of the depositor his/her heirs or other persons, representatives of local bodies of executive power, bodies of local self-government or non-governmental organizations that undertook to organize the burial may, upon presentation of the deceased person’s savings-bank book or death certificate, receive in the outlets of the Savings Bank of Ukraine at the location of the deposit a part of the indexed deposit for organizing the burial and holding necessary commemorative functions in accordance which national traditions, the amount of the money being specified following from the size of the state allowance for burials.

The Commissioner for Human Rights holds that by establishing such legislative restrictions relative to the restoration of personal savings of citizens, the state grossly infringed upon the most important fundamental constitutional rights and freedoms of Ukrainian citizens and international human rights standards.

According to Article 3 of the Ukrainian Constitution, human rights and freedoms and their guarantees determine the essence and orientation of activity of the state. The state is answerable to the individual for its activity. To affirm and ensure human rights and freedoms is the main duty of the state.

Article 41 of the Ukrainian Constitution secures the rule, under which everyone has the right to own, use and dispose of his/her property. The right of private property is inviolable, and therefore no one shall be unlawfully deprived of it. Articles 13 and 22 of the Constitution stipulate that the state ensures the protection of the rights of all subjects to the right of property. When new laws are adopted or amendments introduced to existing laws, the substance and scope of existing rights and freedoms shall not be diminished.

What should be pointed out emphatically is the violation of the provisions of Article 48 of the Ukrainian Constitution stipulating the right of everyone to a standard of living sufficient for himself and his family, including adequate nutrition, clothing and housing. At a time of a socioeconomic crisis, when the state cannot ensure its citizenry even a minimum level of subsistence, their personal savings are the only source of livelihood, especially for the elderly.

Analyzing how the state budget was performed throughout the past few years, the Commissioner for Human Rights established with regret that the state lacks the will and interest in meeting its liabilities and guarantees provided for by the Law On State Guarantees of Restoring the Savings of Ukrainian Citizens of November 21, 1996. This is confirmed by the fact that of the UAH 870 billion earmarked for disbursing citizens’ savings out of the state budgets in 1997-2000, only UAH 60 million, i.e. 6.9%, has been actually transferred to the account of the State Savings Bank of Ukraine.

Besides, Ukraine’s legislation concerning the restoration of citizens’ personal savings is inconsistent with international standards and violates the requirements of articles 17 and 25 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the right of every person to own property both individually and together with others, the impossibility of unjustified deprivation of one’s property, and the right of every person for such a level of living standard that is necessary for the maintenance of the health and well-being of the individual and his/her family.

The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Resolution No.472/97-VR of July 17, 1997 that established the discriminatory rule making only people of 80 and more years of age eligible for receiving their personal savings when official life expectancy is 68.6 years as well as the state’s failure to guarantee the rights and freedoms of every individual and his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions are grave violations of the provisions of articles 1 and 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 and Article 1 of the Protocol No.1 to the Convention which was ratified by Ukraine on July 17, 1997.

Having exhausted in their own state all the domestic remedies of restoring their individual savings, a lot of Ukrainian citizens have availed themselves of the right to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights to have their personal savings restored. Preparations are underway for 20 such appeals to be considered by the European Court of Human Rights that, no doubt, will negatively affect Ukraine’s image worldwide and in the end entail the discharge of the state’s liabilities to its citizens.

In consideration of the violations of articles 3, 13, 22, 41 and 48 of the Ukrainian Constitution and in order to restore the citizens’ trust in the state and give them the opportunity to have decent conditions of life for their personal savings, the Commissioner for Human Rights has been compelled to appeal to the Constitutional Court that it recognize as unconstitutional articles 7 and 8 of the Law On State Guarantees of Restoring the Savings of Ukrainian Citizens and of other legal instruments adopted in pursuance of this Law.

Following from the requirements of articles 13, 15, 39, 40, 71 and 82 of the Law On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine,

I hereby request to recognize as unconstitutional:

* articles 7 and 8 of the Law On State Guarantees of Restoring the Savings of Ukrainian Citizens of November 21, 1996 with amendments introduced in conformity with the laws of January 27, 1997 and March 24, 1998 as well as of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Resolution No.472/97-VR of July 17, 1997;

* Cabinet of Ministers and the National Bank of Ukraine Resolution No.1210 of October 31, 1997;

* Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No.825 of June 8, 1998;

* Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No.1556 of September 29, 1998;

* Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No.457 of March 25, 1999;

* Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No.817 of May 17, 2000.

June 30, 2000 Nina Karpachova

Appeal of the Commissioner for Human Rights to Leonid Kuchma, President of Ukraine

concerning violation of the requirements of the Constitution and of the rights of Ukrainian citizens/residents of Kyiv to health care with the closure of the obstetrics and gynecology departments at Hospital No.2 and scientific chair No.1 under the Kyiv Medical Academy of Postgraduate Studies

Dear Mr. President,

Throughout November-December 1999 the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights was repeatedly addressed by the employees’ representatives of the scientific chair No.1 clinical facility of obstetrics and gynecology under the Kyiv Medical Academy of Postgraduate Studies at Clinical Hospital No.2, in particular by head of the scientific chair Prof. S.Leush, a number of doctors of the obstetrics and gynecology departments, as well as by MPs M.Haber, chairman of the Parliamentary Subcommittee for Health Care, Motherhood and Childhood, and M.Hutsol, Secretary of the Parliamentary Committee for Human Rights, Ethnic Minorities and Interethnic Relations, concerning the unlawful actions of the Main Board of Health Care (MBHC) of Kyiv caused by the reorganization (actually closure) of the obstetric, gynecologic and observation departments as well as the department of pregnancy pathologies and the scientific department and the transfer of the Kyiv Burn Center to these premises. MPs Y.Yoffe and O.Stoyan were the first to draw attention to the inadmissibility of liquidating this establishment.

Since the said actions by the MBHC of Kyiv infringe the constitutional rights and legitimate interests of more than 300 employees of the hospital, 30 employees of the unique scientific department, and over one million residents of Dniprovsky and Vatutinsky residential districts, above all women and children who are provided free medical assistance at Hospital No.2, the Commissioner, in compliance with Article 16 of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, instituted an inquiry into this matter.

In the course of the inquiry, the Commissioner repeatedly met with the employees of Clinical Hospital No.2 and the scientific department, the Burn Center, and with representatives of the MBHC and the Kyiv state administration, the Ministry of Health Care of Ukraine, and with MPs. On December 21, 1999 a public inquiry was also held together with all the concerned parties, during which everyone had the opportunity to speak his mind.

These measures and the examination of relevant documents made it possible to establish the following:

Without filing a respective petition and coordinating its substance with the Ministry of Health Care, as required by the Regulation on Clinical Treatment and Preventive Care Establishments endorsed by an order of the Ministry of Health Care, agreed upon with the Ministry of Education in June 1997 and registered with the Ministry of Justice on July 7, 1997 under No.245/2049, the MBHC of Kyiv issued orders No.329 of September 20, 1999, No.390 of October 29, 1999 and No.497 of November 15, 1999, by which No.1 clinical facility of obstetrics and gynecology under the Kyiv Medical Academy of Postgraduate Studies at Clinical Hospital No.2 (located on the Dnieper’s left bank residential districts of Kyiv) had to be reorganized into a burn center. This implied the reduction of 65, 65 and 50 beds in the obstetrics, genecology and pregnancy pathologies departments respectively, i.e. a total of 180 beds (and medical assistance at no charge), and the transfer of the medical personnel and employees of the scientific chair to other health care establishments. The freed premises had to be occupied by the 80-bed Kyiv Burn Center, a division of Clinical Hospital No.14 that was to be closed down for major repair.

The above-mentioned orders by the MBHC were issued in excess of its officials’ authority. Under Item 30, Article 26 of the Law On Local Self-Government in Ukraine issues of establishing, liquidating, organizing and reorganizing enterprises, institutions and organizations in municipal ownership of a respective territorial community are within the exclusive competence of village, settlement and city (town) Radas.

The employees of No.1 clinical facility of obstetrics and genecology did not agree with the decision of the MBHC and took a number of measures to defend their rights by picketing state bodies, appealing to the deputies of Parliament, to the Ministry of Health Care and other state institutions. By request of the employees and by assignment of MPs, the Ministry of Health Care set up an authoritative commission of health care specialists and scientists.

In October 1999 the commission of the Ministry of Health Care completed examining the case and arrived at the conclusion that the reorganization (liquidation) of No.1 clinical facility of obstetrics and genecology under the Kyiv Medical Academy of Postgraduate Studies, Hospital No.2, was inadmissible, because by a pre-accreditation examination of experts in May 1999 the facility corresponded to the highest category of accreditation and its closure could result in extremely undesirable consequences for the health of a lot of women and children. The closure would infringe on the rights of almost 1.3 million residents, mostly of reproductive age, of Kyiv’s left-bank residential districts. This part of the city is being actively built up at the present time, while the number of its hospital beds is almost two times less than in right-bank Kyiv and in the gynecology and obstetrics departments they account respectively for 2.17 and 2.71 beds per 10,000 of the population against the rates of 4.5 and 5.0 as provided for under Cabinet of Ministers Order No.640 of June 28, 1997 and Ministry of Health Care orders No.347 of December 11, 1997 and No.74 of March 24, 1998. In case of liquidating 180 beds at Hospital No.2, these rates will drop to 1.71 and 1.46 beds at the departments of gynecology and obstetrics respectively.

The Ministry of Health agreed with such a conclusion. In particular, Minister R.V.Bogatiriova and her Deputy L.V.Veselsky, in their letters to the chief doctor of Hospital No.2 (No.4.40–1/1521 of October 27, 1999, No.4.40–10/2415 of November 19, 1999), the Kyiv City State Administration (No.4.40-436 of October 29, 1999), and the Parliamentary Committee for Health Protection, Motherhood and Childhood (No.4.40-827 of November 18, 1999), were categorically against the reorganization, because, as they believed, it would cause great damage to the health care system of Kyiv. O.Stoyan, Chairman of the Federation of Trade Unions, who, in his letter to the Chairman of the Kyiv City State Administration O.Omelchenko, insisted on the inadvisability of reorganization, shares the same opinion.

In response to the inquiry of a group of MPs, the Parliamentary Scientific-Analytical Board took stock of the situation among women of fertile age (their number increased from 28.2% to 29.2% in the period from 1990 to 1999) and of many other social issues and arrived at the conclusion that the “decision of the MBHC of Kyiv on liquidating the obstetrics and gynecology departments at Hospital No.2 will aggravate the already complex situation (especially for a substantial part of the left-bank residents) prevailing in the city in the sphere of obstetric-gynecologic services, that is not justified in the socioeconomic respect, being inconsistent with Article 49 of the Ukrainian Constitution as well as with the current and, the more so, long-term health problems of the Kyivites.”

The Parliamentary Committee for Health Protection, Motherhood and Childhood was of the same opinion. In its letters to the Cabinet of Ministers (No.6-4/10-556 of November 4, 1999) and to the Head of the Presidential Administration (under the same number) the Committee appealed to take measures to prevent the gross infringement of the rights of Kyiv’s women and children.

For all that, formally proceeding only from the principle of expediency of narrow departmental interests – the necessity to set up a burn center – the Main Board of Health Care of Kyiv, with the support of the city state administration, blatantly ignores the citizens’ rights to accessible medical services as provided for by the Ukrainian Constitution as well as the employees’ right to work.

The main argument they advance is that women are giving fewer births to children and therefore the need in hospital beds has substantially declined.

But what is passed over in silence is, first, that from 1991 to 1998 hospital beds in the city’s birth delivery facilities were reduced by 45%, while the birth rate went down only by 32% within this period.

Second, at clinical Hospital No.2, in the obstetrics department alone, 65 beds are to be reduced, while the remaining 115 beds are in the departments of gynecology, observation and pregnancy pathologies, at which the number of beds is constantly increasing, what with the aftereffects of the Chernobyl accident, the deteriorating ecological and social situation and the resultant outbreak of diseases among women.

Third, if instead of narrow departmental interests the interests of the state were taken into consideration, the network of child delivery establishments should not be liquidated, but more favorable conditions should be created in them for women in childbirth, in particular for mothers with newborn children being taken care of together in one ward.

Fourth, the liquidation of the child delivery department at Hospital No.2 will go against one of the basic principles of health care – to bring medical treatment establishments as close as possible to the population’s place of residence.

Fifth, the closure will destroy what in Ukraine and abroad has been among the most prestigious medical scientific schools within the Kyiv Medical Academy that is associated with the names of outstanding representatives of national obstetrics.

Being well aware that under the Ukrainian Constitution they have no right to reduce the network of medical establishments, the officials of the MBHC of Kyiv disguise their unlawful intentions by calling them “reorganization.” In real fact, the clinical facility of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Hospital No.2 is located in a separate building and is the only free of charge child delivery institution operating as an emergency medical service in Kyiv’s left-bank part. Therefore, the reduction of 180 beds in the departments of obstetrics and gynecology and the transfer of the entire personnel to another medical institution is nothing else than the liquidation of the facility, i.e. the reduction of the network of child delivery establishments. The MBHC of Kyiv and the city state administration are brutally violating the provisions of Article 40 of the Ukrainian Constitution which stipulates: “Everyone has the right to health protection, medical care and medical insurance... The state creates conditions for effective medical service accessible to all citizens. State and municipal health protection institutions shall provide medical care free of charge; the existing network of such institutions shall not be reduced.”

Disregarding the conclusions of the Ministry of Health Care commission and the letters of the minister and his deputy, the officials of the MBHC of Kyiv and the city state administration continued taking practical measures to liquidate the clinical facility of the obstetrics and gynecology department, repeatedly resorted to different provocations, tried to seize the premises by force with the engagement of the police who manhandled the hospital employees and applied physical force to the MPs, and brought a two-year child suffering from burns to Hospital No.2 that was absolutely unprepared to deal with the case. On December 23, 1999 this issue was put on the agenda of the City Rada session which flaunted the interests of Kyiv’s residents and adopted a decision in support of the MBHC, without so much as discussing the issue and contrary to the conclusion of the Ministry of Health Care.

Also violated were the previous assurances given to the employees of Hospital No.2, the Commissioner for Human Rights and the MPs that the entire medical personnel of the hospital’s child delivery services would be provided with jobs according to their specialities, skills and wishes. On December 31, 1999 (on the eve of the New Year!) the hospital administration issued Order No.291 on dismissing 94 medical personnel “because of the closure of the obstetrics and gynecology departments” and promptly handed out their workbooks.

After an unbiased study of all the circumstances of this serious problem, the Commissioner, in defense of the citizens’ constitutional rights, forwarded an appeal to the Procurator-General’s Office, in which she requested to examine the legality of the actions of the MBHC and the city state administration and to lodge a protest against the respective orders and decisions of the city Rada.

On January 5, 2000 the Procurator-General’s Office, upon considering the appeal of the Commissioner, lodged two protests – against the decision of the City Rada of December 23, 1999 and the order on liquidating the child delivery departments at Hospital No.2 as such that were inconsistent with current legislation. The employees of the child delivery departments returned to work, but the MBHC of Kyiv does not revoke its unlawful orders to this day and the jobs of the dismissed medical personnel have not been restored; from the information we received the City Rada is to hold its session on January 20, 2000 and intends to reinforce its previous decision.

The conflict situation around the child delivery departments at clinical Hospital No.2 raised through the guilt of the officials of the Kyiv City State Administration has not been normalized and the violated rights of citizens have not been restored.

At the present time some four thousand residents of Dniprovsky and Vatutinsky districts have expressed the idea about the urgent need to preserve the child delivery service at Hospital No.2 and have set up an initiative group for the preparation of a local referendum on this issue to protect their constitutional rights. On December 24, 1999 the Parliament established a temporary investigation commission to examine the fact of violation of parliamentary immunity by the bodies of internal affairs of Kyiv’s Dniprovsky residential district. The Procurator’s Office initiated criminal proceedings against the police officers who manhandling the employees of the hospital.

The situation around the violation of the Kyivites’ constitutional rights has become the subject of comments by many mass media, including Radio Liberty, BBC, the Interfax News Agency of Ukraine and others and gained widespread publicity abroad, which might negatively affect the international image of Ukraine as a law-governed state.

In order to prevent aggravating the conflict situation any further and to check the violation of rights of more than one million residents of Kyiv guaranteed them by the Ukrainian Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I am asking you, Mr.President, as the guarantor of the Constitution, to take measures to restrain the unlawful actions of the officials of the Kyiv City State Administration and to protect the grossly infringed rights of the residents of Kyiv’s left-bank districts, specifically woman and children, as well as of the employees of No.1 clinical facility of obstetrics and gynecology under the Kyiv Medical Academy of Postgraduate Studies at Hospital No.2.

January 20, 2000 Nina Karpachova

Appeal of the Commissioner for Human Rights
to Valeriy Pustovoitenko, Prime Minister of Ukraine

Dear Mr. Pustovoitenko,

The Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights conducted an elaborate examination of compliance with human and citizens’ rights and freedoms in Luhansk oblast.

Lately, the Commissioner for Human Rights has received over 500 appeals from residents of Luhank oblast. The largest number of appeals on violations of human rights comes from the cities of Luhansk, Rovenky, Antratsyt, Stakhanov and Alechevsk and concern primarily issues of violation of labor legislation, default of payment of wages, pensions and allowances, protracted non-compliance with rulings of courts and appeals against their judgments, and the unlawful actions of law enforcement bodies.

Following from these appeals, the Commissioner adopted a decision to look into the situation of compliance with human rights jointly with the employees of the Secretariat by visiting the region. In the process of work in Luhansk oblast we analyzed how the oblast administration and some city Radas handled the applications of citizens, arranged personal appointments with citizens, and met with deputies of Radas of different levels, leaders of trade unions of the coal industry, education and medicine, as well as with the human rights activists of the oblast. These meetings and appointments were attended by almost two thousand persons, and we received in addition almost 2,500 individual and collective appeals from citizens.

The Commissioner and the employees of the Secretariat visited the most controversial mining regions, above all the cities of Krasnodon, Stakhanov, Brianka, Pervomaisk and Krasny Luch.

The Commissioner met with the mangers and workforce of the closed Illich Mine in Stakhanov as well as of the mines that continue extracting coal – Zolote Mine of the Pervomaiskvuhilla State Holding Company, the Barakov and Sukhodolska-Skhidna mines of the Krasnodonvuhillia State Holding Company, and the Peremoha Mine of the Lunhanskvuhlebudrestrukturizatsia State Enterprise. We also met with working miners and representatives of those who were striking on their jobs underground. At these mines 1,427 persons addressed the Commissioner with complaints about violations of their constitutional rights.

On the basis of the arrayed facts it can be stated that chronic defaults of disbursement of wages, recourse payments, and allowances for occupational injuries and diseases have become a common practice in the region’s coal sector. As a rule, the backlog of payments extends from one to two years.

All this speaks of the extremely critical situation as far as compliance with human rights and freedoms in the oblast is concerned. Driven to despair, people are ever more frequently taking industrial action, going on hunger strikes and even committing suicide.

The Commissioner believes that the extensive violation of the miners’ rights over a long period of time is one of the factors that reduced the coal sector in the oblast to bankruptcy.

Article 27 of the Ukrainian Constitution stipulates that every person has the right to life, while the duty of the state is to protect the life of people. For the coal industry the preservation of human life is an extremely acute issue. During the past ten years the mortality rate per one million tons of extracted coal increased five times in this sector. Since the beginning of this year alone, 169 miners died on the job. Luhansk oblast has also a high mortality rate because of occupational accidents. One of the reasons of the high mortality rate is non-compliance with the requirements of safety engineering at the mines. Today, only every third miner is provided with industrial clothing, while a negligible 10 percent of the required funds have been allocated for the procurement of individual protective means. The state has actually distanced itself from funding the sector’s scientific institutes that develop safety equipment for miners.

It is the duty of all structures of authority to sway the trend in the growing mortality rate of miners and ensure compliance with the requirements of Article 43 of the Ukrainian Constitution relative to the right of everyone to proper, safe and healthy conditions of work.

The Commissioner was addressed by dozens of widows of the perished miners. The unemployed widow of the miner A. Mikhalevych, who burned himself alive at the building of the Luhansk oblast state administration and died of the sustained burns, was left with three children without any means of livelihood after her husband’s death. Regrettably, there has not been any human response of the authorities to her desperate predicament to this day.

The widow of the miner S.Shundryk is trying in vain for more than a year to get the allowance for her deceased husband; the widow of miner A.Nebozhenko, who died of occupational injuries, cannot get his allowance due her; and for 20 months the family of the deceased miner A.Kilchynsky is not receiving any funds for the maintenance of his children (all of the miners were employed by the Krasnodonvuhilla State Holding Company). Five families of perished miners of the Donbasantratsyt State Holding Company have not received 63,000 hryvnias in their deceased breadwinners’ back pay. Such an attitude to the families of those who died on their jobs is, regrettably, typical for many mines in Luhansk oblast.

The study of the applications addressed to the Commissioner for Human Rights as well as our meetings with workers at enterprises, mines included, give reason to conclude that there are mass violations of articles 43 and 46 of the Ukrainian Constitution, i.e. the right to work, remuneration and social protection, in Luhansk oblast.

In their appeals to the Commissioner for Human Rights, citizens draw attention to the fact that in the oblast there is a substantial backlog of wages which, at May 1, 1999, amounted to 602 million hryvnias, including 372 million hryvnias in industry, 72 million hryvnias in agriculture, 51 million hryvnias in construction industry, and 41 million hryvnias in the social-cultural sphere. The largest wage arrears have been registered in the coal (233 million hryvnias), mechanical engineering and metal working industries (68 million hryvnias). On the average, in the industries wage arrears per one worker amount to 946 hryvnias, or 6.5 months (in the coal industry 8 months).

Wage arrears are subjects of appeals to the Commissioner not only by individual citizens, but also the workforce of enterprises. This issue was raised with the Commissioner by the council of chairmen of educational and scientific workers of Krasnodon, by the medical workers of Brianky, the trade union committee of the Rubizhne Industrial Training School and others. On the basis of these appeals the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioners for Human Rights instituted an inquiry into the violations of human and citizens’ rights and freedoms.

In seeking protection of their legitimate rights, a large number of citizens of Luhansk oblast applied to courts and law enforcement bodies. In 1998 alone, the courts of the oblast satisfied 10,171 claims relating to human rights violations due to untimely pay of wages (the claims totaled 13.07 million hryvnias). But these rulings have not been executed. As the examination of the Commissioner showed, the existing mechanism of executing court judgments fails to operate properly.

The oblast has a rapidly growing number of unemployed which, to date, amount to more than 100,000 persons (a twelvefold increase over the past four years). In 1998 alone, an additional 13,7000 people lost their jobs. Unemployment among women is extremely high – almost 80 percent of the overall rate. The citizens’ appeals to the Commissioner for Human Rights voiced great concern about the situation that evolved in Stakhanov (the local unemployment rate is 29 percent, almost 17,000 residents have no jobs, and only 204 new jobs were created during the past few years) and in Brianka (unemployment rate 31.5 percent, 8,500 residents have no jobs, only 171 new jobs were created). A similar situation prevails in the cities of Krasny Luch and Antratsyt as well as in the townships of Vakhrusheve and Bilenke.

During the Commissioner’s meetings with trade union organizations, it proved that when citizens of Luhansk oblast begin standing up for their legitimate right to work, they are more often than not unlawfully dismissed. In 1998 alone, courts decided 127 cases on restoration of employment in favor of the claimants. Neither has Luhansk oblast eradicated the system when officials of bodies of authority put pressure on trade unions, primarily on independent trade unions, undermining their authority concerning the labor rights of citizens.

As the citizens’ appeals to the Commissioner show, Luhansk oblast has an unsatisfactory record of pension provision. The backlog of outstanding pensions at June 1, 1999 amounted to 219.9 million hryvnias and pensions are disbursed with a delay of nine-ten months. As to arrears of pensions, the oblast holds first place in the country (11% of the total amount of arrears in Ukraine). And this situation is not improving in any way.

A discriminatory practice is applied in relation to pensioners as to their term of payment depending on the place of residence, which is a violation of their rights. This problem needs to be resolved not only in Luhansk oblast, but also at the level of the country’s Pension Fund.

From the viewpoint of compliance with the citizens’ constitutional rights, we cannot overlook the serious violations of articles 50 and 66 of the Ukrainian Constitution. In the oblast, 20 tons of harmful substances are emitted into the atmosphere per one square kilometer of the region’s territory, which exceeds this indicator for Ukraine by a large margin. The issue of ecological safety and environmental protection is acutely critical in the cities of Stakhanov and Brianka.

The restructuring of the coal industry through simple physical closure of mines without strict control over the environment and without any forecasts of the consequences of liquidation of mines may culminate in an ecological catastrophe. The alarming symptoms are evident already today. In Stakhanov, 600 hectares of land and 2,000 buildings standing on it are under the threat of being flooded. Under such circumstance there is also the danger of methane gas escaping to the surface.

An uncontrollable movement of rock formation has set in. As a result, land slides and deformation of buildings and underground utility systems have become frequent in Brianka. For example, a wall of Secondary School No.3 and the foundation of a building on Smolensky Street have been ruined, the water supply system failed sixteen times lately, and the building of a children’s hospital is in the process of ruination.

This is the consequence of an approach, when the item “Ecology” in the cost estimates of mine closures is funded at 10 percent of the projected resources, while for the item “Physical Closure” almost 50 percent of funds are allocated. The careless attitude to the environment may cost dearly to the residents of the region and the country as a whole.

There is yet another burning problem in the Luhansk region – tuberculosis. It was addressed in the appeals of the oblast’s residents, and on their basis the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights instituted an inquiry into the case of violations of human and citizens’ rights. In the process of examining this problem, the employees of the Commissioner’s Secretariat met with the medical personnel and patients of four anti-TB dispensaries and a surgical tuberculosis sanatorium.

According to the World Health Organization, a situation qualifies as an epidemic if there are 50 TB cases to 100,000 of the population. In Luhansk oblast the rate is 60. In a number of regions of the oblast, in particular in the cities of Krasnodon, Krasny Luch and Stakahov, there are more than 80 TB cases to 100,000 of the population.

In Luhansk oblast the TB incidence rate is increasing. The highest rates were registered in the cities of Rovenky, Alchevsk and Sverdlovske as well as in the Lutuhyne, Kreminsk and Troitske raions.

It is alarming that lately cases of tuberculosis have been detected among newborn babies and entire families in the oblast, and the disease is systematically infecting those who should be treating it, i.e. the personnel of dispensaries. The TB incidence rate among children has increased twofold. This year the infection rate, especially of the most dangerous open TB, tends to grow.

Luhansk oblast holds first place in the country as to mortality caused by TB. The average age of those who die of the disease is 36 years.

Among the main reasons of the epidemic is the deteriorating socioeconomic situation and inadequate funding of medical establishments. There is a shortage of funds for acquiring necessary anti-TB drugs even for the preventive treatment of children infected by tuberculosis. In Brianka absolutely no funds are available for carrying out chlorination. At the time the employees of the Commissioner’s Secretariat visited the surgical tuberculosis sanatorium in Stakhanov its patients had not received any bread for a whole week.

It should be pointed out that the problem of the tuberculosis epidemic is today not an exclusive problem of Luhansk oblast. It is much more complex and calls for a comprehensive approach to deal with it.

At the same time bodies of state authority do not concentrate enough efforts to ensure adequate funding of medicine. On January 29, 1998 the Luhansk oblast Rada approved allocations for health care in the amount of 45,725,00 hryvnias. However, health care was actually funded in the amount of only 33,704,000 hryvnias, i.e. by 12 million hryvnias less.

The failure to address the problems of medical establishments and provide them with the needed number of skilled personnel has resulted in a situation when the natural deterioration of the population’s health in Luhansk oblast is 1.5 times higher than for the entire Ukraine. Children’s hospitals are financed niggardly at a daily rate of 43 kopecks for medicines and 10 kopecks for meals. The Commissioner also accepted for consideration the collective appeals by residents of Krasnodon and Molodohvardiysk concerning violations of the rights of more than 600 people suffering from diabetes mellitus and their provision with insulin.

The Commissioner for Human Rights holds that the shortcomings in compliance with human rights in Luhansk oblast are often the result of insufficient attention of officials, bodies of state authority and local self-government to this important issue.

The violations of human rights that were registered by the Commissioner during her work in Luhansk oblast were discussed in detail with O.Yefremov, chairman of the oblast state administration and with the mayors of cities. As a result of such cooperation, some of these problems have been resolved.

The issues of protection of human rights and freedoms in Luhansk oblast were addressed in the Commissioner’s report at the out-of-town session of the Cabinet of Ministers held in Luhansk with the participation of President Leonid Kuchma.

According to Article 116, Item 2 of the Constitution, the Cabinet of Ministers is to take measures to ensure human and citizens’ rights and freedoms. Following from Article 101 of the Ukrainian Constitution and articles 2, 13, 15, 16 of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, I hereby address the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine with the request to take respective measures to eliminate the violations of human rights and freedoms in Luhansk oblast and inform the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights about it.

June 25, 1999 Nina Karpachova

Appeal of the Commissioner for Human Rights to
Yuri Kravchenko, Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine

on taking measures to eliminate violations of constitutional rights by officers of the
MIA Department in Luhansk oblast during apprehension and operational search

Dear Mr. Kravchenko,

In conformity with Article 17 of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, an inquiry has been instituted into the violations of human rights and freedoms of citizens, because the Secretariat of the Commissioner has been receiving complaints from suspected and indicted persons as well as from their relatives to the effect that individual officers of criminal detection departments and wards of temporary detention, intent on exacting admission of guilt from the detained during interrogations, have committed unlawful acts that were accompanied by physical and psychological violence with the application of torture and behavior that contradicts the requirements of Article 28 of the Ukrainian Constitution.

The Secretariat of the Commissioner for Human Rights received two telegrams from Mrs.Z.Lazarenko, resident of Krasny Luch, who informed that her son, S.Lazarenko, was cruelly beaten up in the premises of the city police station by police officers Vasylenko, Papeta, Vasitsky and Slobodaniuk.

Upon examining the said fact, the questioned S.Lazarenko confirmed that unlawful methods of investigation were applied in relation to him and explained the following:

“... on July 9, 1999, at seven o’clock in the morning, Vasylenko, authorized operations officer of the Criminal Investigation Department (AOCID) of Krasny Luch, came to my home and asked that I go with him to the CID for a talk about my friends. Upon arrival at the department, AOCID Vasylenko, without explaining my rights, began demanding that I confess of an offense I did not commit. After some time, Vasylenko took me to an office where I saw AOCID officers Y.Vasytsky, Y.Papeta and another employee whose name I do not know. Vasylenko left the room, and then Vasytsky and Papeta began beating me, pulling me by my hair and hitting my liver. Some minutes later, they sat me on a chair and Vasytsky began striking my head with a half-liter plastic bottle filled with water, while Papeta was hitting my legs with a stick. Shortly afterward, Vasylenko came in and asked, ‘Well, did you make up your mind about writing a confession?’ After receiving a negative response, because I did not commit the offense, he took me to another office. From there two AOCID officers, whose names I do not know but whom I could visually identify, took me to yet another office where they put a sheet of clean paper on the table and said, ‘Write down the ten offense you committed.’ Since I did not commit any, I had nothing to write. So they cuffed my hands under my knees, shoved a steel pipe under my armpits, put chairs on the table and suspended me on the pipe, pressing hard on my knees, tearing the muscles of my arms, while the second man kept beating my head with an attache case, insisting that I write down the ten offenses. Then they pulled a gas mask over my head and shut off the air until I lost consciousness. I passed out three times. They brought me to consciousness by beating my legs and shaking the pipe on which I was hanging.

“After such tortures my health was extremely bad, I was in a fit of hysterics and prepared to give any evidence, if only they stopped beating me.

“Then the AOCID officers Vasytsky and Papeta took me to the premises of a patrol-post service (PPS) company from where I was transferred to a detention-distribution ward ostensibly for disorderly conduct. The next day I was brought to court which fined me.

“After all that, investigator Pidopryhora took me to a temporary detention ward (TDW) where my health failed sharply and, following my repeated pleas, the TDW workers called out an ambulance. The ambulance doctors demanded that I be hospitalized, because they had diagnosed a craniocerebral injury and multiple bruises.

“On June 13, 1999, instead of being hospitalized, I was transferred from the TDW to the detention-distribution ward where my health remained bad as before and an ambulance had to be called again, its doctors also demanding that I be hospitalized. While in the detention-distribution ward, I demanded from investigator Pidopryhora that I undergo a forensic medical examination, which I was denied ...”

Indeed, during the examination of the emergency treatment log, it was established that the TDW workers called out the ambulance three times (June 11, 12, 13, 1999) from the hospital at Krasny Luch to have S.Lzarenko treated. The doctors diagnosed concussion of the brain and bruises of both forearms and the chest.

For the examination of S.Lazarenko representatives of the Commissioner engaged on September 14, 1999 the TDW medical attendant M.Skachkova who found scars on his arms, a postoperative scar on his chin, and low sensibility of the left hand. When medical attendant Skachovka asked about the origin of the detected corporal injuries, Lazarenko said that they were inflicted by the police officers on June 10, 1999 in the premises of the city police station of Krasny Luch when they tortured him during the interrogations.

From the statement of the forensic medical examination of S.Lazarenko of June 19, 1999, conducted on the initiative of his mother, it also follows that numerous bruises were found on the front surface of his chest, on the wrist down to the lowest third of the left forearm crosswise, as well as on the surface of the right and left thigh, while the extension of the left-hand fingers was very limited.

It also proved that S.Lazarenko was unlawfully held to answer an administrative charge.

In order to conceal the fact of manhandling Lazarenko at the city police station, the CID officers asked the PPS employees Ponomarenko and Antiptsev to make up a false report to the effect that on June 9, 1999, at 9.30 p.m., S.Lazarenko was in a state of intoxication on Khasanov Street in Krasny Luch and disturbed the peace, for which he was held to answer an administrative charge by ruling of the Krasny Luch City Court of June 10, 1999 and fined 51 hryvnias.

Following the complaint of Lazarenko’s mother against her son having been unlawfully held to answer an administrative charge by protest of the Krasny Luch public prosecutor, the ruling of the court was repealed and the case of July 2, 1999 closed in the absence of the fact of an administrative offense.

When questioned during the examination, CID deputy head of Krasny Luch S.Vasylenko and AOCID Y.Vasytsky flatly denied that they had manhandled Lazarenko and said that they did not know who did it. They refused to give a written explanation to the employees of the Commissioner’s Secretariat in contradiction to the requirements of items 7 and 8, Article 13 of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights and Ministry of Internal Affairs Directive No.10/3-390 of October 10, 1998. The other police officers whose names were mentioned in the telegram did not show up for the appointment.

Typical examples of the application of torture have been cited not only in the numerous complaints of S.Lazarenko and his mother, but also in the applications to the Krasny Luch public prosecutor by Mrs.V.Anzheurova, who complained against the very same CID officers who manhandled Lazarenko. She wrote that on March 2, 1999, at the city police station, Vasytsky, Vasylenko, Hryhorenko and Kovaliov also applied to her son V.Anzehurov, who pleaded not guilty for committing a theft, torture of savage brutality by the very same scenario to which S.Lazarenko was subjected, as was found out by the representatives of the Commissioner for Human Rights. V.Anzheurov also confirmed this fact during the examination of his mother’s complaint.

What occasions particular alarm is that individual officials, who are bound by law to ensure compliance with human rights and freedoms, apply torture to the detained.

For example, Luhansk TDW deputy head, police Captain R.Ushchepovsky, together with CID Captain O.Serbin and CID Lieutenant K.Kyianytsky, manhandled with outright brutality A.Zhovtun at the TWD on November 27-28, 1998, demanding that he plead guilty to the murder of Y.Zaskalka.

To A.Zhovtun the same kind of torture was applied as to Lazarenko and Anzheurov with the difference that after the torture he was stripped, his bare body was beaten with a truncheon, after which the truncheon was pushed into his anal orifice. During the preliminary investigation, A.Zhovtun’s guilt was not proven and he was released from detention.

For the offense committed against Zhovtun criminal proceedings against the police officers were instituted under Article 166, part II of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. At the present time the case is examined by the Zhovtnevy city district court of Luhansk.

Besides, after inspection of the TWDs in Krasny Luch and Luhansk it was established that detained persons suspected for commission of offences are kept in conditions that do not correspond to sanitary-hygienic rules. The detention wards are damp, inadequately illuminated, and there is actually no access to fresh air. In the current year the local departments of internal affairs in the oblast did not allocate any funds for food, services and medical assistance. Meals for the detained are periodically provided for account of sponsors, but in the main parents and relatives bring the food.

In view of what has been set forth above, I hold that the cited facts are gross violations not only of Ukraine’s legislation, but also of Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Following from Article 15 of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, I appeal to you that, within the scope of your competence:

1. Respective measures be taken to eliminate the detected violations of human and citizens’ rights during operational search and detention of persons by employees of the MIA bodies in Luhansk oblast.

2. Please inform the Commissioner for Human Rights about the results and the measures that have been taken.

October 20, 1999 Nina Karpachova

Letter of the Commissioner for Human Rights to Borys Tarasiuk,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine

Dear Mr. Tarasiuk,

I was addressed by mothers and wives of 27 crew members of the MS Dubai Valor, who were taken hostage in Nigeria following a dispute between the shipowner and freighter over the partial loss of cargo under force majeure circumstances.

Notwithstanding the numerous requests of the Sea of Azov Shipping Company and the crew members’ families to various institutions, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the issue remains unsolved for almost a year.

In compliance with the articles 2, 13 and the Article 17 of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, we instituted an inquiry into the detention of the Ukrainian citizens in Nigeria.

In view of what has been said above, the Commissioner’s representative met with officials of the Consular department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and drew their attention to the need to send an urgent note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation with the request to provide consular protection to the Ukrainian citizens and another note to the official representative of Nigeria at the United Nations, asking him to facilitate the return of the Ukrainian members of the ship’s crew to their homeland.

Besides, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in autumn last year Nigeria was visited by a Ukrainian government delegation that included representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but none of the delegation members asked the assistance of the Nigerian government to resolve this problem.

I also think that not all legal remedies were used to this end. The shipowner, GASCO Co. (founded by the Sea of Azov Shipping Company and the Sharf Shipping Company of the United Arab Emirates), is registered in Malta. Taking into consideration that Nigeria and Malta are both signatories to the 1982 Convention on Marine Law (Nigeria since 1986, Malta since 1993), one of the options might be to address the International Tribunal on Marine Law, as provided for under the implementation mechanism of this Convention.

Taking all the above into account, I am sure that you are also deeply concerned over the destiny of the Ukrainian crew members of the Dubai Valor, and would like to ask you to look personally into the matter of having the Ukrainian citizens released and to inform me about the further actions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

June 5, 1998 Nina Karpachova

Letter of the Commissioner for Human Rights
to Vitaliy Boiko, Chairman, Supreme Court of Ukraine

Dear Mr. Boiko,

The Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights is receiving complaints concerning the judicial practices that are used in lawsuits against the mass media. The complaints mention that the courts disparately apply the provisions of operative legislation in these cases, in consequence of which the citizens’ rights to freedom of speech and information are violated and attempts are made to visit political reprisals upon individual newspapers and authors of publications. The problem has wide national and international repercussions, negatively affecting the image of the state and the bodies of state authority.

Ukraine ratified the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the protocols thereto. Thereby our state recognized the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights and undertook to protect the right to freedom of opinion. For this reason these international instruments and the judiciary law of the European Court should be taken into account by the Ukrainian courts when considering definite lawsuits against the mass media.

The first forthcoming annual report of the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, On the State of Compliance with and Protection of Human Rights in Ukraine, emphasizes the need to resolve the problem of regulating controversial issues that arise in the sphere of information relations, namely:

§ The law should set out the procedure by which courts establish the amount of caused moral damage in the sphere of information relations. This procedure should take into account in each definite case the territory in which unauthentic information was spread, the time and aim of spreading the information, and the amount and nature of the spread information, in consequence of which moral damage was inflicted to a definite person. However, the law should, as we see it, set only the lower limit of the size of moral damage compensation. Legislatively regulated criteria will reduce subjectivism of the courts when they determine the amount of inflicted moral damage.

§ The law should establish that once the court determines the size of moral damage, state duty for consideration of the case at other instances should be paid at legally established amounts, with allowance for the moral damage compensation ruled by the court. This will increase the number of appeals to judicial institutions for reconsideration of cases and increase the number of amicable settlements of cases.

§ A special procedure should be set out for the consideration of such cases. It is advisable that courts determine first the authenticity or inauthenticity of the information and then decide on setting the size of moral damage. Such a procedure will substantially increase the number of amicable settlements after the first stage of judicial examination, since economic considerations would make the guilty party try to settle the claim in an amicable manner, while the claimant would get the opportunity to agree on speeding up redress instead of waiting until the court judgment comes into force and then insist on its execution.

At the same time we deem it necessary to point out that what merits attention in this respect is the solid study on this problem carried out by specialists of the IREX Promedia Program and the proposals they prepared on the basis of the material of a scientific-practical conference held by the Supreme Court of Ukraine.

The Commissioner supports the idea of the Supreme Court of Ukraine holding a plenary session to discuss the issues of improving judicial practices during the consideration of controversial problems in the sphere of information.

We ask the proposals of the Commissioner to be taken into consideration.

March 7, 2000 Nina Karpachova

Letter of the Commissioner for Human Rightsto Victor Skomorokha, Secretary of
the Board for Constitutional Petitions and Appeals, Constitutional Court of Ukraine

Dear Mr. Skomorokha,

In connection with the preliminary preparation for consideration by the Board of the Constitutional Court of the material of the case initiated under the constitutional appeal of the Supreme Court concerning conformity with the Ukrainian Constitution (constitutionality) of articles 19 and 42 of the Law On the State Budget of Ukraine for 1999 insofar as it concerns the financial security of judges and the right of the Cabinet of Ministers to independently restrict allocations for their maintenance, we deem it appropriate to set forth the following considerations.

We completely share the concern of the Supreme Court about the state insufficiently ensuring the financing and proper conditions of work of judges and the activity of courts in Ukraine and find this process to be dangerous in that it falls short of providing necessary and adequate support of the judicial defense of the constitutional rights and human freedoms of Ukrainian citizens. This is explicitly confirmed by thousands of citizens’ applications to the Commissioner for Human Rights with complaints about the long duration and inadequate quality of consideration of cases by the courts.

We are convinced that further reduction of financing courts, insufficient as it already is today, will paralyze their work and endanger the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens to judicial defense. The inadmissibility of such a situation of things is in no need of additional arguments.

As to the legal substantiation of the unconstitutionality of Article 19 of the Law On the State Budget of Ukraine from 1999, we would like to state the following.

First, paragraph 1, Article 19 specifies the list of protected expenditure articles of the State Budget for 1999, including pay for workers of budgetary institutions, to which judges belong as well. Besides, to the list of protected expenditure articles of the State Budget for 1999 the following articles have been included:

§ pay for workers of budgetary institutions (including pay for educational workers, repayment of debts of preceding years);

§ charges on wages and salaries (including repayment of debts of preceding years);

§ acquisition of medicines, bandages and ligatures;

§ provision of food products;

§ transfers of local budgets;

§ transfers to the population related to social protection and social insurance (pensions, social assistance, stipends, restoration of personal savings of citizens).

Besides, paragraph 2, Article 19 of the Law On the State Budget of Ukraine for 1999 secures the provision by which outlays under the protected expenditure articles are effected first of all. Therefore, should the entire list of protected expenditure articles of the state budget be excluded from the Law On the State Budget of Ukraine for 1999, they will become unprotected, i.e. in case of need they will be financed under general procedure.

Second, Article 19 of the Law On the State Budget of Ukraine for 1999 really does not include in the list of protected expenditure articles all the expenditures for maintaining the judiciary in Ukraine (except for expenditures for salaries). Therefore, supporting on the whole the stand of the Supreme Court, as stated in the constitutional appeal, we deem it appropriate that, during its preparation for consideration at the session of the Supreme Court, the question be resolved on including the articles on ensuring financing of the work of courts in the list of protected expenditure articles of the State Budget for 1999.

June 1, 1999 Nina Karpachova

Letter of the Commissioner for Human Rights
to Leonid Derkach, Chairman, Security Service of Ukraine

Dear Mr. Derkach,

The Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights was addressed by Misses Y.Trokhimova, T.Movchunenko, N.Krivoruchko and L.Shevchenko – the wives of crew members of the AN-28 airplane, board No. 3-jji, Guinea Equatorial Airlines, which by an official version of December 28, 1999 was reported missing offshore Turkey.

According to the application, the said airplane took off from Zhuliany Airport (Kyiv) December 27, 1999 at 11:10 a.m., flight Kyiv-Inebolu-Ankara, but then landed at the airport of Mykolaiv for refueling and the next day took off for Inebolu-Ankara. At 4:50 p.m. the airplane left Ukraine’s airspace, two minutes later its blip disappeared on the radar screen and communication with it ceased. At 6:15 p.m. Turkey notified the Simferopol District Air Traffic Control Center about the disappearance of the aircraft. Judging from the civil aviation news on the AVIA.RU server, the airplane disappeared either 70 km offshore or in the vicinity of Inebolu (Turkey).

The applicants informed that, given the technical characteristics and the high skills of the crew, the airplane could not have dropped into the sea and sunk. The destiny of the airplane and its crew members is unknown to this day.

Since the aircraft disappeared over the territory of Turkey and belongs to a foreign airline, the bodies of Ukraine’s public prosecutor’s office have not been investigating this case.

But after reviewing all material in compliance with Article 16 of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, the Commissioner instituted an inquiry into this matter, because six members of the AN-28 crew are Ukrainian citizens and their disappearance infringed the constitutional rights of their wives, children and other close relatives.

During personal appointments, the applicants explained that they had repeatedly addressed your Agency with inquiries about the destiny of the aircraft and its crew.

Besides, without referring to definite sources of information, they notified about the following:

1. Their acquaintance, a Turkish pilot employed by the Turkish Airlines in Ukraine at that time, phoned Ankara on December 29, 1999 and was informed by the Turkish Civil Aviation air traffic controllers that the AN-28, while offshore Turkey, asked permission to make emergency landing on the closest airfield. Ankara controllers granted permission to land on a military airfield at Sinop.

2. On January 1, 2000, in response to an inquiry by the brother of a wife of one of the crew members staying in Belgium at that time, a Turkish information agency sent him a fax that notified about the air accident and the death of the crew members. The message indicated the place of the accident and listed all the crew members, although their names were not reported in Ukraine at that time (the copy of the fax message is attached).

3. On January 10, 2000, at 7 or 8:40 a.m., BBC Radio reported that the crew of the disappeared AN-28 was held at a military base in Turkey (without specifying the base).

4. Quoting an unidentified former employee of the Turkish consulate in Kyiv, the mass media in Turkey and Internet were supposed to have carried information by the Ministry of Communication of Turkey to the effect that the AN-28 did not enter Turkey’s airspace, although it is officially known that Ankara assumed airplane heading control.

5. The mass media in the Arabic region carried for three days a news item that military aircraft had forced the AN-28 to land and its crew was held in custody.

6. The aircraft commander’s wife was informed by her acquaintances working at the State Aviation Administration that the commander, by permission of the party that seized the airplane, phoned the Administration from Turkey after the New Year.

7. Olexiy Petrov, former student of Kyiv’s Secondary School No.96, while browsing through the Internet right after the New Year of 2000, came across an information that six hours earlier fighter planes forced a Ukrainian AN-28 to land.

8. At the Mykolaiv Airport a change in the composition of the AN-28 crew was supposed to have taken place: navigator I.Ivaniuk did not fly with the crew, having been replaced by somebody else.

9. During an interview with U.Savchenko (Trofimova), Lieutenant-Colonel V.Poddubchak of the Security Service of Ukraine informed her that after analyzing the radio exchange of the AN-28 crew, the SSU came to the conclusion that the aircraft disappeared 7-9 km offshore in the area of Inebolu, but not 70 km as was officially reported.

10. An airplane of the Kyrgyz Airlines was passing through the area where the AN-28 disappeared and established a two-minute radio contact with the aircraft by request of the Turkish party. The AN-28 was flying at an extremely low altitude at that time. Right then another aircraft was flying by and was supposed to have seen the AN-28, but failed to establish radio contact with it.

11. The wives of the AN-28 crew said that on December 30, 1999 Ukrainian Radio was supposed to have reported at 1 p.m. that the airplane was made to land on some ship and would be handed over to the Turkish authorities, while another wife also said that someone at the Ministry of Emergencies told her about the airplane having been landed on an aircraft carrier that was sailing in this area.

12. The AN-28 landed at Mykolaiv Airport not due to weather conditions, but because of technical or some other reasons.

13. Pilot Petro Kot (resident of Mykolaiv) worked in the United Arab Emirates, and upon returning home repeatedly told the wives of the crew members that the AN-28 was at a NATO military air base 35 km from Sinop, where it was held and where the crew members were even working.

14. From the interview, which the SSU Press Center granted to Irina Yepik, journalist with the Vikna-Business TV program, on April 20, 2000, it follows that the SSU, within its competence and jointly with other agencies, took part in investigating this incident. The SSU officers established that the preparation and performance of the flight was attended by numerous violations of domestic and international laws by both the crew and different agencies.

The investigation was to have revealed the following:

The licenses of the crew members were valid only until March 1999 and bore traces of forgery. The crew members did not have a permit for carrying out commercial flights on aircraft of this type. The plane had a crew of six whose functional duties were not clearly specified, while in the flight plan only two crew members were listed. Customs declarations by the crew were made with a lot of violations of legislation.

Having been registered abroad, the aircraft did not have respective documents justifying its presence on the territory of Ukraine, nor a completed customs declaration as well as a list of the cargo on board and the grounds for its carriage abroad. The technical condition of the aircraft was inconsistent with the necessary requirements. The validity period of the aircraft’s certificate of flightworthiness expired in 1998. The owners of the aircraft did not take any official measures to have the validity period prolonged. And the unsatisfactory technical condition of the aircraft was confirmed my numerous malfunctions during the flight – the reason why it landed at Mykolaiv Airport and then lost communication over the Black Sea.

I have deliberately set forth in detail all the arguments advanced by the wives and close relatives of the AN-28 crew members during personal meetings as well as the TV interview, in which I took part. I am well aware that they cling to the smallest hope that their dearest ones are still alive, since no material evidence of their death has been found so far. Perhaps you have some information on this matter, or perhaps you have material to confirm the absurdity of some of the arguments, because all this information will be of great importance in adopting a decision on the results of the inquiry.

In view of what has been said above and pursuant to Item 3, Article 17 and Article 22 of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, I ask you to provide us with exhaustive information available at the Security Service of Ukraine about the incident with the above-mentioned aircraft, along with copies of all the relevant documents. In particular, we would like to know whether a commission was set up to investigate the circumstances of the aircraft’s disappearance and who was on the commission? What were the findings of this commission or your Agency regarding all the circumstances of the departure, flight and disappearance of the aircraft? What information was communicated to your Agency by other state bodies, private persons and the Turkish party, if such interchange did take place? What information appeared in the national and foreign mass media after the aircraft’s disappearance? Did they carry any news to hope that the crew members are still alive?

I would like to request particularly that you respond in detail to Item 14 of our letter: did all the violations you mentioned really take place, how were they manifested, who was responsible for their commission?

What is the latest information about the destiny of the aircraft and its crew?

I am grateful in advance for the information that will be provided by your Agency.

July 21, 2000 Nina Karpachova

Statement of the Commissioner for Human Rights
concerning the violations of citizens’ rights during the presidential election campaign

The Ukrainian Constitution proclaimed the human being, his life and health, honor and dignity, inviolability and security as the highest social value. The state recognized the protection of human rights and freedoms as its main duty.

However, the Commissioner for Human Rights has lately been receiving an ever-growing number of appeals that speak of mass violations of civic, political, socioeconomic rights and freedoms in our state. Ukrainian citizens are concerned that the rising crime rate in society, hired murder, persecution for political reasons, and encroachment on the freedom of speech endanger not only human rights and freedoms, but also the very democracy and constitutional system in Ukraine.

In confirmation of this there has been, at about one and the same time in different regions of the country, the murder of Boris Oliynyk, manager of the South-Western Railroad, and infringement on the life of presidential candidate Natalia Vitrenko, members of Parliament Volodymyr Marchenko and Natalia Lymar and of other Ukrainian citizens.

These cynical, cruel actions that spilled the blood of innocent people roused righteous indignation of our fellow countrymen. These were not only attempts upon the life of individuals, but also attempts to deny the citizens their constitutional right to free elections.

The Commissioner for Human Rights hereby states that:

§ the violations of human and citizens’ rights are the result of the state insufficiently discharging its main duty to ensure human rights and freedoms in accordance with the Ukrainian Constitution;

§ in conformity with Article 17 of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, in response to the infringement on the life of presidential candidate Natalia Vitrenko on October 2, 1999, on the life of MPs Volodymyr Marchenko and Natalia Lymar and other Ukrainian citizens, the Commissioner for Human Right has instituted an inquiry;

§ the protection of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the human being must become the area of singular attention and common efforts of the authorities, society and all the citizens of Ukraine.

October 4, 1999 Nina Karpachova

Appeal of the Commissioner for Human Rights on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary
of the 1949 UN Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons

Dear fellow countrymen,

On December 2 the entire world community of nations will observe the 50th anniversary of the day when the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others. This international instrument crowned a series of efforts to set up at the international level an effective obstacle against the expansion of the slave trade and became an important step in elaborating the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The UN Convention drew the attention of all world nations to such an ignominious transnational crime as trade in “live commodities.” According to UN data, every year over four million women and children are taken across borders worldwide to be used for slave labor, in the sex business, armed conflicts, for illicit trade in narcotics and employment in hazardous occupations.

The socioeconomic crisis in Ukraine caused mass unemployment and forced tens of thousands of our citizens to migrate to other countries in search of work.

Judging from the information of the International Migration Organization, close to 100,000 of Ukrainian citizens have been fraudulently taken abroad during the past few years to be used in the sex industry. For some of them this travel was to be the last in their lifetime.

It is only now that the world is beginning to develop an awareness of the growing danger of this international crime and to find additional means of keeping it in check. Ukraine is one of the first countries in Europe to have addressed the problem at the state level and launched real measures to deal with it.

The Parliament of Ukraine established criminal liability for trade in people. The government designed a State Program of Preventing Trade in Women and Children, the Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights set up a Coordination Council for the Prevention of Trade in People, and law enforcement bodies are taking decisive measures to this end.

None of us can remain indifferent to the problem of trade in people. Because of this crime many Ukrainian families have experienced the grief of loss of their near and dear ones: children, sisters, wives.

Therefore, I appeal to all to unite efforts in the fight against the modern slave trade. Only in this way, all of us together will make it be possible to guard our people against the ruinous effect of transnational crime and protect our future.

December 2, 1999 Nina Karpachova


<< Back	Home ^^