| << Back |
Main menu >> |
|
IV. CiviL and PERSONAL rights in ukraine: THE STATUS OF LEGISLATIVE SECURITY AND EXERCISE |
|
As stipulated by paragraph 3, Article 25 of the Constitution, Ukraine guarantees care and protection of its citizens who are beyond its borders. The same provision is contained in Article 8 of the Law On Ukrainian Citizenship, which legislatively ensures the exercise of the said constitutional provision. Ukraine’s diplomatic missions, consular offices and their officials have to ensure the possibility of Ukrainian citizens exercising all the rights granted them by the legislation of the host countries and the international treaties to which Ukraine and the host countries are parties, to protect their interests as prescribed by law, and when necessary to effect measures on restoring their infringed rights. But judging from the appeals addressed to the Commissioner, these rights are often violated in the host countries, while Ukraine’s state bodies abroad pay insufficient attention to restoring the rights. Therefore, the exercise of the right to state protection of Ukrainian citizens wherever they may be requires the creation of more flexible legal mechanisms and the combined efforts of a broad range of state institutions. So it is small wonder that under Article 2 of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights the scope of its application extends to relations that arise from the exercise of the Ukrainian citizens’ human rights and freedoms regardless of the citizens’ place of residence or stay. This provision obligates the Commissioner to facilitate the protection of the rights of Ukrainian citizens abroad whenever they are infringed and when the citizens appeal to the Commissioner for help. Protection of Ukrainian citizens who went abroad to work. Since the declaration of state independence Ukraine has been challenged with a new problem of protecting its citizens who went abroad in search of work. With the aggravated situation in the labor market, growing unemployment and arrears of wages, employment abroad has become the only way of making ends meet. According to the data of the Border Service, 12.3 million Ukrainian citizens went abroad in 1999. How many of them returned and how many stayed behind is unknown. Data on those who cross the borders of the CIS, specifically to Russia as their destination, are also unavailable. The Commissioner for Human Rights, the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy, Ministry of Social Policy, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Ministry of Foreign Affairs are receiving tens of thousands of letters and complaints from Ukrainian citizens in difficulty abroad. According to the data of the Ministry of Labor, 28,200 Ukrainian citizens found employment in the CIS countries, 960 in Russia and Moldova, and 27,300 outside the CIS. The number of Ukrainians employed abroad by countries is as follows: Greece – 8,600; the Czech Republic – 4,900; Cyprus – 2,800; and Germany – 1,300. Geographically, Ukrainians work in Bulgaria, the United Kingdom, Israel, Spain, Italy, the United Arab Emirates, Poland, Slovakia, the US, Turkey, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Iran, India, Liberia, Malta, Ireland, Norway, New Zealand, and in other countries. However, official statistics on Ukrainian migrant workers do not reflect the real picture, because the overwhelming majority of our fellow countrymen seek employment abroad independently and illegally besides. Experts believe that their number is much larger and ranges from 500,000 to 2 million. By approximate estimates of the Ukrainian Embassy in Spain about 15,000 Ukrainian citizens came to this country in 1998-1999 mostly for economic reasons. And the embassy finds it difficult to track the new inflow of Ukrainian immigrants. Spain’s liberal legislation makes it possible for foreigners to stay in the country next to illegally. They work at seasonal jobs and although at times they have nothing to live on, they have little desire to return to Ukraine. Some of them resort to petty crime and, occasionally, commit more serious offenses. Especially typical for Spain is that criminal groups of immigrants from Ukraine or other former Soviet republics try to bring under their control the Ukrainian arrivals seeking jobs. In order to neutralize such a practice, the Ukrainian embassy repeatedly asked Spain’s law enforcement bodies to warn the Ukrainian migrants whenever possible. Ukrainian migrant workers are not better off in Poland as well. During a working visit to Poland, the Commissioner for Human Rights learned from the Ukrainian embassy that every year 5-5.6 million Ukrainians cross the Ukrainian-Polish border and 60,000 to 80,000 of them stay behind after finding a job. Their stay is mostly illegal and fraught with danger for their life and health. In 1998 the consular office of the Ukrainian embassy in Poland was visited by 3,000 Ukrainian citizens who landed in difficult situations either as victims of offenses committed against them or because of theft of their documents or means of subsistence. In 1999 accidents caused the death of ten times more Ukrainians in Poland as compared with previous years. Almost 80% of the deaths occurred on construction sites where Ukrainian worked (mostly illegally). That year 170 dead and 14 gravely ill Ukrainians were brought home from Poland. Given the high unemployment rate in Poland, Ukrainians have to be content with arduous and unskilled jobs and suffer from discrimination, without any hope of social protection or medical assistance. This made the Ukrainian embassy in Poland analyze the problem and draw up a special memorandum “On the Dangerous Situation of Ukrainians in Poland” which was forwarded to respective bodies of authority in Ukraine. Of special urgency is the issue of regulating on an inter-state level medical assistance to Ukrainian citizens in Poland and Polish citizens in Ukraine. In the Czech Republic 100,000-120,000 Ukrainians are employed legally (under labor contracts) and illegally. Under an agreement between the governments of the Czech Republic and Ukraine on mutual employment of their citizens the Czech Republic sets an annual quota for Ukrainian citizens. But this quota is not always met completely, which offers a wonderful opportunity for criminal groups to exploit the situation. The Commissioner is constantly cooperating with the Ukrainian embassies in these countries as well as with Ukrainian state bodies, ombudsmen and NGOs in other countries to protect human rights and promote relations between states in this area. In order to protect Ukrainian migrant workers, respective state bodies conclude agreements on employment and social insurance of our citizens working abroad. To date such agreements have been signed with Belarus, Armenia, Vietnam, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic. Work is underway to conclude similar agreements with the governments of Kazakhstan, Iran, Switzerland, Cyprus and Hungary. The Cabinet of Ministers approved the “Measures on Setting up a System of Social Protection of Ukrainian Migrant Workers and Regulating External Labor Migration in 1999.” Ukraine renders assistance to migrant workers through its diplomatic missions. But still a considerable number of our fellow countrymen abroad remain without proper legal protection. The Commissioner for Human Rights holds that the issue of ensuring the rights and legitimate interests of Ukrainian citizens abroad should always be taken into consideration during the conclusion of international agreements and inter-state contacts. Protection of Ukrainian citizens who are held as hostages. The problem of fighting detention of hostages has become acute worldwide. Lately, there have been more frequent cases of Ukrainian citizens becoming hostages. Exerting influence on such incidents is extremely difficult. Since the establishment of the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights the problem of hostages is in the focus of constant attention and every attempt is made to protect the rights of Ukrainian citizens who become hostages. Throughout 1998-1999 the Commissioner followed the destiny of 25 Ukrainian ships and their crews of 234 Ukrainian citizens arrested in foreign ports. The inquiry conducted by the Commissioner proved that relevant ministries and agencies did not even have information about the number of arrested ships. The information communicated to the Commissioner by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in January 1999 stated: “At the present moment the Ministry of Foreign Affairs keeps track of the cases of 13 arrested ships, most of which belong to the Black Sea Shipping Company.” According to the Security Service of Ukraine, 17 such ships with crews of 168 Ukrainian citizens were arrested in foreign ports. The Ministry of Transport gave the number of only 11 ships. By the count of the Commissioner’s Secretariat more than 150 ships with Ukrainian crews were detained and arrested in seaports of various countries since Ukraine’s independence. In response to the appeal of May 24, 1998 by the mothers and wives of the crew of MS Dubai Valor, the Commissioner for Human Rights instituted an inquiry into the case of detention of 27 members of the ship’s crew and their return to Ukraine. The ship was arrested on August 8, 1997 in the seaport of Sapele, Nigeria. Throughout more than a year of detention, the crew endured nine months of the grossest insults and degradation of human dignity. The Ukrainian government did not do anything to protect the crew and have them returned to their homeland. The inquiry of the Commissioner established that the crew of 27 seamen, all of them highly skilled and disciplined specialists with work records from 15 to 30 years with the Sea of Azov Shipping Company, arrived from Donetsk on April 28, 1997 at seaport Jebel Ali (UAE) to work under a contract on the MS Dubai Valor registered in Malta (port of registration Valetta). The crew was under contract with GAZCO Dubai, a joint Ukrainian-Emirate venture founded by the Sea of Azov Shipping Company (Ukraine) and Sharaf Shipping Egmen (UAE). GAZCO Dubai Co. signed a contract with Lonestar Drilling Co.Ltd. of Nigeria to have MS Dubai Valor carry used drilling equipment to Nigeria. En route to her destination MS Dubai Valor encountered a storm and a part of the equipment (seven items) secured on the upper deck was swept into the ocean. Independent international experts estimated that the overall damage did not exceed US $200,000, but Lonestar Co. demanded US $15-17 million in damage compensation. All these circumstances led to a protracted conflict, and by action of the cargo owner the ship was arrested at Sapel on August 8. Despite a court decision to release the ship from arrest, MS Dubai Valor came under fire and was seized by a group of armed men hired by Lonestar Co. By decision of the Federal Supreme Court of Nigeria of August 22, 1997 the ship was released from arrest on the security of US $1 million which the P & 1 Club insurance company promised to pay. But this court decision was not executed as well. On September 23, 1997 the ship was blocked completely by threat of using armed force. On September 30, 1997, at the insistence of the owner of the cargo Humphrey Idisi, an influential local tribe leader, the court suspended the execution of its decision on releasing MS Dubai Valor, and on October 1, 1997 representatives of Nigeria’s immigration service took away all the ship documents and the Ukrainian passports of the crew. The validity of the crew’s contract expired on February 28, 1998, but the claimant hindered the replacement of the crew. The Ukrainian seamen were actually converted into prisoners and their ship into a prison. The crew became a hostage to the commercial dispute between the ship owner and the claimant. Throughout the entire period of the ship’s detention, the seamen did not set foot on shore a single time. Obstacles were always put in their way when they requested to be supplied with drinking water, food products and other necessities. All the crew members went down with typhoid fever, malaria and other dangerous diseases. Some of them suffered from the diseases several times. In connection with the institution of an inquiry into the case of violation of the rights and freedoms of Ukrainian citizens/crew members of the MS Dubai Valor, the Commissioner for Human Rights addressed on June 5, 1998 an appeal to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine B.Tarasiuk, requesting to forward an urgent note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation to provide consular protection to the Ukrainian citizens and another note to the representative of Nigeria at the United Nations, asking him to facilitate the return of the Ukrainian seamen to their homeland. Besides, the Commissioner drew the minister’s attention to the fact that in the autumn of 1997 Nigeria was visited by a Ukrainian government delegation on which there were representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, none of which took any interest in the lot of the Ukrainian seamen and did not ask the assistance of the Nigerian government in this matter. At the same time, in compliance with articles 2, 13 and 17 of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, an inquiry was instituted into the detention of the Ukrainian hostages in Nigeria. To support them morally, radio communication was constantly maintained with the crew (the Commissioner received that last message from Captain O.Shulgin on March 3, 1999). The Commissioner repeatedly met with Deputy Ministers of Foreign Affairs O.Chaly, O.Maidannyk and Y.Rylach to discuss the possibility of bring back the Ukrainian seamen. Employees of the Commissioner’s Secretariat also made similar appointments with officials of the consular directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Since Nigeria does not have a diplomatic mission in Ukraine, the Commissioner met with the ambassadors of Canada, the Russian Federation and the US to request possible support of the Ukrainians by the diplomatic missions of these countries. Letters were forwarded to Ukraine’s permanent representative at the United Nations V.Yelchenko and to the chairman of the 52nd session of the UN General Assembly H.Udovenko, asking them to effect corresponding measures through the UN channels. Perhaps the Commissioner’s most important contacts were established with Douglas B.Stevenson, chairman of the Center for the Protection of Seamen’s Rights, an international NGO headquartered in London, UK. He put a lot of personal effort into freeing the Ukrainian seamen. The Commissioner established a constant telephone link with G.Petrov, Chargé d’Affaires ad interim of the Russian Federation in Nigeria, who by instruction of the RF Ministry of Foreign Affairs provided diplomatic support to the Ukrainian seamen. On June 19, 1998 the Federal Supreme Court of Nigeria at Lagos adopted a ruling on releasing the Ukrainian crew. By instruction of the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs experienced diplomats – I.Kuleba, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine to Egypt, and O.Sokorchuk, Consul of Ukraine in Cairo – were engaged in the release of the seamen. The Commissioner was in constant telephone contact with the diplomats. On July 20, 1998 G.Petrov, Chargé d’Affaires ad interim of the Russian Federation in Nigeria, managed to hand over personally a letter to Nigeria’s President General Abdulsalam Abubakar under extremely difficult circumstances. Owing to the effected measures, 23 crew members were released with great difficulty under one binding condition – four of the ship’s commanders had to stay behind on board: Merchant Captain A.Shulgin, First Mate A.Tyrkin, Chief Engineer Nefiodov and Senior Radio Officer V.Tymchenko. The hostages were evacuated with the cars of the Russian embassy. Although the cars bore diplomatic number plates and flags of the Russian Federation, they were fired at and pelted with stones by the men of the tribal chief H.Idisi. William Twaddel, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the US to Nigeria, and Mr.Chikado, former Ambassador of Nigeria to the USSR and at that time state secretary with the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, provided certain assistance in the operation. The cooperation of many people made it possible to free 23 out of the 27 seamen of the MS Dubai Valor. On July 24, 1998 Captain O.Shulgin sent the following radiogram to the Commissioner: “Dear Mrs.Karpachova … earlier we turned to your help, and after a lot of work 23 members of the crew are back home. The entire crew thanks you sincerely for the assistance and support. Four of us remained on board the ship… “ On September 17, 1998 the Commissioner for Human Rights sent a letter of gratitude to the Russian President Boris Yeltsin for the assistance of the Russian diplomats in the release of Ukrainian citizens. The letter pointed out: “… through the initiative of the Commissioner for Human Rights and the cooperation of the ministries of foreign affairs of Ukraine and Russia 23 of the 27 hostages were freed. “I have to inform you, Mr.President, that the diplomats of the Russian Federation embassy in Nigeria not only participated jointly with Ukrainian diplomats in this action of good will, but also displayed courage and nobility in the spirit of friendship of the Slavic peoples under the complex conditions of Nigeria. This was the first such joint action by the diplomats of our countries during the past few years. “The issues of human rights protection transcend the boundaries of narrow national interests. The life of every human being is invaluable and therefore I look forward to your assistance in the further joint actions on freeing the remaining Ukrainian seamen held hostage in Nigeria… “ The Commissioner kept up the effort to free the other four Ukrainian seamen. During the Commissioner’s official visit to the Russian Federation in March 1999, the question was raised again at a meeting with S.Sergeyev, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the representatives of the consular directorate of the MFA of Russia. The results of this important meeting were commented on jointly with the RF Commissioner for Human Rights at a press conference held in Moscow for the Russian and Ukrainian mass media. In compliance with the instruction of the RF Ministry of Foreign Affairs, G.Petrov, Chargé d’Affaires ad interim of the Russian Federation in Nigeria, continued his work to free the four Ukrainian seamen. The Commissioner was in telephone contact with him almost every day. After all possible measures were taken, the remaining four crew members of the MS Dubai Valor were freed on May 11, 1999 and returned to their homeland on June 2, 1999. The information released for the mass media by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine read: “A lot of effort in settling this problem was expended by the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights Nina Karpachova.” On August 11, 1998 the Commissioner for Human Rights opened a similar case. That day the Commissioner had a personal appointment with S.Zolotariova and A.Danilova, the wife and mother of the MS Global Sky Merchant Captain and Third Mate respectively. They appealed on behalf of the crew of the ship, complaining against the inactivity of Ukraine’s state agencies in protecting the rights of our citizens in Egypt and facilitating the return of 23 of the ship’s crew, among which were two women. The investigation of the case established that the container ship MS Global Sky was Ukraine’s property operated by the Black Sea Shipping Company (BLASCO). In August 1996 the ship was transferred to Hibeta Shippling Ltd., a Liberian offshore company located not in Liberia, but at Odessa. MS Global Sky plied under the colors of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, with Kingstown her port of registration. The ship was under a time charter of Global Container Lines Co., and for eight months (from June 15, 1997 to March 26, 1998) she was held hostage in the seaport in India. Within this period the previous crew experienced all the hardships that usually befall arrested ships. Merchant Captain V.Berinsky could not stand the BLASCO management’s indifferent attitude to the ship’s crew and in a state of nervous breakdown committed suicide. Then a replacement crew arrived of 23 Ukrainian citizens under the captainship of V.Timoveyev. After establishing radio contact with the captain of the MS Global Sky, the Commissioner learned that while riding at anchor she was assaulted on June 23 by 34 Egyptian commandos who opened fire on the ship and seized it. The Third Engineer was wounded; the crew was beaten up and robbed. The personal damages of the Ukrainian citizens came to over US $70,000. Under the escort of an Egyptian navy ship the MS Global Sky was tied up at a pier in Port Suez. Captain V.Timoveyev was arrested, handcuffed and dispatched to a prison where he was held for over a week and then released on bail of US $1,500. During a telephone conversation with the Commissioner for Human Rights, Captain Timofeyev stressed that the actions of the Egyptian military were absolutely unjustified. Everything that happened was a gross violation of international marine law. He believed that, except for the armed assault, the arrest of the MS Global Sky was deliberately planned in order to appropriate the ship for nothing. In August 1998 the Commissioner contacted I.Kuleba, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine to Egypt. The Ukrainian ambassador and consul met with the seamen, but the question of protecting and returning the victimized and robbed Ukrainian citizens was not settled. Then, on August 18, 1998, the Commissioner for Human Rights forwarded an appeal to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine B.Tarasiuk and on September 1, 1998 to the Minister of Transport I.Dankevych and the President of BLASCO Melashchenko with the demand to take urgent measures on expediting the release and return of the MS Global Sky crew to Ukraine. In response, the Commissioner received written assurances that the situation was under constant control of Ukraine’s diplomatic mission in Egypt and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ukrainian River Fleet and BLASCO. As a result of the joint efforts, the crew (except for the captain) was returned to Odessa on January 30, 1999, i.e. 15.5 months after the MS Global Sky set out on her voyage. After additional measures by the Commissioner for Human Rights and the Ukrainian Embassy in Egypt, Merchant Captain V.Timofeyev was returned to his homeland on April 17, 1999. Members of crews of other ships, such as Svit and Svitlovodsk, also appealed to the Commissioner with similar complaints. In a letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs B.Tarasiuk of November 6, 1998, the Commissioner pointed out that BLASCO alone had 11 of its ships arrested around the world at that time and proposed cooperation in seeking the release of the Ukrainian citizens held on those ships. After investigating into the cases of arrested Ukrainian ships and their crews, the Commissioner for Human Rights generalized the findings. Among the main reasons behind the arrests are the following:
In order to prevent Ukrainian citizens becoming hostages during the arrest of Ukrainian ships in foreign ports, the Commissioner for Human Rights deems it necessary that within the structure of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs a division be set up to keep track of cases of arrests of ships flying Ukrainian colors as well as of ships flying the colors of foreign countries and employing Ukrainian crews; a respective regulatory act should make it a binding condition for Ukrainian ship owners, joint ventures and foreign enterprises located in Ukraine and hiring Ukrainian seamen to report to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about all cases of arrests of ships with Ukrainian crews. Besides, the Commissioner for Human Rights holds that the Cabinet of Ministers should make the ministries of transport, justice, labor and social policy, and the law enforcement structures undertake the following within their competence:
Since Ukrainian seamen are practically unprotected during such emergencies abroad, the Commissioner for Human Rights addressed Minister of Foreign Affairs B.Tarasiuk about the urgent need to ratify in Parliament the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 which provides for respective mechanisms of human rights protection through the International Court of Justice. The persistent actions of the Commission for Human Rights taken jointly with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to free and return the Ukrainian crews of arrested ships contributed to a considerable extent to speeding up Ukraine’s accession to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982. On June 3, 1999 Parliament passed the Law of Ukraine On the Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 and the Treaty on the Implementation of Paragraph XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982. Protection of rights of Ukrainian citizens detained by law enforcement bodies of other states. Quite a few Ukrainian citizens who travel abroad are detained by law enforcement bodies in different countries when they violate the rules of stay in these countries or when they commit criminal and other offenses. The Commissioner for Human Rights deems it necessary to protect the rights of Ukrainian citizens even when they are held in penal institutions abroad. In early 1999 the Commissioner visited an investigation isolation ward in Belolenka (Poland) where 17 Ukrainians were kept (mostly for holdups). The conditions in the ward were much better than at similar institutions in Ukraine. Built for 1,214 inmates, it actually held 1,010, 60 of them foreigners, at that time. The Ukrainian inmates the Commissioner met with did not want to serve their sentences in Ukraine. After visiting the Polish penal institutions, the Commissioner for Human Rights drew the attention of the Ukrainian Embassy in Poland to the positive experience in reforming the penitentiary system in that country: a flexible system of leaves depending on the duration of sentences and behavior, unimpeded opportunity to communicate with families and relatives by telephones installed in the corridors of the prisons, and opportunities for gaining trades and skills, in the latest information technologies included. On March 25, 1999 the Commissioner visited an investigation isolation ward in Moscow region where she met with the Ukrainian inmates. Their conditions of custody were about the same as in Ukraine. The Commissioner came to an agreement with the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation Oleg Mironov that whenever Ukrainian citizens complained about the violations of their rights while in Russian custody, the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights would be immediately informed about such cases. At the same time the Commissioner for Human Rights addressed the Ukrainian Embassy in the Russian Federation about the need to take additional diplomatic measures to extend the application of alternative preventive measures in relation to Ukrainian citizens under judicial investigation in Russia. The reason why this should be done is because arrest is the only measure taken against all foreigners in distinction to citizens of the Russian Federation. The Commissioner also managed to visit a Ukrainian citizen, O.Tuzhansky, who was held in custody in an investigation isolation ward in Beijing in the People’s Republic of China (incidentally, the only Ukrainian held in a Chinese prison at that time). His story resembles very much the lot of our economic migrants who go abroad to engage in what is called “shuttle business,” i.e. buying up goods at cheap prices to resell them at higher prices back home. In April 1997 he was arrested in China as a suspect in the murder of a Russian citizen (also a “shuttler”). After a brawl in a restaurant, the Russian landed in a hospital where he died after an operation on him. By the laws of China punishment for such an offense is severe – up to a death sentence. While on a visit to China in October 1998, the Commissioner for Human Rights visited the Ukrainian prisoner. The conditions at the isolation ward were extremely harsh. The investigation of the case was going on for a year and a half. Mr.O.Tuzhnasky begged the Commissioner not to be left to his own devices by his country. The Commissioner for Human Rights addressed the President of the People’s Republic of China Jiang Zemin with the request that the investigation of the case be expedited and the Ukrainian citizen treated humanely. A court in Beijing sentenced him to four years in prison. The Commissioner is in constant telephone contact with the family of O.Tuzhansky and maintains contacts with the Ukrainian Embassy in China. During a meeting with China’s Deputy Minister of Justice Fang Fanpin, the Commissioner raised the question of reducing the prison sentence of the Ukrainian citizen or have him returned to finish his term in Ukraine. To date the case of O.Tuzhansky is still a matter of the Commissioner’s consideration. The Commissioner for Human Affairs is of the opinion that the state cares insufficiently about the protection of the rights of Ukrainian citizens during their temporary stay abroad. At a time when the aggravating socioeconomic situation in the country is affecting the well-being of the overwhelming majority of the population and unemployment is rising, bodies of state authority should be facilitating the employment of Ukrainian citizens abroad on a contractual basis. This would be of economic benefit both for the state and its citizens. More importantly, such an approach to the situation would make it possible to better protect the rights of citizens abroad. In order to ascertain the status of Ukrainian migrants legislatively and provide the state the opportunity to actively protect the rights of our citizens abroad, the Commissioner for Human Rights appealed to the Prime Minister of Ukraine that Parliament ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, which is open to accession since December 18, 1990. Translated by Anatole Bilenko |
|
|
<< Back |
Home ^^ |