PRAVA LUDYNY #12, 2004 (Desember)
*********
POLITICS AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Ukraine gets better rating of civic freedoms
The rating of civic freedoms got better due to increasing the peoples activity, growing independence of the courts and getting more freedom of speech after presidential election – states the American organization Freedom House. At the same time organization lowered the Russian status to “not free” first time since 1991.
"Russia's step backwards into the Not Free category is the culmination of a growing trend under President Vladimir Putin to concentrate political authority, harass and intimidate the media, and politicize the country's law-enforcement system," said Freedom House Executive Director, Jennifer Windsor. "These moves mark a dangerous and disturbing drift toward authoritarianism in Russia, made more worrisome by President Putin's recent heavy-handed meddling in political developments in neighboring countries such as Ukraine."
Other former Soviet countries registered setbacks in 2004. In Belarus, which already ranked as the least free country in Europe, harassment of opposition political forces ensured the victory of President Aleksander Lukashenka in an election in which he ran virtually unopposed. In Armenia, the government's violent suppression of peaceful civic protestors underscored its increasingly unresponsive and undemocratic rule. The region was not devoid of positive developments, however. Ukraine's civil liberties rating improved in the wake of pronounced civic activism, greater judicial independence, and the widespread expansion of media freedoms following a flawed presidential election. In Georgia, the January election of Mikhail Saakashvili as president, and a well administered parliamentary election in March, improved the country's political rights score after international monitors deemed voting free and fair.
"The positive experiences in Georgia and Ukraine indicate that democratic ferment and non-violent civic protest are potent forces for political change," said Ms. Windsor. "They also reinforce freedom's gradual global advance." According to the survey, 89 countries are Free. Their 2.8 billion inhabitants (44 percent of the world's population) enjoy a broad range of rights. Fifty-four countries representing 1.2 billion people (19 percent) are considered Partly Free. Political rights and civil liberties are more limited in these countries, in which corruption, dominant ruling parties, or, in some cases, ethnic or religious strife are often the norm. The survey finds that 49 countries are Not Free.The 2.4 billion inhabitants (37 percent) of these countries, three-fifths of whom live in China, are denied most basic political rights and civil liberties.
Of the 49 countries rated Not Free, 19 received the worst possible numerical rating (7) for political rights. The broadest restrictions on political activity take place in Belarus, Burma, Cuba, China, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iraq, Laos, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe.
Four territories, Chechnya (Russia), Kashmir (Pakistan), Tibet (China), and Western Sahara (Morocco) also received the lowest political rights rating. The broadest violations of civil liberties—including freedom of speech, rule of law, and personal autonomy—take place in 9 countries: Burma, Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Turkmenistan. Chechnya and Tibet are also included in this category.
A total of 8 countries—Burma, Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Turkmenistan—receive the lowest possible scores for both political rights and civil liberties, making them the most repressive regimes in the world. Chechnya and Tibet also fall into this category.
RUPOR
Open letter from the Kharkiv human rights protection group to participants of the negotiation process (on political situation in Ukraine as of 07.12.04)
In the light of the latest political events in Ukraine, the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group feels an urgent need to address this letter to participants of the negotiation process in Ukraine. This document can be considered as our statement or address on the current situation.
So, we are certain that it is our obligation at the moment to say the following:
1. We consider the attempts to merge in one «package» vote for amendments to the Law on Election of the President of Ukraine, issues of resignation of the Central Election Commission (CVK) and the Ukraine’s Government, and issues of the Constitutional reform morally, politically, and legally unacceptable.
First of all, such a merge seems to us deeply immoral. When the opposition demands the resignation of the government and CVK, as well as amendments to the current election legislation, it is not about these or those political or legal gains for the opposition, but rather about a revival of a fundamental and natural right of the people and each citizen of Ukraine to vote fairly and equally, i.e. effectively, in order to get their sovereign will through, which, we would like to remind you, is not below, but above the participants of the negotiation process.
In this respect, we stress once again that the citizens’ voting rights, rights to fairly elect and be elected, go ahead of all the powers, their branches and departments, as well as all the state authorities and political institutions – from the Parliament and President to the Cabinet of Ministers and CVK altogether. Because two latter institutions, by and large, are no more than political managers, functionaries, servants to the people.
This is why the voting rights, their range and the procedure of their effecting may not be the subject of short-term deals, bargaining, or any other political gambling. The election procedures may not be artificially worsened or improved depending on individual preferences. In a jural democratic state, they always have (should have) only one vector: improving individual effectiveness, guarantees, and, consequently, political potency.
Hence, any subject of the Ukraine’s political system may not (has no right) to promise any improvement (a modification, in general) of the election legislation on a security of voting or not voting for the constitutional reform or of any other parliamentary voting in general.
The will of the Ukrainian people both in material and procedural sense may not subdue to (yield to, depend on) a will of any participant of the negotiation process. This will is a priori sovereign, supreme, naturally superior of any subject of the negotiations, the national political elite in general. We would like to remind you once again that the decisions, whether to make a second round (re-vote) of the presidential election «more» or «less» fair and transparent, may not and should not depend on any insider deals. Because the values, which are directly affected here, are by far superior of the interests of the party leaders, parliamentary factions, presidential candidates, Prime Minister, or the CVK. They are even superior of the personal interests of L. Kuchma, V. Yanukovich, P. Simonenko, O. Moroz, or V. Yushchenko.
2. Further, the issue of the constitutional reform, honestly speaking, is too important and fundamental, to be «shoved» to existence in the situation of political crisis, which is in place today. Reminder: the Constitution is a superior strategic regulator of Ukraine’s domestic and international political life. In this capacity it may not be a hostage or subject of any operational political tactics. The Constitution is substantially superior of any political tactics, superior of any operational parliamentary or president’s maneuvering, and, consequently, it may not be modified or corrected in the regime of emergency, so to speak, «at odd moments.»
We once again would like to assert that the suggested version of modifications to the Constitution in Bill No. 4180 is far from optimal. It does not agree with basic political and legal logic and quite often contradicts the common sense.
It is well known that the 1996 Ukraine’s Constitution was written following the best examples in Europe and in the world of the time. While being the conceptually borrowed document, it, in its political and legal qualities, surpassed the vernacular creative possibilities of constitutional thought then existed in Ukraine.
Today the situation looks principally different. In contrast to the integrated, publicly well known text of the current Constitution, the draft political reform is a result of our exclusively «home-made» designs and developments, a product of the political culture that virtually exists now. So, although the bill this time is really national, its political and legal qualities remain more than questionable. It’s not an accident that this bill was condemned by the Venetian Commission, which, in polite but transparent form, let us know that the design of our constitutional «bicycle» had not been improved. Unfortunately, however, the sincere and honest criticism by our good colleagues and friends, failed to positively influence our sensible persistence… Furthermore, it looks like that our naпve self-confidence in the issues of constitutional theory even grew.
We have repeatedly pointed out that almost all the mixed draft constitutional amendments, which the current authorities with various intensity tried to push through in various periods, broke the imperfect but viable executive ladder of management, introduced a disciplinary statute for public deputies, played to the political primitivism of party bosses and faction leaders, completely leveled the expressions of people’s individuality on major levels and steps of the government.
In this sense, the last version of Bill No. 4180 on the constitutional amendments is another attempt of incompetent constitutional correction. Having no desire to raise its level of political culture to the requirements of the current constitution, the acting authorities stubbornly try to reduce the level of constitutional correction to their confused and shortsighted pseudo-democratic notions.
And there is no one among the leadership, who feels uneasy, as the bill actually breaks the integrity of domestic and international policies of Ukraine, encroaches on a Cabinet of Ministers’ principle of collective responsibility, ignores a principle of division of power. The bill introduces a basis for non-critical parliamentary collectivism and apparently increases risks of a Parliament-vs.-President confrontation…
However, the most important thing, in our opinion, is that Bill No. 4180 actually narrows down a social base of democracy in Ukraine. According to the constitutional reform design, the nation’s strategy and tactics becomes a prerogative of the Parliament, which, in comparison to the people, after all, could be corrupted. Everybody knows that the democracy of masses is important, just because it is impossible to physically corrupt the people. This classic thought, old-established in political science, has repeatedly confirmed in various places. Therefore, in the Ukrainian situation, the dependency of the influential presidential position on a direct popular vote is absolutely justified, urgent, and doubtless.
This dependency is also a strategic counterbalance against possible international political pressure on Ukraine. Besides, Ukraine is still on such a level of political development, when its financial and economic power and policy is overly merged. This is why, in the Ukraine’s political system, the popularly elected President still plays an important role.
As it was partly noted above, the President with strong powers is important for adequate national response to Russian and other similar challenges. Moreover, Russia, other CIS countries are all presidential republics, which international policies influence us, and not only in the matters of energy supply. Needless to say that Ukraine must have the presidential mechanisms of rapid force to respond to the challenges of this kind. Obviously, in this case we speak of something bigger than just optimization of relations at the level of executive power.
That is why we consider that the subject of the constitutional reform could have been even the strengthening the President’s executive powers, direct subordination of the Cabinet of Ministers to the President, along with making him directly politically and legally responsible for actions and policies on the part of the government.
In any case, the reduction of the President’s status to solely representative functions on the international arena suggested by the reformers, is, in our opinion, not only poorly motivated and justified, but also dangerous for providing national independence and people’s sovereignty. If the reform does occur, the all too great corporate organization of Ukraine’s political system will sharply increase. Influence of self-interest on the part of powerful financial and economic groups on the Parliament will become stronger and of systematic nature.
A very different story is a Ukrainian moderate federalism, which could, in terms of reform («two Ukraines»), be discussed in earnest. After all, the idea of decentralization has been recognized in Ukraine since M. Dragomanov. It is well known that M. Grushevskiy, S. Shelukhin, and R. Laschenko were ideological federalists. In general, the constitutional reform of such kind could have been, in fact, timely. However, it should have been a very different, really anti-crisis reform.
3. We stress, in particular, that the parties, which leaders during the presidential campaign got 5 to 6% or even less of the popular vote may not be lobbyists for the constitutional (political) reform. We cannot understand at all, why the ideas of the reform should be implemented by those, who expressed most reservations about it and on that basis got their most electorate support.
It looks absolutely illogical that V. Yushchenko, using his authority, ha to carry out ideas of political losers (we kindly ask not to take this thesis personally), like P. Simonenko or O. Moroz. We can speak and write a lot of different things on the matter, but in the intention and attempt to carry out the reform at the expense of «Our Ukraine» [political party], we see a situation, when «a winner follows a loser.»
Once again, we would like to bring attention of political leaders to the fact that effecting the constitutional reform with radical transformation of presidential powers between first and second round (re-run) of the presidential election campaign is absurd and unconstitutional. It is obviously unacceptable, when Ukrainian citizens voted for President with one status in the first round, and would vote for President with obviously other status in the second one.
We understand that those hundreds of thousands people on the Independence Square in Kyiv in the December frost stand not for electing a person who just «governs but not rules.» The people on the Square stand for electing their cherished President of truth and good. Consciously and subconsciously, they rely on him personally, on the power and authority of his constitutional post. The people on the Square are fighting for a fair getman [Ukrainian traditional ruler], not a cunning courtier. We don’t think it’s advisable to anybody to forget about that.
The power of spirit, vivid mind, openness and moral cleanness of the people on the Square is incomparably superior of the obscurant sense of the divisive constitutional reform. Students, workers and businessmen do in fact stand for reform, though not for the reform of formal institutions, but for the change of the pathologically corrupt and dishonest authorities. All of them do not protest against the half-baked legal forms. They protest against that human material, with which these forms are filled under the circumstances. So, they protest against lazy and disconnected people, not against constitutional ABC and norms. This is why the current attempt of the constitutional reform is, in our opinion, an attempt made by the old authorities to divert the energy of human burst into a wrong channel. The dead haunt the alive, the former envy the easygoingness and freedom of the latter, exerting their last strengths the dead pull us back to the old, moldy, and dark political grave.
We are certain that the people on the Kyiv’s Independence Square protest against their personal humiliation, caused not by institutions, but by absolutely real individuals. However, the traitorous, angry, or just not very intelligent politicians want, at any cost, to convince us that these people’s enemy is not those evil-minded embezzlers of public funds with pretensions of provincial snobs, but something abstract and formally-legal.
In this sense, the «reformers» are not ironing down the current crisis situation, but rather making it more acute. Because in reality, the Square’s demands are modest: just fair, not falsified elections. In contrast, the reformist demands on the part of authorities are ambitious and totally immoral. They want to turn the public power into a «reform,» which does not augment, but suppresses and kills our best hopes.
4. And V. Havel, in his commentary on the events of the Ukrainian orange movement, was right: it’s not only about the election of V. Yushchenko, but about a funeral of the Ukrainian post-communism in general. So, the ring, which is in the air over the national capital’s square for half a month already, is for that. In this place, people rid themselves of their fear, and along with it, their feeling of dependency and enslavement. Their leader is an antithesis to immorality, as well as to an authoritarian political style. So, he is an antithesis not to a form, but to an old political substance. Really, V. Yushchenko is a Ukrainian political «outsider,» a bohemian, in the best meaning of this word. His style of communication with the public is off-hand and easy. His thoughts are both refined and clear. He is really a people’s candidate, a personification of the Ukrainian meritocracy of talent.
In fact, this is clear to all participants of the negotiation process. On the other hand, rational thinking of these people in power mixes with their many not quite elegant «secondary» feelings. Once T. Mann said about French king Henri IV, «He was simple in his soul, but not in his mind.» Obviously, V. Yushchenko has soul and mind, a natural charisma.
The real scale of the personality, depth and significance of this figure, are growing literally before our eyes, unfolding day by day. With the same speed, also is growing the human envy to this. We have an excellent phenomenon of the person’s natural augmentation with all the connotations, which usually accompany these things.
A free people rarely make mistakes and love a person, who really deserves it. It just happened that the Ukrainian people fell in love with V. Yushchenko. In comparison to his enthusiastic and genuine popularity, figures, who just very recently were in the foreground, now look very insignificant. It just happened that those people are subjects of the negotiating process. So, our letter is addressed to these people in the first place.
Obviously, the Ukrainians will not stand for any of them in the frost for half a month. But do they have a moral right to be offended with this? And is it reasonable in this situation for them to think about how quickly and skillfully clip wings to the leader, who managed to show people the advantages of dignity and freedom?
Do they really want that strongly the constitutional reform? Do they really want fairness, guarantees of human rights, democracy?
We cannot exclude that our people in power do want to look at these wonders. However, we certainly will never know it. So, having our justified doubts and anxiety in mind for all they have done, we address them our request not to be so die-hardly careful about our interests.
In the end, we would like to tell these people: give up your political envy, forget about your spiritually petty and poorly thought of constitutionally-separatist scheming, step out, allow the Ukrainian people, at last, to hit the free road.
7 December 2004
The Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
Persons responsible for violations should be replaced
The Ukrainian Helsinki union of human rights and the International Helsinki Federation of human rights state that replacement of the persons, responsible for violations during the election, is one of most important preconditions for the repeated voting in the second tour of election. Mainly it concerns the election commissions, members of government, officers of prosecutor’s office and the heads of regional and district state administrations. It is also very important to investigate properly the mass falsifications, which are confirmed by documents, and to bring the guilty to responsibility.
Our organizations reckon that neither geopolitical nor regional cultural differences are the essence of the matter. The main factor is the fundamental right of citizens to elect their government freely and honestly. The political compromise may be made in order to prevent the conflict that would maim the country. Yet, the accusations of mass violations of election laws during the election campaign and two tours of the election should not be ignored.
The Ukrainian Helsinki union and International Helsinki Federation observed the election in Ukraine from the very beginning of the campaign. We documented that the campaign was distorted with mass violations of Ukrainian legislation and international agreements signed by Ukraine. From the very beginning we demanded to stop these violations, in particular, the violation of the right for equal access the national mass media. Similar statements have been made by international organizations, a member of which Ukraine is, and numerous governments.
The Ukrainian government ignored these statements. The majority of well-known international organizations classify the election as dishonest and unfree. Falsification of the election failed only thanks to the civil fortitude of thousands people.
We appeal to Ukrainian courts to act as an independent and responsible judicial organ, and to the power – to use its authorities for preventing falsifications, which, contrary to the will of Ukrainian citizens, determine the future of their country.
For further information turn:
Ukrainian Helsinki union of human rights,
Evhen Zakharov,
+380-577-143558
International Helsinki Federation of human rights,
Aaron Rodes,
+43-676-635 66 12 (cell)
1 December 2004
From «PL» editorial board: According to item 7 of Resolution of the Supreme Council No. 2215-IV of 1 December 2004 «On stabilization of political and social-economic situation in Ukraine and prevention of anti-Constitutional actions endangering sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine», distrust was expressed to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. In the connection with the statement of the Prime Minister on non-recognition of this decision, since, in his opinion, it does not meet the demands of the Constitution of Ukraine, we are publishing, in what follows, the constitutional-legal analysis of item 7 of the considered Resolution of the Supreme Council of Ukraine.
Constitutional-legal analysis of the Resolution of the Supreme Council «On stabilization of political and social-economic situation in Ukraine and prevention of anti-Constitutional actions endangering sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine» of 1 December 2004
In the connection with adoption by the Supreme Council of Ukraine of the decision on distrust to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and in the connection with the statement of the Prime Minister of Ukraine on non-recognition of this decision, since, in his opinion, it does not meet the demands of the Constitution of Ukraine, we, experts in the sphere of constitutional right of Ukraine, conducted the independent constitutional-legal analysis of item 7 of the considered Resolution of the Supreme Council of Ukraine and came to the following conclusions:
1. According to part 2 of Article 113 of the Constitution of Ukraine, «The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine is controlled by and accountable to the Supreme Council of Ukraine within the limits envisaged by Articles 85 and 87 of the Constitution of Ukraine». This constitutional provision means that the Parliament is empowered to exercise control over the activities of government. This control has the following forms: hearing of the reports of the Cabinet of Ministers on fulfillment of the State budget (item 4 part 1 of Article 85 of the Constitution), discussion of the results of consideration by government of deputies’ requests to the Cabinet of Ministers (Article 86 of the Constitution), conduction of parliamentary hearings with the aim of studying the fulfillment by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukrainian Constitution, laws of Ukraine, resolutions of the Supreme Council of Ukraine (item 1 of the Regulations on conduction of parliamentary hearings in the Supreme Council of Ukraine of 11 December 2003), conduction of hearings in the Supreme Council committees (Regulations on conduction of parliamentary hearings in the committees of the Supreme Council of Ukraine of 11 December 2003), etc.
Depending on the results of the parliamentary control over the activities of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, the Parliament can approve various decisions, in particular, according to part 1 of Article 87 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Parliament has the right to adopt the resolution on distrust to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which, in accordance with part 4 Article 115 of the Constitution, «implies resignation of the Cabinet of Ministers».
Thus, the Parliament has the constitutional right to dismiss the government. This right is one of the main elements of the system of «containment and counterbalance», which should guarantee the efficiency of functioning of the mechanism of realization of state power in a modern democratic state, render impossible the «domination» of one power branch over another one, prevent usurpation of the power and guarantee mutual control between different branches of state power.
At the same time the Constitution of Ukraine does not allow, with the aim of guaranteeing of stability of the government, the consideration by the Supreme Council of Ukraine of the question on responsibility of government «during a year after the approval of the Program of activities of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (part 2 Article 87 of the Constitution of Ukraine). Yet, the comparison of clauses of parts 1 and 2 of Article 87 of the Constitution and their content analysis allow to draw the conclusion that the Program of activities of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which should envisage the strategic directions and priorities of development of the state for the years immediately ahead, may be approved only one time during the entire period of its functioning, since, firstly, the State budget of Ukraine serves as an annual program of activities of the government, and, secondly, the annual approval of new Program of activities of the government would render impossible the adoption by Parliament of the resolution on distrust to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, that is, in fact, would result in «blocking» of action of the Ukrainian Constitution in this part and would deprive the Supreme Council of Ukraine of such an important form of parliamentary control.
1. Besides, according to the Temporary Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine approved by Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 915 of 5 June 2000 «Planning of work of the Cabinet of Ministers is carried out on the basis of propositions of central and local organs of executive power by means of adoption of the Program of activities of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine during the period of its authorities, annual State program of economic and social development of Ukraine, other state programs and acts of the Cabinet of Ministers» (item 1 of Section 2 of the Temporary Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine).
In spite of the fact that the period of authorities of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine is not directly defined in the Constitution, it follows from a series of constitutional norms. In particular, according to items 9 and 10 of Article 106 and parts 2 and 3 of Article 114 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the President of Ukraine appoints, by approbation of the Supreme Council of Ukraine, the Prime Minister and, on the request of the Prime Minister, appoints the personal composition of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. And according to part 1 Article 115 of the Constitution, «the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine abdicates responsibility before the newly-elected President of Ukraine». The analysis of the mentioned provisions of the Ukrainian Constitution evidences that, according to the Constitution of Ukraine, the period of authorities of the Cabinet of Ministers is the period of authorities of the President of Ukraine; the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine is formed for this term.
The term of authorities of the President of Ukraine is directly stipulated in part 1 of Article 103 of the Constitution of Ukraine and is equal to five years. So, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine is also formed for the term of five years, if its authorities would not be ceased before the appointed time.
Thus, on the basis of the analysis of the above-mentioned norms of the Constitution of Ukraine and Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 915 of 5 June 2000, the conclusion can be drawn that the Program of activities of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine should be adopted one time for the entire term of its authorities. Introduction of specifications, changes and supplements into the program is possible, but this may not be regarded as the approval of new Program of activities of the government.
2. The comparative-legal analysis of the contents of the Program of activities of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine «Openness, effectiveness, potency», approved by the Supreme Council of Ukraine on 17 April 2003, and the Program of activities of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine «Consistency. Effectiveness. Responsibility», approved by the Supreme Council of Ukraine on 16 March 2004, evidence that, both by structure and the titles of structural parts, this is practically the same plan of actions of the government, only with some specifications and appendages, which, in aggregate, do not change the strategic directions of work of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The Program «Consistency. Effectiveness. Responsibility» reads: «… the Program concretizes the main goals and tasks concerning the creation of socially efficient and politically responsible power and institutes of civil society». Therefore, the approval by the Supreme Council of Ukraine on 16 March 2004 of, in fact, specified Program of activities of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine did not deprive the Supreme Council of the right to adopt the resolution on distrust to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine even without cancellation of its Resolution on the approval of this Program.
Besides, the analysis of goals and contents of the last Program of activities of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, taking into account the recent events in political, social and economic life of Ukraine, evidenced that the government not only could not guarantee the fulfillment of these goals, but played a waiting game and, as a consequence, proved its absolute incapacity.
3. Yet, the main argument in favor of acknowledgment that the Resolution of the Supreme Council about resignation of the government fully conforms to the Ukrainian Constitution lies in the fact that, under the conditions of deep political crisis, when the government has not taken the proper measures for guaranteeing of rights and freedoms of citizens in the process of preparation and conduction of election of the President of Ukraine of 2004, wasted large budget sums (while it appeared to be impossible to clear up the will of the taxpayers), demonstrated absolute inertness and passivity in the cases, where it had to act resolutely and consistently, thus directly violating the provisions of items 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9 of Article 116 of the Constitution of Ukraine. The government lost the trust both of the Parliament and of the society, so there is every reason to believe that governmental crisis has arisen in Ukraine. So, the demand to the government to act adequately in this situation is similar to the demand to a paralyzed man to get up and do gymnastics. In extreme situation, when the overwhelming majority of power organs avoid the fulfillment of their duty, only the Parliament has the ability and potential to undertake the resolute actions, in particular, thanks to the sensible position of the Head of the Supreme Council of Ukraine.
4. Thus, item 7 of the Resolution of the Supreme Council «On stabilization of political and social-economic situation in Ukraine and prevention of anti-Constitutional actions endangering sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine» of 1 December 2004 completely corresponds to the Constitution of Ukraine and is obligatory for fulfillment by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
Viktor Kolisnyk, Doctor of Law
Fedir Venislavskiy, Candidate of Law
Viktor Kychun, Candidate of Law
Pavlo Liubchenko, Candidate of Law
3 December 2004
Decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine on the results of the run-off election of the President
DECISION
IN THE NAME OF UKRAINE
3 December 2004 Kyiv
The Court chamber in charge of civil cases of the Supreme Court of Ukraine consisting of
Chairman: A. Yarema
Judges: M. Baliuk,
V. Barsukova,
A. Gnatenko,
L. Grygoryeva,
V. Gumeniuk,
A. Didkivskiy,
I. Dombrovskiy,
V. Krivenko,
N. Liashchenko,
V. Marynchenko,
P. Pantalienko,
M. Patriuk,
O. Potylchak
Yu. Prokopchuk,
M. Pshonka,
I. Samsin,
Yu. Senin,
O. Terletskiy,
V. Shabunin;
secretaries: I. Prokopenko and V. Skachko;
with participation of M. Katerynchuk, an empowered person of candidate to President’s post V. Yushchenko in the unified all-Ukrainian election circuit, and representatives of candidate to President’s post V. Yushchenko: S. Kustova, R. Zvarych, O. Reznikov, M. Poludionny, S. Vlasenko, Yu. Karmazin and Yu. Kliuchkovskiy;
representatives of the Central Election Commission: V. Bondyk, Yu. Donchenko, I. Kachur, M. Okhendovskiy; representatives of the interested person -- candidate to President’s post V. Yanukovich: O. Lukash, S. Gavrish, B. Kharchenko, E. Evgrafova and Abramenko,
considered at the court sitting the case after the complaint of Mykola Katerynchuk, an empowered person of candidate to President’s post V. Yushchenko in the unified all-Ukrainian election circuit, against the passivity of the Central Election Commission, the actions for establishment of the results of the run-off election of the President of Ukraine of 21 November 2004 and the decision about proclamation of Viktor Yanukovich to be the elected President of Ukraine, and
ascertained: M. Katerynchuk, an empowered person of candidate to President’s post V. Yushchenko in the unified all-Ukrainian election circuit, turned to the Supreme Court of Ukraine with the mentioned complaint, in which he asked: 1. To recognize the actions of the Central Election Commission for establishment of the results of the run-off election of the President of Ukraine of 21 November 2004 as invalid. To nullify Resolution of the Central Election Commission of 24 November 2004 No. 1264 «On the results of election of the President of Ukraine of 21 November 2004 and election of the President of Ukraine» as illegal one. 2. To reverse Resolution of the Central Election Commission of 24 November 2004 No. 1265 «On publication of the results of election of the President of Ukraine» as illegal one. 3. To recognize that the facts of systematic and brutal violations of the principles and foundations of election process during the run-off election of the President of Ukraine of 21 November 2004 made impossible the reliable establishment of the results of expression of the will of voters in the unified all-Ukrainian election circuit. 4. To recognize as invalid the results of the run-off election of the President of Ukraine of 21 November 2004 in the unified all-Ukrainian election circuit. 5. To acknowledge the candidate, who, according to the results of voting of 31 October 2004, got the majority of votes, to be the elected President of Ukraine. The stated demands, which were confirmed at the court sitting by the claimant and representatives of candidate to the post of the President of Ukraine V. Yushchenko, are grounded on references to systematic and brutal violations of the principles and foundations of election process during the run-off election of the President of Ukraine of 21 November 2004 and on the statement that the Central Election Commission transgressed the demands of the Law of Ukraine «On election of the President of Ukraine» during the establishment of the results of the election of the President of Ukraine.
Representatives of the Central Election Commission and representatives of the interested person, protesting against the stated demands, have asserted that the violations of election laws, which were committed in the course the run-off election of the President of Ukraine, did not influence and could not influence the results of the election, and that the Central Election Commission did not transgress the operating laws during the establishment of the results of the election of the President of Ukraine.
Having listened to explanations of the persons, who take part in the case, and studying of other proofs, the court reckons that the complaint must be partially satisfied on the basis of the following reasons.
On 21 November 2004 the run-off election of the President of Ukraine was carried out.
On 24 November 2004 the Central Election Commission worked out the protocol on the results of the run-off election of the President of Ukraine and adopted resolutions No. 1264 «On the results of election of the President of Ukraine of 21 November 2004 and election of the President of Ukraine» and No. 1265 «On publication of the results of election of the President of Ukraine».
Establishing the results of the run-off election, the Central Election Commission, at the sitting of its collegiate composition, did not scrutinize the protocols of territorial election commissions on the results of voting in corresponding election circuits, did not check their authenticity, correctness and completeness, as well as other documents listed in part 6 of Article 83 of the Law «On election of the President of Ukraine».
Before establishment of the results of voting on the day of the run-off election of the President of Ukraine the Central Election Commission did not consider the appeals and complaints on violation by territorial election commissions of the order of summing up of the results of voting in territorial circuits and the decisions taken by territorial election commissions by the results of consideration of the complaint.
At the time of establishment by the Central Election Commission of the results of the run-off election of the President of Ukraine courts had not finished consideration of the complaints, handed in proper time, against passivity, activities and decisions of territorial election commissions during summation of the results of voting in territorial circuits, and the term of consideration of these complaints had not expired.
Under such conditions the actions and decisions of the Central Election Commission contradict the demands of Articles 2, 10, 11, 12, 16 and 17 of the Law of Ukraine «On Central Election Commission», Articles 25, 28, 83, 84, 86, 93, 94 and 96 of the Law of Ukraine «On election of the President of Ukraine» and are illegal. In this connection the decisions approved by the Central Election Commission must be reversed.
The court also ascertained that the following violations of the Law of Ukraine «On the election of the President of Ukraine» were committed during the run-off election:
2. compilation and specification of the lists of voters were realized with violations of the demands of Article 34; persons, who had no franchise were included into the lists, some voters were included to the lists for several times;
3. printing, registration, giving out and use of the off-list tickets were carried out with violations of the demands of Article 33, without proper control on the side of the Central Election Commission;
4. pre-election agitation with the use of mass media was held without observance of the principle of equal opportunities and contrary to the order stipulated by this Law; the demands were not obeyed concerning the prohibition of participation in pre-election agitation of the organs of state power and local self-government, their illegal meddling into the election process was observed;
5. demands of Articles 23, 24 and 85 on composition of election commissions were broken;
6. demands of Articles 68, 69 and 70 concerning participation in the election process of official observers were violated;
7. demands of Article 77 on voting outside the election stations were violated;
8. protocols of district election commission were compiled after the calculation of votes without following the demands of Article 79;
9. transportation of documents to territorial election commissions was carried out with violations of Article 81.
The above-listed conditions give grounds for the conclusion about violation of the principles of election right stipulated by Articles 38, 71 and 103 of the Constitution of Ukraine, and the principles of election process envisaged in part 2 of Article 11 of the Law of Ukraine «On election of the President of Ukraine», which excludes the possibility to establish reliably the results of the expression of voters’ will in the unified all-Ukrainian election circuit.
Determining the way of restoration of the abused rights and legal interests of the subjects of election process, the court proceeds from the idea that, according to Article 98 of the Law of Ukraine «On election of the President of Ukraine», the subject of consideration of the complaint, having ascertained that the decisions, activities or passivity of the subject of prosecution do not meet the legislation on election of the President of Ukraine, satisfies the complaint, reverses the decision fully or partly, acknowledges the activities or passivity to be illegal and obliges the subject of prosecution to satisfy the demands of the claimant or to restore the violated rights and legal interests of the claimant in other way.
The way of protection of the abused right by acknowledging the candidate, who, according to the results of voting of 31 October 2004, got the majority of votes, to be the elected President of Ukraine, which way has been offered by the claimant, cannot be applied, since, according to part 3 of Article 84 of the Law of Ukraine «On election of the President of Ukraine», only that candidate is regarded as the elected President, which got more than 50% of votes of the citizens, who took part in the election, and none of the candidates got such quantity of votes.
Taking into account the impossibility to establish reliably the real results of the expression of voters’ will in the unified all-Ukrainian election circuit by way of repeated summation of the results of the run-off election and the fact that the run-off election of 21 November 2004 has not changed the status of the candidates, which, by the results of voting on 31 October 2004, got the greatest number of votes, the courts considers necessary to restore the rights of subjects of the election process by conduction of the repeated voting in accordance with the rules envisaged by Article 85 of the Law of Ukraine «On election of the President of Ukraine».
Following Articles 8, 71, 103 and 124 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Article 13 of the Convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Article 98 of the Law of Ukraine «On election of the President of Ukraine», Articles 11, 24310 and 24320 of the Civil-Procedural Code of Ukraine, the Court chamber in charge of civil cases of the Supreme Court of Ukraine,
resolved:
To satisfy partly the complaint of Mykola Katerynchuk, an empowered person of candidate to President’s post V. Yushchenko in the unified all-Ukrainian election circuit, against the decision, activities and passivity of the Central Election Commission. To acknowledge the activities of the Central Election Commission for establishment of the results of the run-off election of the President of Ukraine and composition of protocol on the results of the run-off election of the President of Ukraine of 21 November 2004 as illegitimate. To reverse Resolution of the Central Election Commission of 24 November 2004 No. 1264 «On the results of election of the President of Ukraine of 21 November 2004 and election of the President of Ukraine». To reverse Resolution of the Central Election Commission of 24 November 2004 No. 1265 «On publication of the results of election of the President of Ukraine». To oblige the Central Election Commission to call the repeated voting on the election of the President of Ukraine within the term envisaged by part 1 of Article 85 of the Law of Ukraine «On election of the President of Ukraine», counting this term from 5 December 2004. To hold the repeated voting according to the order stipulated by Article 85 of the Law of Ukraine «On election of the President of Ukraine». To reject other claimed demands. The decision is final and may not be appealed.
Chairman: A. Yarema
Judges: M. Baliuk,
V. Barsukova,
A. Gnatenko,
L. Grygoryeva,
V. Gumeniuk,
A. Didkivskiy,
I. Dombrovskiy,
V. Krivenko,
N. Liashchenko,
V. Marynchenko,
P. Pantalienko,
M. Patriuk,
O. Potylchak
Yu. Prokopchuk,
M. Pshonka,
I. Samsin,
Yu. Senin,
O. Terletskiy,
V. Shabunin.
SPECIAL RESOLUTION
3 December 2004 Kyiv
The Court chamber in charge of civil cases of the Supreme Court of Ukraine:
considered at the public court sitting the case after the complaint of Mykola Katerynchuk, an empowered person of candidate to President’s post V. Yushchenko in the unified all-Ukrainian election circuit, against the decision, activities and passivity of the Central Election Commission (the CEC, in what follows), concerning establishment of the results of the run-off election of the President of Ukraine of 21 November 2004, and
ascertained:
According to the Decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine of 3 December 2004, the complaint of Mykola Katerynchuk, an empowered person of candidate to President’s post V. Yushchenko in the unified all-Ukrainian election circuit, against the decision, activities and passivity of the Central Election Commission, concerning establishment of the results of the run-off election of the President of Ukraine of 21 November 2004, was partly satisfied.
The Court resolved to acknowledge the activities of the CEC for establishment of the results of the run-off election of the President of Ukraine and composition of protocol on the results of the run-off election of the President of Ukraine of 21 November 2004 as illegitimate.
The Court reversed Resolution of the CEC of 24 November 2004 No. 1264 «On the results of election of the President of Ukraine of 21 November 2004 and election of the President of Ukraine».
The Court reversed Resolution of the CEC of 24 November 2004 No. 1265 «On publication of the results of election of the President of Ukraine».
The Court obliged the CEC to call the repeated voting on the election of the President of Ukraine within the term envisaged by part 1 of Article 85 of the Law of Ukraine «On election of the President of Ukraine», counting this term from 5 December 2004, and to held the repeated voting according to the order stipulated by Article 85 of the Law of Ukraine «On election of the President of Ukraine».
The Court refused to satisfy other claimed demands.
The Court ascertained that, in the course of the run-off election of the President of Ukraine numerous violations were committed of basic principles and foundations of election process, stipulated by Articles 38, 69 and 71 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Articles 2, 3, 6, 9 and 11 of the Law of Ukraine «On election of the President of Ukraine», which fact made impossible the reliable establishment of the results of expression of the will of voters in the unified all-Ukrainian election circuit. A significant part of the violations was committed by the CEC, other subjects of the election process and power organs as a consequence of passive behavior of the CEC and its members.
In particular, the questions, which should be considered jointly by the entire composition of the CEC, were, in fact, considered by separate members and were not submitted to the sittings of the CEC. In particular, in that way on 24 November 2004 the question was solved on establishment of the results of the run-off election of the President of Ukraine of 21 November 2004, when, in defiance of the demands of part 1 of Article 84 of the Law of Ukraine «On election of the President of Ukraine», the CEC only voted on approval of the protocol, which was composed without proper verification of the data by all members of the commission and without their familiarization with the protocols of territorial election commissions.
It was ascertained that mass violations of the election rights of all subjects of the election process had been observed, such as: uncontrolled use of the off-list tickets, compulsion of the workers of establishments, enterprises and organizations, including state employees, to vote with the off-list tickets, organized movement of big groups of voters from one regions to others, participation of the organs of state power in this movement and in the use of the off-list tickets. Mass media, official observers and voters informed on such violations in the course of the election. The importance of this problem was confirmed by the amendments to the Law of Ukraine «On election of the President of Ukraine» adopted by the Supreme Council of Ukraine before the run-off election.
However, contrary to the demands of Articles 16 and 17 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Central Election Commission», the CEC, in fact, evaded the fulfillment of the functions connected with the control over the course of the election, guaranteeing of realization of citizens’ election rights, etc.
A brutal violation of laws took place: the CEC did not execute the decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine of 16 November 2004, which obliged the CEC to establish the results of voting in territorial election circuit No. 100.
All above-said evidences that the Central Election Commission violated the principles of superiority of right, lawfulness, objectivity, competence, professionalism, collegiality of consideration and solving of questions, validity of decision-making, openness and publicity, envisaged by part 2 Article 2 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Central Election Commission».
Besides, in the course of the consideration, the court received a written appeal from the head of the organization, which had developed the software for the CEC and realized its technical maintenance during the voting and calculation of votes. The appeal reads that, by the order of the CEC head, the codes for the access to the system were passed to unauthorized persons, which could cause manipulation with the results and their falsification with following insertion of these data to the initial protocols.
The Court chamber considers necessary to inform the Supreme Council of Ukraine, the President of Ukraine and the General Prosecutor of Ukraine on the disclosed violations of laws for taking the proper measures envisaged by laws.
Grounding on Article 235 of the CPC of Ukraine, the Court chamber
resolved:
To send a copy of this special resolution to the Supreme Council of Ukraine, the President of Ukraine and the General Prosecutor of Ukraine for taking the proper measures envisaged by laws.
The resolution may not be appealed.
Chairman: A. Yarema
Judges: M. Baliuk,
V. Barsukova,
A. Gnatenko,
L. Grygoryeva,
V. Gumeniuk,
A. Didkivskiy,
I. Dombrovskiy,
V. Krivenko,
N. Liashchenko,
V. Marynchenko,
P. Pantalienko,
M. Patriuk,
O. Potylchak
Yu. Prokopchuk,
M. Pshonka,
I. Samsin,
Yu. Senin,
O. Terletskiy,
V. Shabunin.
Political reform is a noose on the neck of «orange revolution»
Anatoliy Tkachuk, Kyiv
On 4 December 2004 the event took place in the Ukrainian Parliament, which might exert very negative influence at the development of political situation in Ukraine. Harsh statements of Oleksandr Moroz about the bloc «Our Ukraine» and Yulia Timoshenko allows to understand that the alliance Yushchenko-Moroz fell to pieces or, at least, cracked.
If to base on the commentaries of Martyniuk, Moroz and Litvin, the impression appears that the reason of this conflict is the «inconsequent» position of Yushchenko and «Our Ukraine», since allegedly this very side broke the agreement.
Let us carry out the analysis of situation in Ukraine and try to formulate the top-priority steps that should be taken for liquidation of the current crisis:
1. Serious political crisis is observed in Ukraine, caused by Kuchma-Yanukovich’s regime, which made its best for turning the election of the President into the mockery of the society. Mass falsifications of the election are confirmed now with two documents: Decree of the Supreme Council of Ukraine of 27 November 2004 and Resolution of the Supreme Court of 3 December 2004.
2. The Decree of the Supreme Council of Ukraine of 27 November 2004 expresses distrust to the Central election commission and recommends the President of Ukraine to present, up to 1 December 2004, the propositions on new composition of the CEC.
3. The decree of the Supreme Council of 1 December 2004 expresses distrust to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which implies resignation of the cabinet. According to the Constitution, the resolution of the Supreme Council of Ukraine is an act of direct action and does not demand President’s approval.
Basing on these acts, we have the situation, when, de jure, there are no acting government and legitimate CEC in Ukraine (since the organ, which appoints the CEC members expressed distrust to it).
Yet, what happens de-facto? The government continues to function, since the Prime Minister does not acknowledge the decision of the Parliament, and the President pretends that the resolution on distrust does not exist at all, so he does not issue the edict about forming of new government and does not take any steps for presentation of the propositions about new Prime Minister. So, we observe the criminal ignoring by the President of decisions of the Parliament.
Kushnariov made public the idea to debar Yushchenko and Yanukovich from participation in the repeated voting (if this would happen, then on 26 December the ballot papers would contain names of Moroz and Simonenko!!!)
Thus, what top-priority steps should be suggested in such situation?
To acknowledge that the voting of 26 December must be conducted necessarily, and they must be maximally honest.
The election can be honest only if it would be conducted by new composition of the CEC, new territorial and district commissions and in compliance with new legal demands.
So, the necessary changes must be urgently introduced into the law on presidential election.
Yet, even the best law would not work, if the people, which brutally ignored the laws and realized falsifications, would be left on their posts.
Replacement of the heads of regional state administration is impossible without the replacement of government.
Besides, it is necessary to stop the development of the economic crisis, but it is also impossible without the replacement of government.
This seems to be an axiom: at first we must replace the government and then do the rest. However, strange events take place in the Parliament. The so-called «package» is formed, which will allegedly solve all mentioned problems at once: law draft No. 4180 on introduction of changes into the Constitution and the new law on peculiarities of conduction of the repeated voting at the presidential election on 26 December 2004. «Our Ukraine», Yu. Timoshenko’s bloc, some members of the Agrarian party and the Center refused to support this package, which was the reason of the brusque statement of Moroz and created the semblance of inconsequent politics of «Our Ukraine». But it is not true! On the contrary, if «Our Ukraine» conceded this position, it would, in fact, repudiate all small victories, which had been won, such as resignation of the government and juridical removal of V. Yanukovich from Prime Minister’s post.
The TV viewers, who watched the reportage from the Supreme Council of Ukraine, could not understand, why the mentioned Moroz’s «package» would solve the problems of resignation of the present government. On the contrary, according to this draft, the present government has to fulfill its work even after inauguration of new President, and what is more, from the moment of election of new President with the restricted authorities, the authorities of the present government, and especially the Prime Minister, will unbelievably increase.
Here the question appears: who betrayed whom? The agreements between Yushchenko and Moroz were not so categorical. They discussed introduction of this political reform for new Parliament, which would be elected only in 2006.
Now, understanding the interest of Yushchenko and his team in establishment of stricter democratic control over the election procedures, the power decided to press on Yushchenko with Moroz’s political reform. Something like: we will give you the improved law on election, and you will give us the political reform, or, what is simpler, the old order with new government! Such position of the power and its stooges can be understood: they deposited many resources for giving the top post to their candidate. Yet, they failed.
It is obvious that Yushchenko will become the President. So, the only way out is to neutralize him with his own hands. Realizing the essence of the agreements between Yushchenko and Moroz on support of the political reform, the pro-power politics played on Moroz’s «paternal» feeling to the political reform and persuaded him that the reform should be introduced as soon as possible. It seems that Moroz has forgotten about the priorities for the sake of his brainchild: that it is necessary at first to remove the criminal power, which has always ignored the Constitution and Ukrainian Laws, and only then it will be reasonable to create the new rules of play for new power, which would replace the present one. He and his team either do not see, or do not want to see the simple thing: the criminal power will obey no Constitution and no laws. And the neglect by Kuchma and Yanukovich of the Supreme Council resolution on distrust to the government vividly confirms that.
Well, what should be done next?
To go to the election under the condition of the unpunished activities of present regime, with old composition of commissions, with the off-list tickets, with hacked servers and bandits at election stations? If V. Yanukovich would win in this situation, then our «unbiased» Constitutional Court would be able to acknowledge as illegitimate the introduction of changes into the Constitution through the package. Is not it too high price for the political reform, Mr. Moroz?
It is a pity that Oleksandr Moroz does not want to see this simple truth. First, we should be afraid not of «coming» Yushchenko, but of the present regime. Secondly, it is desirable to recollect, at least sometimes, about the millions of our citizens, who are freezing on the squares for two weeks not for the political reform, but for truth and against the present regime.
However, I reckon that the situation is not hopeless all the same. Ukraine has changed after 21 November 2004. I am sure that on 26 December Yushchenko will be elected even without Moroz’s assistance. And where the place of socialists and their leader will be then?
People know a simple formula: appointment of new government – new composition of the CEC – specified law on election – replacement of heads of regional state administrations – honest election campaign – honest election – new President – establishment of order in the state – real political reform of all power system in Kyiv and regions – parliamentary election of 2006. All this should be done for the sake of people, this is a truth, and for the sake of this truth people do not want to leave squares.
History will show who betrayed whom on 4 December in the Supreme Council. The main task today is not to betray people, which have relied on Yushchenko and see in his person the guarantee of forming of honest power. The temporary disagreement with Moroz means nothing in comparison with the loss of people’s belief in victory. This political reform, which is not able to solve the problems of Ukrainian society, is expedited just for causing of dissention and for stultifying of the victory of people over the cynical regime. The immoral and criminal power will use the model of power «from Moroz» in its own interests, but not in interests of the people. The question is not so much in laws as in their observance.
4 December 2004
Round table «Human rights in Ukraine: modern state and prospects» was held in the Supreme Council
On 10 December 2004 the world community celebrated the International day of human rights. This is the day of adoption by the UNO General Assembly of the Universal Declaration of human rights. This act initiated the process of the development of international system of human rights protection, that is the observance of human rights and freedoms exceeded the bounds of jurisdiction of one state and became the problem of the entire world community.
On this day the Committee in charge of human rights, national minorities and interethnic relations of the Supreme Council of Ukraine traditionally conducted the sitting of the round table «Human rights in Ukraine: modern state and prospects». MPs of Ukraine, ombudsperson, heads of ministries and departments, in particular, the force structures, as well as representatives of non-governmental human rights protecting organizations, took part in the round table. Head of the Committee G. Udovenko delivered a report, 17 persons took part in the discussion of this report.
The participants of the round table established that, during the years of independence, the proper legislative base for the protection of human rights had been created in Ukraine. The high standards of the Universal Declaration are reflected in the Ukrainian Constitution in full measure. The Supreme Council of Ukraine consistently works at legislative provision of the Constitutional norms. In particular, the Laws «On citizenship of Ukraine», «On national minorities in Ukraine», «On immigration», «On refugees», «On legal status of foreigners and apatrides», «On appeals of citizens» were adopted, as well as the Laws that envisaged the mechanism of realization of the right to free election of power organs, freedom of association into political parties and public organizations, freedom of movement, etc. Now the Ukrainian legislation in this sphere meets the best world standards.
However, it was also said at the sitting that the tendencies to violation of fundamental constitutional rights were observed in Ukraine, in particular, the right to peaceful assemblies and demonstrations, the right for free access to information and the freedom of expression. The cases occur of persecution and discrimination of people because of their political views. This became especially obvious during the Presidential election-2004. In particular, the observers and representatives of mass media were removed from election stations, people were intimidated, kidnapped, beaten, illegally detained. The access of MPs was blocked. Dictaphones, cassettes, materials were taken away from public activists and journalists, their video and photo cameras were broken and the films and tapes with the records of violations were destroyed. Students were expelled from institutes.
Taking into account the fact that the celebration of the International Day of human rights was ignored not only by President’s administration, governmental structures and the judicial power branch, but also by central mass media, the editorial board of «Prava ludyny» decided to publish «The resolution of the Committee in charge of human rights, national minorities and interethnic relations of the Supreme Council of Ukraine adopted as a result of the round table «Human rights in Ukraine: modern state and prospects» devoted to the International Day of human rights».
«The participants of the round table «Human rights in
Publication of 03 1, 2005.
|
