Doc. 9045

20 April 2001

Freedom of expression and the functioning of parliamentary democracy in Ukraine

Recommendation 1497 (2001)

Reply from the Committee of Ministers

adopted at the 750th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (18 April 2001)

1.       The Committee of Ministers shares the concerns expressed by the Assembly in its Resolution 1239 (2001) “on freedom of expression and the functioning of parliamentary democracy in Ukraine” to which Recommendation 1497 (2001) refers. It has brought the Recommendation to the attention of the member Governments.

2.       In this context, the Committee of Ministers also recalls that, within the framework of its own monitoring procedure, a stock-taking on the theme “freedom of expression and information” is currently under preparation on the basis of contacts made and information collected by the Secretary General, following the decision of the Ministers’ Deputies on 5 and 6 June 2000.

3.       As regards more specific issues raised in Recommendation 1497 (2001), the Committee of Ministers wishes to draw the Assembly’s attention to the fact that, in compliance with sub-paragraph 1 (i) of this Recommendation, the Ukrainian Delegation to the Committee of Ministers informed the Ministers’ Deputies of the results of the investigation regarding the disappearance of the journalist Heorhiy Gongadze on 1 March and 18 April 2001. This information appears in Appendix I.

4.       With respect to sub-paragraph 1(ii) of the Recommendation, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly transmitted to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers a letter by the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament, dated 14 March 2001. In his letter, the Speaker confirmed the interest of the Ukrainian Parliament in obtaining assistance from the Council of Europe with a view to arranging for the independent examinations referred to in the Assembly’s Recommendation and in the Resolution of the Ukrainian Parliament of 21 December 2000 “on measures regarding speeding-up investigation into the case of journalist Heorhiy Gongadze’s disappearance”, namely the examinations of:

-       the original audio-tapes regarding the case of Gongadze, in order to establish their authenticity;

-       the corpse found near Tarasha, in order to establish the exact time and reasons of death, including a new DNA expertise.

5.       The Committee of Ministers notes that the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament, in his letter to the President of the Parliamentary Assembly, requests that such examinations be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (ETS No. 30) – which has been in force in Ukraine since 9 June 1998 - as well as current legislation of Ukraine.

6.       Therefore, the Committee of Ministers invites the member states, which are Parties to the Convention No. 30 (see list in Appendix II), to afford their assistance to Ukraine in arranging for an independent examination of the above-mentioned audio-tapes and the corpse “for the purpose of procuring evidence”, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, pending the confirmation by the competent Ukrainian authorities of this request, in compliance with Article 15 of the Convention and the Declaration made thereto by Ukraine on 31 January 2000.

7.       With respect to sub-paragraph 1 (iv) of the Recommendation, the Ukrainian Delegation to the Committee of Ministers presented to the Ministers’ Deputies on 1 March 2001 an “aide-mémoire” including proposals for a series of activities relating to the freedom of the media for which the expertise and support of the Council of Europe was requested (see Appendix III).

8.       In the light of these proposals, an Action Plan has been proposed (see Appendix IV). The plan aims at assisting the Ukrainian authorities in setting up and applying a regulatory framework for the media in keeping with the relevant instruments of the Council of Europe, particularly Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. The plan also aims at promoting the development of a range of free, independent and pluralistic media in Ukraine.

9.       The Committee of Ministers notes that no funds are currently available to finance this ambitious programme of support for reform in the media field and, therefore, invites member states to provide voluntary contributions. A joint initiative with other institutions, notably with the European Union, might also be considered.

10.       The Committee of Ministers will continue to follow closely the situation in Ukraine as regards respect for the rule of law, pluralist democracy and human rights.”

Appendix I

1 March 2001

Information

on the results of investigation of the G. Gongadze case

Georgy Gongadze, Ukrainian journalist and editor of on-line publication “Ukrainska Pravda”, disappeared on September 16th 2000. He was last seen approximately at 22.30 on September 16th 2000 by witness O.Pritula, employee of “Ukrainska Pravda”. No information was received from G. Gongadze since then.

On September 19th 2000, the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Pechersky district of city of Kyiv instituted criminal proceedings on disappearance of journalist G. Gongadze.

On December 7th 2000, the criminal case was taken for further investigation by the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine in order to ensure complete, comprehensive and objective investigation.

On December 3rd 2000, a separate criminal proceedings were instituted on the fact of finding a decapitated corpse in the forest of Tarascha district, Kyiv region.

Later on, taking into consideration the assumption that the Tarascha-found corpse may belong to G. Gongadze, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine united the two mentioned cases into a single proceeding.

During the preliminary investigation more than 200 persons were questioned and more than 20 expertise were conducted with involvement of foreign experts in some of them.

In particular, the following main expertise were carried out in order to determine whether the body found near Tarascha belonged to G. Gongadze:

-       comprehensive forensic expertise was carried out by the Main Forensic Expertise Bureau of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine. The expertise established that the found corpse is a male one aged 30-39, height limited to 177-184 cm. There were found splinter-made wounds on the corpse in the area of the right forearm, right hand and right humeral joint which were caused during the life of the man; they had characteristics of an explosion-related trauma with injury by metal splinters. Expert investigation allowed assuming that the decay processes of the unidentified body had lasted for approximately 2-3 months. The experts did not identify the cause of death of the Tarascha-found corpse;

-       forensic-genotypicoscopic expertise was carried out by experts of the Main Forensic Expertise Bureau of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine with involvement of experts of the state agency “Russian Center for Forensic Expertise of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation”. According to the conclusions of the experts, the calculated combined (relative) probability of the fact that O.T. Gongadze is the mother of unidentified man, whose fragmentary remains were examined, is no less than 99.60%.

-       forensic-pedologic expertise was carried out by Kyiv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Expertise of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. Its results together with other materials of the investigation give ground for perception that the corpse found in Tarascha district, Kyiv region was reburied. Besides, the place where the corpse was found (near a road) showed that the burial was conducted in a way that the corpse would be easily discovered.

On December 18th 2000, identification of the found corpse by Myroslava Gongadze – the wife of G. Gongadze – was carried out. During the examination the latter stated that there was a great probability that the corpse presented to her for identification belonged to her husband.

At the same time, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine recorded written testimonies of the witnesses, including acquaintances of G. Gongadze (witness G. Royik, witness N. Panchuk, witness S. Shapova and witness S. Matsyshyn), who saw him alive after disappearance. Thus, witness G. Royik said that she had met G. Gongadze for the last time in the city of Lviv on Monday September 18th at 3.30 pm approximately. Witness N. Panchuk said that she had met Gongadze at premises of a bank on Lviv on December 22nd 2000. Witnesses S. Shapova and S. Matsyshyn gave evidence that they had seen Gongadze in Lviv in late November – early December 2000.

Taking into consideration the above-mentioned testimonies, the investigating bodies for a certain period of time found no sufficient grounds to recognize that the Tarascha-found corpse belonged to Gongadze.

At the same time, the investigating bodies undertook additional investigatory and operative actions to conduct final identification of the Tarascha-found corpse. In particular, the investigating bodies took into account the conclusions of professor P. Ivanov, forensic expert of “Russian Centre for Forensic Expertise of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation “ which he received as the result of additional research on his own initiative. According to the mentioned conclusions, the combined probability that bone fragments of the unidentified man’s body corpse may belong to G.Gongadze is no less than 99.9%. In order to verify these data, in accordance with legislation on criminal proceedings, an additional forensic-genotypicoscopic expertise is scheduled. It is planned that the experts of the FBI and the Ministry of Defense of the USA will be involved.

On February 26th 2001, taking into consideration the results of the actions taken, the investigating bodies recognized that the Tarascha-found corpse belonged to Gongadze.

On February 27th 2001, the Prosecutor General of Ukraine decided to institute criminal proceedings on premeditated murder of G. Gongadze.

The Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine also recognised mother and wife of G. Gongadze as aggrieved side. In accordance with the provisions of criminal proceedings legislation of Ukraine, they may produced evidences, make requests and have their representative regarding the criminal case as well as have access to all materials of the criminal case after conclusion of the investigation.

During the investigation of G. Gongadze case the investigating bodies are working out several versions, in particular the version of murder of G. Gongadze because of his professional activities, because of possible debts or because of common reasons.

As of 28th February 2001, none of the above-mentioned versions can be finally confirmed despite the considerable volume of investigatory and operative actions.

Special attention was paid by the investigating bodies to the investigation on the version on the premeditated murder of G. Gongadze as a reason of his professional activities. In this regard, the version of involvement of top officials of Ukraine to the disappearance of G. Gongadze was investigated.

This version was examined after the statement of People’s Deputy O. Moroz, who, having promulgated on November 28th at the session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine the audio records of alleged conversations of the President of Ukraine and other officials regarding G. Gongadze, transferred to the Office of the Prosecutor General three audio cassettes containing records of relevant content.

On December 11th 2000, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine received a videocassette containing a record of statement of Mr Melnychenko made in the presence of People’s Deputies of Ukraine S. Holovaty, V. Shyshkin and O. Zhyr regarding implication of the President of Ukraine and of several other high officials of the state to the issuing of illegal orders. While making a statement, Mr Melnychenko referred to the records at his disposal that contained conversations allegedly made in the working cabinet of the President using a digital dictaphone, placed under a sofa.

On December 13th 2000, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine received a request of People’s Deputy O. Moroz containing a copy of statement of Mr Melnychenko dated 16 November 20000 and a videocassette containing the record with accusation of the above-mentioned officials of involvement to the kidnapping of journalist G. Gongadze.

With the purpose of examination of the mentioned accusations the investigating bodies conducted special expertise and interrogated persons concerned.

In order to establish the authenticity of audio records promulgated by O. Moroz, in accordance with the orders of the investigating bodies, a phonoscopic expertise and two additional phonoscopic expertise were conducted (including the one made after reconstruction of environment and conditions of the event, conducted in the Cabinet of the President of Ukraine with participation of the investigator and expert to check the possibility of conducting of audio recording in the way described by Mr Melnychenko).

In accordance with the conclusions of phonoscopic expertise conducted by Kyiv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Expertise of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, the phonograms contained in the presented compact cassettes are copies that are affixed through re-recording from previously created models. The models from which re-recording of the phonograms under expertise was made, consist of no less than 14 separate episodes that are artificially connected using selection (montage). The models are also not originals. Linguistic signal on the models of phonograms was subject to editing (through exclusion or insertion of separate phrases, words, fragments of words, sounds). Methodical requirements for phonograms as material evidences, in which signal was subject to sampling and editing, put them into the type of objects for which it is impossible to determine authenticity of information using expert methods. Some parts of phonograms were recorded using microphone that was not screened by acoustic absorbent objects, e.g. sofa, chairs, etc. The statements of Mr Melnychenko about placement of microphone of sound recording device underneath a sofa (which is a sound screening object) during fixation of separate fragments of conversations under expertise do not correspond to the discovered results. It is impossible to determine if certain phrases were pronounced by L.Kuchma, Yu.Kravchenko, V.Lytvin and L.Derkach because of the editing (exclusion or insertion of separate phrases, words, fragments of words, sounds) and low quality of the examined recordings that does not allow to single out a sufficient complex of indications for scientifically grounded expert identification of a person.

On November 30th 2000, President of Ukraine L.Kuchma was interrogated. He stated that he had never issued illegal orders or assignments and that he had no relation to the disappearance of G.Gongadze. On the contrary, he demanded from the heads of law enforcement agencies to speed up the investigation of G.Gongadze case.

Head of Administration of the President of Ukraine V.Lytvin and Minister for Internal Affairs Yu.Kravchenko denied the fact of conversations of the President of Ukraine regarding kidnapping of G.Gongadze and denied their connection to the masterminding of the plan and execution of kidnapping of the journalist G.Gongadze. On the other hand, they confirmed that the President of Ukraine issued orders to the law enforcement agencies to undertake necessary measures in order to find G.Gongadze.

Head of the Administration of State Guard of V.Shepei, when interrogated as a witness, stated that taking into consideration the existing system of guarding of the Cabinet of the President of Ukraine, it is impossible to conduct recording of his conversations there. Such conclusion is confirmed by the testimonies of another 26 employees of the Administration of State Guard and of the Administration of the President of Ukraine. In accordance with the Instruction of the Administration of State Guard, Mr Melnychenko, both under his duties and as provided by the order of examination of the cabinet of the President of Ukraine, was not a member of the inner circle of guard of the President of Ukraine.

The facts of commission of illegal actions by the President and top officials of Ukraine (in particular, regarding the circumstances of shadowing of G. Gongadze, making pressure on one of the Heads of District Department of Internal Affairs of Chernihiv region, circumstances of transfer of the premises of the Narodny Rukh of Ukraine, organisation of physical elimination of V. Chornovol), contained in Melnychenko’s audio records, were examined in detail during the investigation and were not confirmed.

On the basis of the results of the above-mentioned expertise and obtained testimonies the investigating bodies established the following:

1.       impossibility of audio recording in the cabinet of the President of Ukraine in the way described by Mr Melnychenko;

2.       audio records of conversations on behalf of state officials contained in the cassettes transferred to the investigating bodies by People’s Deputy O. Moroz are put together from separate fragments and words, which in fact is a falsification;

3.       it is impossible to determine if the voices contained in the mentioned cassettes belong to the top officials.

On December 3rd 2000, taking into consideration the aforesaid, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine refused to institute criminal proceedings against President of Ukraine L. Kuchma, Head of Administration of the President of Ukraine V. Lytvin and Minister for Internal Affairs Yu. Kravchenko.

As of 28th February 2001 the investigating bodies do not have any information that could confirm the existence of the originals of Mr Melnychenko’s audio records or that could reveal their location.

The investigating bodies undertake all necessary measures in order to obtain the originals of the audio records, if they do exist, which may permit to establish their authenticity for certain.

On January 4th 2001, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine instituted criminal proceedings against Mr Melnychenko on the corpus delicti provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 125 of Criminal Code of Ukraine – libel of top officials of the State, concerning their involvement to disappearance of G. Gongadze.

On February 14th 2001, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, having considered new episodes of the case, instituted criminal proceedings against Mr Melnychenko on the corpus delicti provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 166 of Criminal Code of Ukraine – exceeding of authority and official duties and in paragraph 2 of Article 67 – dissemination of information that contains state secret.

At the same time, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine sent to INTERPOL a request on international search of Mr Melnychenko.

In order to complete the G. Gongadze case the investigating bodies are additionally conducting a considerable volume of investigatory and operative actions.

A joint investigating group was established and a plan of additional joint investigatory actions of the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, the Ministry for Internal Affairs of Ukraine and the Security Service of Ukraine was elaborated. The Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine sent a request to the competent authorities of the United States to consider possibility of providing assistance in investigation of G.Gongadze case. The Director of FBI L.Freeh positively responded to the request.

The investigating bodies do not have any objection to the involvement of foreign experts by expert institutions of Ukraine if there are grounds for conducting additional expertise.

April 12 2001

Annex to Appendix I distributed by the Ukrainian Delegation on March 1, 2001

at the 739th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies

regarding the results of the investigation into the G. Gongadze case

The Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine continues the investigation of the criminal case No. 60-1241 on premeditated murder of G. Gongadze.

Currently, the investigation group of the Office of the General Prosecutor of Ukraine proceeds with working out three suggested versions, namely:

- the murder of G. Gongadze was committed in connection with his professional activity;

- the murder of G. Gongadze was committed on common grounds;

- the murder of G. Gongadze was committed because of possible debts.

Over 50 witnesses have been interrogated in the course of the investigation since March 1, 2001.

The investigating operative group of the Office of the General Prosecutor of Ukraine is analysing the information obtained through investigation means on possible involvement into the murder of G. Gongadze of Kyiv residents belonging to one of the organised criminal groups – citizens D. and G., who disappeared at the beginning of November 2000. Elaboration of this version established the fact that these persons were murdered. Due to joint actions of the bodies of the Prosecutor General’s Office and of the Interior forces, the suspects involved in the murder of the mentioned persons were identified and the location of the corpses of D. and G. was discovered. At present, possible involvement of these persons in the murder of G. Gongadze is being verified.

Besides, as a result of preliminary investigation conducted by the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine the data was obtained, that information about the circumstances of the murder of G. Gongadze could be possibly known to citizen K., who is currently in custody at the Interior house of detention in the Donetsk region for committing a number of grave crimes, including premeditated murders by order.

During interrogation citizen K. told that in June 2000 an acquaintance of him had called him to convey an order for a murder of a famous oppositional journalist in Kyiv, mentioning the remuneration of US $ 100,000. Approximately in mid-July 2000 citizen K. met with a stranger who told him that the person to be murdered was not a journalist, but an elected deputy – formerly a journalist. In the course of further contacts with two other strangers citizen K. handed them his photo for a forfeited passport and received in return US $ 1300 for the purchase of a weapon. On September 1, 2000 citizen K. received from the above strangers an additional order and for additional payment of US $ 20,000 to kill a businessman in the Donetsk city. On the murder spot in Donetsk citizen K. was told to leave a floppy disk given to him by the mentioned strangers, while the weapon that was to be used for the killing of the businessman should have been used also when executing the order in Kyiv.

Presently, the testimony of K. is being verified through investigation means and operative and search actions.

Further measures are being taken to carry out necessary additional court examinations in the case (genotypescopic and forensic), including with the engagement of the FBI and US Defense Department experts.

Addressing the FBI and the US Embassy in Ukraine, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine stressed its readiness for fruitful co-operation in investigating the case of G. Gongadze murder with American experts, within the framework of the effective legislation of Ukraine and ratified international binding instruments that are part of Ukraine’s legislation.

Taking into account that respective examinations will be made on the territory of the United States, the Office of the Prosecutor General Ukraine also declared its readiness to grant its consent for conducting by American experts of their own examinations of the Tarascha body, with participation of Ukrainian experts.

According to the reached arrangements, on March 7, 2001 a group of representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine and American experts visited the Lviv city with the intention to take samples of blood from the aggrieved side – the mother and the wife of G. Gongadze, as well as from his children, with the purpose to conduct DNA examinations to finally confirm belonging of the Tarascha body to Georgiy Gongadze.

However during the meeting the aggrieved side – the mother and wife of G. Gongadze refused to give their blood samples and blood samples of G. Gongadze’s children and refused to provide Gongadze’s medical documents, which they possessed, laying down certain preconditions, in particular:

- that expert examinations should be held to establish the date and causes of deaths;

- that X-ray screening of the corpse should be done in the presence of G. Gongadze’s mother and foreign forensic experts, so that the received X-ray pictures could be compared with the ones possessed by the mother.

Proceeding from the need to make all steps aimed at the soonest breaking of G. Gongadze’s murder and despite the refusal of the mother and the wife of G. Gongadze to provide medical documents and blood samples, the investigating bodies allowed American experts to take necessary samples from the Tarascha body. The Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine agreed also to conduct necessary expert examinations with account of the above preconditions.

Speaking about establishment of the time and causes of death of Gongadze, it should be mentioned that the entire investigation, instituted right after the initiation of criminal proceedings on Gongadze murder, is aimed at the establishment of this information, including through conducting relevant forensic examinations.

Moreover, the investigating bodies undertook all preliminary measures at their disposal to meet the preconditions set forth by the aggrieved side in Lviv. Thus, on March 21 2001 the investigator proposed the mother of Gongadze and her lawyer to conduct examination of the corpse and to take necessary X-ray photographs. These actions were initially scheduled on Friday 23 March 2001. However, on the morning of that day the lawyer of Gongadze’s mother informed the investigating officer by phone that the aggrieved side would not participate in examination of the corpse because of emergence of new circumstances, which were to be reported to the investigation afterwards.

Additional consultations conducted between the Office of Prosecutor General of Ukraine, US Embassy and the aggrieved side – the mother and the wife of Gongadze – and with participation of the First Deputy Foreign Minister – Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the Council of Europe Mr O Chalyi, give grounds to hope that American experts would conduct examinations of the Tarascha body in the nearest future (possibly in the period between 23 and 27 April 2001), with due account of the mentioned Lviv-laid preconditions. From its side, the Office of Prosecutor General of Ukraine will provide American experts with full access to the Tarascha body for conducting relevant examinations.

The Office of Prosecutor General of Ukraine, having obtained information about DNA research conducted in Germany upon the request of People’s Deputy of Ukraine S Holovaty, addressed German competent authorities on 27 February 2001 with the respective request of legal assistance in order to obtain officially those conclusions.

Right after Mr S Holovaty had made public the conclusions of the Germany-made DNA research, the Office of Prosecutor General of Ukraine submitted an additional request to competent authorities of Germany for requisitioning of examined objects to check the conclusions of German specialists through additional genotypescopic examination, which is to be conducted by the Main Forensic Expertise Bureau of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine.

As of 12 April 2001, the Office of Prosecutor General of Ukraine received no response this request.

Besides, the Office of Prosecutor General of Ukraine clarifies that the conclusions of the examination, made public by People’s Deputy S Holovaty, cannot have any legal effect and cannot be used as evidence in criminal case, because both the examination and selection of samples for it were conducted in defiance of requirements of current Ukrainian laws and international agreements, to which Ukraine is a party.

As of 12 April 2001, the Ukrainian investigating bodies possess no information that would confirm existence of original audio records of Mr Melnychenko concerning the disappearance of journalist G.Gongadze, or that would identify their location.

The Temporary Investigation Commission of the Parliament of Ukraine also informs that it has only copies of these audio records and not originals at its disposal, which is confirmed in the official letter of the Chairman of the Commission (attached).

VERKHOVA RADA (PARLIAMENT) OF UKRAINE

Temporary Investigation Commission

#06-46/135

12 April 2001

To: First Deputy Minister

of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine

Permanent Representative of Ukraine

To the Council of Europe

Mr. O. Chalyi

Reference: #21/4-074/1-498 from 9 April 2001

Dear Mr Chalyi,

Following your request to inform the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine about availability at the Parliamentary Temporary Investigation Commission of original audio records pertaining to disappearance of journalist G. Gongadze, we inform you that only copies of the above records were submitted to the Commission, that is the Commission has no original records at its disposal.

Respectfully,

Chairman of the Temporary

Investigation Commission

(signed)

O. Lavrynovych

9 April 2001       No. 21/4-074/1-498

URGENT

To: Chairman of the Temporary Investigation Commission

Of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine

On investigating the criminal case

Concerning disappearance of journalist G. Gongadze,

the People’s Deputy of Ukraine

O.V. Lavrynovych

Dear Mr Lavrynovych,

The Ukrainian media spread information about readiness of some people’s deputies of Ukraine – members of the Temporary Investigation Commission chaired by you – to hand over to the Council of Europe the original audio records concerning the disappearance of journalist G. Gongadze, with the purpose to arrange for their independent expertise and to establish their authenticity, as it is provided for by the PACE Recommendation 1497 (2001).

Taking into account that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe at Deputies level is to discuss the issue of the PACE Recommendaton 1497 (2001) on 18 April 2001, we ask you to inform the Foreign Ministry about the availability of the originals of the mentioned audio records at the disposal of the Parliamentary Temporary Investigation Committee.

Respectfully,

First Deputy Minister –

Permanent Representative of Ukraine

to the Council of Europe

(signed)

O. Chalyi

Appendix II

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
ETS n° : 030

Treaty open for signature by the member States and for accession by non-member States

Status as of 05/04/01

OPENING FOR SIGNATURE :
Place : Strasbourg
Date : 20/04/59

ENTRY INTO FORCE :
Conditions : 3 Ratifications.
Date : 12/06/62

Member States of the Council of Europe:

States

Date of
signature

Date of
ratification

Date of entry
into force

Notes

R.

D.

A.

T.

C.

O.

Albania

19/05/98

04/04/00

03/07/00

 

X

X

       

Andorra

                   

Armenia

                   

Austria

20/04/59

02/10/68

31/12/68

 

X

X

X

     

Azerbaijan

                   

Belgium

20/04/59

13/08/75

11/11/75

 

X

X

X

     

Bulgaria

30/09/93

17/06/94

15/09/94

 

X

X

X

     

Croatia

07/05/99

07/05/99

05/08/99

   

X

X

     

Cyprus

27/03/96

24/02/00

24/05/00

 

X

X

       

Czech Republic

13/02/92

15/04/92

01/01/93

17

 

X

X

     

Denmark

20/04/59

13/09/62

12/12/62

 

X

X

X

     

Estonia

04/11/93

28/04/97

27/07/97

 

X

X

X

     

Finland

 

29/01/81 (a)

29/04/81

 

X

X

X

     

France

28/04/61

23/05/67

21/08/67

 

X

X

X

X

   

Georgia

27/04/99

13/10/99

11/01/00

 

X

X

X

     

Germany

20/04/59

02/10/76

01/01/77

   

X

X

X

   

Greece

20/04/59

23/02/62

12/06/62

 

X

         

Hungary

19/11/91

13/07/93

11/10/93

 

X

X

X

     

Iceland

27/09/82

20/06/84

18/09/84

 

X

X

X

     

Ireland

15/10/96

28/11/96

26/02/97

 

X

X

X

     

Italy

20/04/59

23/08/61

12/06/62

   

X

X

     

Latvia

30/10/96

02/06/97

31/08/97

   

X

X

     

Liechtenstein

 

28/10/69 (a)

26/01/70

 

X

         

Lithuania

09/11/94

17/04/97

16/07/97

 

X

X

X

     

Luxembourg

20/04/59

18/11/76

16/02/77

 

X

X

X

     

Malta

06/09/93

03/03/94

01/06/94

 

X

X

X

     

Moldova

02/05/96

04/02/98

05/05/98

 

X

X

X

     

Netherlands

21/01/65

14/02/69

15/05/69

 

X

X

X

X

   

Norway

21/04/61

14/03/62

12/06/62

 

X

X

X

     

Poland

09/05/94

19/03/96

17/06/96

   

X

X

     

Portugal

10/05/79

27/09/94

26/12/94

   

X

X

 

X

 

Romania

30/06/95

17/03/99

15/06/99

   

X

X

     

Russia

07/11/96

10/12/99

09/03/00

 

X

X

X

     

San Marino

29/09/00

                 

Slovakia

13/02/92

15/04/92

01/01/93

17

 

X

X

     

Slovenia

26/02/99

                 

Spain

24/07/79

18/08/82

16/11/82

 

X

X

X

     

Sweden

20/04/59

01/02/68

01/05/68

 

X

X

X

     

Switzerland

29/11/65

20/12/66

20/03/67

 

X

X

X

     

the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

28/07/99

28/07/99

26/10/99

             

Turkey

23/10/59

24/06/69

22/09/69

   

X

       

Ukraine

29/05/97

11/03/98

09/06/98

 

X

X

X

     

United Kingdom

21/06/91

29/08/91

27/11/91

 

X

X

X

     

Non-member States of the Council of Europe:

States

Date of
signature

Date of
ratification

Date of entry
into force

Notes

R.

D.

A.

T.

C.

O.

Israel

 

27/09/67 (a)

26/12/67

 

X

X

X

     

Total number of signatures not followed by ratifications :

2

Total number of ratifications/accessions :

39

Notes :

(17) Dates of signature and ratification by the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic.

(a) Accession - (s) Signature without reservation as to ratification - (su) Succession - (r) Signature "ad referendum".
R.: Reservations - D.: Declarations - A.: Authorities - T.: Territorial Application - C.: Communication - O.: Objection.

Appendix III

1 March 2001

Aide-Memoire

on the implementation of provisions

of subparagraph (iv) paragraph 1 of Recommendation 1497 (2001)

of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

1.       Ukraine is interested in a constructive co-operation with the Council of Europe in implementing Recommendation 1497 (2001) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in order to improve the general framework in which mass media operate.

2.       The Ukrainian side expresses its gratitude to the Council of Europe for the attention and assistance rendered by the Organisation in securing freedom of expression and unimpeded activities of mass media. Ukraine will take all possible actions to fulfil the scheduled programmes of co-operation with the Council of Europe for 2001, in particular:

-       organisation of the seminar on Regulation and Self-regulation of Journalists` Activities (Kyiv, 4th quarter of 2001);

-       carrying out legal expertise of Ukraine’s legislation in the sphere of mass media by the Council of Europe (throughout 2001).

3.       Ukraine counts on providing greater assistance by the Council of Europe in order to achieve a noticeable improvement of the general framework in which mass media operate and to promote substantial changes in the media culture of officials and journalists in compliance with the provisions of subparagraph (iv) paragraph 1 of Recommendation 1497 (2001) of the PACE.

4.       Within the framework of fulfilment of subparagraph (iv) paragraph 1 of the mentioned Recommendation of the PACE the Ukrainian side proposes to undertake the following activities with organisational, financial and expert support of the Council of Europe:

in the legal sphere

-       to engage Council of Europe experts in the process of bringing Ukraine’s legislation to conformity with the Council of Europe standards in the light of recommendations on the protection of journalists, freedom of expression and access to information (Rec (2000) 23, Rec (2000) 7, Rec (99) 15, Rec (99) 1 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe);

-       to hold a consultative meeting with Council of Europe experts with participation of relevant Committee of the Verkhovna Rada and the State Committee on Informational Policy, TV and Radio Broadcasting on the issue of ratification of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television and the Protocol thereto.

-       to carry out translation and publication in Ukrainian of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights concerning Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with the purpose of increasing the awareness of mass media representatives and officials of the mechanism of protecting freedom of expression under this Article;

-       to work out a programme of seminars for judges of courts of different levels concerning the application of Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms on the basis of case-law of the European Court of Human Rights;

in the sphere of education and culture

-       to ensure the participation of Ukrainian mass media representatives in the activities within the framework of the Council of Europe’s “European year of languages (2001)”, the Conference on application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (the Netherlands, September 2001) and the Conference “Linguistic Policies for a Multicultural Communities” (Birmingham, October 2001) in order to promote a speedy and effective integration of Ukraine into the European informational space;

-       to organise regular traineeships of young Ukrainian journalists in relevant structures of the Secretariat of the Council of Europe, in particular, in the Mass Media Division of the General Directorate on Human Rights and in the Department of Mass Media and Public Relations;

-       to hold round-tables for mass media representatives of Ukraine with the purpose of expanding their knowledge of the legal basis of the journalists activities in accordance with Council of Europe standards.

in the sphere of public relations

-       to work out and to implement a programme of development of regional press and TV and radio broadcasting as well as mass media of local self-government and to promote public broadcasting;

-       to conduct training courses for the representatives of public relations departments of law enforcement agencies of Ukraine to increase the culture of their interaction with journalists;

-       to hold a round-table with participation of the representatives of Ukrainian and international journalist organisations and public authorities with the purpose of searching the ways of improving the general framework in which mass media operate in Ukraine;

-       to conduct series of all-national radio and TV programmes on the theme of freedom of expression and access to information in accordance with Council of Europe standards.

5.       In order to provide even greater assistance to Ukraine to achieve a noticeable improvement of the general framework in which media operate and to promote substantial changes in the media culture of its officials and journalists, the Ukrainian side proposes to elaborate a Joint programme between the Council of Europe and the Commission of the European Communities to ensure relevant funding of the above-mentioned activities.

Appendix IV

Action Plan for the Media in Ukraine

Introduction

1.       At its last session (January 2001), the Parliamentary Assembly adopted Recommendation 1497 (2001) and Resolution 1239 (2001) on freedom of expression and the functioning of parliamentary democracy in Ukraine, the texts of which appear in Appendices I and II. With particular reference to the Recommendation, the Parliamentary Assembly asked the Committee of Ministers “to provide greater assistance to Ukraine in order to achieve a noticeable improvement of the general framework in which media operate and to promote substantial changes in the media culture of its officials and journalists”.

2.       In response to the Recommendation, the Ukrainian delegation presented, at the 739th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (1 March 2001), an information document, entitled “Aide-Memoire”, listing a series of proposals for action which could be carried out with assistance from the Council of Europe. The document is set out in Appendix III.

3.       In the light of the proposals contained in the information document referred to above, and given the areas in which the Parliamentary Assembly has established that particular action is needed to improve the situation of the media in Ukraine, the Secretariat has drawn up the following Action Plan.

4.       This Action Plan lists some initiatives which could be taken to assist the Ukrainian authorities in setting up and applying a regulatory framework for the media in keeping with the relevant instruments of the Council of Europe, particularly Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Action Plan also contains various proposals for action to promote the development of a range of free, independent and pluralistic media in Ukraine.

5.       It should be noted that no funding is available at this stage to cover the implementation of this Action Plan. Should such funding be obtained, the Action Plan will be implemented in conjunction with the different authorities referred to in this document. Moreover, close co-operation will be established with other international authorities with an interest in freedom of expression and information and freedom of the media in Ukraine, especially the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, with whom the Council of Europe has already held a round-table discussion on defamation, which took place in Kiev in December 1999.

6.       The Action Plan will be implemented over an eighteen-month period (from mid-2001 to the end of 2002).

I.       Action relating to the regulatory framework for freedom of expression and information and freedom of the media in Ukraine

A.       Ensuring that the legal framework conforms to Council of Europe standards and instruments

1.       To ensure that Ukrainian law conforms to Council of Europe standards and instruments, as suggested by the Ukrainian authorities in their information document, it is proposed that a series of expert legal evaluations should be carried out. These would look at the various relevant Ukrainian laws, particularly those on the press, broadcasting, information, and support for the media and social protection of journalists, and would identify what changes were needed at legislative or regulatory level to ensure conformity.

2.       Depending on the nature of the texts to be examined and the availability of the authorities which would be involved in the process on the Ukrainian side, these expert evaluations could either be in situ missions or written analyses.

3.       For the record, the Council of Europe has provided legal assistance in the past, at the request of the Ukrainian parliament. This was in 1999 and 2000, and concerned a cable television bill and the law on the Ukrainian National Radio and Television Council.

Expert legal evaluations (in situ missions or written analyses)

Estimated cost: 20,000 euros

4.       In addition, as proposed by the Ukrainian authorities in their information document, specific action will be taken to encourage Ukraine’s ratification of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television (ETS no. 132), which guarantees freedom of reception and retransmission of transfrontier television services as long as they meet certain basic requirements specified by the Convention. For the record, Ukraine signed the Convention on 14 June 1996. As regards any changes to be made to bring the relevant Ukrainian laws (particularly the Broadcasting Law) into line with the Convention, assistance will be provided as part of the expert legal evaluations referred to above.

Consultative meeting with the Ukrainian authorities (Parliament and the State Council on Information Policy, Radio and Television) and the relevant professional bodies to discuss Ukraine’s accession to the European Convention on Transfrontier Television

Estimated cost: 10,000 euros

Total I.A: 30,000 euros

B.       Day-to-day application of legislation

5.       Over and above bringing Ukraine’s legislation into line with the relevant Council of Europe standards and instruments, particular emphasis will have to be given to the day-to-day application of the legislation in a manner which meets the requirements of a democratic society. With this in mind, it is proposed that a series of information and training activities should be organised on a long-term basis for officials involved in the application of legislation, namely civil servants, judges and representatives of the regulatory authority in the broadcasting sector, and tailored where necessary to the results of the expert legal evaluations referred to above.

6.       These activities will be intended firstly to familiarise those involved with the standards and instruments mentioned above, and secondly to encourage positive action to ensure that these standards and instruments are applied. In doing so, special attention will be paid to authorities in the regions which are called upon to deal with matters concerning freedom of expression and the functioning of the media.

7.       In this perspective, a special effort will be made to translate a number of basic Council of Europe texts and documents so as to make them more widely available to those who will benefit from these activities. These will include a summary of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights relating to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, with a selection of key judgments, plus Recommendations of the Committee of Ministers, and other texts. As far as is possible, given the subjects dealt with and the beneficiaries, emphasis will be placed on practical activities requiring the active participation of beneficiaries, such as practical case studies.

Training of judges in Council of Europe standards and instruments relating to freedom of expression and information (this will focus on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights; it will be decentralised wherever possible to regional level, and will be carried out in co-operation with the relevant official authorities, namely the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Court, but could also, if necessary, involve representatives of non-official bodies, such as barristers or other legal practitioners).

Estimated cost: 96,000 euros (8 seminars @ 12,000 euros per seminar).

Training of civil servants in matters concerning freedom of expression and freedom of the media (this will focus on priority questions raised by the current situation in Ukraine, especially that of access to information held by public authorities; media professionals will be invited take part as necessary when their rights and responsibilities are being dealt with).

Estimated cost: 72,000 euros (6 seminars @ 12,000 euros per seminar).

Assistance to the Ukrainian National Radio and Television Council (information visits to regulatory authorities in the broadcasting sector in other European countries for Council members or officials, provision of experts to advise on the reform of the procedures and operation of the Council)

Estimated cost: 30,000 euros (5 visits @ 2,000 euros per visit = 10,000 euros; provision of experts: 20,000 euros)

Translation into Ukrainian and publication of a selection of basic Council of Europe texts and documents relating to the media sector

Estimated cost: 20,000 euros

Total I.B: 218,000 euros

Total I.A + I.B: 248,000 euros

II.       Action to create a range of free, independent and pluralistic media

A       Public-sector media

8.       Drawing, amongst other things, on the results of the expert legal evaluations referred to above, which could if necessary be complemented by specific evaluation missions, a special programme will be set up to assist in the reform of the structures and working practices of public-sector broadcasting, with the aim of creating an independent public service broadcasting organisation in keeping with Council of Europe standards and instruments. In this area, particular emphasis will be given to editorial policy, with particular regard to the handling of information and current affairs. If necessary, related matters such as financial management and administrative organisation could also be covered.

9.       The programme will cover a range of activities, and will deal in particular with public-sector broadcasting management bodies and the staff involved in defining and supervising editorial policy. If necessary, these activities will be carried out in co-operation with public service broadcasting organisations in other member States.

Assistance programme for the reform of public-sector broadcasting (information and training visits for those responsible for editorial policy and management in public-sector broadcasting organisations of other member States, in situ advisory and assistance missions, training of staff in the editorial treatment of information).

Estimated cost: 30,000 euros (5 visits @ 2,000 euros per visit = 10,000 euros; provision of experts: 20,000 euros).

B       Private-sector media

10.       To assist with the development of economically viable private-sector media companies reflecting a range of different points of view and opinions, training activities will be organised in co-operation with professional media organisations. These will deal with various matters relating to the operation of media companies in a market economy (financial management, relations with advertisers, business strategy in relation to the public, and so on). Depending on the needs identified, the activities could also involve training journalists in the gathering and editorial treatment of information.

11.       For reasons of practicality, the training activities will be decentralised as necessary. Separate activities will be organised to take account of the differing needs of the print and broadcasting sectors. In an extension of the initiative already planned for this year in co-operation with the European Journalism Centre in Maastricht, particular emphasis will be given to the training of local trainers.

In situ training scheme to assist with the development of independent media organisations, set up in co-operation with professional organisations in the media sector (seminars and training workshops for publishers, editors and journalists in the print and broadcasting sectors, training of local trainers).

Estimated cost: 60,000 euros (5 seminars @ 12,000 euros per seminar).

12.       In addition to these in situ training activities, a special training programme for young Ukrainian journalists is proposed. This would take the form of training periods in a school of journalism in another member State of the Council of Europe. These training periods, which could last between one and two weeks, would be intended to give these young journalists basic training both in information-processing techniques and in the code of ethics of professional journalism. The school of journalism providing the training would choose the beneficiaries, through an in situ mission if necessary.

Overseas training programme for young Ukrainian journalists (this would be open to ten or so journalists and would last two weeks), including a limited number of short visits or longer-term training periods for journalists specialising in European affairs, organised in co-operation with the Council of Europe’s Media Relations Department.

Estimated cost: 70,000 euros.

Total II.A + II.B: 160,000 euros

Total I + II: 408,000 euros

III.       Implementation of the Action Plan

13.       Given the scale of the programme, and especially the desire to decentralise activities to various regions of Ukraine in order to reach as many people as possible and have maximum impact, it will not be possible to implement the plan solely from Strasbourg. It is therefore envisaged that a local programme adviser will be appointed. He or she will be responsible for organising activities in the field (including the selection of persons to take part). The Council of Europe’s Information Centre in Kiev will doubtless be able to lend logistical support to the programme adviser.

14.       Furthermore, there will have to be a small increase in the size of the team in Strasbourg responsible for the programme’s implementation.

Estimated cost: 30,000 euros

Grand total (I + II + III): 438,000 euros