|
|
Doc. 8666
14 March 2000
Reform of the institutions in Ukraine
Report
Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)
Rapporteurs: Mrs Hanne Severinsen, Denmark, Liberal, Democratic and Reformers' Group and Mrs Renate Wohlwend, Liechtenstein, Group of the European People's Party
Summary
On 15 January 2000, President Kuchma issued a decree calling for a national referendum on popular initiative to take place in Ukraine on 16 April 2000. Voters are invited to reply to six questions aiming at substantially increasing the powers of the President to the detriment of Parliament.
The rapporteurs consider that this referendum will not be valid for two main reasons:
it contradicts Ukraine's constitution, which can only be amended with the participation of
Parliament;
its modalities and organisation remain unclear.
By approving unanimously the draft recommendation and report, the Monitoring Committee urges the Parliamentary Assembly to recommend to the Committee of Ministers to suspend Ukraine's membership of the Council of Europe if the so-called "referendum" on the reform of institutions scheduled for 16 April 2000 takes place under the present circumstances.
I. Draft recommendation
1. The Assembly refers to its Resolutions 1179 (1999) and 1194 (1999) and its Recommendations 1395 (1999) and 1416 (1999) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Ukraine.
2. It welcomes a number of positive steps recently taken by the Ukrainian authorities, notably the decision of the Verkhovna Rada to authorise ratification of Protocol 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, following the ruling of the Constitutional Court that death penalty is unconstitutional, as well as ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
3. However, it expresses its deep concern as regards the so-called “referendum” on reform of the institutions scheduled for 16 April 2000, the modalities and organisation of which remain unclear.
4. It notes that the current Constitution in force since 1996 constitutes the main domestic legal instrument on the basis of which the country can develop a genuine democracy, and insists on strict respect of its provisions, in particular as regards amendments to the constitution, whatever their necessity and appropriateness.
5. It recalls that the Constitution provides in Articles 155 and 156 for a specific procedure to be followed to amend the Constitution, and this procedure should be respected.
6. Furthermore, the Assembly stresses that a valid referendum cannot be organised until a new law on a referendum procedure has been passed by the Verkhovna Rada.
7. It is concerned about the possible consequences for the separation of powers of an abrupt disruption in the system of checks and balances of the country’s institutions, aiming at substantially strengthening the role of the President and substantially weakening the role of Parliament.
8. The Assembly, therefore, recommends to the Committee of Ministers to suspend Ukraine’s membership of the Council of Europe if the so-called “referendum” on reform of institutions scheduled for 16 April 2000 takes place under the present circumstances.
II. Explanatory memorandum by Ms Severinsen and Ms Wohlwend
Table of contents
page
I. The political context surrounding the referendum 4
II. The President's decree of 15 January 2000 5
III. The constitutional provisions governing amendments to the constitution 7
IV. The legal environment of the referendum scheduled for 16 April 2000 8
V. Conclusions 9
Appendix I programme of the visit on 16-19 February 2000 10
Appendix II motion for a recommendation (Doc. 8637) 12
Appendix III letter from Lord Russell-Johnston to President Kuchma of
31 January 2000 14
1. On 27 January 2000, a motion for a recommendation (Doc. 8637) on the reform of the institutions in Ukraine was tabled. The following day, the Bureau of the Assembly referred this motion to the Monitoring committee for report and to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for an opinion.
2. The Monitoring committee decided to submit its report to the Assembly during its April 2000 part-session and instructed its co-rapporteurs to carry out a fact-finding visit to Kyiv as soon as possible. The visit took place on 16-19 February 2000 and the co-rapporteurs wish to express their gratitude to the Ukrainian authorities, in particular to the Ukrainian parliamentary delegation, for their co-operation and hospitality. The programme of the visit can be found in Appendix I.
3. The authors of the above-mentioned motion for a recommendation (reproduced in Appendix II) expressed their deep concern “with the recent decision of the President of the Ukraine to arrange a six-point national referendum on the reform of institutions for 16 April 2000. This decision is contrary to the Constitution of Ukraine of 1996, and disregards the law voted for two weeks ago by more than two-thirds of the members of the Verkhovna Rada calling for a moratorium on the referendum until the law is passed”.
4. All these events took place in the midst of an institutional crisis, including the split of the Verkhovna Rada into a majority that held sessions outside the Parliament’s headquarters and elected a new speaker, Mr Plyusch, and a minority led by the speaker elected in 1998, Mr Tkachenko.
5. On 15 January 2000, the President of Ukraine, Mr Kuchma, issued a decree calling for a nation-wide popular initiative referendum to be held on 16 April 2000.
6. A few days later, more than 100 members of the Verkhovna Rada appealed to the Constitutional Court to invalidate the President’s decree.
7. The Venice Commission has also been seized for an opinion by the President of the Parliamentary Assembly ; its final report is expected for 1 April 2000.
8. On 31 January, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly, Lord Russell-Johnston, sent a letter to President Kuchma (see Appendix III) in which he stated that “considering the controversial character of the initiative, it would seem advisable and even necessary to organise a consultation between all major political forces in Ukraine and with a view to reaching as broad an agreement as possible , before any further steps with regard to the organisation of the referendum are taken”.
9. In this report, we shall examine in turn :
- the political context surrounding the referendum ;
- the President’s decree of 15 January 2000 ;
- the constitutional provisions governing amendments to the constitution ;
- the legal environment of the referendum scheduled for 16 April 2000.
I. The political context surrounding the referendum
10. On 14 November 1999, Mr Leonid Kuchma was elected President of Ukraine for a second five-year term. The assessment of the Parliamentary Assembly observer delegation was as follows (see Doc. 8603, para 32) :
11. “The election campaign, which we characterized as “highly questionable” following the first-round vote, was in fact a disgrace. Not only is Ukraine in breach of its OSCE Commitments in this regard. It is also in breach of its obligations under the European Human Rights Convention (Protocol 1, Article 3). The abuse and instrumentalisation of State power in the interests of one candidate – through pressure on regional, local, hospital, school, university and military authorities whose leading representatives are made to feel personally responsible for “correct” voting of their subordinates – is unacceptable and in violation of Council of Europe rules”.
12. A new government headed by Prime minister Victor Yushchenko was nominated by the President and received the necessary approval by the Verkhovna Rada.
13. In December 1999, a drive was initiated to collect the 3 million signatures necessary to an all-Ukrainian referendum on popular initiative.
14. By a vote of 307 to 24, the Verkhovna Rada approved on 11 January 2000 a law providing for a moratorium on local and national referendums until new legislation on such votes is adopted.
15. However, on 15 January President Kuchma signed a decree to hold a nation-wide referendum on 16 April 2000 that would introduce major constitutional changes (some 4 million signatures had been collected by that date).
16. In the meantime, on 13 January, 241 deputies from 11 right-wing and centrist caucases and groups announced the creation of a pro-government centre-right majority.
17. On 18 January, the majority left the Parliament’s headquarters, stripping the session of a quorum.
18. On 21 January, the pro-government parliamentary majority consisting of 241 deputies held a separate session in the Ukrainian House Exhibition Centre in Kyiv and elected Mr Plyusch as speaker. Meanwhile, 180 leftist deputies loyal to speaker Tkachenko held their session in the parliamentary building. Both warring groups claimed to be Ukraine’s legitimate legislatures. The question whether Mr Tkachenko or Mr Plyusch is now the legitimate speaker of the Verkhovna Rada is before the Constitutional court.
19. The continuing split of Parliament into two separate groups could have enabled President Kuchma to declare its dissolution under Art. 106, 8 of the Constitution. This was a major reason for the pro-government majority to return to the Parliament’s headquarters and, by the time of the co-rapporteurs’ visit to Ukraine on 16 – 19 February 2000, the Verkhovna Rada was again holding regular plenary sittings. On 17 February it finally approved the state budget.
20. The co-rapporteurs cannot but welcome the end of the parliamentary crisis, the continuation of which would certainly have led to the dissolution of the Verkhovna Rada.
21. A question remains: is the legislation adopted by the majority in its separate sittings to be considered as valid or does it have to be confirmed in plenary? The ruling of the Constitutional court on whether Mr Tkachenko or Mr Plyusch is to be considered as speaker of the Verkhovna Rada will certainly help clarify the situation.
II. The President’s decree of 15 January 2000
22. On 15 January 2000, President Kuchma issued Decree No 65/2000 “On calling the all-Ukrainian referendum on popular initiative”, which was officially promulgated in “Golos Ukrainy” on 18 January. The decree was issued in order to meet the request by more than 3 million citizens of Ukraine, duly registered by the Central Electoral Commission on 15 January.
23. According to its preamble, the aim of the decree is to :
a) consult the opinion of Ukrainian citizens on a range of important questions that could influence the future of the country ;
b) introduce the corresponding changes to the Constitution of Ukraine in the light of Art. 72 and Art. 106,6 of the Constitution of Ukraine.
24. The referendum is to be held on 16 April 2000 and voters will be called upon to reply “yes” or “no” to the six following questions :
25. Question 1: “Are you in favour of expressing no confidence in the XIVth legislature of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and of introducing a corresponding amendment to Article 90 of the Constitution of Ukraine with the following content :
“in the case of a vote of no confidence in the Verkhovna Rada expressed at all-Ukraine referendum the President of Ukraine is empowered to dissolve the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine” ?
Yes.
No”.
26. Question 2: “Do you support the proposal to complete Article 90 of the Constitution of Ukraine with a new third part with the following content :
“The President of Ukraine can suspend the powers of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, if the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine fails to form a stable and operational majority in one month ; or if it fails to adopt the State budget of Ukraine prepared and submitted in due form by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine in three months”. That could be considered as an additional reason for the dissolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by the President of Ukraine, with a corresponding amendment to paragraph 8 part one of Article 106 of the Constitution of Ukraine :“
“and other cases as established in the Constitution of Ukraine” ?Ye
Yes.
No”.
27. Question 3: “Do you agree with the necessity to limit the immunity of the National Deputies of Ukraine and to delete paragraph three of Article 80 of the Constitution of Ukraine which reads:
“National Deputies of Ukraine cannot be held criminally liable, detained or arrested without the consent of the Verkhovna Rada” ?
Yes.
No”.
28. Question 4: “Would you agree to reduce the number of National Deputies of Ukraine from 450 to 300 and to replace, in this context, in the first part of Article 76 the words “four hundred and fifty” by “three hundred”, and to make corresponding changes in the legislation on elections?
Yes.
No”.
29. Question 5: “Do you agree that it is necessary to create a two-chamber parliament, where one of the chambers would represent interests of the Ukrainian regions, and to introduce the corresponding changes to the Constitution of Ukraine and legislation on elections?
Yes.
No”.
30. Question 6: “Do you agree that the Constitution of Ukraine must be adopted through an all-Ukraine referendum?
Yes.
No”.
31. A positive result of the referendum would undoubtedly strengthen substantially the role of the President and substantially weaken the role of the Verkhovna Rada.
32. The main question is whether this referendum should be considered as having a consultative nature or a legally binding one.
33. On 16 February, the co-rapporteurs put this question to President Kuchma who stated, contrary to previous statements by the Minister of Justice, Mrs Stanik, that only the last two questions will be consultative, all the others will have directly binding consequences. He added that, in spite of Lord Russell-Johnston's letter of 31 January, the referendum will be held on 16 April, and that he would only take into account the ruling of the Constitutional Court, but not the opinion of the Venice Commission.
III. The constitutional provisions governing amendments to the constitution
34. In his Decree of 15 January 2000 President Kuchma refers to Art. 72 and Art. 106,6 of the Constitution.
35. Art. 72 reads:
"An All-Ukrainian referendum is designated by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine or by the President of Ukraine, in accordance with their authority established by this Constitution. An All-Ukrainian referendum is called on popular initiative on the request of no less than three million citizens of Ukraine who have the right to vote, on the condition that the signatures in favour of designating the referendum have been collected in no less than two-thirds of the oblasts, with no less than 100 000 signatures in each oblast."
36. As for Art. 106,6 it enables the President of Ukraine to call "an all-Ukrainian referendum regarding amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine in accordance with Art. 156 of this Constitution".
37. It has to be noted that the above-mentioned Art.156 is part of a specific Chapter of the Constitution, Chapter XIII on "Introducing amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine". Art. 156 reads:
"A draft law on introducing amendments to Chapter I – "General Principles", Chapter III – "Elections, Referendum," and Chapter XIII – "Introducing Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine," is submitted to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by the President of Ukraine, or by no less than two-thirds of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and on the condition that it is adopted by no less than two-thirds of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and is approved by an All-Ukrainian referendum designated by the President of Ukraine. The repeat submission of a draft law on introducing amendments to Chapters I, III and XIII of this Constitution on one and the same issue is possible only to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of the next convocation."
38. The procedure specifically provided for by the Constitution in order to amend Chapter XIII in particular is thus perfectly clear:
- a draft law (introduced by the President of Ukraine or at least 300 deputies) has to be adopted by no less than two-thirds of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada;
- the draft law has to be approved by an all-Ukrainian referendum designated by the President of Ukraine.
39. Since no draft law to amend the constitution has been approved by the Verkhovna Rada, the co-rapporteurs consider that the President's initiative to amend the Constitution on the basis of a referendum on popular initiative is contrary to the constitution in force in Ukraine.
40. The adoption of this Constitution was one of the main commitments Ukraine entered into when becoming a member of the Council of Europe. This is the reason why the co-rapporteurs strongly condemn any violation of the main domestic legal instrument in force in the country.
41. Should the referendum take place on 16 April 2000, and considering the risk of an abrupt disruption of the country's institutional balance, the co-rapporteurs would only recognise its results as being of a consultative nature, and they would never recognise a Constitution amended through non-constitutional means, as was the case in Belarus a few years ago.
IV. The legal environment of the referendum scheduled for 16 April 2000
42. A range of important issues surround the legal background and the organisation of this referendum, as regards in particular collection and verification of signatures and the legal basis of the conduct of the referendum.
1. Collection and verification of signatures
43. According to Art. 72 of the Constitution, "an all-Ukrainian referendum is called on popular initiative on the request of no less than three million citizens of Ukraine who have the right to vote, on the condition that the signatures in favour of designating the referendum have been collected in no less than two-thirds of the oblasts, with no less than 100 000 signatures in each oblast".
44. According to its chairman, Mr Ryabets, the Central Electoral Commission had refused on 7 December 1999 to register the first initiative group, but was forced to do so by a ruling of the Pechersky district court of Kyiv, and the registration of the so-called initiative groups collecting signatures in support of the referendum officially started on 24 December 1999.
45. By 15 January 2000, some 4 million signatures had already been collected!
46. According to many unofficial sources, this could be achieved only by mass falsification.
47. When asked whether he could show us the signatures, Mr Ryabets had to admit that the Central Electoral Commission has only received the protocols of the territorial and local electoral commissions, which are still keeping the signatures in their premises. Mr Ryabets, moreover, saw no problem when asked whether he was sure that all six questions were known by all those who signed the referendum. The problem is that the six questions were only recently known by the public but the collection of signatures had started already during the election campaign last year, long before the questions were known.
2. The conduct of the referendum
48. The Decree of 15 January 2000 specifies that the Central Electoral Commission, territorial and local commissions are empowered to prepare and hold the all-Ukraine referendum on popular initiative according to the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law "on national and local referendums", in the parts that do not contradict the Constitution of Ukraine.
49. Two main problems arise here.
50. First, the Law "on national and local referendums" dates back to 3 July 1991, that is when Ukraine was still a constituent part of the USSR.
51. Secondly, according to Art. 147 of the Constitution, "the Constitutional Court of Ukraine is the sole body of constitutional jurisdiction in Ukraine". The chairman of the Constitutional Court, Mr V. Skomorokha, declared to the co-rapporteurs on 17 February that the Constitutional Court had not been called upon to rule which parts of the 1991 Law "on national and local referendums" was or was not in conformity with the Constitution.
52. Since, on the other hand, it is not within the prerogatives of the Central Electoral Commission to make such rulings, it appears that the legal basis for organising and holding the referendum scheduled for 16 April 2000 is rather weak.
53. This was confirmed in a public statement by the Chairman of the Central Electoral Commission, Mr Ryabets, who is also confronted with financing problems, since 240 million ballot papers are to be printed and the total cost of the referendum is around 49 millions hrivnya, whereas the total allocation to the Central Electoral Commission for the year 2000 amounts to 30 million hrivnya.
V. Conclusions
54. The co-rapporteurs express their deep concern as regards the referendum on reform of the institutions in Ukraine scheduled for 16 April 2000.
55. They note that the current Constitution in force since 1996 constitutes the main domestic legal instrument on the basis of which the country can develop a genuine democracy; they insist on strict respect of its provisions, in particular as regards amendments to the Constitution, whatever their necessity and appropriateness.
56. They wish to recall that the Constitution provides in Art. 156 for a specific procedure to be followed to amend the Constitution, in particular as regards Chapter XIII which is devoted to amending the Constitution: a draft law to be approved by at least 2/3 of the members of the Verkhovna Rada and a subsequent nation-wide referendum.
57. The co-rapporteurs do not deny the Ukrainian authorities' right to consult the population as to whether it would support amending the Constitution, but they express their deep concern as regards the means of a referendum on popular initiative, the modalities and organisation of which remain unclear.
58. They are particularly concerned about the possible consequences of an abrupt disruption in the system of checks and balances of the country's institutions, aiming at substantially strengthening the role of the President and substantially weakening the role of Parliament.
59. This is the reason why they launch an urgent appeal to the Ukrainian authorities to postpone their decision to hold the referendum scheduled for 16 April 2000 until the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the Venice Commission have published their decisions, and to engage in the meantime in a political dialogue aiming at a mutually acceptable settlement of the institutional crisis.
60. In any case, the co-rapporteurs warn the Ukrainian authorities that they will not recognise a Constitution amended through non-constitutional means.
61. Finally, they appeal to the Parliamentary Assembly to recommend to the Committee of Ministers to suspend Ukraine's membership of the Council of Europe if the so-called "referendum" on reform of institutions scheduled for 16 April 2000 takes place under the present circumstances.
Appendix I
Programme of the visit to Ukraine
of the Rapporteurs of the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe, Ms H. Severinsen and Ms R. Wohlwend,
accompanied by Mr G. Dufour, secretary
16 – 19 February 2000
Wednesday, 16 February 2000
afternoon Arrival of the delegation
5.00 pm Meeting with the President of Ukraine, Mr L. Kuchma
7.00 pm Meeting with Ambassadors of Council of Europe member
States at the Embassy of Hungary
Thursday, 17 February 2000
9.00 am Meeting with Mr I. Plyusch, Supreme Rada
10.00 am Meeting with Mr B. Tarasyuk, Minister of Foreign Affairs
11.00 am Meeting with Mrs S. Stanik, Minister of Justice, and the members of the Inter-Agency Commission on Issues of Introduction of the Council of Europe's regulations and standards into Ukraine's legislation
12.30 pm Meeting with Mr V. Yushchenko, Prime Minister of Ukraine
2.30 pm Meeting with the representatives of factions and groups of the Supreme Rada of Ukraine
Chaired by Mr O. Pukhkal, Deputy Head of the Supreme Rada Committee for Foreign Affairs
4.00 pm Meeting with Mr M. Ryabets, Chairman of the Central Election Committee
6.00 pm Meeting with Mr V. Skomorokha, Chairman of the
Constitutional Court of Ukraine
8.00 pm Working dinner with NGOs
Friday, 18 February 2000
9.00 am Meeting with the Permanent Delegation of the Supreme Rada of Ukraine to the Parliamentary Assembly
10.00 am Meeting with Mrs N. Karpachova, Human Rights Representative of the Supreme Rada of Ukraine
10.45 am Meeting with Mr M. Dzhemiliov, People's Deputy of Ukraine, Chairman of the Medjlis of Crimean Tatar people
11.30 am Meeting with Mr O. Zadorozhny, Chairman of the Committee of the Supreme Rada of Ukraine on Issues of Legal Policy
12.30 pm Meeting with Mr Lyubchenko, Chairman of the Union of Journalists
2.00 pm Meeting with Mr O. Tkachenko, Supreme Rada
3.00 pm Meeting with Mr Yu. Kravchenko, Minister of Interior of Ukraine
4.00 pm Press conference
Saturday, 19 February 2000
9.00 am Meeting with Mr Peter Burkhard, Co-ordinator of the OSCE programmes in Ukraine
afternoon Departure of the delegation.
Appendix II
Doc. 8637
27 January 2000
Ukraine
Motion for a recommendation
presented by Mr Holovaty and others
This motion has not been discussed in the Assembly and commits only the members who have signed it |
1. The Assembly recalls that Ukraine is currently under the monitoring procedure of the Parliamentary Assembly, and that it must consider whether Ukraine has fulfilled the obligations it agreed to comply with on the day of its accession.
2. It is deeply concerned with the recent decision of the President of the Ukraine to arrange a six-point national referendum on the reform of institutions for 16 April 2000. This decision is contrary to the Constitution of Ukraine of 1996, and disregards the law voted for two weeks ago by more than two-thirds of the members of the Verkhovna Rada calling for a moratorium on the referendum until the law is passed.
3. In general it is worried about the tendency of the regime towards authoritarianism. There are reports of infringements of the rights of parliament and the independence of the judiciary. Members of Parliament have also denounced the existence of a system of falsification of elections.
4. It fears that the political evolution of the Ukraine is now very similar to what Belarus experienced during the constitutional crisis of 1996 and which finally led to the submission of the country to autocratic presidential rule.
5. It considers that the organs of the Council of Europe, alongside the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), must work urgently on a solution of the crisis, in order to keep Ukraine from developing into an autocratic regime.
6. It requests the President of Ukraine to reconsider the decision to arrange a national referendum before a law on a national referendum is passed.
7. It also requests the President of Ukraine to make all efforts to restore confidence, dialogue, respect and a sound political climate, in a country which should not divert itself from the rule of law, separation of and independence between powers, and the effective guaranteeing of fundamental liberties and human rights.
Signed : 1
Holovaty, Ukraine LDR
Cilevics, Latvia, SOC
Eorsi, Hungary, LDR
Frunda, Romania, EPP/CD
Jurgens, Netherlands, SOC
Kurykin, Ukraine, NR
Magnusson, Sweden, SOC
Manchulenko, Ukraine, EDG
Nedelcuic, Moldova, LDR
Oliynyk, Ukraine, UEL
Rakhansky, Ukraine, UEL
Solonari, Moldova, SOC
Wohlwend, Liechtenstein, EPP/DC
Appendix III
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY
The President
Strasbourg, 31 January 2000
Dear Mr President,
As you probably know, during the last week part-session, the Assembly and its relevant bodies discussed the recent adoption of the law on political parties and the ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages by the Verkhovna Rada, as well as the ruling of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine effectively abolishing the application of the capital punishment.
It was agreed that these developments constitute substantial progress in compliance with Ukraine's obligations and commitments as a member of the Council of Europe, about which we spoke when I met you in Kyiv at half-time of the fatal football match (!) and that, consequently, it was not necessary to start the procedure to suspend certain rights of the Ukrainian delegation, in accordance with resolution 1194 (1999).
As positive as these developments are, I feel obliged to express my serious concern with regard to the ongoing dispute on the proposal for a national referendum on the reform of institutions of Ukraine, announced for 16 April 2000.
The Assembly recognises the sovereign right of any of its members to freely amend its constitution but insists that any such change should be carried out in full accordance with the existing constitutional provisions.
After being informed by the members of the Ukrainian delegation of the initiative to organise the referendum and their concerns in this respect, I have decided to ask the Venice Commission to prepare an opinion on the substance of the proposed reforms and the modalities for their adoption. I expect the opinion to be ready by the beginning of April.
Moreover, the Rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee, Mrs Severinsen and Mrs Wohlwend, will visit Ukraine from 16 to 19 February and I should be grateful if you would agree to meet with them on this occasion.
Finally, the Assembly intends to debate the developments in your country at its forthcoming part-session from 3-7 April, on the basis of the opinion of the Venice Commission and the findings of its Rapporteurs.
Mr Leonid KUCHMA
President of Ukraine
KYIV
Considering the controversial character of the initiative, it would seem advisable and even necessary to organise a consultation between all major political forces in Ukraine and with a view to reaching as broad an agreement as possible, before any further steps with regard to the organisation of the referendum are taken. I am certain that the opinion of the Venice Commission, the findings of the Rapporteurs and the results of the Assembly's debate can be helpful in this context.
I am also ready to offer any personal assistance and advice that would be deemed helpful in finding a consensual solution to this matter.
Yours sincerely,
(signed)
Lord Russell-Johnston
Reporting committee: Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States.
Committee for opinion: Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
Reference to committee: Ref. No. 2477, Doc. 8637 of 28 January 2000.
Draft recommendation adopted unanimously on 8 March 2000.
Members of the committee: MM. Mota Amaral (Chair), Sole Tura (Vice-Chair), Sinka (Vice-Chair), Ms Severinsen (Vice-Chair), Ms Akgöncenç, MM. Akselsen, Angourakis, Atkinson, Averchev, Bársony, Baumel, Bindig, Brunetti, Dagys, Davis, Demetriou, Diana, Dumitrescu, Ms Durrieu, MM. Enright, Eörsi, Evangelisti, Eversdijk, Frey, Frunda, Gjellerod, Gross, Gürkan, Gusenbauer, Haraldsson, Holovaty, Irmer, Jansson, Jaskiernia, Jurgens, Ms Kautto, MM. Kostytsky, Koulouris, Kuzmickas, van der Linden, Magnusson, Marmazov, Moreels, Myrvoll, Nedelciuc, Ms Nemcova, MM. Pahor, Pollo, Polozani, Ms Poptodorova, Mr Ramirez-Pery, Ms Ringstad, MM. Saakashvili, Saglam, Ms Sehnalova, MM. Shaklein, Shishlov, Smorawinski, Solonari, Steolea, Ms Stoyanova, MM. Surjan, Taylor, Vahtre, Vella, Weiss, Ms Wohlwend, Mr Zierer.
N.B. The names of those members who took part in the meeting are printed in italics.
Secretaries to the committee: Mr Ausems, Mr Dufour, Ms Chatzivassiliou and Ms Trevisan.
1 SOC: Socialist Group
EPP/CD: Group of the European People’s Party
EDG: European Democratic Group
LDR : Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ Group
UEL: Group of the Unified European Left
NR: not registered in a group