Honouring of obligations and commitments by Ukraine

Doc. 9030

9 April 2001

Honouring of obligations and commitments by 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

The co-rapporteurs cannot but strongly criticise the Verkhovna Rada for postponing legal reforms which the Ukrainian authorities pledged to adopt within a year of accession (November 1995). At the same time, they also note and welcome the firm commitment of the Ukrainian delegation and the leaders of the parties and factions of the Rada that the commitments of Ukraine in the legislative field and listed by the Assembly in its Opinion 190 (1995), will now be fulfilled by June 2001. The adoption of these laws is all the more important that on 29 June 2001 the transitional provisions of the Ukrainian Constitution will come to an end.

Furthermore, the co-rapporteurs are deeply concerned by murders of journalists, repeated aggression against and continuing intimidation of journalists, members of parliament and opposition politicians in Ukraine, and the frequent and serious abuses of power by the Ukrainian executive authorities in respect of freedom of expression and of assembly. The murder of Mr Gongadze is only the most visible instance of violence against and harassment of independent journalists, politicians and other prominent Ukrainians.

Therefore the co-rapporteurs urge the Ukrainian authorities, notably the President, to put an end to the practice of intimidation and repression of opposition politicians and the independent press, and to take all necessary measures to discourage and curb attacks and threats against journalists and other media representatives.

The co-rapporteurs are convinced that only the respect of human rights, pluralist democracy and the rule of law, notably due legal procedures, genuine freedom of the press, of expression, and of assembly without fear of reprisal — combined with serious political dialogue — can help lead Ukraine out of this crisis. They call on all parties involved in the crisis – political parties, parliamentary and extra-parliamentary opposition and President – to assume their responsibilities and to engage in a meaningful political dialogue without delay but in full respect of each other’s democratic prerogatives.

I. Draft resolution

1. The Assembly refers to its Resolutions 1179 (1999), 1194 (1999) and 1239 (2001) and its Recommendations 1395 (1999), 1416 (1999), 1451 (2000) and 1497 (2001) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Ukraine.

2. Notwithstanding a few positive steps taken by the Ukrainian authorities, notably the ratification on 4 April 2000 of Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, following the ruling of the Ukrainian Constitutional Court that the death penalty is unconstitutional, the Assembly considers that the President, the Government and the Parliament (Rada) of Ukraine have failed to honour the commitments and obligations of Ukraine as a member state of the Council of Europe.

3. In this respect, the Assembly recalls the firm commitment of the Ukrainian delegation and the leaders of the parties and factions of the Rada that the commitments of Ukraine in the legislative field and listed by the Assembly in its Opinion 190 (1995), will now be fulfilled. These commitments include:

i. a framework act on the legal policy of Ukraine for the protection of human rights,

ii. a framework act on legal and judicial reform,

iii. a new criminal code and code of criminal procedure,

iv. a new civil code and code of civil procedure,

v. a new law on political parties,

vi. transformation of the role and functions of the Prosecutor’s office.

Furthermore Ukraine should finalise the interrupted ratification process of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and to ensure adequate protection for all minority groups in Ukraine.

4. The Assembly is concerned by murders of journalists, repeated aggression against and continuing intimidation of journalists, members of parliament and opposition politicians in Ukraine, and the frequent and serious abuses of power by the Ukrainian executive authorities in respect of freedom of expression and of assembly.

5. Therefore the Assembly urges the Ukrainian authorities, notably the President, to put an end to the practice of intimidation and repression of opposition politicians and the independent press, and to take all necessary measures to discourage and curb attacks and threats against journalists and other media representatives. Moreover, it repeats its call on the relevant Ukrainian authorities to improve the general framework in which the media operate, as it is set out in paragraph 5 of Resolution 1239 (2001):

i. speedy and transparent investigation into all cases of violence and death of journalists;

ii. immediate abolishment of regulations and practices allowing out-of-court closure media outlets and termination of broadcasting;

iii. adoption without any further delay of amendments to the legislation concerning fines or damages for libel and decriminalisation of libel;

iv. amending the Law on the National Television and Broadcasting Council in line with the expertise provided by the Council of Europe;

v. creation of equal conditions for the functioning of all media, namely by amending the 1997 Act on Government Support for the Media and Social Protection of Journalists;

vi. stopping practices of pressure on the media through the leverages of printing and distribution;

vii. promotion of public service broadcasting;

viii. ratifying the European Convention on Transfrontier Television.

6. The Assembly believes that only the respect of human rights, pluralist democracy and the rule of law, notably due legal procedures, genuine freedom of the press, of expression and of assembly without fear of reprisals – combined with a serious political dialogue – can help lead Ukraine out of the current political crisis. It calls on all parties involved in the crisis – political parties, parliamentary and extra-parliamentary opposition and President – to assume their responsibilities and to engage in a meaningful political dialogue without delay but in full respect of each other’s democratic prerogatives.

7. The Assembly also expresses strong support for attempts to reform the political process and strengthen civil society, to establish a genuine separation of and balance between executive, legislative and judicial powers, as well as a truly open, honest and accountable system of government.

8. The Assembly regrets that hitherto its previous resolutions, in particular Resolutions 1194 (1999) and 1239 (2001), have apparently not convinced the Ukrainian authorities of the need to take without delay a number of measures to meet Ukraine’s obligations and commitments as a member state. In accordance with its Resolution 1194 (1999) the Assembly decides:

i. to start the procedure to exclude Ukraine from membership of the Council of Europe;

ii. to recommend that the Committee of Ministers take the statutory steps to exclude Ukraine from membership of the Council of Europe.

II. Draft recommendation

1. The Assembly refers to its Resolutions 1179 (1999), 1194 (1999), 1239 (2001) and its Resolution ….. (2001) and its Recommendations 1395 (1999), 1416 (1999), 1451 (2000) and 1497 (2001) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Ukraine.

2. Notwithstanding a few positive steps taken by the Ukrainian authorities, notably the ratification on 4 April 2000 of Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, following the ruling of the Ukrainian Constitutional Court that the death penalty is unconstitutional, the Assembly considers that the President, the Government and the Parliament (Rada) of Ukraine have failed to implement the commitments and obligations of Ukraine as a member state of the Council of Europe.

i. a framework act on the legal policy of Ukraine for the protection of human rights,

ii. a framework act on legal and judicial reform,

iii. a new criminal code and code of criminal procedure,

iv. a new civil code and code of civil procedure,

v. a new law on political parties,

vi. transformation of the role and functions of the Prosecutor’s office.

i. speedy and transparent investigation into all cases of violence and death of journalists;

ii. immediate abolishment of regulations and practices allowing out-of-court closure media outlets and termination of broadcasting;

iii. adoption without any further delay of amendments to the legislation concerning fines or damages for libel and decriminalisation of libel;

iv. amending the Law on the National Television and Broadcasting Council in line with the expertise provided by the Council of Europe;

v. creation of equal conditions for the functioning of all media, namely by amending the 1997 Act on Government Support for the Media and Social Protection of Journalists;

vi. stopping practices of pressure on the media through the leverages of printing and distribution;

vii. promotion of public service broadcasting;

viii. ratifying the European Convention on Transfrontier Television.

8. The Assembly regrets that hitherto its previous Resolutions, in particular Resolutions 1194 (1999) and 1239 (2001), have apparently not convinced the Ukrainian authorities of the need to take without delay a number of measures to meet Ukraine’s obligations and commitments as a member state. In accordance with its Resolution 1194 (1999) the Assembly decides therefore to start the procedure to exclude Ukraine from membership of the Council of Europe.

9. The Assembly recommends to the Committee of Ministers:

i. to respect the position of the Parliamentary Assembly in respect of the honouring of the obligations and commitments by Ukraine;

ii. to take the statutory steps to exclude Ukraine from membership of the Council of Europe;

iii. to intensify the co-operation programmes of the Council of Europe for Ukraine and possibly to increase the Council of Europe’s field presence in Ukraine, in order to help the country overcome the problems mentioned above, in particular as regards the freedom of expression and the media.

III. Explanatory memorandum by the Rapporteurs

CONTENTS

Pages

A. INTRODUCTION 7

B. REFORM OF THE INSTITUTIONS 8

C. UKRAINE’S COMMITMENTS TO THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE 9

1. ADOPTION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS 10

2. OTHER MATTERS OF CONCERN 11

Conduct of elections 11

Freedom of expression and state of civil rights 12

Penitentiary system 16

Crimean Tatars 16

Fight against corruption 17

Other commitments 18

D. CONCLUSIONS 18

APPENDIX I:

Comments by the Ukrainian authorities on the preliminary draft report

[AS/Mon (2000) 26 rev] 21

APPENDIX II:

Programme of the visit to Ukraine 42

APPENDIX III:

Treaties signed and ratified by Ukraine 44

Treaties signed but not ratified by Ukraine 47

a. Introduction

1. This is the third report on Ukraine’s obligations and commitments since the country’s accession to the Council of Europe in November 1995. The Assembly also debated a report on reform of the institutions in Ukraine on 4 April 2000,¹ and it held a debate under urgent procedure on freedom of expression and the functioning of parliamentary democracy in Ukraine during its January 2001 part-session².

2. In its Resolution 1179 adopted on 27 January 1999, the Assembly noted that Ukraine had honoured some of its obligations and commitments, as they appear in Opinion 190 (1995). However, it was “deeply concerned by the slow pace at which the state is fulfilling its remaining obligations and commitments”, in particular the adoption of:

- a framework act on the legal policy of Ukraine for the protection of human rights;

- a framework act on legal and judicial reforms;

- a new criminal code and code of criminal procedure;

- a new civil code and code of civil procedure;

- a new law on political parties, while a new law on elections has already been adopted;

- and the ratification of Protocol 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

3. In June 1999, in its Resolution 1194 the Assembly decided that unless substantial progress has taken place, it would be appropriate to start procedures aiming at suspending some of the rights of the Ukrainian parliamentary delegation. Since then, the Verkhovna Rada has adopted a new law on political parties (although it has not yet been ratified by the President because it had been referred to the Constitutional Court). Although it had ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, this decision was contested by the Constitutional Court on 14 July 2000. In February 2000, the Verkhovna Rada also voted to abolish the death penalty from the criminal code, thus resolving one of the key issues threatening Ukraine’s membership in the Assembly.

4. On 4 April 2000, the Parliamentary Assembly adopted Recommendation 1451 on the reform of the institutions in Ukraine. Whilst welcoming a number of positive steps recently taken by the Ukrainian authorities, notably the ratification of Protocol 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, it also expressed “its deep concern as regards the so-called “referendum” on reform of the institutions scheduled for 16 April 2000”.

5. It therefore recommended that “the Committee of Ministers seek to ensure that all provisions of the constitution in force in Ukraine are thoroughly respected in the implementation of the referendum results, in particular as regards any procedure aimed at amending the constitution. If the referendum results are implemented in a non-constitutional manner, or if the constitution were to be amended through non-constitutional means, it recommends that Ukraine’s membership of the Council of Europe be suspended”.

6. The co-rapporteurs carried out a fact-finding visit to Ukraine on 18-21 June 2000 in order to collect information both on the reform of the institutions and on the respect by Ukraine of its obligations and commitments to the Council of Europe. They carried out a second fact-finding visit from 28 to 30 March 2001 and are grateful to the Ukrainian authorities and parliamentary delegation to the Assembly for their co-operation (the programme of the visit is appended). All these discussions and events have fed into the present report.

b. reform of the institutions

7. The April 2000 referendum sought a vote of no-confidence in the Verkhovna Rada and constitutional amendments to reduce the number of deputies (from 450 to 300), to create an upper chamber in order to increase presidential powers to dissolve the Verkhovna Rada, and to abolish the deputies’ immunity from prosecution. Such changes would significantly increase the President’s powers over the parliament. After the Constitutional Court ruled against the posing of two other questions in the Referendum, it was duly held and the result declared overwhelmingly in favour of President Kuchma’s objectives. It is uncertain, however, whether the “will of the people” will secure law through adoption of its recommendation by the Verkhovna Rada.

8. The referendum thus raised the possibility of a broad constitutional crisis. It has also drawn international criticism, not only from the Parliamentary Assembly, but also from the Venice Commission³.

9. On 25 April 2000, the President of Ukraine submitted to the Verkhovna Rada a draft bill on “amending the Constitution of Ukraine in compliance with the results of the all-Ukrainian referendum on popular initiative”.

10. The draft bill provides for amending the constitution in respect of the first three questions approved at the referendum, but it is silent about the issue of creating a second Chamber. This is contrary to the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 27 March 2000, which provides that the questions approved at the referendum must obligatorily be submitted to the Verkhovna Rada for consideration and decision. Thus, be it only for formal reasons, the co-rapporteurs consider the presidential draft bill as flawed. It seems, however, that President Kuchma set up a team of experts to examine ways and means of introducing a bicameral parliament.

11. Two draft bills on revision of the constitution have been sent to the Constitutional Court, one submitted by the President. On 10 May 2000, 152 members of Parliament submitted to the Verkhovna Rada a draft bill on “amending the Constitution of Ukraine in compliance with the results of the all-Ukrainian referendum of 16 April 2000”, which includes the four issues approved by the voters. It was supported by 184 MPs altogether. On 29 June 2000, the Court declared the Presidential draft in conformity with the constitution and, on 13 July, it considered that several provisions of the parliamentary draft were unconstitutional.

12. The very same day, on 13 July 2000, the Verkhovna Rada adopted a Resolution on provisional approval of the presidential draft bill, by 251 votes. Although a first reading of Mr Kuchma's proposal to increase presidential powers through constitutional amendments was passed by a simple parliamentary majority, in a second reading it has failed to muster the two-thirds majority needed for the final approval, which will require some support from left-wing deputies who boycotted the earlier vote.

13. The co-rapporteurs believe that if the results are implemented, the referendum will have a major impact on the structure of the Ukrainian political system, strengthening substantially the powers of the President and breaking the grip of the opposition parties on the parliament. Yet the implementation of the referendum itself runs the risk of further polarising the political system. More importantly, it could raise questions about the legitimacy of any new political arrangements that would be a source of considerable political uncertainty in the future. In this context, the co-rapporteurs wish to recall that in Recommendation 1451, the Assembly decided that “if the constitution were to be amended through non-constitutional means, it recommends that Ukraine’s membership in the Council of Europe be suspended”.

14. In this respect, the co-rapporteurs very much agree with the conclusion of Mr Havrysh, Deputy Chairman of the Rada who stated that “the implementation of the results of the referendum in the present situation was not desirable, as it would bring an element of disequlibrium and uncertainty in the political system”. At the same time, they welcome the repeated commitment made by President Kuchma that he would adhere to the constitutional rules for amending the Constitution and not dissolve the Verkhovna Rada if the required majority for the constitutional changes cannot be reached.

15. The co-rapporteurs also welcome the statement of Mr Havrysh that the President and the Rada are considering the conclusion of a general political agreement along the lines with the so-called “Moncloa-Pact” (which has made an important contribution to the success of the democratic transition in Spain a quarter a century ago.).

c. ukraine’s commitments to the council of europe

16. In 1999, the Assembly welcomed the fact that:

- Ukraine has achieved settlement of international disputes by peaceful means;

- a new constitution was adopted within one year of accession;

- Ukraine has become a signatory to nearly all major Council of Europe conventions (see Appendix III).

17. However, it expressed its concern about Ukraine’s failure to adopt within one year of accession:

- a framework act on the legal policy of Ukraine for the protection of human rights;

- a framework act on legal and judicial reforms;

- a new criminal code and code of criminal procedure;

- a new civil code and code of civil procedure;

- a new law on political parties, while a new law on elections has already been adopted.

Ukraine also pledged to ratify Protocol 6 within 3 year of accession.

18. The co-rapporteurs shall examine progress achieved on these issues together with a number of other matters of concern, such as freedom and fairness of elections, freedom of expression and state of civil rights, transfer of the penitentiary system to the Ministry of Justice, the situation of Crimean Tatars and the problem of corruption.

1. Adoption of laws and regulations

19. The rapporteurs wish first of all to congratulate Ukraine for its ratification on 4 April 2000 of Protocol 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights. It should be noted in this respect that, according to the Ministries of the Interior and Justice, criminality is now decreasing in the country, which clearly shows that the death penalty is not a deterrent against crime.

20. As regards Ukraine’s other commitments, the co-rapporteurs cannot but strongly criticize the Verkhovna Rada for postponing legal reforms which the Ukrainian authorities pledged to adopt within a year of accession (November 1995). The co-rapporteurs very much agree with the conclusion of one of the members of the Ukrainian delegation who deplored that “political disputes prevailed instead of the legislative work in the Rada”.

21. No concrete progress could be recorded as regards the framework act on the legal policy of Ukraine for the protection of human rights, the framework act on legal and judicial reform, or the new codes on civil and criminal procedure. Although the co-rapporteurs couldn’t help but having a strong feeling of “déja vu” during their latest fact-finding visit, they also noted the steadfast commitment of the Ukrainian delegation to complete the adoption of the necessary legislation by June 2001.

22. The following draft laws are currently submitted for consideration to the Rada: the law on political parties, the law on judicial system, the new criminal code, and the new civil code of Ukraine, which many consider as a “second constitution” for the country. In this context, the co-rapporteurs welcome the appeal of 16 March 2001 of the Ukrainian parliamentary delegation in which they encouraged their fellow parliamentarians “to proceed with the adoption of these important laws in order to make considerable progress pertaining to the legislative acts in question”. They also note and welcome the pledge of Mr Havrysh, Deputy Chairman of the Rada and that of the leaders of the different factions in the Rada according to which the legislative commitments of Ukraine will be fulfilled by June 2001. The adoption of these laws is all the more important as on 29 June 2001 the transitional provisions of the Ukrainian Constitution will come to an end, thus creating a legal vacuum in the country.

23. In order to prepare the law on the reform of the judicial system, a “Council on reforms of judicial system” was established on 30 August 2000 with the aim to develop, analyse and co-ordinate the relevant draft laws⁴. As a result of the work of the Council, a new co-ordinated draft Law “on the Judicial System” is now submitted to the Rada for consideration. (The co-rapporteurs were informed that the Venice Commission had also been asked to comment on the content of that law.) The co-rapporteurs hope and expect further progress as soon as possible.

24. As for the new law on political parties, on 27 March 2000 the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine approved the Law of Ukraine “On Political Parties”. Following a veto by the President, it had been referred to the Constitutional Court. The law is at present before a special reconciliation committee, but it is expected that the President will promulgate it shortly, as the Verkhovna Rada overrode his veto earlier this year.

25. Another matter of concern is the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages: in spite of the Verkhovna Rada’s approval of its ratification, a number of deputies seized the Constitutional Court, which, on 14 July 2000, ruled that the law adopted by the Verkhovna Rada on “the ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages” was unconstitutional. In this respect, the co-rapporteurs were informed that the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the specific program which should be undertaken according to the provisions of the Charter. This has again delayed ratification of this important Charter, and the co-rapporteurs urgently appeal to the Verkhovna Rada to shortly adopt another law to fulfil Ukraine’s commitments to the Council of Europe.

2. Other matters of concern

26. In this section the co-rapporteurs shall mention in particular the conduct of elections, the freedom of expression and the state of civil rights, the penitentiary system, the situation of the Crimean Tatars and corruption.

Conduct of Elections

27. Since the Assembly debated its latest report on Ukraine’s obligations and commitments, presidential elections were held in the country on 31 October and 14 November 1999. In addition, a “referendum” on reform of the institutions took place on 16 April 2000.

28. In November 1999, President Kuchma was re-elected in the second round with a decisive majority of votes over his opponent, Petro Symonenko of the Communist Party. In this respect, it is worth recalling that the Ad Hoc Committee of the Bureau of the Assembly to observe the presidential elections in Ukraine characterized the election campaign as “highly questionable” and it concluded: “The election campaign following the first-round vote was a disgrace. Not only (was) Ukraine in breach of its OSCE Commitments, …but also 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.”

29. In this context, the co-rapporteurs also wish to recall the following conclusion of the Ad Hoc Committee: “now that the Presidential election is over, the least the international community can expect is a vastly overdue sense of responsibility on both sides of the hitherto bitterly divided leadership of the State, not only in the Executive but in Parliament… there should be no intrinsic political difficulty for Ukraine to clarify, rationalize and reform its overall legal framework for elections and the proper functioning of the media, including proper procedures for handling complaints”.

30. During the fact-finding visit, the co-rapporteurs were also informed about preparations in the Verkova Rada to enact a new election law. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that on 22 March 2001 The Rada voted (284 to nine) to pass a new bill on the introduction of a proportional party-list system in parliamentary elections, taking into account 23 out of the 38 changes proposed by President Kuchma. The bill stipulates that only parties supported by no less than 4 percent of voters nationwide can be represented in the parliament. Mr Kuchma vetoed the previous bill, arguing that it limited citizens' constitutional rights to elect their representatives to the parliament by shifting a majority of election process prerogatives to political parties.

31. As for the “referendum” held on 16 April 2000, the co-rapporteurs have been informed by Ukrainian human rights NGOs that the way it had been organized and carried out “had nothing in common with recognised norms of democracy”. In many instances, collecting the necessary 3 million signatures had been done not by “voluntary initiative groups of citizens”, but by government officials at local and regional level, who were threatened with losing their jobs or were withheld salaries until they got the necessary number of signatures.

32. During the campaign, the State-owned mass media have not mentioned opinions opposed to the referendum. As a result, voters received almost exclusively one-sided information. During the voting, pressure on voters reached an unprecedented level. For instance, heads of government institutions (schools, hospitals, State owned industries, etc.) forced staff to vote under the threat of dismissal. In addition, voting actually lasted 10 days, from 6 to 16 April, whereas independent observers were only allowed into polling stations on the official voting day – 16 April.

freedom of expression and state of civil rights

33. This has been a specific concern to the Assembly. In its Resolution 1239 (2001) it has called on the on the relevant Ukrainian authorities to undertake the following actions to improve the general framework in which media operate and, in the longer term, setting the grounds for a stable and irreversible democratisation of the media field:

– speedy and transparent investigation into all cases of violence and death of journalists;

– immediate abolishment of regulations and practices allowing out-of-court closure of media outlets and termination of broadcasting;

– adoption without any further delay of amendments to the legislation concerning fines or damages for libel and decriminalisation of libel;

– amendment of the Law on the National Television and Broadcasting Council in line with the expertise provided by the Council of Europe;

– creation of equal conditions for the functioning of all media, namely by amending the 1997 Act on Government Support for the Media and Social Protection of Journalists;

– stopping practices of pressure on the media through the leverages of printing and distribution;

– promotion of public service broadcasting;

– ratification of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television.”

34. In this context it should also be noted that the OSCE made the following recommendations to the Ukrainian Government, which are fully shared by the co-rapporteurs:

- The Government should undertake initiatives to enhance public awareness of international standards and obligations in the field of free media and press freedom. The culture of tolerance, pluralism and broadmindedness needed in a democracy should also be promoted.

- The Government must ensure that executive authorities refrain from arbitrary measures and other pressure against journalists and the media.

- As there is a need for greater openness and access to information for journalists, the Government and other public authorities should provide greater access to information on their activities and improve their own public information programmes. Such transparency could contribute to the quality of media coverage on official activities.

- The Government needs to take measures to strengthen the independence of the judiciary to guarantee fairness and equality of all citizens.

- The Government should promote the lifting of monopolies in the media sphere, for example, in printing and distribution.

35. With specific reference to the case of Mr Gongadze, the co-rapporteurs wish to repeat their serious misgivings regarding the handling of the investigation by the Ukrainian authorities into the death of Heorhii Gongadze. The long delay in determining and admitting the identity of the victim and, with it, the very fact of the crime, has raised serious questions about the independence and the impartiality of the investigation. It is also worth noting that during the last fact-finding visit, the President of the Specific investigation commission of the Rada, Mr Lavrinovich and other members voiced complaints that the General Prosecutor’s Office (GPO) refused cooperation with the committee on the ground that the legal basis of the latter had not yet been clarified.

36. The co-rapporteurs fully support the Assembly’s call “to conduct an expeditious, full and transparent investigation into the disappearance or death of Mr Gongadze, and to make known the results of this investigation as quickly as possible”. They are convinced that only a credible investigation of Mr Gongadze’s murder and of all the evidence that has emerged from the case can restore the country’s image. (The follow-up given to Recommendation 1497 by the Ukrainian authorities is reproduced in doc. As/Mon/ Inf 2001 (1).

37. Moreover, the co-rapporteurs are worried that this murder is only the most visible instance of violence against and harassment of independent journalists, politicians and other prominent Ukrainians. The questions surrounding the murders of Vadym Hetman and Jevhen Shcherban, as well as the deaths of Vadym Bojko, Vjacheslav Chornovil, and many others remain unanswered, with little or no known progress in their investigations.

38. The co-rapporteurs are also deeply concerned about the state of civil rights in Ukraine. They deplore the continuing reprisals, threats, and implicit threats of reprisal against those media, journalists, and other Ukrainians who dare to speak their minds openly and freely on the current crisis. On 26 March 2001, thirty-five journalists from the Lugansk region made a public appeal to President Kuchma and Ukraine’s Public Prosecutor urging an end to the threats and intimidation which they have been subjected to by local administration officials, state police and certain members of parliament.

39. The co-rapporteurs are alarmed to learn that the medical expert of the ad hoc investigative commission of the Rada, Mr Valeriy Ivasiuk has been harassed by the authorities and forced to leave the country, and seek political asylum in the UK.

40. The co-rapporteurs wish to appeal to the newly-appointed Minister of the Interior, Mr Smirnov, to undertake everything in his power in order to put an end to the practice of control and repression of the independent press, and to take all the necessary measures to discourage and curb attacks and threats against journalists.

41. The persistent efforts to prevent and obstruct peaceful demonstrations raise disturbing questions about the commitment to freedom of speech and assembly, which are guaranteed in Ukraine’s Constitution. On March 1 2001, just days after Ukrainian authorities had promised that the conflict with the opposition would not be resolved through force, Ukrainian police tore down a tent camp in the center of Kyiv which had been erected by protesters demanding the President’s resignation.

42. The co-rapporteurs were also informed that following the 9 March 2001 demonstrations, massive arrests had taken place and more than 240 persons were taken into custody, using administrative procedures against demonstrators, thus denying them legal assistance (the administrative procedures allow for a detention of 3-15 days). In the meantime, most of them has been released, but according to human rights NGOs 12-15 persons, mostly students, are still missing. The co-rapporteurs would highly appreciate the clarification of this matter by the Ukrainian authorities.

43. In addition, 15 persons, considered to be responsible of the outburst of violence on 9 March, are under arrest in the SIZO of the Security Service (SBU), and are expected to be accused of “organization of mass unrest” according to the article 71 part 2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the sanction of which is 2–12 years of imprisonment. While the co-rapporteurs strongly condemn the violent actions occurred during the demonstration, they note with concern that the resort of the authorities to such a severe accusation of the Article 71 is an unprecedented event in the history of independent Ukraine.

44. The co-rapporteurs were told by the Ombudsman, Mrs Nina Karpachova that she had insisted on beeing in contact with all the incarcerated people. In addition, she had appealed to the authorities to change the charges from “crime against the state”, a paragraph, never in use since the Soviet-time, and which could result in twelve years imprisonment for the demonstrators.

45. Today it is by no means clear who had been behind the violent actions during the 9 March demonstration. The co-rapporteurs received a video tape from the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry that shows an aggressive group attacking the police. At the same time, they are in possession of a tape, received from members of the opposition, showing a peaceful demonstration countered by a belligerent police force. Currently, it is very much under discussion in Ukraine whether paid provocators had initiated the violence. It should also be noted that there were no attempts to arrest aggressive demonstrators on the spot.

46. The co-rapporteurs are also concerned that intimidations against the members of the Rada have taken place: Mrs Semennyuk, a Socialist deputy, was severely beaten by militia men and she had to be hospitalised on 9 March.

47. The co-rapporteurs were also informed by NGOs and members of Parliament about the case of Mr Kovaltchuk, a public defence counsel of the territorial community of Vasylkiv, and a well-known pleader of human rights. He has been kept in confinement during the last eight months on fabricated charges for “illegal holding of weapons”. The co-rapporteurs would highly appreciate the clarification of this matter by the Ukrainian authorities.

48. During their fact-finding visit, the co-rapporteurs were able to visit Mrs Yulia Tymoshenko, former Deputy Prime Minister who was recovering in a Kiev clinic after spending six weeks in solitary confinement following her arrest (on 13 February) on “corruption charges”. They very much agree with First Deputy Premier Mr Yuriy Yekhanurov who commented on 28 March 2001 that the release of Ms Tymoshenko from jail would reduce political tensions in the country.

49. Yet, Mr N. Obihod, Deputy Prosecutor General, defended the arrest of Ms Yulia Tymosenko as a “precautionary measure”, and he considered the Kiev district court ruling of 27 March releasing her from jail as “biased by political motives”. Therefore, the Prosecutor-General's Office has appealed against that ruling. The co-rapporteurs are very much alarmed that late on Friday 30 March, the same day after their meeting with Ms. Tymoshenko the court decision ordering her release was already reversed. Acting under direct instruction of President Leonid Kuchma, the Presidium of the Kiev City Court overruled the decision of Pechersky Regional Court. Friday night, Ms. Tymoshenko was brutally arrested in her hospital room by people of the Deputy Prosecutor General, N. Obihod who ordered to transfer her back into Lukianivska prison after a forced checking-out from the hospital. At the same time they welcome her re-release. The President of Ukraine’s Supreme Court, V. Boiko, on 2 April, ordered the suspension of a lower court decision to re-arrest Mrs Tymoshenko.

50. The co-rapporteurs also wish to report of the meeting with the representatives of the democratic opposition, the National Salvation Forum. It represents a broad spectrum of the political parties, intellectuals and members of parliament. The Forum considers that “Ukraine is in systemic crisis - created by mismanagement of the country’s economy, turmoil in political life, manipulated by the President’s entourage, large scale violation of human rights and corruption”. They ask for direct negotiations with the President and airing time on national media channels to make known their programme, and they consider that the only way to change Ukraine’s present form of government is by weakening the President’s almost absolute power, strengthening the government, the parliament and the judicial system.

51. Mr Orel, Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration commented on the need to start a meaningful political dialogue with the opposition that “no dialogue was possible with Molotov-coktail throwers”. In a public statement, President Kuchma characterised the National Salvation Forum as a “sundry conglomerate”, the leaders of which [were] “looking for salvation, though not for the state and the nation, but for themselves – from political bankrupcy and oblivion and for - some of them – from criminal responsibility”.

52. The co-rapporteurs are convinced that only the rule of law, due legal procedures, genuine freedom of the press, of expression, and of assembly without fear of reprisal—combined with serious political dialogue — can help lead Ukraine out of the current political crisis. They believe in the necessity of a serious and meaningful political dialogue among all the parties concerned. All parties should assume their responsibilities, and in this respect the President’s attitude is crucial.

53. They also express strong support for attempts to reform the political process and strengthen civil society, to establish a genuine separation of and balance between the executive, legislative, and judicial powers, as well as a truly open, honest, and accountable system of governance.

Penitentiary system

54. Upon accesion to the Council of Europe, Ukraine had committed itself to transfer the prison administration to the Ministry of Justice before the end of 1998. This has still not been done. Instead, in accordance with a Presidential decree of 13 March 1999, the prison administration was transferred from the Ministry of the Interior to the newly-created State Department for Execution of Punishments, which is directly responsible to the Cabinet of Ministers.

55. While noting positive developments in this field, the co-rapporteurs express their dissatisfaction for the following reasons: first, the commitment consisted in transferring the prison administration to the Ministry of Justice and not to a new State Department (the institutional predecessor of which also used to belong to the Ministry of the Interior). Second, they have been informed that some pre-trial custody centres (the so-called Militia Holding Facilities, ITTs) still remain under the authority of Ministry of the Interior. Moreover, the co-rapporteurs encourage the Ukrainian authorities to transfer the pre-trial detention centres (SIZOs) which remain under the authority of the security services to the State Department. This should be done in order to bring the penitentiary system in full compliance with European human rights principles and standards.

56. In this respect, the co-rapporteurs were informed that the Ministry of Justice continues its efforts to subordinate the State Department to the Ministry, thus fulfilling the relevant commitment of Ukraine in this field. Although the complete demilitarisation process of the penitentiary system is still awaited, the co-rapporteurs welcome the new normative documents issued by the State Department which have abrogated all previous stipulations and contributed to the restructuring of the penitentiary system.

Crimean Tatars

57. The representatives of the Crimean Tatars welcomed the conclusion on 4 September 1998 of an agreement between the governments of Ukraine and the Republic of Uzbekistan on simplified formalities for Crimean Tatars renouncing their Uzbekistan citizenship.⁵

58. The co-rapporteurs are heartened to learn that the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is about to finish the second reading of the new version of the draft Law of Ukraine “On Citizenship of Ukraine”. This draft Law has gone through international expertise, in particular in the Council of Europe, its provisions being harmonised to the provisions of the European Convention on Nationality. The provisions of the agreements regarding facilitating of the order of obtaining Ukrainian citizenship are also reflected in the draft Law.

59. However, the representatives of the Crimean Tatars expressed a number of complaints regarding mainly their representation in the Crimean Parliament, the status and use of their language and the acquisition of land.

60. In this context, it should be noted that the Crimean parliament approved a new constitution in December 1998, which gives the Crimean government control over its own fiscal policies, some approval powers over selected government appointments and considerable legislative powers though subject to compatibility with the Ukrainian constitution. The Crimean constitution does not resolve the issue of the status of the Crimean Tatars, who have been seeking special representational guarantees in the Crimean parliament as well as official status for their language.

61. The co-rapporteurs wish to draw the Ukrainian authorities’ attention to Recommendation 1455 on Repatriation and integration of the Tatars of Crimea, adopted on 5 April 2000, in which the Assembly “invites the Government of Ukraine and the regional authorities of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea to study the experience of other member states of the Council of Europe concerning the representation of minorities and with a view to restoring and securing the rights of the Crimean Tatars to education in the Crimean Tatar language, and the use of their language in all private and public affairs.”

Fight against Corruption

62. According to the assessment of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) “Disagreements between the President and the Rada have been a constant feature of Ukraine's political system. In this divided system, informal clans based on regional and sectoral ties have come to play an unusually influential role in the policy process. This has led to pervasive corruption at all levels of the system, perceived to be among the highest of any of the transition countries”. In a World Bank report on “Anticorruption in Transition: A Contribution to the Policy Debate”, Ukraine is presented as “a country with a high level of administrative corruption and state capture”⁶.

63. One of the most striking examples of corruption concerns a former Prime Minister of Ukraine, Mr Lazarenko. At present, he is being held is custody in the United States in connection with an investigation of the criminal case conducted in that country on the charges of laundering illegally obtained incomes. The US currently does not have an extradition agreement with Ukraine.

64. Corruption in Ukraine is not restricted to political circles and oligarchs; it is also omnipresent in the courts. Suffice here to quote President Kuchma in one of his interviews before the 1999 presidential elections: “What happens in our courts today is inadmissible. The court must guard the law, but not distribute positions and material means … Some court decisions cause not only surprise, but indignation. This is not execution of laws, this is execution of orders. Reforming the court system is extremely necessary, and I shall do everything to reform it”.

65. In this respect, the co-rapporteurs welcome the authorities’ efforts to bring about a full-scale administrative reform of the state government, and the measures taken in order to further harmonise the Ukrainian national legislation with European norms and standards. The co-rapporteurs are convinced that the bigger the uncontrolled involvement of the State in the economic life, the bigger is the risk for corruption. Hence the crucial importance of adopting the new civil and criminal code.

66. The co-rapporteurs were also informed during their fact-finding visit about plans to create a national bureau of investigation in order to curb corruption in Ukraine. Moreover, the Rada envisages parliamentary hearings to investigate privatisation incidents and a general screening process against the financial-political elite.

67. The co-rapporteurs are concerned, however, that anticorruption legislation continues to be enforced selectively, mostly against government opponents and low-level officials.

Other commitments

68. A specific concern is related to Ukraine’s co-operation with the Parliamentary Assembly as was stressed by the President of the Assembly in his letter of 12 September 2000 to the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, the content of which is as follows:

“I have been informed that three members of the Ukrainian delegation to the Council of Europe, Mr Oliynyk, Mr Rakhansky and Mr Holovaty, had encountered difficulties in attending meetings of Assembly committees of which they are members because the Verkhovna Rada could not cover their travel expenses. As a consequence, Mr Rakhansky did not attend the 4 September meeting of a sub-committee of the Committee on Science and Technology, which he chairs, nor Mr Oliynyk the Bureau meeting on the 7th^,while the travel and subsistence costs for Mr Holovaty’s trip to Paris, where he took part in the meeting on the 8th^of the Monitoring Committee, were covered by the Liberal Group.

According to Article 38a of the Council of Europe’s Statute, “Each Member [State] shall bear the expenses of its own representation in the Committee of Ministers and in the [Parliamentary] Assembly.” Quite clearly, this means that the Verkhovna Rada should not refuse to cover the expenses of Mr Oliynyk, Mr Rakhansky and Mr Holovaty. As you know, since its establishment, the Assembly of the Council of Europe has consistently emphasised that delegations should reflect the political balance within the Parliament they represent. Thus, Rule 6.2 provides that “insofar as the number of their members allows, national delegations should be composed so as to ensure a fair representation of the political parties or groups in their parliament.” It is a pluralist body, where freedom of expression is jealously guarded.

I am aware that participation in the Assembly’s work represents a significant financial burden for the Verkhovna Rada. However, I would stress again the importance of ensuring that all members of your delegation and, in particular, those representing minority views, are given the opportunity to attend Assembly meetings.”

69. The co-rapporteurs share the President’s concerns and urge the Verkhovna Rada to ensure full participation of the Ukrainian delegation in the Assembly’s activities in the future.

D. CONCLUSIONS

70. As regards the reform of institutions, the Assembly adopted on 4 April 2000 Recommendation 1451 in which it stated: “If the referendum results are implemented in a non-constitutional manner, or if the constitution were to be amended through non-constitutional means, it recommends that Ukraine’s membership of the Council of Europe be suspended”.

71. Two draft bills on revision of the constitution (one submitted by the President and the other tabled by 152 MPs) have been sent to the Constitutional Court. On 29 June 2000, the Court declared the Presidential draft in conformity with the constitution and, on 13 July, it considered that several provisions of the parliamentary draft were unconstitutional. The very same day, the Verkhovna Rada adopted by simple majority a resolution on provisional approval of the presidential draft bill, but the two-third majority was not obtained at the second reading. The co-rapporteurs expect that the Verkhovna Rada will be able to make a decision in full respect of the deputies’ freedom of expression and voting and in the light of the Venice Commission’s opinion.

72. They also believe that if the results are implemented, the referendum will have a major impact on the structure of the Ukrainian political system, strengthening substantially the powers of the President and breaking the control of the opposition parties on the parliament. Yet the implementation of the referendum itself runs the risk of further polarising the political system.

73. As far as Ukraine’s obligations and commitments are concerned, the co-rapporteurs must state that, apart from the ratification of Protocol 6 to the ECHR on 4 April 2000, little progress has been achieved lately.The only positive step the co-rapporteurs were informed of was that the consideration in the third reading by the Verkhovna Rada of the civil code. The general part of the criminal code is ready to be considered in April 2001. No concrete progress could be recorded as regards the framework act on the legal policy of Ukraine for the protection of human rights, the framework act on legal and judicial reform, or the new codes on civil and criminal procedure. The new law on political parties has not yet been promulgated, and a new “law on election” which was adopted by a strong majority of the Verkova Rada (but failing to obtain the necessary two-thirds) – has been vetoed by the President.

74. The co-rapporteurs cannot but strongly criticise the Verkhovna Rada for postponing legal reforms which the Ukrainian authorities pledged to adopt within a year of accession (November 1995). At the same time, they also note and welcome the pledge of Mr Havrysh, Deputy Chairman of the Rada, - that of the members of the Ukrainian parliamentary delegation to the Assembly and leaders of the parties and fractions of the Rada – according to which the legislative commitments of Ukraine will be fulfilled by June 2001. The adoption of these laws is all the more important that on 29 June 2001 the transitional provisions of the Ukrainian Constitution will come to an end.

75. Furthermore, the co-rapporteurs are deeply concerned by murders of journalists, repeated aggression against and continuing intimidation of journalists, members of parliament and opposition politicians in Ukraine, and the frequent and serious abuses of power by the Ukrainian executive authorities in respect of freedom of expression and of assembly. The murder of Mr Gongadze is only the most visible instance of violence against and harassment of independent journalists, politicians and other prominent Ukrainians.

76. Therefore the co-rapporteurs urge the Ukrainian authorities, notably the President, to put an end to the practice of intimidation and repression of opposition politicians and the independent press, and to take all necessary measures to discourage and curb attacks and threats against journalists and other media representatives.

77. The co-rapporteurs are convinced that only the respect of human rights, pluralist democracy and the rule of law, notably due legal procedures, genuine freedom of the press, of expression, and of assembly without fear of reprisal — combined with serious political dialogue — can help lead Ukraine out of this crisis. They call on all parties involved in the crisis – political parties, parliamentary and extra-parliamentary opposition and President – to assume their responsibilities and to engage in a meaningful political dialogue without delay but in full respect of each other’s democratic prerogatives.

78. The co-rapporteurs also express strong support for attempts to reform the political process and strengthen civil society, to establish a genuine separation of and balance between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, as well as a truly open, honest, and accountable system of governance.

APPENDIX I

Comments by the Ukrainian authorities on the preliminary draft report

[AS/Mon (2000) 26 rev]

Unofficial translation from Ukrainian

CHAIRMAN OF THE VERKHOVNA RADA OF UKRAINE

Kyiv, 30 December 2000

Dear Mr President,

Referring to the comments prepared by the Ukrainian authorities to the preliminary draft report of the Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on Ukraine I would like to share with you some ideas.

The preliminary draft report of the Monitoring Committee has received the most thorough consideration in Ukraine. We are well aware of the content of some observations made by the Rapporteurs. The President, the Verkhovna Rada and the Government of Ukraine take steps aimed at elimination of the shortcomings.

At the same time, in my opinion, the structure of this document, in particular, the combination of such two fundamental issues for our states as fulfilment of obligations before the Council of Europe and implementation of the all-Ukrainian referendum, substantially differs it from other relevant documents of the Assembly.

I would like to briefly dwell on two above-mentioned issues.

We are well aware that the Parliamentary Assembly has been expecting the fulfilment by Ukraine of its obligations before the Council of Europe for a long period of time. Unfortunately, not everything has been done. At the same time, we consider it unfair not to see the positive developments in this field which took place in 2000. Since setting up of the parliamentary majority in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Protocol N° 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights has been ratified, draft Civil and Criminal Codes have been adopted in the second reading. You might agree that is rather considerable progress in comparison with the slow legislative process in Ukraine during 1995-1999. There are all grounds to state that the above-mentioned Codes will be adopted in the nearest future.

His Excellency

Lord RUSSELL-JOHNSTON

President

Parliamentary Assembly

Council of Europe

Strasbourg, France

The part of the draft report related to the all-Ukrainian referendum and implementation of its results seems, to a certain extend, inadequate to the real situation. If one leaves aside the emotional assessments and takes into consideration the fact that during eight months passed since the referendum any violations of currents legislation of Ukraine have not been registered, it becomes evident that some observations on Ukraine look at least groundless.

Furthermore, one can not but draw attention to a certain selective character of the information given in the draft Report. On the one hand, there are references to a little known in the Ukrainians society non–governmental organisation, as well as opinions of some personalities, and on the other hand the information officially provided by the Ukrainian authorities is practically omitted.

There is almost no information in the draft report on the measures taken by the Ukrainian authorities aimed at the solution of problems raised in it. First of all, it concerns the issues on freedom of mass-media, combating corruption, resettlement of the Crimean Tatars, as well as their representation in the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, status and use of their language, receipt of land lots.

We, in Ukraine, would like to be understood correctly now and in the future. In our view, the report on honouring obligations by a member state of the Council of Europe should give a wide and comprehensive picture of the situation in the state concerned. Only on the basis of detailed and full analysis of the information from different sources one can make conclusions and demand from a state the solution of certain problems.

We do hope that the comments by the Ukrainian authorities will be studied in depth by the Rapporteurs on Ukraine and members of the Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and duly reflected in the final report on Ukraine, as well as in relevant decisions of the Assembly.

In conclusion, I would like to assure you the all branches of power in Ukraine are fully committed to undertake joint efforts in order to fulfil all obligations of Ukraine before the Council of Europe and to develop further democratic process in Ukraine in compliance with the European norms and standards.

In this process Ukraine counts on understanding and assistance of the Council of Europe.

As before, Ukraine is open for a constructive and transparent dialogue.

Sincerely yours,

Ivan Plyusch

Unofficial translation

Comments of the Ukrainian authorities

on the preliminary draft Report of the Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly

of the Council of Europe on honouring obligations

and commitments by member states

Section I “Institutional reform”

Paragraph 9

The information on referendum voting results contained in the draft report does not correspond to the data contained in the Protocol of Central Electoral Commission of Ukraine of 21 April 2000 on the results of the all-Ukrainian referendum.

According to the mentioned Protocol of Central Electoral Commission the voting results at the all-Ukrainian referendum of 16 April 2000 were the following:

The total number of citizens of Ukraine included into the list of voters eligible to participate in the all-Ukrainian referendum – 36629926. The number of citizens who got bulletins – 29728575 (81,15%).

Question number

In favour

Against

Annulled votes

1

84,69%

13,88%

1,32%

2

89,00%

9,62%

1,24%

3

89,91%

8,73%

1,23%

4

81,68%

16,79%

1,40%

Paragraphs 10, 36, 40

We think that one cannot refer only to the opinion of Ukrainian Committee “Helsinki-90” as to illegality of the methods of organisation and conducting of the all-Ukrainian referendum of 16 April 2000 on the following grounds:

• The all-Ukrainian referendum was held in accordance with people’s initiative, evidences of which are 260 applications for registration of initiative groups to the Central Electoral Commission;

• The conducting of the all-Ukrainian referendum was monitored by 73 official observers from 11 countries of the world, including 43 observers from the Ukrainian section of the International Association of Human Rights;

• The Ukrainian Committee “Helsinki-90” did not present for accreditation by the Central Electoral Commission any of its official observers for monitoring the conducting of the all-Ukrainian referendum;

• The representatives of the Ukrainian Committee “Helsinki-90” did not present to the Central Electoral Commission any petitions or appeals on violations during the holding of the all-Ukrainian referendum;

The Ukrainian Committee “Helsinki-90” is the mostly unknown non-governmental organisation in Ukraine. Moreover, such non-governmental organisation is not registered in our state in accordance with the procedures provided for by the legislation of Ukraine.

Paragraph 12

The implementation of the results of the all-Ukrainian referendum is being conducted with firm adherence to the Constitution and the current legislation of Ukraine.

The President of Ukraine as the Head of State, according to his authority (Article 156 of the Constitution of Ukraine) is obliged to provide the implementation of the results of the all-Ukrainian referendum held in accordance with people’s initiative. Therefore, the President of Ukraine submitted for approval by the Verkhovna Rada the draft law of Ukraine “On Introduction of Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine in Accordance with the Results of the All-Ukrainian Referendum on people’s initiative”.

This draft law, which envisages amendments to the Constitution in accordance with the first three questions approved during the referendum, does not contradict the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of 27 March 2000.

This decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine does not envisage obligatory simultaneous submission to the Verkhovna Rada and adoption of decisions on all four questions approved during the referendum.

The issue of establishment of a bicameral Parliament in Ukraine requires a more scrupulous study and introduction of more than 40 amendments into the Constitution of Ukraine.

In this regard the President of Ukraine has established the Commission on preparation of amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine and other draft Laws, resulting from the decisions of the all-Ukrainian referendum on people’s initiative (Decree of the President of Ukraine of 29 May 2000 No.727). The Commission is headed by Mr V. Medvedchuk, the First Vice-Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada and Mr V. Lytvin the Head of the Presidential Administration.

The task of the Commission is to provide the development of the draft Laws of Ukraine “On Introduction of Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine in Accordance with the Results of the All-Ukrainian Referendum on People’s Initiative”, “On Introduction of Amendments into the Law of Ukraine” “On Election of the People’s Deputies of Ukraine” and other draft laws necessary for ensuring implementation of the decisions of the mentioned referendum, organisation of a wide discussion, including those through mass media.

Paragraph 15

The Ruling of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on conformity of draft law of Ukraine “On introduction of amendments into the Constitution of Ukraine in accordance with the results of the all-Ukrainian referendum on people’s initiative” submitted to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by the President of Ukraine, was given on 27 June 2000, and not on 29 June 2000, as draft Report states. This ruling was promulgated on 29 June 2000.

The Ruling of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of 27 June 2000 on conformity of the draft law submitted by the President in no case contradicts the provisions of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of 27 March 2000. As the comments on paragraph 12 of the Report states the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of 27 March 2000 does not envisage obligatory simultaneous submission to the Verkhovna Rada and adoption of decision on all four questions approved during the referendum.

Paragraph 17

We think that this paragraph should be clarified.

In accordance with the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of 11 July 2000 (promulgated on 13 July 2000), the draft law of Ukraine “On Introduction of Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine in Accordance with the Results of the All-Ukrainian Referendum of 16 April 2000” submitted by a group of people’s deputies, was recognised as not corresponding to the Constitution of Ukraine in the part related to limiting immunity of people’s deputies of Ukraine.

The same Ruling of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine closed the proceedings in this case in the part of the draft law dealing with the introduction of amendments into the Constitution of Ukraine as to the bicameral parliament. This decision is based on “the lack of complex, system amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine in the version proposed by the group of people’s deputies of Ukraine, makes itself impossible the comprehensive analysis of the proposed amendments as to their compliance with Article 157 of the Constitution of Ukraine”.

Paragraph 19

We consider as doubtful “serious insistence” of the Rapporteurs on the need for adherence to the freedom of expression and voting of all MPs during the hearing on the issue of amendments to the Constitution, because there are no grounds to consider that such deputies’ freedoms have ever been or may be limited.

Paragraph 20

“Fears and concern” with the all-Ukrainian referendum, contained within the Report, are unclear because:

• The lack of law on referendum cannot be considered as an obstacle for its holding, because the relevant main principal provisions are contained within the Constitution of Ukraine;

• The referendum has been held and its results are being implemented exclusively with adherence to the requirements of the Constitution of Ukraine and the laws of Ukraine currently in force.

Therefore, there are no grounds to consider the process of introduction of amendments into the Constitution of Ukraine in accordance with the results of the all-Ukrainian referendum as “unconstitutional manner” or “in unconstitutional way”.

Section II “Obligations of Ukraine before the Council of Europe”

1. Obligations of Ukraine

Paragraphs 28, 67

The statement that Ukraine has not adopted a framework act on Ukrainian legal policy for the protection of human rights is incorrect. Such document is the Principles of State Policy of Ukraine in the Field of Human Rights approved by Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 17 July 1999.

Regarding the Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure, it should be noted that drafts of these documents are completed. However, these Codes cannot be approved before the approval of Criminal and Civil Codes.

Paragraph 29

On 27 March 2000 the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine approved the Law of Ukraine “On Political Parties”.

On 12 April 2000 the President of Ukraine, using his right to veto in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine, returned the Law, together with his notes and proposals, back to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for the repeated examination.

The examination of the mentioned Law is scheduled by the end of 2000.

At the present stage of the Law of Ukraine “On Associations of Citizens” regulates the issues of activities of political parties. In accordance with Article I of Chapter XV “Transitional Provisions” of the Constitution of Ukraine, this Law is in force in the part which does not contradict to the Constitution of Ukraine.

Paragraph 30

The actions taken by the Ukrainian authorities for the purpose of ratification of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages should be mentioned in the draft report as progress.

The Law of Ukraine “On Ratification of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages”, the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of 12 July 2000 and drafting of a relevant law for repeated submission by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine are persuasive evidences of the readiness of the Ukrainian authorities to fulfil this obligation before the Council of Europe as well as of the progress achieved in this field.

Paragraph 31

At the present none of the eight proposed draft Laws “On Judicial System” are accepted as a basis. The Council on reforms of judicial system was established on 30 August 2000 with the purpose of development, analysis and co-ordination of the mentioned drafts. The President of Ukraine headed the Council. His Deputy is the First Vice-Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada V. Medvedchuck. The Council is also composed of the Head of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, the Head of Parliamentary Committee on legal policy, the Head of Administration of the President of Ukraine, the Head of the Supreme Arbitration Court of Ukraine and the Minister of Justice of Ukraine.

A new co-ordinated draft Law “On Judicial System” will be submitted as a result of the work of the Council.

2. Other issues of concern

a. Elections

Paragraph 35

The Ukrainian side didn’t agreed with the conclusions of the Rapporteurs of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, both when they were made public and at the present stage. The Ukrainian side considers that there are no grounds to include criticism of the elections of the President of Ukraine into the draft Report.

The presidential elections were conducted in accordance with the new Law of Ukraine “On the elections of the President of Ukraine” that entered into force in March 1999 and has several substantial advantages over the previous Law adopted in 1991, which didn’t correspond to many democratic principles.

The elections of the President of Ukraine were organised by the Central Electoral Commission, which is an independent state authority in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On the Central Electoral Commission”.

The presidential elections of 1999 were based on the principles of multi-party system, free and equal balloting for the Presidency of Ukraine; publicity and openness; freedom of agitation; equal opportunities for all candidates to conduct their election campaigns, impartiality for the candidates from the public authorities.

The Central Electoral Commission received 1020 appeals concerning the issues of organisation and conducting of the elections, they were resolved in the terms set by law.

In accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On the Elections of the President of Ukraine”, the subjects of electoral law had the rights to appeal decisions, actions and negligence of the electoral commissions to the electoral commission of higher level or to the courts. These rights were fully used.

For example, by the end of November 1999 the Offices of Public Prosecutors received more than 400 appeals on violation of the laws in force and, in particular, 140 of them dealing with the violation of the Law of Ukraine “On the Elections of the President of Ukraine” (in particular, 96 were submitted by the People’s Deputies, 80 by trustees of the presidential candidates, 64 from citizens and 63 from the electoral commissions).

Only in 6 cases where corpus delicti was evident, criminal cases were opened. Thus, the Office of Public Prosecutor of Sumy oblast initiated a criminal case based on request of the People’s Deputy of Ukraine N. Vitrenko on dissemination of leaflets of defamatory character about her; the Public Prosecutor of Radyansky district of Kyiv initiated a criminal case based on the fact of production and dissemination of anonymous leaflets that libel honour and dignity of the presidential candidate O. Moroz.

However, the majority of appeals could not prove the facts contained in them and, basing on the results of checks, decisions were made to reject claims to initiate criminal case or grounded explanations were provided.

The Central election commission accredited 576 official observers form foreign countries and international organisations for monitoring of Presidential elections. They represented 38 countries of the world and 23 international organisations.

Territorial election commissions in territorial electoral districts registered 276450 official observers representing presidential contenders, parties, party blocks and meetings of voters, which were subjects of the election process. On average, one voting district was monitored by 1229, and one polling station was monitored by 9 official observers.

International Foundation of Electoral Systems that had conducted monitoring of the elections of the President of Ukraine characterised its co-operation with the Central Electoral Commission of Ukraine as “fruitful, which is a striking example of a high level of professional relations”, underlining high level of openness of electoral commissions.

Based of the results of the voting, the Central Electoral Commission has not determined any violations of the Law of Ukraine “On the Elections of the President of Ukraine” which could influence the outcome of the voting.

Unfortunately, draft Report lacks the conclusions of the observers of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for monitoring of the elections of the President of Ukraine that the voting process itself was conducted properly and in normal atmosphere, without significant violations that could influence the outcome of the voting.

Besides, high activity of the voters during the elections of the President of Ukraine (more than 70%), the number of votes for the incumbent President L. Kuchma during two voting rounds, complete openness to monitoring of elections for the international community contradict allegations that the mechanisms of state power of Ukraine were used in favour of a single candidate.

b. Mass media

Paragraphs 42, 46

The legislation on freedom of expression of one’s thoughts fully complies with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 10) and of the International Pact on Civil and Political rights (Article 19) on limitations of such expression.

At the same time, the International Pact on Civil and Political rights (Article 19) stipulates that the use of right to freedom of expression sets special obligations and a special responsibility. Those obligations and responsibility should be respected not only by the public authorities of Ukraine but also mass media and journalists during preparation and dissemination of information.

Every person in Ukraine can protect his/her honour and dignity in court. The Constitution of Ukraine stipulates that administration of justice in Ukraine is conducted exclusively by judges (Article 124), guarantees independence of judges and bans influence on judges in any form (Article 126).

Legislation of Ukraine does not limit freedom of media by unreasonable fines.

Indeed, there are no special norms in Ukraine regulating the rights of mass media to criticise officials, politicians, state authorities, various state and civil establishments. At the same time there is a general right to criticise and mechanisms of protection against libel, inadequate information, protection of honour and dignity.

Only court as single authority for administration of justice in Ukraine is entitled to determine legality of using sanctions related to groundless libel.

Draft Law of Ukraine “On Introduction of Amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On Printed Mass Media (press) in Ukraine” that provides for that “the sum of compensation cannot exceed 100 (one hundred) of untaxed minimum incomes of citizens” was prepared to bring the size of compensations into line with the present social economic situation in Ukraine.

Paragraph 43

Draft Report overestimates almost twice the sum in USD equivalence of fine imposed on “Express” newspaper by Lviv district court as a result of libel case. As on 31^st March 2000 the official exchange rate of the National Bank of Ukraine was 5.4276 hrivnya for 1 USD, thus the sum of fine of 150000 hrivnya is 27600 USD, and not 50000, as draft Report states.

The statement about spreading of journalists’ protest to all the country does not correspond to the reality. This action started on 13 April 2000 in Lviv near Taras Shevchenko’s monument with construction of a symbolic barricade and subsided on 24 April 2000 after Lviv oblast court reversed the decision of Frankivsky district court of Lviv dated 31 March 2000 concerning satisfaction of a claim by composer O. Kulchitsky.

Paragraph 45

Draft Report provides inadequate information as to the statement of Mr K. Lyaschenko on alleged seizing of technical equipment belonging to TV “Channel-5” and his arrest by militia authorities.

The above-mentioned technical equipment was dismantled by the officials of State Inspection of communication because of its illegal use (without a relevant certificate) by “Channel-5”.

The seizure was conducted in accordance with the requirements of Article 29 of the Law of Ukraine “On communication” in presence of witnesses and police officers, which were invited to maintain public order.

Dismantled equipment was stored in Nikopol town police department in Dnipropetrivsk oblast and on 12 December 1999 it was returned to the owner.

Statements of Mr K. Lyaschenko about illegal arrest are false. On November 16^th 1999 there was only forcible bringing of Mr K. Lyaschenko to Nikopol town court based on order of judge E. Gromak. The bringing was ordered because of refusal of M. K. Lyaschenko without substantial reasons to court for examination of administrative case against him.

Paragraph 48

At present stage the legislation of Ukraine dealing with freedom of mass media complies in general with European and world norms and standards, though it needs certain revision.

In this regard, the recommendations of OSCE Representative for freedom of speech to the Government of Ukraine were carefully studied. At present permanent working contacts between the OSCE and the State Committee on Information Policy, TV and Radio Broadcasting of Ukraine have been established. An agreement was reached to involve the OSCE in implementation of the above mentioned recommendations through relevant OSCE projects in Ukraine.

The contacts between the Council of Europe and the State Committee on Information Policy, TV and Radio Broadcasting are being actively developed. In the beginning of November 2000 a visit of delegation of Council of Europe Committee of Ministers rapporteurs to Ukraine took place. A report on mass media freedom in Ukraine will be published as a result of this visit. At the end of November 2000 “Regulation and self-regulation of mass media” seminar was held in Kyiv. Council of Europe experts participated in this event.

The Ukrainian authorities continue to work on implementation of the above mentioned recommendations of the OSCE.

Recommendation 1: “The government should encourage increasing public information distribution about international standards and obligations in the field of free mass media and press freedom. Culture of tolerance, pluralism and variety of views, necessary in democratic conditions, should also be encouraged”.

Permanent press club “Ministry of truth” was established under the State Committee on information policy, TV and radio broadcasting in April 2000 with the purpose of broad public awareness with European standards in the field of mass media and press freedom. This press club regularly (twice a week) holds “round tables” dedicated to discussion on protection of freedom of speech, professional independence of journalists, state support of mass media and resolving conflicts in the field of information, promoting culture of tolerance, pluralism and variety of views necessary in democratic society.

At the end of November 2000 “Regulation and self-regulation of mass media” seminar was held in Kyiv. Council of Europe experts participated in this event.

Recommendation 2: “The Government should provide that public officials refrain themselves from use of dubious actions and other pressure on journalists and mass media”.

In accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine (Article 19), public authorities and public officials are obliged to act only on the basis of the Constitution and Laws of Ukraine and within their authorities in a way prescribed by the Constitution and Laws of Ukraine.

One may interpret as ”dubious actions” the actions of public official who as a citizen applies to a court to protect his/her dignity and honour in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine (Articles 32 and 55), Civil Code (Articles 7 and 440-1) and Criminal Code (Articles 125 and 126). One can also interpret the same way the actions of officers of tax, licensing and state registration authorities during the performance of their duties and implementation of authorities stipulated by the law.

Lawfulness (and dubiousness) of the actions of public officials can be defined only by court as the only authority for administration of justice in Ukraine.

At the same time, there is a contradiction of legislation of Ukraine with ministerial instructions, which lead to use of fines, various duties and use of different tariffs. Thus, territorial authorities, tax authorities, fire inspection, sanitary services carry out control and apply sanctions to the subjects of informational activity, which complicates actions of both owners of communications systems and mass media.

In this regard, the public authorities in Ukraine permanently work to improve the existing legislation taking into consideration the development of modern information technologies in Ukraine.

The Government of Ukraine, from its side, undertakes measures to ensure that the central executive authorities and their officers would treat mass media and journalists only on the basis of laws and do not allow exceeding their authority provided to them by laws.

Recommendation 3: “Taking into account the need of journalists for greater openness and access to information, the Government and other public authorities should provide better access to information about their activities and improve their own programs of public information. Such transparency would promote improvement of quality of coverage of activities of public authorities”.

The legislation in force in Ukraine contains enough provisions for regulation of the issue of coverage of activities of public authorities, in particular, it sets the basics of interaction between mass media and public authorities, the grounds for refusal to provide official information, contains a list of documents that are not subject to be made public on requests, offences in the field of information that lead to disciplinary, civil, administrative and criminal responsibility.

Those are the Laws of Ukraine “On Information", “On Printed Mass Media (Press)”, “On TV and Radio Broadcasting”, “On State Secret”, “On Order of Coverage of Activities of Public Authorities and Institutions of Local Governing by Mass Media”.

At the same time, the mechanism of direct interaction between public authorities and mass media needs regulating of issue of providing information on the activities of executive authorities, envisaging, where possible, the broadening of access to such information.

Recommendation 4: “The Government should take steps to strengthen independence of court system with the purpose of justice and equality for all citizens”.

In accordance with the Constitution and the laws of Ukraine, judicial authority is a separate branch of power. The Constitution and the laws of Ukraine guarantee independence and immunity of judges. The Constitution of Ukraine guarantees justice of court and equality of citizens.

Recommendation 5: “The Government should ensure dissolution of mass media monopolies, e.g. in printing and distribution”.

The Law of Ukraine “On printed Mass media (press) in Ukraine” (Articles 8, 10, 11, 30) envisages free exercise by persons and legal entities (including foreign ones) of right to establish a printed media (except those who are limited in their legal capacity); it prohibits monopolisation of mass media and sets limitations of control (material and financial influence) of periodicals. There is a prohibition of putting obstacles in the way of legal activities of distributor.

The Law of Ukraine “On TV and Radio Broadcasting” (Article 7, 8, 11, 13) envisages limitations of the right of broadcasting of a single TV and radio organisation and its divisions that have rights of legal entities at several TV and radio channels; limitations of foundation (co-foundation) of TV and radio broadcasting organisations and limitations of use of broadcasting channels; the organisations and enterprises that exploit broadcasting networks are prohibited from founding or co-founding TV and radio organisations.

Distribution of printed and audio-visual mass media is limited only by registration and licensing thus being fully in compliance with the European norms and standards.

240 electronic mass media – one-third of all TV and radio organisations of Ukraine – have state authorities as their founders.

At the present stage state authorities of Ukraine take steps as to further denationalisation mass media.

Thus, the Verkhovna Rada is elaborating a draft concept of denationalisation of mass media. In October 2000 the Verkhovna Rada approved the Law of Ukraine “On Establishment of a System of Public TV and Radio Broadcasting of Ukraine” aimed at reforms of the state television and radio broadcasting.

c. Penitentiary system

Paragraphs 49-51

a) In 1996 upon the initiative of Ukrainians side within the framework of the Joint programme of the European Union and the Council of Europe for Ukraine the experts of the Council of Europe carried out the detailed analyses of the legislation in force and its application practice in the penitentiary institution of Ukraine.

Proceeding from the results of this analysis in January 1997 the Council of Europe prepared the Report “Assessment of the Ukrainian Prison System” containing exact recommendations to the Government of Ukraine concerning further reform of the penitentiary system of Ukraine, including creation of the penitentiary service as an autonomous social institution (para. 5.15).

The penitentiary type of the system recommended by the experts of the Council of Europe was introduced in Ukraine.

According to the mentioned recommendations of the Council of Europe and the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine the President of Ukraine signed the Decrees of 22 April 1998 n° 344 on creation of the State Department of Ukraine on Execution of Punishments and of 12 March 1999 n° 248 on withdrawal of the State Department of Ukraine on Execution of Punishments from the subordination of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. The mentioned Decrees determined the status of the State Department as a separate body of the executive power, subordinated to the Cabinet of Ministers in Ukraine.

On 12 December 1998 the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted the Law of Ukraine “On Introducing Changes to Some Legal Acts in Connection with Creation of the State Department of Ukraine on Execution of Punishments”, which provided from the legal basis for independent functioning of the Department.

Once the Department was created as an independent institution, the administration of the penitentiary system, course of formation of the relevant legislation compatible with European standards, in particular with the European Prison Rules, have considerably improved.

The efforts of Ukraine on reform of the penitentiary system were highly evaluated by the Council of Europe. For example, it was noted in the Council of Europe Secretariat memorandum of 15 January 1999 that the experts of the Council of Europe underlined the importance of separation of the prison administration from police and internal forces and consider creation of the State Department as an important event and first step towards reorganisation of the prison administration”. During the inspection visit of the European Committee against Tortures” delegation to Ukraine in September 2000, its Head Mrs S. Casale noted that, in the view of the Committee, Ukraine has fulfilled this commitment before the Council of Europe.

Proceeding from the above-mentioned it my be concluded that:

- the main aim of the commitment of Ukraine before the Council of Europe concerning reform of the penitentiary system of Ukraine, in particular its demilitarisation and withdrawal from subordination of military state bodies, is achieved;

- the exact subordination of the Department to any other central body of the executive power of Ukraine is not principal neither at present stage, nor for the purpose of further reform of penitentiary system of Ukraine according to general European norms and standards, which is confirmed by the practice of other European states (in some countries such system has independent status, in the other – subordinated to the ministries of justice or, even, to the ministries of internal affairs);

- at present stage subordination of the State Department of Ukraine on Execution of Punishments to any other central body of executive of Ukraine would lead to substantial financial losses (according to the assessment of the Supreme Court, the General Prosecutor’s Office, the Ministry of Interior, Security Service and the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine, which supported retaining of the present status of the Department).

Therefore, Ukraine has fulfilled its commitment before the Council of Europe concerning reform of the penitentiary system, the main aim which was the system’s demilitarisation and withdrawal from subordination of the military state body.

The State Department of Ukraine on Execution of Punishments is a central body of executive power of Ukraine with special status, its activities being in full conformity with the Constitution and legislation of our country, general European practice, norms and standards.

Ukraine will continue take measures necessary for harmonisation of the condition of treatment of the prisoners with international standards.

b) In accordance with the legislation of Ukraine, normative documents regulating activities of the State Department of Ukraine on Execution of Punishments, pre-trial isolation wards carrying out functions of pre-trial custody for arrested persons, are under jurisdiction of the State Department of Ukraine on Execution of Punishments.

Besides, under the Law of Ukraine “On Pre-trial Imprisonment” the pre-trial isolation wards of the State Department of Ukraine on Execution of Punishments and of the Security Service of Ukraine, as well as the prisons of the State Department of Ukraine on Execution of Punishments functioning a pre-trial isolation wards are the institutions set for holding persons in respect of whom taking into custody is ordered as a preventive measure. There are no pre-trial isolation wards subordinated to the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine.

d. Crimean tatars

Paragraph 52

It is expedient to note in the Report the results of implementation of the Agreement between Ukraine and Uzbekistan and the fact of its prolongation until 31 December 2001 as well as the efforts made by the state authorities of Ukraine with the view to bring the legislation of Ukraine into conformity to the European Standards.

For instance, under the Agreement between Ukraine and Uzbekistan on Co-operation in Resolution of the Issues of Citizenship of the Deported Persons and their Descendants within the period from 4 April 1998 to 31 December 1999, 80250 deported persons or their descendants, who had returned to Ukraine, had confirmed their belonging to citizenship of Ukraine. Among them 53338 persons officially left citizenship of Uzbekistan and confirmed their Ukrainian citizenship under the mentioned Agreement. 9847 deported persons have not used this opportunity for the reasons of leaving the territory of Ukraine for permanent residence, absence at the place of permanent residence, death, etc.

The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is about to finish the second reading of the new version of the draft Law of Ukraine “On Citizenship of Ukraine”. This draft Law has gone through international expertise, in particular in the Council of Europe, its provisions being harmonised to the provisions European Convention on Nationality. The provision of the agreements regarding facilitating of the order of obtaining Ukrainian citizenship are also reflected in the draft Law.

Paragraph 53

The Constitution of Ukraine and the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, legislation of Ukraine guarantee the rights of Crimean tatars.

Nevertheless, the bodies of state power of Ukraine continue to take steps aimed at improvement of existing legislation and satisfaction of the needs Crimean tatar people.

On 5 April 2000 the parliamentary hearings on the issue of status of Crimean tatars were held. Proceeding from their results the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine approved the recommendations titled “The Problems of Legislative Settlement and Implementation of the State Policy on Ensuring Rights of Crimean Tatar People and National Minorities, which were Deported and are Willingly Returning to Ukraine”.

The draft Laws “On Rehabilitation and Promotion of Rights of the Persons Belonging to National Minorities, which Suffered Repression and Were Deported from the Territory of Ukraine” and “On the Status of the Crimean Tatar People” were submitted for consideration of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in order to legally settle the complex problems related to restoration of the deported persons’ rights.

Representation of Crimean tatars in the Crimean Parliament

According to the Constitution of Ukraine (Articles 24 and 71) Elections to bodies of state power and bodies of local self-government are free and held on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage, by secret ballot. The citizens have equal constitutional rights and freedoms and are equal before the law. There shall be no privileges or restrictions based on race, colour of skin, political, religious and other beliefs, sex, ethnic and social origin, property status, place of residence, linguistic or other characteristics.

In this respect there is no legal basis for introduction of the fixed quotes or other privileges and guarantees for Crimean tatars in the process of election to the legislature of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea – the Verkohvna Rada of the Autonomy, as well as to the Verkovna Rada of Ukraine.

There are 2 representatives of Crimean tatar people in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

Moreover, as it was mentioned in the remarks to paragraph 52 of the Report, the bodies of state power of Ukraine undertake active and decisive measures for facilitating procedures of receiving Ukrainian citizenship by the deported Crimean tatars. Such measures are aimed at ensuring full enjoying of human rights and fundamental freedoms, guaranteed by the Constitution and legislation of Ukraine, by Crimean tatars, including the right to elect and being elected.

Status and use of Crimean tatar language

According to the Constitution of Ukraine (Article 10) the state language of Ukraine is the Ukrainian language. The State ensures the comprehensive development and functioning of the Ukrainian language in all spheres of social life throughout the entire territory of Ukraine.

In Ukraine, the free development, use and protection of Russian, and other languages of national minorities of Ukraine, is guaranteed.

On 14 December 1999 the Constitutional Court of Ukraine delivered the Decision of the in the case upon the constitutional application of 51 people’s deputies of Ukraine concerning the official interpretation of the provision of the Article 10 of the Constitution of Ukraine regarding use of the state language by the bodies of state power, local self-government and its application in the educational process in the educational institutions of Ukraine (the case on application of Ukrainian language). According to this decision the bodies of local executive power, bodies of the Autonomous Republic of Crimean and local self-government while carrying or their functions may apply Russian and other languages of the national minorities within the limits and under the procedure provided by the laws of Ukraine.

Under the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (Article 10) the functioning and development, use and protection of Russian, Crimean tatar language, as well as the languages of other nationalities along with the state language are ensured.

The citizens are guaranteed the rights of pre-school education in the native language, studying of the native language in the educational institutions of the state, republican and communal property forms or in the ethnic cultural associations or in the order, provided by the legislation of Ukraine and normative acts of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea within its competence.

According to the Law of Ukraine “On the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea” (Article 10) the legal acts of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea are published and made public in the state language as well as in translation to Russian and Crimean tatar languages.

Besides, the Law of Ukraine “On Ratification of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages of 1992” of 24 December 1999 provided for extension of the Charter’s provision to Crimean tatar language. The relevant provision is also included into the new draft law on ratification of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, which is being prepared for the repeated submission to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine under the relevant decision of the Constitutional Court.

At the same time, there are some problems connected with promotion of rights of the Crimean tatar people and the bodies of the state power of Ukraine make decisive steps to resolve them.

For example, upon instruction of the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine in October 2000 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea verified the facts contained in the address of the Head of the Council of the Crimean Tatar People Mr Dzhemilyov to the President of Ukraine regarding illegal actions by the bodies of the state executive power of Nyzhnogirskiy region of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in respect of the Crimean tatars.

The verification revealed, that in this region reside 9465 deported Crimean tatars (17% of all resident of the region). Among 4140 able to work persons belonging to Crimean tatar nationality work 2128. 28 deputies had been elected to the local bodies of executive. 45 doctors of Crimean tatar nationality work in the medical institutions of the region (34 %), 129 teachers (17%) work in secondary education institutions. The Regional State Administration set up a staff reserve to the posts in this institution from the persons of the Crimean tatar nationality.

144 groups for learning Crimean tatar language were created, where study 1772 persons of different nationalities. It is planned to open national classes and national schools for the Crimean tatar people in 2001. During the period of 1999-2000 were submitted no applications of Crimean tatars concerning obstacles in learning national languages by their children.

From the beginning of returning of the deported peoples 1008 land lots have been given for residential buildings construction. Presently the demand in the land lots for residential construction has been fully satisfied.

Nevertheless, the facts of violations of the Law of Ukraine “on Applicatons by Citizens” and the Presidential Decree “On the Order of Sharing the Land, Collectively Owned Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations” of 8 July 2000 were revealed. In this regard the bodies of the local power of the region and those of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea took the measures to remove revealed violations of the legislation of Ukraine.

Therefore, the Report should contain information not only about the problematic issues concerning the deported Crimean tatars re-integration, but also about the measures taken by the Ukrainian bodies of state power aimed a resolving them as well as creating the conditions, necessary for full satisfaction of the needs of the Crimean tatar people.

e. Corruption

Paragraphs 55-57

a. In this part of the draft Report the information is presented in such a way that it seems that corruption in Ukraine is extremely widespread. At the same time, the information on the measures on fighting corruption taken in Ukraine is not provided for, despite those measures being quite considerable and efficient.

The strict system of measures on counteracting this negative phenomenon has been elaborated and introduced to fighting corruption in Ukraine. The relevant legislation has been worked out and improved.

In Ukraine the Law “On Fighting Corruption”, the National Programme on Fighting Corruption and the Concept of Fighting Corruption, adopted by the corresponding Decrees of the President of Ukraine, as well as number of decisions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine are implemented. The President of Ukraine submitted the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine the Draft Law “On Making Changes and Additions to the Law of Ukraine “On Fighting Corruption” for consideration. There is the Co-ordinating Committee on Fighting Corruption and Organised Crime subordinated to the President of Ukraine.

A great attention is given to honesty and transparency of the state officials’ activities. Presently, the President and the Government of Ukraine conduct a full-scale administrative reform of the state government, which envisages reduction of the state machinery, officials’ discretion rights, parallel functions liquidation, increasing of state official’s responsibility as well as the level of their material support etc. On 21 March 2000 the Co-ordinating Council on State Service, subordinated to the President of Ukraine, was created. Its main functions are elaboration of measures on increasing responsibility and preventing acts of corruption by state officials. The draft Code of Conduct of State Officials, based on the relevant document adopted at the 106^th meeting of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers has been elaborated.

Ukraine takes measures regarding further harmonisation of the national legislation with the European norms and standards. Ukraine is a party to the Council of Europe conventions in the criminal sphere, the Civil and Criminal Conventions on Corruption signed by Ukraine are being prepared for ratification.

The co-operation with other states and international organisations in the field of fighting corruption is developing. For instance, the Programme of Ukrainian-American co-operation in the sphere of fighting corruption and organised crime for 2000-2005 has been adopted, the Agreement between Ukraine and USA on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Cases has been concluded, the work on preparation of signing of the agreement on extradition between Ukraine and USA is carried out.

The counteraction to the acts of corruption becomes widespread in Ukraine. Recently, the National Coalition for Probity was established, which opened its consultative centers in the cities of Ukraine. The centres work in two main directions: protection of the citizens that suffered from corruption abuses and prevention of corruption.

At present, there are the following major directions of work in the sphere of fighting corruption and organised crime in Ukraine:

- conclusion of the administrative reform;

- acceleration of adoption by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of the new variant of the Law of Ukraine “On Fighting Corruption”;

- completion of creation of the data bank of the persons, convicted for acts of corruption or subjected to relevant administrative sanctions for using such information during specialised examination of the candidates to the state service offices as well as the staff that already occupy such offices, candidates to deputies or candidates to elected posts in the state institutions (according to the Main Directions of the Strategy and Tactics of Fighting Corruption and Organised Crime;

- introduction of studying on the regular basis by the scientific staff of the Interagency Research Centre of the results of sociological studies carried out by national research institutions, including non-governmental (the National Coalition for Probity, the Junior Lawyers against Corruption etc);

- Studying of the public opinion concerning state and public order institutions, impartial evaluation of level of corruption and efficiency of the work to counter corruption;

- More active representation of our country in the work of the institutions and bodies of UN, Council of Europe, other international organisations, which elaborate international standards of state officials’ conduct, recommendations, conventions and other documents concerning preventing and fighting and revealing corruption.

The measures taken by the bodies of state power of Ukraine in the field of fighting corruption give tangible results. For instance, owing to beginning of investigation of the criminal cases against the former prime minister of Ukraine P. Lazarenko the police of other countries – USA and Switzerland – opened their criminal cases incriminating him of laundering illegally obtained incomes.

Along with P. Lazarenko the criminal proceedings were initiated against other high level officials, a people’s deputy being among them. In other criminal case the people’s deputy M. Zherditskiy, arrested by the German police, is put on trial.

The investigation of these and other cases clearly indicates real fighting corruption in Ukraine. The high evaluation of the work carried out by Ukraine in the field of fighting corruption was reflected by the decision of the participants of the meeting of the general prosecutors of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to hold the next annual meeting in Ukraine.

a. At present, the General Prosecutor’s Office investigates the criminal case of P. Lazarenko charged with misappropriation of state property in exclusively large volumes. The public order authorities have also initiated criminal cases against P. Lazarenko on charges of laundering illegally obtained legal assistance.

To a great extent the opportunities of the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine regarding carrying out fast investigation of the case are restricted by lengthy terms and difficult procedures of providing legal incomes.

At the same time, it is inexpedient to mention in the Draft Report the exact sum of funds (770 mln. US dollars) illegally misappropriated by P. Lazarenko, for until now the sum has not been grounded yet by the materials of investigation.

There is also some mistake in the draft Report: P. Lazarenko is not serving a prison sentence in the United States, but is held in custody in connection with investigation of the criminal case conducted in that state on the charges of laundering illegally obtained incomes.

It is true that presently there is no agreement on extradition between Ukraine and the US, but the possibility of concluding such agreement is considered. The draft Agreement was presented by Ukraine to the US in 1999 and presently is considered by the relevant authorities of this country.

At the same time, one can not exclude the possibility of extradition of P. Lazarenko under the widely known in the international practice “good will” procedure even if there is no relevant interstate agreement. Such cases happened in the history of Ukrainian-American relations, therefore according the reciprocity principle it is quite natural to expect for the adequate reaction of the US Government to the application regarding extradition of P. Lazarenko.

In the draft Report there is some misinterpretation of the quotation of the President of Ukraine concerning the corruption in the courts. Indeed, in some cases the courts delivered verdicts, which led to public indignation. This concerns, first of all, unjustifiably soft sentences against some of the convicts, including those in the corruption cases.

At the same time it should be taken into account that according to the Law of Ukraine “On the Status of Judges” the judges are elected by the relevant of legislative power and as elected enjoy the status, which guarantees their independent activity, including the right for determination of sentences within the limits provided by law.

The court system requires reform to provide for effective protection of the rights and freedoms of the citizens. The information regarding the measures taken by the President of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in direction of conducting legal reform is presented in the comments to the paragraph n° 31.

F. Other commitments

Paragraph 59

1. There are no problematic issues concerning registration of churches in Ukraine. The issue of registration of churches and religious organisations is fully regulated by the legislation of Ukraine.

The Law of Ukraine “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organisations”, which does not envisage the obligatory registration of the separate religious formations (communities), but recognises them as legalised on the basis of the mere fact of their creation and collective activities on satisfying religious demands.

Moreover, in accordance with the mentioned Law the religious communities, being the primary elements of a church’s structure, may be created and act in compliance with the legislation, informing the state bodies not being necessary. Only in the case of obtaining the status of legal entity by those communities they are to apply to the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, regional, or city (in Kyiv and Sevastopol) state administrations on registration of their statute. The religious centres (boards) and religious organisations founded by them (monasteries, communities, seminaries) submit their statutes to the State Committee on Religions for registration.

A delay in the terms of making decision on registration of the religious organisations provided by law, as well as a decision on rejection in registering of it statute can be appealed against in court according to the procedure provided by legislation of Ukraine. If necessary, the representatives of a religious organisation concerned may participate in consideration of the issue on registration of its statute.

During 1999 1700 new religious organisations were founded, 1500 of them have registered their statutes. None of the state bodies’ decisions regarding registration of statutes of religious organisations was recognised illegal by a court.

The above-mentioned is a good proof of the fact that in the issues of registration there are no discrimination regarding some religious confessions, religious trends etc. or dissatisfaction, on their part, with the procedures of religious organisations legalisation and state registration of their legal status, provided by legislation of Ukraine.

At present stage, some circles in Ukraine propose to introduce the legalisation of religious communities by means of their registration under the procedure provided by the Law of Ukraine “On Associations of Citizens” for public organisations. But introduction of such procedure may make religious communities of a number of the confessions to act unofficially (illegally), which happened before.

In Ukraine the churches and religious organisations are separated from state. They act on the basis of internal regulations (canons), in accordance with acting legislation. In this connection, taking into account the ongoing process of formation (restoration) of the confessions, the religious organisations according to the legislation of Ukraine (the Laws of Ukraine “On property”, “On Land”, “On Rent for Land”, “On Taxation”) are equated to the organisations, acting in the privileged conditions.

The very process of the religious organisations’ statute registration process as well as their legalisation as legal entities are also conducted under privileged conditions, i.e. free of charge.

The above-mentioned give reasons for conclusion that the procedure of legalisation of churches and religious organisations, obtaining legal status by them, as provided by the legislation of Ukraine correspond to international and European standards.

Such a procedure of registration, its implementation by the state institutions of Ukraine is supported by the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organisations. The President of Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe was informed about that by the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organisations.

CHAPTER III. CONCLUSIONS

“Conclusions” should be revised taking into account above-mentioned proposals and remarks to its Chapters I and II.

APPENDIX II

Programme of the visit to Ukraine by the Rapporteur of the Parliamentary Assembly

of the Council of Europe, Ms H. Severinsen,

accompanied by Mr G. Mezei, Secretary

28-30 March 2001

Wednesday 28 March 2001

13.10 Arrival of Mrs H. Severinsen and Mr G. Mezei, Secretary of the Delegation,

at Boryspil Airport by flight LH 3372 from Frankfurt

15.45 Departure to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine

16.00 Meeting with members and deputies of the Permanent Delegation of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

19.15 Meeting with the Ambassadors of Member States of the Council of Europe, accredited in Ukraine, at the Embassy of the Republic of Latvia)

Thursday 28 March 2001

8.45 Departure to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine

9.00 Meeting with Mr S.B. Havrysh, Deputy Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine

10.15 Meeting with Mr A.K. Orel, Deputy Head of the Administration of the President of Ukraine

11.15 Meeting at the Ministry of Foreign Affaires of Ukraine

12.45 Meeting with the members of the Special Ad Hoc Investigation Committee of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine

13.45 Departure to Hotel "Natsionalniy"

14.00 Lunch hosted by the Committee of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for Foreign Affaires and the Permanent Delegation of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

15.00 Meeting with the leaders of deputies’ factions and groups of the Verkhovna Rada

16.45 Meeting with the members of the National Salvation Forum

17.45 Meeting with the representatives of mass media of Ukraine

19.00 Meeting with the representatives of NGOs in the Council of Europe Information and Documentation Centre

Friday 30 March 2001

8.45 Departure to the Prosecutor General’s office

9.0 Meeting with Mr N. Obihod, Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine

10.00 Meeting with Mrs Yulia Tymoshenko

11.30 Departure to the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine

11.45 Meeting with Mrs S.R. Stanik, Minister of Justice of Ukraine

13.00 Departure to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine

13.15-14.00 Meeting with Mr Yuriy Yekhanurov, First Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine Yushchenko,

14.15-15.00 Meeting with the Ombudsman, Mrs O. Karpachova

APPENDIX III

Ukraine

Treaties signed and ratified on 28/03/2001

Source: Treaty Office on http://conventions.coe.int/

No.

Title

Date
of opening
for signature

001

STATUTE OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

05/05/49

Ratification or accession: 09/11/95

Entry into force on : 09/11/95

002

GENERAL AGREEMENT ON PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

02/09/49

Ratification or accession: 06/11/96

Entry into force on : 06/11/96

005

CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

04/11/50

Signature: 09/11/95

Ratification or accession: 11/09/97

Entry into force on : 11/09/97

009

PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

20/03/52

Signature: 19/12/96

Ratification or accession: 11/09/97

Entry into force on : 11/09/97

010

PROTOCOL TO THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

06/11/52

Ratification or accession: 06/11/96

Entry into force on : 06/11/96

018

EUROPEAN CULTURAL CONVENTION

19/12/54

Ratification or accession: 13/06/94

Entry into force on : 13/06/94

024

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

13/12/57

Signature: 29/05/97

Ratification or accession: 11/03/98

Entry into force on : 09/06/98

030

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

20/04/59

Signature: 29/05/97

Ratification or accession: 11/03/98

Entry into force on : 09/06/98

044

PROTOCOL No 2 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, CONFERRING UPON THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMPETENCE TO GIVE ADVISORY OPINIONS

06/05/63

Signature: 09/11/95

Ratification or accession: 11/09/97

Entry into force on : 11/09/97

045

PROTOCOL No 3 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, AMENDING ARTICLES 29, 30 AND 34 OF THE CONVENTION

06/05/63

Signature: 09/11/95

Ratification or accession: 11/09/97

Entry into force on : 11/09/97

046

PROTOCOL No 4 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, SECURING CERTAIN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OTHER THAN THOSE INCLUDED IN THE CONVENTION AND IN PROTOCOL No 1

16/09/63

Signature: 19/12/96

Ratification or accession: 11/09/97

Entry into force on : 11/09/97

051

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE SUPERVISION OF CONDITIONALLY SENTENCED OR CONDITIONALLY RELEASED OFFENDERS

30/11/64

Ratification or accession: 28/09/95

Entry into force on : 29/12/95

055

PROTOCOL No 5 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, AMENDING ARTICLES 22 AND 40 OF THE CONVENTION

20/01/66

Signature: 09/11/95

Ratification or accession: 11/09/97

Entry into force on : 11/09/97

062

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON INFORMATION ON FOREIGN LAW

07/06/68

Ratification or accession: 13/06/94

Entry into force on : 14/09/94

073

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

15/05/72

Ratification or accession: 28/09/95

Entry into force on : 29/12/95

086

ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

15/10/75

Signature: 29/05/97

Ratification or accession: 11/03/98

Entry into force on : 09/06/98

097

ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON INFORMATION ON FOREIGN LAW

15/03/78

Ratification or accession: 13/06/94

Entry into force on : 14/09/94

098

SECOND ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

17/03/78

Signature: 29/05/97

Ratification or accession: 11/03/98

Entry into force on : 09/06/98

099

ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

17/03/78

Signature: 29/05/97

Ratification or accession: 11/03/98

Entry into force on : 09/06/98

104

CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF EUROPEAN WILDLIFE AND NATURAL HABITATS

19/09/79

Signature: 17/08/98

Ratification or accession: 05/01/99

Entry into force on : 01/05/99

106

EUROPEAN OUTLINE CONVENTION ON TRANSFRONTIER CO-OPERATION BETWEEN TERRITORIAL COMMUNITIES OR AUTHORITIES

21/05/80

Ratification or accession: 21/09/93

Entry into force on : 22/12/93

112

CONVENTION ON THE TRANSFER OF SENTENCED PERSONS

21/03/83

Ratification or accession: 28/09/95

Entry into force on : 01/01/96

114

PROTOCOL No 6 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS CONCERNING THE ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY

28/04/83

Signature: 05/05/97

Ratification or accession: 04/04/00

Entry into force on : 01/05/00

117

PROTOCOL No 7 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

22/11/84

Signature: 19/12/96

Ratification or accession: 11/09/97

Entry into force on : 01/12/97

118

PROTOCOL No 8 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

19/03/85

Signature: 09/11/95

Ratification or accession: 11/09/97

Entry into force on : 11/09/97

122

EUROPEAN CHARTER OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT

15/10/85

Signature: 06/11/96

Ratification or accession: 11/09/97

Entry into force on : 01/01/98

126

EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT

26/11/87

Signature: 02/05/96

Ratification or accession: 05/05/97

Entry into force on : 01/09/97

141

CONVENTION ON LAUNDERING, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND CONFISCATION OF THE PROCEEDS FROM CRIME

08/11/90

Signature: 29/05/97

Ratification or accession: 26/01/98

Entry into force on : 01/05/98

155

PROTOCOL No 11 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, RESTRUCTURING THE CONTROL MACHINERY ESTABLISHED THEREBY

11/05/94

Signature: 09/11/95

Ratification or accession: 11/09/97

Entry into force on : 01/11/98

157

FRAMEWORK CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES

01/02/95

Signature: 15/09/95

Ratification or accession: 26/01/98

Entry into force on : 01/05/98

165

CONVENTION ON THE RECOGNITION OF QUALIFICATIONS CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE EUROPEAN REGION

11/04/97

Signature: 11/04/97

Ratification or accession: 14/04/00

Entry into force on : 01/06/00

31 Treaties found.

Ukraine

Treaties signed but not ratified on 28/03/01

Source: Treaty Office on http://conventions.coe.int

No.

Title

Date
of opening
for signature

035

EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER

18/10/61

Signature: 02/05/96

070

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL VALIDITY OF CRIMINAL JUDGMENTS

28/05/70

Signature: 08/06/00

090

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM

27/01/77

Signature: 08/06/00

120

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON SPECTATOR VIOLENCE AND MISBEHAVIOUR AT SPORTS EVENTS AND IN PARTICULAR AT FOOTBALL MATCHES

19/08/85

Signature: 20/12/99

132

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON TRANSFRONTIER TELEVISION

05/05/89

Signature: 14/06/96

135

ANTI-DOPING CONVENTION

16/11/89

Signature: 02/07/98

143

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE PROTECTION OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE (REVISED)

16/01/92

Signature: 02/07/98

148

EUROPEAN CHARTER FOR REGIONAL OR MINORITY LANGUAGES

05/11/92

Signature: 02/05/96

151

PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT

04/11/93

Signature: 26/01/98

152

PROTOCOL No 2 TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT

04/11/93

Signature: 26/01/98

160

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE EXERCISE OF CHILDREN'S RIGHTS

25/01/96

Signature: 07/05/99

162

SIXTH PROTOCOL TO THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

05/03/96

Signature: 03/11/98

163

EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER (REVISED)

03/05/96

Signature: 07/05/99

167

ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION ON THE TRANSFER OF SENTENCED PERSONS

18/12/97

Signature: 08/06/00

169

PROTOCOL No.2 TO THE EUROPEAN OUTLINE CONVENTION ON TRANSFRONTIER CO-OPERATION BETWEEN TERRITORIAL COMMUNITIES OR AUTHORITIES CONCERNING INTERTERRITORIAL CO-OPERATION

05/05/98

Signature: 03/11/98

173

CRIMINAL LAW CONVENTION ON CORRUPTION

27/01/99

Signature: 27/01/99

174

CIVIL LAW CONVENTION ON CORRUPTION

04/11/99

Signature: 04/11/99

177

PROTOCOL No. 12 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

04/11/00

Signature: 04/11/00

18 Treaties found.

Reporting committee: Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Members States of the Council of Europe.

Reference to committee: Resolution 1115 (1997) of 27 January 1997.

Draft resolution and draft recommendation adopted by the committee on 5 April 2001 (1 abstention)

Members of the committee: MM. Mota Amaral (Chairman), Mrs Severinsen, Mrs Durrieu (Vice-Chairs), Mrs Akgönenç, MM. Arzilli, Atkinson, Attard-Montalto, Bársony, Bartos, Baumel, Begaj, Mrs Belohorska, MM. Bindig, Brunetti, Cekuolis, Christodoulides, Cilevics, Davis, Demetriou, Diana, Einarsson, Enright, Eörsi, Evangelisti, Mrs Feric-Vac, MM. Floros, Frey, Frunda, Gjellerod, Glesener, Gligoroski, Gross, Gürkan, Gusenbauer, Haraldsson, Holovaty, Irmer, Ivanenko, Jakic, Jansson, Jaskiernia, Mrs Jones, Mr Jurgens, Mrs Kanelli, Mrs Kautto, MM. Kostytsky, Landsbergis, van der Linden, Luis, Magnusson, Marmazov, Martinez Casan, Nedelciuc, Olteanu, Pollo, Polozhani, Popescu, Mrs Poptodorova, Mrs Ringstad, MM. Rogozin, Saglam, Mrs Sehnalova, MM. Smorawinski, Soendergaard, Solonari, Mrs Stoyanova, MM. Surjan, Taylor, Mrs Tevdoradze, MM. Vahtre, Vella, Weiss, Mrs Wohlwend, MM. Yanez Barnuevo, 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 Mezei, Ms Clamer and Ms Trevisan.

¹See Docs. 8272, 8424 and 8666, Resolutions 1179 and 1194, and Recommendations 1395, 1416 and 1451.

² See Docs. 8945 and 8946, Resolution 1239 and Recommendation 1497.

³ See “Implementation of the Constitutional Referendum in Ukraine”, Opinion adopted by the Venice Commission at its 44^th Plenary Meeting, Venice, 13-14 October 2000.

⁴ The President of Ukraine is leading the Council. His Deputy is the First Vice-Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada, V. Medvedchuck. The Council is also composed of the Head of Supreme Court , the Head of Parliamentary Committee on legal policy, the Head of Administration of the President of Ukraine, the Head of the Supreme Arbitration Court and the Minister of Justice

⁵ Under the Agreement between Ukraine and Uzbekistan on Co-operation in Resolution of the Issues of Citizenship of the Deported Persons and Descendants within the period from 4 April 1998 to 31 December 1999, 80250 deported persons or their descendants, who had returned to Ukraine, had confirmed their belonging to citizenship of Ukraine. Among them 53338 persons officially left citizenship of Uzbekistan and confirmed their Ukrainian citizenship under the above- mentioned Agreement.

⁶ The term commonly refers to the extent to which government policy-making is unduly influenced by a narrow set of interest groups. Ukraine's governance problems are often blamed on the so-called "oligarchs" who have urged the state to grant them privileges and exemptions that undermine the economic institutions of the country. States "captured" by powerful vested interests have a tendency to side-step reforms intended to improve governance and reduce distortions in the economy.

Question number	In favour	Against	Annulled votes
1	84,69%	13,88%	1,32%
2	89,00%	9,62%	1,24%
3	89,91%	8,73%	1,23%
4	81,68%	16,79%	1,40%

No.	Title			Date of opening for signature
001	STATUTE OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE			05/05/49
		Ratification or accession: 09/11/95	Entry into force on : 09/11/95
002	GENERAL AGREEMENT ON PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE			02/09/49
		Ratification or accession: 06/11/96	Entry into force on : 06/11/96
005	CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS			04/11/50
	Signature: 09/11/95	Ratification or accession: 11/09/97	Entry into force on : 11/09/97
009	PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS			20/03/52
	Signature: 19/12/96	Ratification or accession: 11/09/97	Entry into force on : 11/09/97
010	PROTOCOL TO THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE			06/11/52
		Ratification or accession: 06/11/96	Entry into force on : 06/11/96
018	EUROPEAN CULTURAL CONVENTION			19/12/54
		Ratification or accession: 13/06/94	Entry into force on : 13/06/94
024	EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION			13/12/57
	Signature: 29/05/97	Ratification or accession: 11/03/98	Entry into force on : 09/06/98
030	EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS			20/04/59
	Signature: 29/05/97	Ratification or accession: 11/03/98	Entry into force on : 09/06/98
044	PROTOCOL No 2 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, CONFERRING UPON THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMPETENCE TO GIVE ADVISORY OPINIONS			06/05/63
	Signature: 09/11/95	Ratification or accession: 11/09/97	Entry into force on : 11/09/97
045	PROTOCOL No 3 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, AMENDING ARTICLES 29, 30 AND 34 OF THE CONVENTION			06/05/63
	Signature: 09/11/95	Ratification or accession: 11/09/97	Entry into force on : 11/09/97
046	PROTOCOL No 4 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, SECURING CERTAIN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OTHER THAN THOSE INCLUDED IN THE CONVENTION AND IN PROTOCOL No 1			16/09/63
	Signature: 19/12/96	Ratification or accession: 11/09/97	Entry into force on : 11/09/97
051	EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE SUPERVISION OF CONDITIONALLY SENTENCED OR CONDITIONALLY RELEASED OFFENDERS			30/11/64
		Ratification or accession: 28/09/95	Entry into force on : 29/12/95
055	PROTOCOL No 5 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, AMENDING ARTICLES 22 AND 40 OF THE CONVENTION			20/01/66
	Signature: 09/11/95	Ratification or accession: 11/09/97	Entry into force on : 11/09/97
062	EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON INFORMATION ON FOREIGN LAW			07/06/68
		Ratification or accession: 13/06/94	Entry into force on : 14/09/94
073	EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL MATTERS			15/05/72
		Ratification or accession: 28/09/95	Entry into force on : 29/12/95
086	ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION			15/10/75
	Signature: 29/05/97	Ratification or accession: 11/03/98	Entry into force on : 09/06/98
097	ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON INFORMATION ON FOREIGN LAW			15/03/78
		Ratification or accession: 13/06/94	Entry into force on : 14/09/94
098	SECOND ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION			17/03/78
	Signature: 29/05/97	Ratification or accession: 11/03/98	Entry into force on : 09/06/98
099	ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS			17/03/78
	Signature: 29/05/97	Ratification or accession: 11/03/98	Entry into force on : 09/06/98
104	CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF EUROPEAN WILDLIFE AND NATURAL HABITATS			19/09/79
	Signature: 17/08/98	Ratification or accession: 05/01/99	Entry into force on : 01/05/99
106	EUROPEAN OUTLINE CONVENTION ON TRANSFRONTIER CO-OPERATION BETWEEN TERRITORIAL COMMUNITIES OR AUTHORITIES			21/05/80
		Ratification or accession: 21/09/93	Entry into force on : 22/12/93
112	CONVENTION ON THE TRANSFER OF SENTENCED PERSONS			21/03/83
		Ratification or accession: 28/09/95	Entry into force on : 01/01/96
114	PROTOCOL No 6 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS CONCERNING THE ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY			28/04/83
	Signature: 05/05/97	Ratification or accession: 04/04/00	Entry into force on : 01/05/00
117	PROTOCOL No 7 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS			22/11/84
	Signature: 19/12/96	Ratification or accession: 11/09/97	Entry into force on : 01/12/97
118	PROTOCOL No 8 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS			19/03/85
	Signature: 09/11/95	Ratification or accession: 11/09/97	Entry into force on : 11/09/97
122	EUROPEAN CHARTER OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT			15/10/85
	Signature: 06/11/96	Ratification or accession: 11/09/97	Entry into force on : 01/01/98
126	EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT			26/11/87
	Signature: 02/05/96	Ratification or accession: 05/05/97	Entry into force on : 01/09/97
141	CONVENTION ON LAUNDERING, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND CONFISCATION OF THE PROCEEDS FROM CRIME			08/11/90
	Signature: 29/05/97	Ratification or accession: 26/01/98	Entry into force on : 01/05/98
155	PROTOCOL No 11 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, RESTRUCTURING THE CONTROL MACHINERY ESTABLISHED THEREBY			11/05/94
	Signature: 09/11/95	Ratification or accession: 11/09/97	Entry into force on : 01/11/98
157	FRAMEWORK CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES			01/02/95
	Signature: 15/09/95	Ratification or accession: 26/01/98	Entry into force on : 01/05/98
165	CONVENTION ON THE RECOGNITION OF QUALIFICATIONS CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE EUROPEAN REGION			11/04/97
	Signature: 11/04/97	Ratification or accession: 14/04/00	Entry into force on : 01/06/00

No.	Title	Date of opening for signature
035	EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER	18/10/61
	Signature: 02/05/96
070	EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL VALIDITY OF CRIMINAL JUDGMENTS	28/05/70
	Signature: 08/06/00
090	EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM	27/01/77
	Signature: 08/06/00
120	EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON SPECTATOR VIOLENCE AND MISBEHAVIOUR AT SPORTS EVENTS AND IN PARTICULAR AT FOOTBALL MATCHES	19/08/85
	Signature: 20/12/99
132	EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON TRANSFRONTIER TELEVISION	05/05/89
	Signature: 14/06/96
135	ANTI-DOPING CONVENTION	16/11/89
	Signature: 02/07/98
143	EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE PROTECTION OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE (REVISED)	16/01/92
	Signature: 02/07/98
148	EUROPEAN CHARTER FOR REGIONAL OR MINORITY LANGUAGES	05/11/92
	Signature: 02/05/96
151	PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT	04/11/93
	Signature: 26/01/98
152	PROTOCOL No 2 TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT	04/11/93
	Signature: 26/01/98
160	EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE EXERCISE OF CHILDREN'S RIGHTS	25/01/96
	Signature: 07/05/99
162	SIXTH PROTOCOL TO THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE	05/03/96
	Signature: 03/11/98
163	EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER (REVISED)	03/05/96
	Signature: 07/05/99
167	ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION ON THE TRANSFER OF SENTENCED PERSONS	18/12/97
	Signature: 08/06/00
169	PROTOCOL No.2 TO THE EUROPEAN OUTLINE CONVENTION ON TRANSFRONTIER CO-OPERATION BETWEEN TERRITORIAL COMMUNITIES OR AUTHORITIES CONCERNING INTERTERRITORIAL CO-OPERATION	05/05/98
	Signature: 03/11/98
173	CRIMINAL LAW CONVENTION ON CORRUPTION	27/01/99
	Signature: 27/01/99
174	CIVIL LAW CONVENTION ON CORRUPTION	04/11/99
	Signature: 04/11/99
177	PROTOCOL No. 12 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS	04/11/00
	Signature: 04/11/00