“The law on de-communization” in its present wording should just cancel

Conflicts and clashes around the celebration of May 9 in some Ukrainian cities again updated the question of the use of Soviet symbols, which prohibits law decommunisation, and is widely used by Russian and separatist Donbass “St. George Ribbon”. May 10 is one of the world’s largest human rights organization Amnesty International said that it considers the detention of the use of Soviet symbols for peaceful and not violent demonstrations calling for human rights violations. Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine Vyacheslav Kyrylenko once said that human rights protect Russian interests.

“Ukrainian News” asked the executive director of Amnesty International in Ukraine Oksana Pokalchuk elaborate on the organization’s position regarding the prohibition of symbols, as well as to assess the general state of human rights in Ukraine and the situation with the appointment of the Ombudsman.

– Yesterday you said that the ban on symbols associated with the Communist Party and the Soviet past, is a violation of the right to freedom of expression. At the same time, Ukraine adopted a law on de-communization. Can you explain a little more, based on what is your position regarding the events occurred on May 9?

– With regard to this law, we have already made several statements 2 years ago. Our position remains unchanged: we can not be brought to criminal liability for the use of symbols, if such use did not have the goal calls for violence or aggression. By itself, this symbolism and its use can have consequences. I would also like to note that in addition to us, this attitude expressed by the majority of human rights organizations in Ukraine, as well as the Venice Commission.

– But still we have this law passed. Ukraine has chosen the European integration direction, that, among other things, is to act within the legal framework. And because the law exists, logically, it should be done.

– Of course, the law can not violate. But do not forget that the laws of February 16 were also laws. Many different laws may violate human rights. In this case, the law is such that violates human rights. We are not calling to break the law, but we pay attention to the fact that this law violates human rights. Our statement concerns the deputies and the people who can influence amend it.

– But Nazi symbols is prohibited. And in this case it is difficult to say that the ban violated human rights.

– I would not compare the Soviet and Nazi symbols. It’s a little manipulative, when they are so simple compared. At Andrew’s descent, for example, you can buy any symbolism: the Soviet, Nazi, flags, badges. By itself, the icon does not carry any meaning, it’s just a symbol. For some, it may carry a decorative value, for someone – historic. An entirely different situation if a person takes this icon and calls for support to the aggressor or to send troops to Ukraine. We can not prosecute a man for the peaceful use of any symbols. The law is called the subjective side of the crime: the relation of man who committed the crime in this process. From this subjective component of the offense depends on a lot of things in the qualification of the theory of crime. Where are we going? We want to limit the people on its face? So, step by step we are on the way of Russia. We will become a country in which the given time frame for the use of symbols, for some repost photography. And as it is correlated with the statements of power that we, as human rights organizations welcomed the fact that Ukraine has chosen the European way of development and democracy?

It’s hard to imagine how one can peacefully use Nazi symbols. We are aware of arrests for the use of St. George ribbons, but they are not prohibited by law. We understand that the law enforcement officers who carry out the detentions themselves have no idea about the content of the law. They do not understand how it works.

Returning to the subject, if the creators of our laws, those who wrote them, really want to prove that the Soviet regime had negative consequences for the Ukrainian people, then it would be necessary to talk about the responsibility for the genocide acquittal. Or an excuse for repression. And now it is not about ideology, but about some icons. On the other hand, if you are calling for the troops of another country, but do not have to imagine the formal signs, then you for it will be nothing. And then the position of Amnesty is clear: we want the state to restrict calls or support violence, not some formal characteristics, which may have a completely different context.

– What is your position regarding the law on decommunisation?

– In the form in which it is, it should be easy to cancel. It can not exist. The essence of the law concerns the external signs that do not include here the subjective side. If the government wants to limit incitement to violence, it must do so in a different way.

– Whatever it was, but your application has received quite wide response. How do you assess the reaction of the Vice Prime Minister Vyacheslav Kyrylenko, who accused you, in cooperation with Russia?

– We are often faced with a negative response to us, since we often criticize the policy, if it is contrary to human rights. I do not see constructive criticism of our statement. A statement that we’ve seen, it looks like the desire on the wave of populism and anti-Russian sentiment to accuse us that we are pro-Russian. We expected a more constructive criticism, and we are ready for it.

– And in general, when you publish a response to certain events, the government somehow respond to your statements?

– Oh sure. We have good examples. Take our shared with Human Rights Watch research in which we stated that we know about the contents of 18 people in the secret prisons of the SBU. To date, all 18 men are released. Despite the fact that the SBU denied the existence of such prisons, release of these people is important to us. We welcome this, and for us it is an indication that our work has a real result.

– Do you know who facilitated the release of these people? Or it is not disclosed?

– We do not know. When human rights activists working on some topics, we never know when and who is affected by the situation. The situation is that we knew about the secret prisons of the SBU. In the SBU said that they knew nothing about these prisons. But 18 people are exempt.

– Do you know where it is?

– We communicate with them. We had lists, we know their specific names, where they were held.

– All of them are citizens of Ukraine?

– In general, yes. A citizen of the Russian Federation, all the other 17 people – Ukrainians.

– Can you assess the human rights situation in Ukraine over the past 3 years?

– In general, the power of today is ready for dialogue. The fact that we can welcome this relative openness of the state, compared with the period, which was before the Maidan. We can not say that it always leads to rapid response and resolution of all issues, but, anyway, we can confirm that there is a dialogue. On the other hand, the situation with freedom of speech deteriorates. If we talk about, we can state the issue of Crimea, that our country is doing much for the liberation of Ukrainians detained there. For our part we have already carried out 2 missions in the Crimea. In 2015, then one and a half years, in December 2016, we once again assess the situation there.

Another important issue – domestic violence. Now one of the topics that we do – this is the ratification of the Istanbul Convention. We were very surprised when some members began to make populist statements that its ratification almost lead to the legalization of same-sex marriages. Tens of thousands of women and children affected by domestic violence. As a result, it turns out that because of some statements about LGBT work on ratification of the stops. Still, when the convention finally accepted and signed, it will be a real treat.

– You have mentioned that you two have carried out monitoring of the situation in the Crimea. Do you interact with the Russian authorities and Russian human rights organizations on the human rights situation on the peninsula?

– We do not use information from other organizations. In fact, all statements and studies that we conduct, taken from our missions. Mostly it is our mission in this or that place, our researcher stays there for a while, independently collect information so we are sure of its veracity and objectivity. We support all human rights organizations, if they are really focused on the protection of human rights, regardless of whether it will be in Ukraine, Poland and Russia. We cooperate with other organizations, but the information we collect on their own.

– In the occupied territories of Donbass unable to work?

– We have repeatedly sent missions in the ATO zone. But we do not have a permanent mission there.

– And with the Ombudsman’s office working with?

– Of course, we interact with them. Each of our study is accompanied by a meeting or any communication with the office. Now we are the selection process of the Ombudsman. Just yesterday, we had a press conference on the subject. We urge the authorities to conduct an open competition for the position. What we see now is more like a political agreement, rather than a real desire to appoint to the position of the best specialist. Nominations should be set as early as 2 weeks, but it is unclear to me why none of those persons who intend to run for the post so far not publicly said so. Less than two weeks, we do not know who it is, and in fact the deputies should be elected, so to speak, “a pig in a poke.” We opposed this. We want to see who these people are.

Are there any prerequisites that the Parliament will hear your call and hold an open competition?

We hope that we will be heard and heeded. Actually something with which I began – has positive aspects, in particular, the government responds to our request. In any case, the reaction is greater than it was before. But if you already have some candidates who would like to see who it was, and that these people meet at least the minimum level of the criteria.

– Does your organization have a vision of candidates that would best approached for this position?

– What we can say for sure – there are a lot of decent people in Ukraine. In the statement, we identified four people (human rights activist) Larisa Denisenko, (acting ombudsman) Valeriya Lutkovska, (executive director of the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union) and Vladimir Jaworski (Director of the Kharkiv Human Rights Group), Evgeniy Zaharov. But this is more an example of that in Ukraine there are people who could take that position. For us the main criterion is the presence of a high moral standard and trust not only among the Ukrainian, but also of the international community.

– If your list is the Lutkovska, can we say that you appreciate their work as an ombudsman?

– We can not say that we are satisfied or not satisfied with all of us. But compared with the previous process changes that have occurred at Valeria Lutkovska in this position, show the development of the Ombudsman institution in Ukraine. From our point of view, the office was always open for meetings, dialogue, we have never had difficulties to communicate their information or to get an answer.

– There are fears that after the arrival of a new candidate will essentially change the situation?

– Absolutely. We are very concerned that if a person will have a party or political interests are above issues relating to human rights, the whole range of additional elements, which are called “Ombudsman +”, can stop. Ombudsman – is actually our only way to communicate with the authorities. If this person is not ready for communication, then a very big question, what will happen to the human rights further. Human rights activists do not have such an impact on the government as the ombudsman.

Sourse, 12/05/2017