ccl.org.ua@gmail.com Kyiv, 9G Baseina str., office 25, 28 Search

Reforms

Результаты поиска:

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform on deprivation of attorneys of the ability to cooperate with human rights organisations

March 7, 2019

In the agenda of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the consideration of the first
reading of a draft law ‘On Legal Practice and Advocacy’ No. 9055 is scheduled for 28
February.
The authors and supporters of the law are striving to prove its progressive nature,
strengthening of guarantees of advocacy and empowerment.
However, should the law be adopted, all attorneys who cooperate with human rights
organisations will be deprived of the opportunity to engage in advocacy activities
within the framework of cooperation with these organisations. Hundreds of cases
which have been filed by lawyers of these organisations with the European Court of
Human Rights, and thousands of court cases in national courts will become only a
reminder of past activities. There will be no one competent to file new applications
with the European Court and national courts on behalf of human rights organisations.
In his expert opinion which contains the analysis of the draft law No. 9055, the
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights Diego Garcia-Sayan stated that the restriction, set
forth in Article 28 of the draft law 9055, could adversely affect the lawyers who would
have to choose between full employment and the work of a human rights defender
which, obviously, would adversely affect an access to justice in the country, in
particular, for individuals with limited financial means. Also, the report provides a
whole number of risks and threats to independent advocacy, such as the procedure
of bringing attorneys to disciplinary responsibility, unfounded types of disciplinary
sanctions that affect the independence of advocacy and, consequently, affect
appropriate defence in court.
Separately, the completely opaque process of work on the draft law is to be
mentioned, and this fact has also been noted in the report by Mr. Diego Garcia-
Sayan. He wrote that consultations with representatives of the legal profession were
very limited in nature, and the final draft law was made public by the office of the
President without the opportunity to comment on its content.
A lack of transparency, marginalisation of the drafting process and introduction of the
draft law, a lack of a high-quality expert examination, for example, by the Venice
Commission, and haste with the attempts to implement this law as soon as possible

in a parliament’s session confirm the poor quality of the preparation process and the
same low-quality content of the draft law itself, which, in its present form, poses a
real threat to the protection of human rights in the human rights protection
environment of Ukraine and can be regarded as a way of attack and exertion of
pressure on the environment.
We hereby urge Members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to prevent the
consideration and adoption of the draft law 9055, as requested in the report by Diego
Garcia-Sayan, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The text of the draft law No.
9055 must be redrafted, discussed publicly and amended, taking into account the
comments made by representatives of the bar community, human rights
organisations, and international experts. We demand transparency, honesty and
high quality. Today, we cannot see these features in the draft law No. 9055.
The Human Rights Agenda platform is an informal coalition of human right organisations focused on systemic
problems of legislation and practices for defending fundamental human rights. The participants of the platform
are as follows: Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, Center for Civil Liberties, Amnesty International
Ukraine, Human Rights Information Center, Centre of Law Enforcement Activities Research (CLEAR), Project
"Without Borders", Euromaidan SOS. The platform is coordinated by the Center for Civil Liberties. You can
contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
Center for Civil Liberties
Regional Centre for Human Rights
Open Dialogue Foundation
Humanitarian Studio "Wave
Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”

NGOs call on the HQCJ to refrain from creating artificial obstacles to the establishment of the Public Integrity Council

November 22, 2018

On November 21, 2018, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) announced the results of the consideration of documents of public associations (NGOs) for the establishment of the Public Integrity Council (PIC).

 

The Commission approved a positive decision on the admission of only 2 out of 14 organizations that submitted the documents. The Commission allowed the rest of the organizations to eliminate the shortcomings which, in its opinion, were identified in the relevant documents of the NGOs.

 

Having considered the decisions of the Commission, NGOs have to state that among these alleged shortcomings there are many that are not based on the requirements of the law, do not pursue a legitimate aim and can create artificial obstacles for NGOs’ participation in the PIC establishment.

 

In particular:

 

  • In some cases (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the Commission does not accept the results of a financial audit conducted not within the past two years, whereas the law only requires the availability of an audit report and does not set any time frames for its conduct;
  • In some other cases (Center for Civil Liberties, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the HQCJ groundlessly believes that it is only the first persons of international organizations in Ukraine (the OSCE Coordinator in Ukraine, UNDP, etc.) that can make recommendations to NGOs, while the law does not contain such a requirement, and the signatures of officials of international organizations were affixed within their authorities;
  • Position of the HQCJ regarding the recognition of reports based on the financial audit results or audit findings as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements only because these reports were prepared for confidential use and submission to grantors (CRIMEASOS, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform) is unreasonable (the law does not set any requirements for the addressees of the reports and the purpose of their preparation);
  • The HQCJ did not recognize a copy of the report on the project implementation results due to the lack of signature of the person authorized to sign it (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform). However, such a requirement is unfounded since the law requires the provision of a copy rather than the original of the report, and the submitted copy of the report has been duly certified by an authorized person;  
  • The law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” does not require the publication of a declaration of a candidate to the PIC on the NACP’s website, and the HQCJ’s competencies do not cover anti-corruption verification of declarations (including the presence or absence of these declarations on the NACP’s website), while some organizations (Institute of Applied Humanitarian Research) received a reply that the absence of such declarations on the NACP’s website serves as grounds for non-admission.

 

As for documents of other NGOs (Civic Lustration Committee, E+, Nova Krayina, ТОМ14, Centre for Economic Strategy, Centre UA), only the originals of certain documents are required, whereas all the necessary information can be obtained from the duly authenticated photocopies. In some other cases (DEJURE, Nova Krayina), technical errors (incorrect indication of the candidate’s patronymic only in one of the documents or use of the phrase “annual declaration” after “declaration of a candidate for the position of the PIC member”) are considered by the Commission as “grounds for the determination of the submitted documents as not complying with … the law”.

 

We want to emphasize that the requirements of the law on the submission of documents have been established to confirm the experience, real activity and capacity of NGOs to form the PIC. The Commission’s review of these documents should pursue this legitimate aim and should not go beyond its limits.

 

The Commission’s decisions are even more surprising given the fact that 2 years ago the Commission allowed a number of organizations with similar packages of documents to participate in the NGO Meeting on the PIC establishment without any comments. The Commission did not consider the failure to submit proper declarations by the candidates for judicial office at the Anti-Corruption Court and Intellectual Property Court to be a violation and allowed them to take part in the competition to the IP-court.

 

We are concerned that at the beginning of our cooperation with the HQCJ regarding the formation of the second composition of the PIC, we faced this approach. At the same time, the NGOs will make every effort to take into account the wishes of the Commission regarding the execution of documents within a specified period as far as possible.

 

However, if the HQCJ retains this approach to the assessment of documents, there will be a high risk of groundless rejection of experienced and capable NGOs from participation in the Meeting and, as a result, the formation of an incomplete composition, delay, or even the impossibility of establishing the PIC as a form of public participation in the selection and evaluation of judges.

 

Therefore, we call on the HQCJ:

 

  • To carefully reconsider all the packages of documents submitted by the NGOs, including those that will be submitted additionally;
  • To assess the documents submitted by organizations solely on the basis of the requirements of the law, impartially and without groundless formalism;
  • To allow all NGOs whose experience and capability are confirmed by the documents submitted by them to participate in the Meeting;
  • To review the decisions on a number of NGOs (indicated in this statement or otherwise) regarding the recognition of documents as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements of the law, particularly where the law contained no such requirements.

 

Civic Lustration Committee

Initiative E+

Crimea SOS

Nova Kraina

ТОМ 14

DEJURE Foundation

Center for Civil Liberties

Centre for Economic Strategy

Centre of Policy and Legal Reform

Centre UA

Nations in Transit 2018: Confronting Illiberalism

April 11, 2018

Washington, April 12, 2018 — Attacks on opposition parties, the press, and civil society organizations are becoming the norm in Central and Eastern Europe as the spread of illiberal politics undermines the foundations of and prospects for democracy, according to Nations in Transit 2018, the 23rd edition of Freedom House’s annual report on democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Eurasia.

Ukraine’s Democracy Score declined for the first time since the 2014 revolution. With the Russian-led conflict in the east grinding on, Ukraine’s politicians are taking advantage of patriotic sentiment to attack NGOs and journalists, accusing them of undermining the war effort.

“Attacks on civil society and political opponents have sapped the momentum from the institutional reform process in Ukraine,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “Although decentralization reforms are continuing, other key priorities, including anticorruption efforts, have stalled. The window of opportunity has not closed in Ukraine, but it has shrunk. By accusing NGOs and journalists of antinational sentiment, politicians are attempting to exclude legitimate voices from public debate simply because they criticize the government.”

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON UKRAINE

 

  • Two important milestones were reached in relations between Ukraine and the European Union in 2017: the visa-free regime with the EU came into force in June, allowing millions of Ukrainians to travel freely to the neighboring Schengen zone for short-term stays, and the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement — the main trigger for the Euromaidan protests which provides a framework for major transformations in Ukrainian democracy, human rights, rule of law, good governance, trade, and sustainable development — finally came completely into force.
  • One of the main achievements in Ukraine’s national governance in 2017 was healthcare reform, which, following the passage by the Verkhovna Rada of a law on healthcare financing in October, will align the system based on the principle of “money following patients.”
  • Decentralization reform continued, with administrative territorial reform resulting in the creation of approximately 700 amalgamated communities, and fiscal decentralization resulting in increased revenues and local infrastructure investments for the first time in 23 years.
  • The conflict in the east remained largely frozen throughout the year. The socioeconomic conditions in the occupied territories, and in those areas close to the line of contact, continued to be poor. The armed separatist groups developed their own institutions, which, in turn, enacted regulations that routinely violated basic human rights, while journalists and bloggers covering the conflict continued to be arrested and detained.
  • Pressure on civil society intensified. In March, the government obliged citizens working against corruption to publicly declare their income and assets, while a legislative initiative to replace the controversial requirement with other restrictive measures against NGOs under threat of onerous restrictions for not complying with the proposed regulations was unsuccessful. The Civil Society score declined due to smear campaigns against NGOs and activists.
  • Prominent civil society organizations were targeted with criminal investigations against them and their members, and there were physical attacks on well-known activists.
  • The Independent Media score declined due to the blocking of major social media sites, as well as physical attacks on journalists and a lack of progress in investigating the murder of journalist Pavel Sheremet.
  • Progress on judicial and anti-corruption reforms was mixed. While the National Anticorruption Bureau actively investigated high-level corruption results of its work were few. The President had yet to create the High Anticorruption Court as promised. Vetting of judicial appointments to the Supreme Court stumbled as 25 candidates that had not passed public integrity checks were approved as official candidates.

“Illiberal politics are becoming the new normal in Europe,” said Michael J. Abramowitz, president of Freedom House. “Government-led smear campaigns against civil society groups, journalists, and the political opposition were pioneered in Russia and Central Asia, but they are increasingly common across the region.”

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES

  • Poland recorded the second-largest Democracy Score decline in the history of the report. The ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party’s revolutionary takeover of the judicial system, politicization of public media, smear campaigns against nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and violations of ordinary parliamentary procedure also produced the two largest single-category score declines in Nations in Transit’s history, for National Democratic Governance and Judicial Framework and Independence.

 

“The radical changes to the Polish judiciary remove any effective check on the actions of the majority party in parliament,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “What has happened in Poland in the last two years should serve as an alarm bell for anyone who believes that one-party rule could never return to Europe.”

“The EU should stand up for its commitments to the rule of law by implementing Article 7 sanctions against Poland and Hungary,” Schenkkan said, referring to the EU’s power to suspend a member’s voting rights. “It should condition access to European funds on clear rule-of-law criteria. This is the only way to convince these countries, and EU candidate states, that the union is firmly rooted in democratic principles.”

  • Hungary has registered the largest cumulative decline in Nations in Transit The country’s Democracy Score has been falling for 10 consecutive years, moving it from the status of a democratic leader at the time of EU accession in 2004 to the threshold of a “Transitional/Hybrid Regime” in 2018.

 

“The Fidesz government of Viktor Orbán led the way for illiberal forces in Central Europe, showing that it was possible to capture a state within the EU through gerrymandering, procurement manipulation, and control of the media,” said Schenkkan. “The fact that Fidesz remains a member in good standing in the European People’s Party of the European Parliament shows how effective Orbán’s approach has been.”

  • Estonia earned the biggest improvement in this edition of the report, even though it was already the best performer. A surprisingly smooth first year in government for a longtime opposition party demonstrated the resilience and independence of national institutions. Estonia’s anticorruption mechanisms appear to be addressing the municipal corruption that has long affected its major cities.

“At a time when most of the news for democracy seems bad, Estonia reminds us that liberal democracy can and does succeed,” Schenkkan said. “Even in a country with a history of foreign occupation and sensitive ethnic and regional differences, democratic national institutions can produce better governance for everyone.”

View the full report here: https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/nations-transit-2018

###

 

Freedom House is an independent watchdog organization that supports democratic change, monitors the status of freedom around the world, and advocates for democracy and human rights.

Join us on Facebook and Twitter (@FreedomHouseDC) and stay up to date with Freedom House’s latest news and events by signing up for our newsletter.

Special event to discuss Ukraine’s future at the Atlantic Council Headquarters (on Thursday, March 29, 2018)

April 4, 2018

In the four years since the end of the Revolution of Dignity, Ukraine has not answered its most important question: how will the country ensure democratic values in its future development? Much of Ukraine’s hope lies in its young leaders who will drive the country forward in the coming years. CDDRL has been fortunate to provide a year-long residency to some of these future leaders as part of the inaugural year of the Center’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program.

This event will feature three Ukrainian leaders who are in residency with CDDRL’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program this year. They will each discuss their own perspectives on opportunities and challenges to democracy and development in their home country, as well as objectives for strengthening public administration, civil society, and economic reforms upon their return to Ukraine.

We hope you can join us for this timely discussion.

Sourse, 29/03/2018

Vitaliy Tytych: Rigging of anti-corruption court competition must be prevented

March 19, 2018

The High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice cannot be trusted to conduct an objective and fair competition for the anti-corruption court without severe foreign and civil society oversight and without a drastic change in the competition’s methodology. They cannot be trusted because they violated the law and demonstrated their political bias by rigging the competition for the Supreme Court.

The discredited High Qualification Commission must be deprived of its arbitrary powers to assign scores subjectively during competitions for anti-corruption and other judges, and such scores must be based on objective criteria.

This is even more important than foreign donors’ veto powers, and this is the only way to ensure that honest and professional candidates believe in the fairness of the competition and participate, and that the commission has no way of promoting political loyalists and incompetent candidates for subjective reasons.

During the Supreme Court competition, 90 scores were assigned for anonymous legal knowledge tests, 120 scores for anonymous practical tests, and the High Qualification Commission could arbitrarily assign 790 scores without giving any explicit reasons (formally based on interviews with candidates and examining their profiles).

According to the 2016 law on the judiciary and status of judges, legal knowledge and practical tests (i.e. objective criteria) are the main method of selecting judges. This law stipulates that at least 75 percent of the total score (i.e. 750 out of 1,000 scores) must be given for anonymous legal knowledge and practical tests.

The High Qualification Commission took advantage of the vague wording of the law to set regulations that contradict the law because only 210 out of the total of 1,000 scores were assigned for legal knowledge and practical tests.

As a result of the Supreme Court competition, candidates who were at the top of the list after the anonymous knowledge tests and practical tests ended up at the bottom in the final stage for unknown reasons, while candidates who initially got lower scores and had a corrupt background ended up at the top.

Both the law on the judiciary and the High Qualification Commission’s internal regulations must be amended and clarified to clearly assign 750 scores for anonymous legal knowledge tests and practical tests (for competitions for both the anti-corruption court and all other courts). If parliament refuses to amend the law, the High Qualification Commission can just change its regulations, which is even easier.

As an option, 330 scores should be given for anonymous legal knowledge tests, another 330 scores for practical tests, and 330 scores for interviews and professional ethics (preferably based on conclusions by the Public Integrity Council and foreign donors). The law on the judiciary and status of judges should also be amended to require the publication of practical works after practical tests.

That would leave no room for arbitrary decisions and political involvement.

President Petro Poroshenko claims that the participation of foreign donors in the competition for the anti-corruption court contradicts Ukraine’s sovereignty, which is false (for example, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine was created with the participation of foreign donors).

But anyway Ukraine’s foreign partners could delegate independent Ukrainian citizens with impeccable reputation and integrity. This would halt any talk about sovereignty.

Such representatives could include people from the December 1 Initiative Group civil-society organization, Soviet dissident and human rights lawyer Myroslav Marynovych or Vyacheslav Bryukhovetsky, honorary president of the Kyiv Mohyla Academy.

Moreover, Ukraine’s foreign donors must take part in the competition for anti-corruption judges but they will have neither time nor resources to vet all the candidates and their background on their own. The Public Integrity Council, which has shown its independence from the authorities and its ability to work hard to examine candidates’ background, must take part in the competition for the anti-graft court by collecting all the available information on candidates (and the council must participate in competitions for all courts under the 2016 law on the judiciary and status of judges).

This is the only way to ensure that anti-corruption judges are truly professional and independent.

The use of the same objective methodology for assigning scores both for the anti-corruption court and other courts and the participation of the Public Integrity Council in competitions for the anti-corruption court and other courts  will totally kill the false argument that the anti-corruption court is a “special” court banned by the Constitution (the Venice Commission has already refuted this argument).

Also, it will be impossible to select independent judges if foreign donors choose representatives loyal to the Ukrainian government.  Such representatives must be completely independent from pressure by Ukrainian authorities.

In the best-case scenario, foreign donors should themselves assess candidates’ professional integrity. But at least they should have a right to suspend the competition and initiate an audit if evidence emerges that the High Qualification Commission violated procedural rules.

The Public Integrity Council believes that the competition for the Supreme Court was rigged to promote politically loyal candidates.

First, during the practical test stage, some candidates were given tests that coincided with cases that they had considered during their career, which was deemed a tool of promoting political loyalists.

Second, in March 2017 the High Qualification Commission illegally allowed 43 candidates who had not gotten sufficient scores during practical tests to take part in the next stage, changing its rules amid the competition. Members of the Public Integrity Council believe that the rules were unlawfully changed to prevent political loyalists from dropping out of the competition.

Apart from the second score assigned anonymously for practical works, the commission gave them a third score after naming them, violating the law (because practical tests should be anonymous to prevent political interference). The commission must have just assigned the second score without knowing the candidates’ names.

Third, the High Qualification Commission illegally refused to publish the scores for candidates’ psychological tests, failed to set a minimum score for psychological tests and illegally assessed the tests on its own (although they must have been assessed by psychologists). Moreover, the commission used corporate loyalty tests, which stipulated loyalty as a major characteristic of a judge – as a result, independent candidates were prevented from getting a higher score, while political loyalists were encouraged.

Fourth, the High Qualification Commission removed the profiles of candidates other than the winners from its site.

Fifth, the High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice illegally refused to give specific reasons for assigning specific total scores to candidates and refused to explain why the High Qualification Commission has overridden vetoes by the Public Integrity Council on candidates who do not meet ethical integrity standards.

Sixth, the High Council of Justice has illegally rejected 48 out of its members’ 52 recusals from voting for specific Supreme Court candidates due to a conflict of interest. This triggered accusations that the council was planning to get the necessary 14 pro-government votes to appoint politically loyal candidates.

Some of these violations are currently being disputed at Ukrainian courts and will be disputed at the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, Public Integrity Council members have opened a criminal case into the violations and will open more cases.

Sourse, 12/03/2018.

FROM OBJECTIVES TO RESULTS: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EU-UKRAINE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT AS SEEN BY STAKEHOLDERS

December 22, 2017

A jury: experience and problems

October 24, 2017

A simulation system of justice in which convulses a vestige of the people’s representatives, as the jury. Says Russian political analyst and human rights activist Mikhail Savva, who left Russia and now living in Ukraine.

The jury is in the Constitution of Ukraine, but in fact, according to human rights activists, jury trials in the country do not. The main difference between a jury trial by an ordinary court (with the participation of one judge or three professional judges) is a separate co-existence in it “judges of law” (the legal profession) and “Judges of fact” (board of jurors , which usually consists of persons who are not are lawyers). If this division is not present and professional judges work together with the representatives of the people should not talk about a jury trial, but the court sheffenskom. Sheffenskie courts adopted, for example, at their home in Germany as well as in Ukraine. Experience and problems of modern Russian jury trials may be useful in case if Ukraine, too, decides to create a jury trial.

The Soviet system of people’s assessors is an option sheffenskogo court, where a judge has unlimited opportunities to influence the decision of the representatives of the people. Sheffenskaya system can be very effective, but only for companies with extremely high legal culture .

In the course of judicial reform 90-ies of the last century, it was created in the Russian jury trials . During the counter-reforms that have been going for fifteen years, created a simulation system of justice in which convulses a vestige of the people’s representatives, as the jury.

Jury trials are traditionally regarded as the “courts of justice”. This is confirmed by the statistics of court decisions in the Russian Federation. Professional judges give less than 1% of acquittals , while the juries – 13-25% in different years.

In 2016, according to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court, in the first instance are over 239 cases with a jury. From 361 to 60 the defendant was justified, that is 17% , another 85 cases returned to the prosecutor. The number of sentences handed down without a jury, more than three orders of magnitude. According to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court in 2016 for all formulations of the Criminal Code (CC) convicted 740,380 people (to imprisonment – 206 304 people), is justified by 1493 (0.2% if you count the persons on which the case was dismissed on rehabilitative grounds, – 1.5%).

Scale application of jury trials in Russia is low. In one year, jury trials in Russia in the second decade of this century the average render verdicts to 300 (the maximum number of verdicts in the post-Soviet period – about 600 in 2010). A jury selected only 12% of the accused, who have a right to it. In the US a year by the jury shall be made about 160 thousand. Verdicts. In the XX century in the Russian empire handed down each year about 40 thousand. Verdicts. The reasons for this will be disclosed below, here I call home. This lack of political will for the development of the institute of juries. In the context of the simulation of the justice system the current Russian regime of the jury can not be complete and widespread.

The jury in the Russian Federation has a constitutional basis: according to Art. 32 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Russian citizens have the right to participate in the administration of justice. One form of such participation – review certain categories of criminal cases in the court of jury. However direct reference to the institution of jury in the Constitution does not.

The introduction of jury trials took considerable time in Russia. Pilot introduction of jury trials in Russia began with the 1993-1994, in 9 subjects of the Federation. The new Criminal Procedure Code, adopted in 2001, did the jury widespread since 2003. In the Chechen Republic the introduction of jury trials actually took place in 2010. An expert on Russian court Sergei Pashin jury, namely the phased introduction of jury trials has led to the fact that he did have in Russia.

The accused has the right to file a petition for consideration of his criminal case by the court of first instance composed of professional judges and a panel of 12 jurors in case he is accused, in particular, murder, sabotage, banditry, genocide, public appeals to the outbreak of war, kidnapping , piracy mercenarism and t. d.

I counted as of July 2017 20 of the Criminal Code articles on which possible jury . At the beginning of the introduction of jury trials in Russia of such items was 47, according Sergeya Pashina calculations, the main initiator of the introduction of jury trials in Russia.

The criminal case, which involved several defendants, the court is considered by jury in respect of all the defendants , if at least one of them said a request for consideration of a criminal case by a court in the composition.

If the defendant has not filed a motion for the consideration of the criminal case by the court by jury, the case is considered by another composition of the court in the manner prescribed by law.

The judge’s decision to hear the case from the jury is final. The subsequent failure of the defendant from the criminal trial by jury is not accepted .

Criminal cases involving jurors of federal courts of general jurisdiction is held in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the supreme courts of republics, territorial, regional courts, courts of federal cities, autonomous region and autonomous districts, the district (naval) military courts.

jury selection jurors is actually a two-step.

According to Art. 3 of the federal law, jurors can not be: persons under 25 years of age; persons with outstanding or previously convicted; persons recognized as incapable or limited in capacity; are registered in the drug treatment or mental hospital.

Such persons are not included in the lists of jurors , drawn up every four years on the basis of the voter list by random sampling. Exclude these people from the list of jurors bodies of executive power of the municipality or the region. Then, after getting acquainted with the citizens of the jury lists, these lists are excluded from the statements of the citizens themselves several categories.

The weak point of this phase of jury selection is a voluntary procedure for submitting applications for exclusion from the jury list. That is, if, for example, the police considers that nothing prevents him to be sworn he did not submit an application for delisting.

During jury selection to participate in a particular criminal case to participate in the proceedings as jurors are not allowed to persons suspected or accused of committing crimes; I do not speak the language in which the hearing is conducted; with physical and / or mental disabilities that prevent full participation in the hearing.

During the trial, the jury task boils down to, to answer three main questions: whether the proven fact of the crime, if that proved his committed by the defendant, and whether he is guilty of the crime. In the case of the issue of the recognition of the defendant’s guilt is put whether he deserves leniency. In this case the judge to the jury formulate lists of issues, which are often a few dozen items.

Jurors “should strive to adopt a unanimous decision,” but if this is not achieved within three hours, the verdict made by voting.

A guilty verdict is adopted, if the majority of the jury votes for each of the three key issues. Acquittal verdict is considered, if not less than six judges gave a negative answer to at least one of the three questions. If the deciding votes are equally divided, the adopted most favorable to the defendant’s answer for each question.

The acquittal is mandatory for the presiding judge, in this case, the court justifies the defendant. Guilty as the jury’s verdict is not binding on the court. If the judge recognizes that a guilty verdict handed down against an innocent person, then adopted a decree on the dissolution of the jury and the criminal case is sent for a new trial by another composition of the court. This decision is not subject to appeal in cassation.

From the jurisdiction of jury trials for the duration of this institution such articles were excluded, such as terrorism, hostage-taking, riots, treason, espionage, violent seizure of power, rape and sexual offenses against children. Some compounds “fell out” of crime from the jurisdiction of jury trials due to the fact that the new Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 2001 softened for him the punishment and the death penalty or life imprisonment has not been provided (eg high treason). In some cases, exceptions motive was that the jury too often render acquittals. For example, in the discussion in the State Duma in 2013, the issue of the exclusion of such a composition as sexual crimes against children, the author of the bill deputy Spring said that the jury too often justify the accused.

In February 2016 the Russian Constitutional Court found that the criminal case against women in the murder with aggravating circumstances could be considered by a jury of 12 people in the supreme courts of republics, territorial or regional courts. Prior to that, women were deprived of the possibility to be tried before a jury, because the Russian legislation does not provide for life sentences for the women.

December 3, 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed to extend the role of juries in a possible reduction in their number in the court up to 5-7 people. This was an attempt to respond to society’s demands for justice. At a time when major political offenses removed from the jurisdiction of jury trials, the expansion of the institute of juries are no longer threatened by the authorities. In other words, cases of domestic murder and some other formulations could, according to the authorities, to consider jury trials at district and city levels.

Starting from June 1, 2018 Institute of jurorsIt will be operational in the district (city) and garrison military courts. Established number of jurors for the district and garrison military courts – 6 people, in the courts of the Russian Federation and the district military courts, the number of jurors will be reduced from 12 to 8. district-level court jury will consider the criminal case at the request of the accused, for which there may not be sentenced to life imprisonment, namely, with regard to women, persons who have committed crimes under the age of 18 years, men who have attained to time of the court’s 65-year-olds sentence. Criminal cases on these articles of the Criminal Code in relation to other persons, as before, will be considered by the court of the subject of the Russian Federation. In addition, the district court with the participation of jurors,

Judges of the Russian Federation, according to a discussion at the Congress in December 2016, the judges are extremely skeptical about the prospects for the mass introduction of jury trials . They talk about the organizational unpreparedness and lack of funding. We can assume that in the near future verdicts of the jury will not become a mass phenomenon in the municipal and district courts.

Practical functioning of juries problem is clearly illustrated by the case of the murder of Boris Nemtsov , who was considered by the Moscow District Military Court in 2016-2017. A panel of 12 jurors was in the conference room for three days. She had to answer 26 questions put to them by the judge. The jury could not come to a unanimous opinion, so after three hours of contentious issues have been put to the vote. 10 of the 12 jurors declared guilty of all five defendants.

Eight jurors were replaced during the process. The defendant’s lawyer Bakhaeva Zaurbek Sadahanov said: “There was a sweep of the jury, we have seen. The verdict is absolutely illegal, because no evidence of guilt Bakhaeva investigation did not present. This is only possible in a country where there is no justice. “

In discussing the questions that were to answer the jury, the objections of the accused lawyers were not taken into account, the judge approved the questions in its original version. This version of the problem was that the actions of each of the defendants, the judge invited the jury to assess the aggregate only to the actions of the other four defendants.

At the present time in Russia there was already a jury management practices. Its main elements are:

1. Selection loyal jury on board formation step. Washer courts evaluate the behavior of the jury, and depending on this jury are involved or are not involved in other processes.

2. Restrictions jury taps to participate in a particular meeting: no more than one non-motivated removal of restrictions on issues at the stage of taps (you can ask about criminal records of relatives, but you can not ask questions, the answers to which are characterized by human eyes).

3. Adjustment of the board structure by eliminating disloyal jury. For this purpose the taps on spurious grounds, creating grounds for removal from the board (the jury may hold on his way to a meeting of the traffic police, with the result that the jury is removed from the board).

4. Manipulative or control wording of the jury by the judge.

5. Prohibitions on the provision of the jury during the meeting on problems of the inquiry, such as torture . Random mention of torture, even the hint is the reason for the cancellation of the verdict.

6. Intimidation by jury, as was done during the process in the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic in the case of citizens of Ukraine and Karpyuk Klyha.

If the jury panel of the control mechanisms do not work, use the cancellation of the verdict by the Supreme Court of Russia. If needed, which is often politically motivated, the Supreme Court cancels the guilty verdict of the jury and send the case for retrial. So it was in the case of the murder Anny Politkovskoy. Grounds for cancellation of the verdict was that, according to the Armed Forces, the panel “go on about the lawyers who reported the identity of defendants in the case, and the jury presented negative information about the investigation.”

I am getting the result. A jury in Russia it is a jury trial, not sheffenskim court or some other form of participation of representatives of the people in judicial decisions. However, the jury as the “Court of Justice” in the Russian Federation operating in simulation mode. This is achieved due to two main factors: the limited scope of application of a jury and the widespread use of illegal jury management.

Summing up, it can not be said about the money. Often mention that Ukraine has no money for a jury trial. But the money in this case is irrelevant. We are talking about saving mode. See what makes the authoritarian Putin regime in Russia – is introducing jury trials at the district level. It costs a lot of money, because in Russia in 2184 the district court. is sorely lacking is the answer mode to request people to justice. Of course, the “political” as a judge in violation of all the rules, and will be judged, and to plant. But in cases of domestic murder people get this same justice in the form of trial by jury. Putin’s regime is trying to prolong its existence. If authoritarian regimes are saving yourself so why democracy in Ukraine should act differently?

Sourse, 23/10/2017

People need to learn how to control the power, local first of all

October 14, 2017

One of the most prominent dissidents of the Soviet Union, weighed after a four-month hunger strike in BC political zone 389/35 in the Perm region of 39 kg. The author of “Handbook of Psychiatry for dissidents,” a member of the American Society of Psychiatrists, UK Royal College of Psychiatrists, the rehabilitation of victims of the World Council of Torture, International PEN, the author of several books and hundreds of articles. All of this – on human rights defenders, public figures and the head of the Ukrainian Psychiatric Association Semen Gluzman.

Semen Gluzman  –  on the Maidan, and the syndrome crowd of friendship with the “Bandera” and enzyme resistance, control the power and responsibility for the past.

– Semen Fishelevich, you are one of those who supported the Maidan, but never torn his scene. Why, by the way?

– I never wanted to the scene – from the time of Rukh has never been on any shodnyak, I mean … on an important meeting decent people. Just realize that the psychology of a decent man and the psychology of thousands of decent people differ dramatically.

At the same time, I must admit, even during the Orange Revolution called me many foreign colleagues, the stars of the world of psychiatry, with one question: where’s syndrome aggressive influence of the crowd?

Ukrainian people have shown themselves quite surprisingly and in 2004 and in 2014. During the recent hurricane in Houston because of marauding police had to impose a curfew. Are there many cases of looting, we can remember when the city center, with its many shops and expensive boutiques, stood up to 200 thousand people?

– In the mid-1970s, in the Perm region, a young Jew Gluzman made friends with Ukrainian nationalists – 25 annuals. But then you have joined a common enemy and not the overall vision of the future.

– Yes, I spent several years in the camp side by side with those who were called “Bandera”. They were simple people, the names of Bandera or Shukhevych of their mouth, I had never heard. They just defended their land from “outsiders”. I once asked Uncle Vasya Basil Malozhinskogo, whom he regarded as the UPA soldier, and he was from the SS division Galicia-evil so asked reproachfully, saying how could you ?! And he did his best to explain: “Spershu boule sovєti Potіm priyshli nіmtsі OAO All – A Stranger’s one I never pobachiv i pochuv svoїh, yshli hloptsі that spіvali of Ukrainian pіsen What I first bailiff to them That Well svoї boule ……. . “That’s right, simply and without ideological pathos.

– Jewish support of the Maidan has not surprised?

– Not in the least surprised. One of the most striking childhood memories  I was 10-11 years old, I was returning to his home on the bus, with rises on Artema October Revolution Square (Maidan current). At one of the stops came an elderly lady, very polite, a good Ukrainian language, asked the passengers where it’s okay to leave. Trolley bus exploded with anger – I was scared, not knowing what was happening. Started the persecution of some lumpen, perhaps a T-shirt, he was supported by his aunt vociferous – it was a stream of insults that hit a woman, just to speak in Ukrainian. Then I realized that with me live one more Jews – Ukrainians.

Frankly, when Ukraine got its independence in 1991, I was tense, remembering how aggressively treated here to the Jews in the Soviet era. I remember how the Jewish boys and girls, which were practically closed local universities, leaving to other republics, where there were quiet and well attended. In addition-and this is for me as a dissident is very important – in Ukraine was the most ferocious in the KGB Union. I tensed and because he saw who vote for independence in Parliament : a group of 239, which is officially called “For a sovereign Radyans’ka up Ukraine”, in other words, the communist majority, sensing the winds of change. And along with them – thousands of opportunists, rinuvshihsya from the Komsomol straight into Roc. Professional killers of Ukrainian culture, instantly became the accusers “hand of Moscow”.

Then, when it became an annual index to measure the tolerance, it appears that anti-Semitism and xenophobia are retreating, although the anti-Semites, of course, is and always will be. This was true of all the other areas  the country got a chance.

I remember one of the first American ambassadors told his friends in Ukraine, saying that you frequent to Moscow, come here, there is a very different people. And it’s true, that’s not the idealization or romanticizing, and the herald of the European mentality.

Of course, at 2014 Independence were different people, and they stood for different things. But it was in the area  some seven years I have not filed a hand.

– Today, three and a half years later, do not be disappointed?

– I am not so naive as to fail to understand: the revolution does not end as the dream of its members. Therefore anticipated that possibly will be disappointed, but … did not expect so much.

You see, in his initial optimism, I relied on the camp experience. With me sat a lot of people of different nationalities, but the Ukrainians have always been the most – about 30-40% of prisoners. Very different – not very smart – and wise, educated – and almost illiterate, sincere – and on your mind. I do not quite understand what the ethnic psychology, but in all the years in the political area, I have not met one Belarusian, Kyrgyz or Uzbek dissident. But the KGB was everywhere. Therefore, unlike many former Soviet republics, Ukraine was able to gradually come to some kind of European values. There is a resistance to the enzyme, but the people are not trained in democracy and have no control over their politicians.

This, incidentally, turned out rather quickly, so, in my opinion, the only way out – a long way to majority elections.

– Where buckwheat is everything?  

– It is everything because of her hand nobody put. Of course, the new laws, withdrawal Institute, etc. needed – need to teach people to control the power, primarily local. Do many Ukrainians need a report from its regional deputies? That’s it. And who offended us?

As for buckwheat, remember the scene in Bishkek Tulip Revolution, when revolutionaries dragged on his back stolen refrigerators and television sets? In Kiev, as it was not … Here, both the Maidan demanding from the authorities not buckwheat, and quite another.

Just people accept defeat very quickly, sitting in the kitchen or in the FB and wailing: again m … Duck elected. And also choose not the best, but they are controlled -and this should be taught in Europe. I know many who are helping with the support of Western partners to build democratic institutions in Ukraine. The vast majority of them work just for money. Some of them are rascals. Unfortunately…

– In 2014, many thought that the Ukrainians are the European political nation. How far along the process, or, conversely, stopped, given the historical memory of the policy, with its cult of new heroes?

– For me, the new heroes – a Heavenly hundreds, not the leaders of the OUN and UPA. And the fact that the memory of the heroes of the new vulgarized, obviously. She vulgarized when stopper criminal cases, which should be called the perpetrators of the massacre. She vulgarized, as the country’s leadership does not want to admit that on the other side, too, were Ukrainians. I know one family in which the boy grew up, the only son, who was “bad” brought – he wanted to be a Ukrainian officer. He was burned at the Maidan. Perhaps one of my daughter’s friends, occasionally throwing Molotov cocktails.

There are many things that we uncouple. But in a situation where the people in the mass hates and despises the power, what kind of love for each other can be said?

– What do you think about decommunisation receiving more and more sophisticated form?

– As a former political prisoner and anti-Soviet, I can not but welcome this process. But in its present form it gives me a feeling of disgust. As lustration, which was clearly organized and controlled from the top and stopped as suddenly as it had begun.

Lustration was illegal and generally meaningless, and it was followed by the same kind of pointless and illegal Decommunization. Autos of the dead will not work, especially when it conducts a marginal rot.

We voted in favor at the time of Kravchuk, and after the KGB has arrested dissidents only after the approval of the Central Committee department of ideology, which he headed. Why not to prosecute? And at the same time and all the deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the group 239, by which the independence was proclaimed.

It is very convenient to demolish monuments, taking responsibility for the past. We are the eternal victim, with a demand for us? “We endlessly criticize Comrade Stalin, and, of course, to work and yet I want to ask. Who wrote denunciations of four million?” – once said Sergei Dovlatov. The question hung in the air. We’ve no sense of responsibility for the acts of their fathers and grandfathers, as in Germany, where the children and grandchildren remember well what difference their loved ones. Where they are – children of the NKVD, the party nomenklatura, which, after all, millions of ordinary people obediently raises his hands at the next party meeting, the stigma of renegades, traitors to the socialist motherland, etc.?

So it is not an ideology we have to sew in the XXI century, and the way of the future.

I am not an enemy of perpetuating the memory of Stepan Bandera, but when acting Health Minister Suprun declares that, taking important decisions, mentally consults with the leader of the OUN, this is in any gate … And apparently, it is something to her counsels, as the results of this tandem we see.

– Donbass, which has become a springboard for the “Russian world”, lost to Ukraine? Or not very much, and we need it?

– Russian is impoverished, it has fewer features include these territories, and Putin, in the end, death. Deliberately or not, but he pulled the plug by their actions many influential people in Russia who stole billions, access to which is every day more and more difficult, given the sanctions. They are used to a different level of personal freedom, where they are, after all, now the rest? On Baikal?

So I believe that sooner or later Ukraine will return to the region. But not the kind of young people who went to the Donbas and already settled in Kiev and other cities. They have made their choice.

Sometimes it occurs to me seditious thought … my camp friends were fighting for the independence of Ukraine, and once the day has come – not because we were sitting at it in the camps. If Donbass really wants to live differently, if it is him and not someone external choice, from a moral point of view, why not think about the idea of ​​independence for these people? This is only one possible solution, but it must be spoken. Apart so apart, we do so and are doing everything to isolate these areas – with the help of the blockade, for example.

– It is clear that the war promotes the division of society into friends and foes, and the formation of a black and white picture of the world. All this of course, but … if we do not turn into “Russia on the contrary”, with its contempt for the private view, the search for their fifth column, and so on?

– I am fully aware that the current president is also seeking to usurp power, but I understand that he is also not released, because, even Kuchma, Ukraine wrote – not Russia. Our man in the street is different from the Russian. There genuinely respected Putin. Here the power is changing, and every new government we do not like, and often despised or hated. And it gives grounds for optimism.

Regarding the split in society, we are thrown into the past and because they do not offer a vision of the future. This also applies to the heroes of the UPA – stranger to a large part of the country, and to the language problem, which is the vast majority of Ukrainians do not consider the problem, but that again raised the shield on …

After the trial, I spent twenty days in a cell with Vasilem Stusom – and it was a luxurious 20 days. From time to time I even forget where I was, plunging into the Ukrainian culture. But we were talking in their own language, and Stus took this quite calmly. With 25 annuals UPA camp communicated in the same way – no one ever said nothing.

I was once again transferred to the new barracks, and that same day I was admitted to the “family” Eugene Prishlyak and Vasil Pidgorodetskim. The first was to arrest referent Security Lviv OUN, the second – a simple fighter in the UPA. Collected in the bedside table meal, we shared equally and ate together. After some time went to Vasil old policeman – a bastard – and said, “Vasil you train a respected man, an old convict, are not you ashamed to Zhydenko eat?” “I have it on s … sent”, – he told me later Vasil.

I am absolutely convinced that the state language is necessary to know, but since independence can not remember a single attempt to create appropriate courses for civil servants. Told me how hard they taught language after work – reading aloud Shevchenko, etc. Ethnic Ukrainians, but completely Russified Soviet reality. Such mockery, with complete indifference of the state, caused the rejection, rather than patriotic feelings.

So let’s publish good books, cooking class teachers – the key to successful language policy. I sometimes have to deal with some of the upper class of pedagogical universities – it’s awful. They academics some of their academies, wealthy people, but are engaged in playing the Soviet zhlobstva.

Ukraine has ruined a lot. When NaUKMA took its first steps, I tried to explain to the rector that it is necessary to keep the schools of mathematicians, theoretical physicists have developed in “mailboxes”, with excellent professionals. It was just necessary to allow these professionals to teach at first in Russian, but … we got rid of high intelligence.

– Who is able to pull the country out of the vicious circle? As long as people do not totally trust the government, naively hopes on the most rabid populists – and we have already passed … Civil society is defeated – or simply lost the battle?

– Civil society must help, rather than push. I am following with great concern for the future of the country in which I live and which I am a part of. I’m afraid that if this continues, the Ukrainian state will be defeated not by external forces, it simply dissolved, as a solid in a liquid. And will Vodicka, sweet or salty – are not so important.

– And what about the resistance enzyme?

– The enzyme resistance – an important condition for independence, but not sufficient.

Build the country – it does not sit in the cooler. We need other skills. When the Soviet Union ended, many former dissidents in Moscow continued to engage in human rights activities. In Ukraine, a number of my colleagues on the Gulag have gone into politics – and what?

It is clear that the government is constantly tosses a bone of contention that we at loggerheads in the past, instead of building the future. And less remembered about the reforms that are needed, as the air, and at the same time painful, so hold on to your seats, the tops are in no hurry to carry them out. A bottoms – bottoms grow, and this is our chance.

Interview by Michael Gold

Sourse, 13/10/2017

72 NGO already have signed the Declaration of Human Rights Agenda platform with the requirement to the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to stop the attack on civil society organizations

September 25, 2017

HUMAN RIGHTS AGENDA

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform demanding the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine stop crack-down on non-governmental organizations

 In early July 2017, the presidential draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 were registered in the Parliament of Ukraine. The draft laws were elaborated allegedly to replace the scandalous amendments to the anti-corruption legislation obliging the anti-corruption activists to annually file personal asset and property electronic declarations (Law of Ukraine No. 1975-VIII of 23 March 2017). The presidential draft laws actually propose to abolish the e-declarations for public anti-corruption activists but to require instead the non-governmental organizations and individual entrepreneurs as well as enterprises, institutions and organizations providing them with services, to file additional reports to tax authorities.

The draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 burden all non-governmental organizations and individual entrepreneurs, enterprises, institutions and organizations that provide them with services with an unjustified obligation to file additional tax reports.

It is revealing that the number of tax reports required from the non-governmental organizations, which these draft laws provide for, significantly exceeds the number of reports required from the business. Moreover, even the recipients of budget funds are not required to file such a number of tax reports.

We believe that these legislative initiatives appeared not by chance, though against the background of statements about the need to reduce excessive state regulation. The punishment in form of the abolition of a non-profit status of non-governmental organization is pronouncedly punitive in nature and is nothing more than the introduction of a tool for selective pressure on the non-governmental organizations indisposed towards the authorities.

We regard the initiative of the President of Ukraine as the disproportionate interference in the activities of the non-governmental organizations. Such steps liken Ukraine to the repressive regimes of the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and others similar. Despite the ostentatious care for transparency and accountability, the regulations introduced in the abovementioned countries led to almost absolute annihilation of the non-governmental organizations which are independent from authorities and total crack-down on civil society.

No international treaties require similar state control over the activities of non-governmental organizations as the international standards endow the non-governmental organizations with the right to be free from state interference in their activities.

The Guidelines on Freedom of Association drafted by the Council of Europe and the OSCE stipulate that “the state shall not require but shall encourage and facilitate associations to be accountable and transparent.” Special reporting is permissible, however, if it is required in exchange for certain benefits, provided it is “within the discretion of the association to decide whether to comply with such reporting requirements or forgo them and forsake any related special benefits, where applicable.”

In consideration of the foregoing, we demand that the Parliament of Ukraine immediately reject the draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 of 10 July 2017 and the President of Ukraine fulfill his promise to cancel the amendments to the anti-corruption legislation dated March 2017.

For reference: the Human Rights Agenda platform is the informal coalition of human rights organizations working in the field of monitoring, analyzing and elaborating the legislation in accordance with the basic principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The platform participants are the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, the Center for Civil Liberties, the Amnesty International Ukraine, the Human Rights Information Center, the Center for Law Enforcement Studies, the Without Borders Project of the NGO “Social Action Center” and the Euromaidan SOS. The Center for Civil Liberties coordinates the platform activities. Contacts: human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

  1. Center for Civil Liberties
  2. Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
  3. Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches
  4. Eastern-Ukrainian Center for Civic Initiatives
  5. Charitable Foundation “Vostok SOS”
  6. Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”
  7. Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law Enforcement
  8. NGO “KyivPride”
  9. Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
  10. Open Dialog Foundation
  11. Human Rights Information Center
  12. Crimean Human Rights Group
  13. NGO “Helsinki Initiative XXI”
  14. NGO “Peaceful Coast”
  15. Expert Human Rights Center
  16. NGO “La Strada Ukraine”
  17. Liberation Movement Research Center
  18. Charitable Organisation “Fund of Mercy and Health”
  19. NGO “South”
  20. NGO “Ray of Changes”
  21. Kharkiv Regional Foundation “Public Alternative”
  22. Project “Without Borders”
  23. NGO “Political Studies Association”
  24. NGO “People’s Control of Kirovohrad Region”
  25. Eksampei Center for Ukrainian Policy
  26. NGO “Volunteer Association of Participants of Maidan and Fighting Action”
  27. Charitable Foundation “Dyvosvit Club”
  28. NGO “School of Public Projects”
  29. NGO “Faith. Hope. Action”
  30. NGO “JCI Kyiv”
  31. Educational Human Rights House Chernihiv
  32. NGO “Women’s Prospects Center”
  33. NGO “Zakarpattia Community”
  34. Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Organization “Young Prosvita”
  35. Ternopil Human Rights Group
  36. Human Rights Center “All rights”
  37. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Convictus Ukraine”
  38. Autonomous Bar Association
  39. NGO “MART” (Chernihiv)
  40. Ukrainian Legal Aid Foundation
  41. Information and Awareness Raising Center “Axis” (Vinnytsia)
  42. NGO “Center for Civic Education “Almenda””
  43. Center for Humanistic Technologies “AHALAR”
  44. NGO “Ukrainian Association of Assessment”
  45. NGO “Territory of Success”
  46. T-Woman of Ukraine
  47. NGO “AutoMaidan Kyiv”
  48. NGO “Human Rights Vector”
  49. Bilozerka Center for Regional Development
  50. Center for Law Enforcement Activity Research
  51. Chernihiv Public Committee for Human Rights Protection
  52. NGO “Kyiv Educational Center “Tolerspace””
  53. Human Rights Center “Postup”
  54. NGO “Liberal Democratic League of Ukraine”
  55. Bureau of Social and Political Developments
  56. Center for Legal and Political Studies “DUMA”
  57. Institute of Mass Information
  58. SOVA Group
  59. Media Initiative for Human Rights
  60. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Legalife Ukraine”
  61. NGO “Insight”
  62. Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research
  63. NGO “Informer”
  64. Information and Analytical Center “Public Space”
  65. LGBT Human Rights Center “Our World”
  66. NGO “Bakhmat”
  67. NGO “Development Foundation”
  68. NGO “All-Ukrainian League of Lawyers Against Corruption”
  69. NGO “Kharkiv Women’s Association “Sphere””
  70. NGO “Gender Center of Volyn Region”
  71. NGO “Theatre for Dialogue”
  72. NGO ‘Free Territory’

The statement is open for signature. Please contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Результаты поиска:

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform on deprivation of attorneys of the ability to cooperate with human rights organisations

March 7, 2019

In the agenda of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the consideration of the first
reading of a draft law ‘On Legal Practice and Advocacy’ No. 9055 is scheduled for 28
February.
The authors and supporters of the law are striving to prove its progressive nature,
strengthening of guarantees of advocacy and empowerment.
However, should the law be adopted, all attorneys who cooperate with human rights
organisations will be deprived of the opportunity to engage in advocacy activities
within the framework of cooperation with these organisations. Hundreds of cases
which have been filed by lawyers of these organisations with the European Court of
Human Rights, and thousands of court cases in national courts will become only a
reminder of past activities. There will be no one competent to file new applications
with the European Court and national courts on behalf of human rights organisations.
In his expert opinion which contains the analysis of the draft law No. 9055, the
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights Diego Garcia-Sayan stated that the restriction, set
forth in Article 28 of the draft law 9055, could adversely affect the lawyers who would
have to choose between full employment and the work of a human rights defender
which, obviously, would adversely affect an access to justice in the country, in
particular, for individuals with limited financial means. Also, the report provides a
whole number of risks and threats to independent advocacy, such as the procedure
of bringing attorneys to disciplinary responsibility, unfounded types of disciplinary
sanctions that affect the independence of advocacy and, consequently, affect
appropriate defence in court.
Separately, the completely opaque process of work on the draft law is to be
mentioned, and this fact has also been noted in the report by Mr. Diego Garcia-
Sayan. He wrote that consultations with representatives of the legal profession were
very limited in nature, and the final draft law was made public by the office of the
President without the opportunity to comment on its content.
A lack of transparency, marginalisation of the drafting process and introduction of the
draft law, a lack of a high-quality expert examination, for example, by the Venice
Commission, and haste with the attempts to implement this law as soon as possible

in a parliament’s session confirm the poor quality of the preparation process and the
same low-quality content of the draft law itself, which, in its present form, poses a
real threat to the protection of human rights in the human rights protection
environment of Ukraine and can be regarded as a way of attack and exertion of
pressure on the environment.
We hereby urge Members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to prevent the
consideration and adoption of the draft law 9055, as requested in the report by Diego
Garcia-Sayan, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The text of the draft law No.
9055 must be redrafted, discussed publicly and amended, taking into account the
comments made by representatives of the bar community, human rights
organisations, and international experts. We demand transparency, honesty and
high quality. Today, we cannot see these features in the draft law No. 9055.
The Human Rights Agenda platform is an informal coalition of human right organisations focused on systemic
problems of legislation and practices for defending fundamental human rights. The participants of the platform
are as follows: Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, Center for Civil Liberties, Amnesty International
Ukraine, Human Rights Information Center, Centre of Law Enforcement Activities Research (CLEAR), Project
"Without Borders", Euromaidan SOS. The platform is coordinated by the Center for Civil Liberties. You can
contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
Center for Civil Liberties
Regional Centre for Human Rights
Open Dialogue Foundation
Humanitarian Studio "Wave
Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”

NGOs call on the HQCJ to refrain from creating artificial obstacles to the establishment of the Public Integrity Council

November 22, 2018

On November 21, 2018, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) announced the results of the consideration of documents of public associations (NGOs) for the establishment of the Public Integrity Council (PIC).

 

The Commission approved a positive decision on the admission of only 2 out of 14 organizations that submitted the documents. The Commission allowed the rest of the organizations to eliminate the shortcomings which, in its opinion, were identified in the relevant documents of the NGOs.

 

Having considered the decisions of the Commission, NGOs have to state that among these alleged shortcomings there are many that are not based on the requirements of the law, do not pursue a legitimate aim and can create artificial obstacles for NGOs’ participation in the PIC establishment.

 

In particular:

 

  • In some cases (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the Commission does not accept the results of a financial audit conducted not within the past two years, whereas the law only requires the availability of an audit report and does not set any time frames for its conduct;
  • In some other cases (Center for Civil Liberties, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the HQCJ groundlessly believes that it is only the first persons of international organizations in Ukraine (the OSCE Coordinator in Ukraine, UNDP, etc.) that can make recommendations to NGOs, while the law does not contain such a requirement, and the signatures of officials of international organizations were affixed within their authorities;
  • Position of the HQCJ regarding the recognition of reports based on the financial audit results or audit findings as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements only because these reports were prepared for confidential use and submission to grantors (CRIMEASOS, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform) is unreasonable (the law does not set any requirements for the addressees of the reports and the purpose of their preparation);
  • The HQCJ did not recognize a copy of the report on the project implementation results due to the lack of signature of the person authorized to sign it (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform). However, such a requirement is unfounded since the law requires the provision of a copy rather than the original of the report, and the submitted copy of the report has been duly certified by an authorized person;  
  • The law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” does not require the publication of a declaration of a candidate to the PIC on the NACP’s website, and the HQCJ’s competencies do not cover anti-corruption verification of declarations (including the presence or absence of these declarations on the NACP’s website), while some organizations (Institute of Applied Humanitarian Research) received a reply that the absence of such declarations on the NACP’s website serves as grounds for non-admission.

 

As for documents of other NGOs (Civic Lustration Committee, E+, Nova Krayina, ТОМ14, Centre for Economic Strategy, Centre UA), only the originals of certain documents are required, whereas all the necessary information can be obtained from the duly authenticated photocopies. In some other cases (DEJURE, Nova Krayina), technical errors (incorrect indication of the candidate’s patronymic only in one of the documents or use of the phrase “annual declaration” after “declaration of a candidate for the position of the PIC member”) are considered by the Commission as “grounds for the determination of the submitted documents as not complying with … the law”.

 

We want to emphasize that the requirements of the law on the submission of documents have been established to confirm the experience, real activity and capacity of NGOs to form the PIC. The Commission’s review of these documents should pursue this legitimate aim and should not go beyond its limits.

 

The Commission’s decisions are even more surprising given the fact that 2 years ago the Commission allowed a number of organizations with similar packages of documents to participate in the NGO Meeting on the PIC establishment without any comments. The Commission did not consider the failure to submit proper declarations by the candidates for judicial office at the Anti-Corruption Court and Intellectual Property Court to be a violation and allowed them to take part in the competition to the IP-court.

 

We are concerned that at the beginning of our cooperation with the HQCJ regarding the formation of the second composition of the PIC, we faced this approach. At the same time, the NGOs will make every effort to take into account the wishes of the Commission regarding the execution of documents within a specified period as far as possible.

 

However, if the HQCJ retains this approach to the assessment of documents, there will be a high risk of groundless rejection of experienced and capable NGOs from participation in the Meeting and, as a result, the formation of an incomplete composition, delay, or even the impossibility of establishing the PIC as a form of public participation in the selection and evaluation of judges.

 

Therefore, we call on the HQCJ:

 

  • To carefully reconsider all the packages of documents submitted by the NGOs, including those that will be submitted additionally;
  • To assess the documents submitted by organizations solely on the basis of the requirements of the law, impartially and without groundless formalism;
  • To allow all NGOs whose experience and capability are confirmed by the documents submitted by them to participate in the Meeting;
  • To review the decisions on a number of NGOs (indicated in this statement or otherwise) regarding the recognition of documents as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements of the law, particularly where the law contained no such requirements.

 

Civic Lustration Committee

Initiative E+

Crimea SOS

Nova Kraina

ТОМ 14

DEJURE Foundation

Center for Civil Liberties

Centre for Economic Strategy

Centre of Policy and Legal Reform

Centre UA

Nations in Transit 2018: Confronting Illiberalism

April 11, 2018

Washington, April 12, 2018 — Attacks on opposition parties, the press, and civil society organizations are becoming the norm in Central and Eastern Europe as the spread of illiberal politics undermines the foundations of and prospects for democracy, according to Nations in Transit 2018, the 23rd edition of Freedom House’s annual report on democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Eurasia.

Ukraine’s Democracy Score declined for the first time since the 2014 revolution. With the Russian-led conflict in the east grinding on, Ukraine’s politicians are taking advantage of patriotic sentiment to attack NGOs and journalists, accusing them of undermining the war effort.

“Attacks on civil society and political opponents have sapped the momentum from the institutional reform process in Ukraine,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “Although decentralization reforms are continuing, other key priorities, including anticorruption efforts, have stalled. The window of opportunity has not closed in Ukraine, but it has shrunk. By accusing NGOs and journalists of antinational sentiment, politicians are attempting to exclude legitimate voices from public debate simply because they criticize the government.”

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON UKRAINE

 

  • Two important milestones were reached in relations between Ukraine and the European Union in 2017: the visa-free regime with the EU came into force in June, allowing millions of Ukrainians to travel freely to the neighboring Schengen zone for short-term stays, and the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement — the main trigger for the Euromaidan protests which provides a framework for major transformations in Ukrainian democracy, human rights, rule of law, good governance, trade, and sustainable development — finally came completely into force.
  • One of the main achievements in Ukraine’s national governance in 2017 was healthcare reform, which, following the passage by the Verkhovna Rada of a law on healthcare financing in October, will align the system based on the principle of “money following patients.”
  • Decentralization reform continued, with administrative territorial reform resulting in the creation of approximately 700 amalgamated communities, and fiscal decentralization resulting in increased revenues and local infrastructure investments for the first time in 23 years.
  • The conflict in the east remained largely frozen throughout the year. The socioeconomic conditions in the occupied territories, and in those areas close to the line of contact, continued to be poor. The armed separatist groups developed their own institutions, which, in turn, enacted regulations that routinely violated basic human rights, while journalists and bloggers covering the conflict continued to be arrested and detained.
  • Pressure on civil society intensified. In March, the government obliged citizens working against corruption to publicly declare their income and assets, while a legislative initiative to replace the controversial requirement with other restrictive measures against NGOs under threat of onerous restrictions for not complying with the proposed regulations was unsuccessful. The Civil Society score declined due to smear campaigns against NGOs and activists.
  • Prominent civil society organizations were targeted with criminal investigations against them and their members, and there were physical attacks on well-known activists.
  • The Independent Media score declined due to the blocking of major social media sites, as well as physical attacks on journalists and a lack of progress in investigating the murder of journalist Pavel Sheremet.
  • Progress on judicial and anti-corruption reforms was mixed. While the National Anticorruption Bureau actively investigated high-level corruption results of its work were few. The President had yet to create the High Anticorruption Court as promised. Vetting of judicial appointments to the Supreme Court stumbled as 25 candidates that had not passed public integrity checks were approved as official candidates.

“Illiberal politics are becoming the new normal in Europe,” said Michael J. Abramowitz, president of Freedom House. “Government-led smear campaigns against civil society groups, journalists, and the political opposition were pioneered in Russia and Central Asia, but they are increasingly common across the region.”

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES

  • Poland recorded the second-largest Democracy Score decline in the history of the report. The ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party’s revolutionary takeover of the judicial system, politicization of public media, smear campaigns against nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and violations of ordinary parliamentary procedure also produced the two largest single-category score declines in Nations in Transit’s history, for National Democratic Governance and Judicial Framework and Independence.

 

“The radical changes to the Polish judiciary remove any effective check on the actions of the majority party in parliament,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “What has happened in Poland in the last two years should serve as an alarm bell for anyone who believes that one-party rule could never return to Europe.”

“The EU should stand up for its commitments to the rule of law by implementing Article 7 sanctions against Poland and Hungary,” Schenkkan said, referring to the EU’s power to suspend a member’s voting rights. “It should condition access to European funds on clear rule-of-law criteria. This is the only way to convince these countries, and EU candidate states, that the union is firmly rooted in democratic principles.”

  • Hungary has registered the largest cumulative decline in Nations in Transit The country’s Democracy Score has been falling for 10 consecutive years, moving it from the status of a democratic leader at the time of EU accession in 2004 to the threshold of a “Transitional/Hybrid Regime” in 2018.

 

“The Fidesz government of Viktor Orbán led the way for illiberal forces in Central Europe, showing that it was possible to capture a state within the EU through gerrymandering, procurement manipulation, and control of the media,” said Schenkkan. “The fact that Fidesz remains a member in good standing in the European People’s Party of the European Parliament shows how effective Orbán’s approach has been.”

  • Estonia earned the biggest improvement in this edition of the report, even though it was already the best performer. A surprisingly smooth first year in government for a longtime opposition party demonstrated the resilience and independence of national institutions. Estonia’s anticorruption mechanisms appear to be addressing the municipal corruption that has long affected its major cities.

“At a time when most of the news for democracy seems bad, Estonia reminds us that liberal democracy can and does succeed,” Schenkkan said. “Even in a country with a history of foreign occupation and sensitive ethnic and regional differences, democratic national institutions can produce better governance for everyone.”

View the full report here: https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/nations-transit-2018

###

 

Freedom House is an independent watchdog organization that supports democratic change, monitors the status of freedom around the world, and advocates for democracy and human rights.

Join us on Facebook and Twitter (@FreedomHouseDC) and stay up to date with Freedom House’s latest news and events by signing up for our newsletter.

Special event to discuss Ukraine’s future at the Atlantic Council Headquarters (on Thursday, March 29, 2018)

April 4, 2018

In the four years since the end of the Revolution of Dignity, Ukraine has not answered its most important question: how will the country ensure democratic values in its future development? Much of Ukraine’s hope lies in its young leaders who will drive the country forward in the coming years. CDDRL has been fortunate to provide a year-long residency to some of these future leaders as part of the inaugural year of the Center’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program.

This event will feature three Ukrainian leaders who are in residency with CDDRL’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program this year. They will each discuss their own perspectives on opportunities and challenges to democracy and development in their home country, as well as objectives for strengthening public administration, civil society, and economic reforms upon their return to Ukraine.

We hope you can join us for this timely discussion.

Sourse, 29/03/2018

Vitaliy Tytych: Rigging of anti-corruption court competition must be prevented

March 19, 2018

The High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice cannot be trusted to conduct an objective and fair competition for the anti-corruption court without severe foreign and civil society oversight and without a drastic change in the competition’s methodology. They cannot be trusted because they violated the law and demonstrated their political bias by rigging the competition for the Supreme Court.

The discredited High Qualification Commission must be deprived of its arbitrary powers to assign scores subjectively during competitions for anti-corruption and other judges, and such scores must be based on objective criteria.

This is even more important than foreign donors’ veto powers, and this is the only way to ensure that honest and professional candidates believe in the fairness of the competition and participate, and that the commission has no way of promoting political loyalists and incompetent candidates for subjective reasons.

During the Supreme Court competition, 90 scores were assigned for anonymous legal knowledge tests, 120 scores for anonymous practical tests, and the High Qualification Commission could arbitrarily assign 790 scores without giving any explicit reasons (formally based on interviews with candidates and examining their profiles).

According to the 2016 law on the judiciary and status of judges, legal knowledge and practical tests (i.e. objective criteria) are the main method of selecting judges. This law stipulates that at least 75 percent of the total score (i.e. 750 out of 1,000 scores) must be given for anonymous legal knowledge and practical tests.

The High Qualification Commission took advantage of the vague wording of the law to set regulations that contradict the law because only 210 out of the total of 1,000 scores were assigned for legal knowledge and practical tests.

As a result of the Supreme Court competition, candidates who were at the top of the list after the anonymous knowledge tests and practical tests ended up at the bottom in the final stage for unknown reasons, while candidates who initially got lower scores and had a corrupt background ended up at the top.

Both the law on the judiciary and the High Qualification Commission’s internal regulations must be amended and clarified to clearly assign 750 scores for anonymous legal knowledge tests and practical tests (for competitions for both the anti-corruption court and all other courts). If parliament refuses to amend the law, the High Qualification Commission can just change its regulations, which is even easier.

As an option, 330 scores should be given for anonymous legal knowledge tests, another 330 scores for practical tests, and 330 scores for interviews and professional ethics (preferably based on conclusions by the Public Integrity Council and foreign donors). The law on the judiciary and status of judges should also be amended to require the publication of practical works after practical tests.

That would leave no room for arbitrary decisions and political involvement.

President Petro Poroshenko claims that the participation of foreign donors in the competition for the anti-corruption court contradicts Ukraine’s sovereignty, which is false (for example, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine was created with the participation of foreign donors).

But anyway Ukraine’s foreign partners could delegate independent Ukrainian citizens with impeccable reputation and integrity. This would halt any talk about sovereignty.

Such representatives could include people from the December 1 Initiative Group civil-society organization, Soviet dissident and human rights lawyer Myroslav Marynovych or Vyacheslav Bryukhovetsky, honorary president of the Kyiv Mohyla Academy.

Moreover, Ukraine’s foreign donors must take part in the competition for anti-corruption judges but they will have neither time nor resources to vet all the candidates and their background on their own. The Public Integrity Council, which has shown its independence from the authorities and its ability to work hard to examine candidates’ background, must take part in the competition for the anti-graft court by collecting all the available information on candidates (and the council must participate in competitions for all courts under the 2016 law on the judiciary and status of judges).

This is the only way to ensure that anti-corruption judges are truly professional and independent.

The use of the same objective methodology for assigning scores both for the anti-corruption court and other courts and the participation of the Public Integrity Council in competitions for the anti-corruption court and other courts  will totally kill the false argument that the anti-corruption court is a “special” court banned by the Constitution (the Venice Commission has already refuted this argument).

Also, it will be impossible to select independent judges if foreign donors choose representatives loyal to the Ukrainian government.  Such representatives must be completely independent from pressure by Ukrainian authorities.

In the best-case scenario, foreign donors should themselves assess candidates’ professional integrity. But at least they should have a right to suspend the competition and initiate an audit if evidence emerges that the High Qualification Commission violated procedural rules.

The Public Integrity Council believes that the competition for the Supreme Court was rigged to promote politically loyal candidates.

First, during the practical test stage, some candidates were given tests that coincided with cases that they had considered during their career, which was deemed a tool of promoting political loyalists.

Second, in March 2017 the High Qualification Commission illegally allowed 43 candidates who had not gotten sufficient scores during practical tests to take part in the next stage, changing its rules amid the competition. Members of the Public Integrity Council believe that the rules were unlawfully changed to prevent political loyalists from dropping out of the competition.

Apart from the second score assigned anonymously for practical works, the commission gave them a third score after naming them, violating the law (because practical tests should be anonymous to prevent political interference). The commission must have just assigned the second score without knowing the candidates’ names.

Third, the High Qualification Commission illegally refused to publish the scores for candidates’ psychological tests, failed to set a minimum score for psychological tests and illegally assessed the tests on its own (although they must have been assessed by psychologists). Moreover, the commission used corporate loyalty tests, which stipulated loyalty as a major characteristic of a judge – as a result, independent candidates were prevented from getting a higher score, while political loyalists were encouraged.

Fourth, the High Qualification Commission removed the profiles of candidates other than the winners from its site.

Fifth, the High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice illegally refused to give specific reasons for assigning specific total scores to candidates and refused to explain why the High Qualification Commission has overridden vetoes by the Public Integrity Council on candidates who do not meet ethical integrity standards.

Sixth, the High Council of Justice has illegally rejected 48 out of its members’ 52 recusals from voting for specific Supreme Court candidates due to a conflict of interest. This triggered accusations that the council was planning to get the necessary 14 pro-government votes to appoint politically loyal candidates.

Some of these violations are currently being disputed at Ukrainian courts and will be disputed at the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, Public Integrity Council members have opened a criminal case into the violations and will open more cases.

Sourse, 12/03/2018.

FROM OBJECTIVES TO RESULTS: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EU-UKRAINE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT AS SEEN BY STAKEHOLDERS

December 22, 2017

A jury: experience and problems

October 24, 2017

A simulation system of justice in which convulses a vestige of the people’s representatives, as the jury. Says Russian political analyst and human rights activist Mikhail Savva, who left Russia and now living in Ukraine.

The jury is in the Constitution of Ukraine, but in fact, according to human rights activists, jury trials in the country do not. The main difference between a jury trial by an ordinary court (with the participation of one judge or three professional judges) is a separate co-existence in it “judges of law” (the legal profession) and “Judges of fact” (board of jurors , which usually consists of persons who are not are lawyers). If this division is not present and professional judges work together with the representatives of the people should not talk about a jury trial, but the court sheffenskom. Sheffenskie courts adopted, for example, at their home in Germany as well as in Ukraine. Experience and problems of modern Russian jury trials may be useful in case if Ukraine, too, decides to create a jury trial.

The Soviet system of people’s assessors is an option sheffenskogo court, where a judge has unlimited opportunities to influence the decision of the representatives of the people. Sheffenskaya system can be very effective, but only for companies with extremely high legal culture .

In the course of judicial reform 90-ies of the last century, it was created in the Russian jury trials . During the counter-reforms that have been going for fifteen years, created a simulation system of justice in which convulses a vestige of the people’s representatives, as the jury.

Jury trials are traditionally regarded as the “courts of justice”. This is confirmed by the statistics of court decisions in the Russian Federation. Professional judges give less than 1% of acquittals , while the juries – 13-25% in different years.

In 2016, according to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court, in the first instance are over 239 cases with a jury. From 361 to 60 the defendant was justified, that is 17% , another 85 cases returned to the prosecutor. The number of sentences handed down without a jury, more than three orders of magnitude. According to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court in 2016 for all formulations of the Criminal Code (CC) convicted 740,380 people (to imprisonment – 206 304 people), is justified by 1493 (0.2% if you count the persons on which the case was dismissed on rehabilitative grounds, – 1.5%).

Scale application of jury trials in Russia is low. In one year, jury trials in Russia in the second decade of this century the average render verdicts to 300 (the maximum number of verdicts in the post-Soviet period – about 600 in 2010). A jury selected only 12% of the accused, who have a right to it. In the US a year by the jury shall be made about 160 thousand. Verdicts. In the XX century in the Russian empire handed down each year about 40 thousand. Verdicts. The reasons for this will be disclosed below, here I call home. This lack of political will for the development of the institute of juries. In the context of the simulation of the justice system the current Russian regime of the jury can not be complete and widespread.

The jury in the Russian Federation has a constitutional basis: according to Art. 32 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Russian citizens have the right to participate in the administration of justice. One form of such participation – review certain categories of criminal cases in the court of jury. However direct reference to the institution of jury in the Constitution does not.

The introduction of jury trials took considerable time in Russia. Pilot introduction of jury trials in Russia began with the 1993-1994, in 9 subjects of the Federation. The new Criminal Procedure Code, adopted in 2001, did the jury widespread since 2003. In the Chechen Republic the introduction of jury trials actually took place in 2010. An expert on Russian court Sergei Pashin jury, namely the phased introduction of jury trials has led to the fact that he did have in Russia.

The accused has the right to file a petition for consideration of his criminal case by the court of first instance composed of professional judges and a panel of 12 jurors in case he is accused, in particular, murder, sabotage, banditry, genocide, public appeals to the outbreak of war, kidnapping , piracy mercenarism and t. d.

I counted as of July 2017 20 of the Criminal Code articles on which possible jury . At the beginning of the introduction of jury trials in Russia of such items was 47, according Sergeya Pashina calculations, the main initiator of the introduction of jury trials in Russia.

The criminal case, which involved several defendants, the court is considered by jury in respect of all the defendants , if at least one of them said a request for consideration of a criminal case by a court in the composition.

If the defendant has not filed a motion for the consideration of the criminal case by the court by jury, the case is considered by another composition of the court in the manner prescribed by law.

The judge’s decision to hear the case from the jury is final. The subsequent failure of the defendant from the criminal trial by jury is not accepted .

Criminal cases involving jurors of federal courts of general jurisdiction is held in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the supreme courts of republics, territorial, regional courts, courts of federal cities, autonomous region and autonomous districts, the district (naval) military courts.

jury selection jurors is actually a two-step.

According to Art. 3 of the federal law, jurors can not be: persons under 25 years of age; persons with outstanding or previously convicted; persons recognized as incapable or limited in capacity; are registered in the drug treatment or mental hospital.

Such persons are not included in the lists of jurors , drawn up every four years on the basis of the voter list by random sampling. Exclude these people from the list of jurors bodies of executive power of the municipality or the region. Then, after getting acquainted with the citizens of the jury lists, these lists are excluded from the statements of the citizens themselves several categories.

The weak point of this phase of jury selection is a voluntary procedure for submitting applications for exclusion from the jury list. That is, if, for example, the police considers that nothing prevents him to be sworn he did not submit an application for delisting.

During jury selection to participate in a particular criminal case to participate in the proceedings as jurors are not allowed to persons suspected or accused of committing crimes; I do not speak the language in which the hearing is conducted; with physical and / or mental disabilities that prevent full participation in the hearing.

During the trial, the jury task boils down to, to answer three main questions: whether the proven fact of the crime, if that proved his committed by the defendant, and whether he is guilty of the crime. In the case of the issue of the recognition of the defendant’s guilt is put whether he deserves leniency. In this case the judge to the jury formulate lists of issues, which are often a few dozen items.

Jurors “should strive to adopt a unanimous decision,” but if this is not achieved within three hours, the verdict made by voting.

A guilty verdict is adopted, if the majority of the jury votes for each of the three key issues. Acquittal verdict is considered, if not less than six judges gave a negative answer to at least one of the three questions. If the deciding votes are equally divided, the adopted most favorable to the defendant’s answer for each question.

The acquittal is mandatory for the presiding judge, in this case, the court justifies the defendant. Guilty as the jury’s verdict is not binding on the court. If the judge recognizes that a guilty verdict handed down against an innocent person, then adopted a decree on the dissolution of the jury and the criminal case is sent for a new trial by another composition of the court. This decision is not subject to appeal in cassation.

From the jurisdiction of jury trials for the duration of this institution such articles were excluded, such as terrorism, hostage-taking, riots, treason, espionage, violent seizure of power, rape and sexual offenses against children. Some compounds “fell out” of crime from the jurisdiction of jury trials due to the fact that the new Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 2001 softened for him the punishment and the death penalty or life imprisonment has not been provided (eg high treason). In some cases, exceptions motive was that the jury too often render acquittals. For example, in the discussion in the State Duma in 2013, the issue of the exclusion of such a composition as sexual crimes against children, the author of the bill deputy Spring said that the jury too often justify the accused.

In February 2016 the Russian Constitutional Court found that the criminal case against women in the murder with aggravating circumstances could be considered by a jury of 12 people in the supreme courts of republics, territorial or regional courts. Prior to that, women were deprived of the possibility to be tried before a jury, because the Russian legislation does not provide for life sentences for the women.

December 3, 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed to extend the role of juries in a possible reduction in their number in the court up to 5-7 people. This was an attempt to respond to society’s demands for justice. At a time when major political offenses removed from the jurisdiction of jury trials, the expansion of the institute of juries are no longer threatened by the authorities. In other words, cases of domestic murder and some other formulations could, according to the authorities, to consider jury trials at district and city levels.

Starting from June 1, 2018 Institute of jurorsIt will be operational in the district (city) and garrison military courts. Established number of jurors for the district and garrison military courts – 6 people, in the courts of the Russian Federation and the district military courts, the number of jurors will be reduced from 12 to 8. district-level court jury will consider the criminal case at the request of the accused, for which there may not be sentenced to life imprisonment, namely, with regard to women, persons who have committed crimes under the age of 18 years, men who have attained to time of the court’s 65-year-olds sentence. Criminal cases on these articles of the Criminal Code in relation to other persons, as before, will be considered by the court of the subject of the Russian Federation. In addition, the district court with the participation of jurors,

Judges of the Russian Federation, according to a discussion at the Congress in December 2016, the judges are extremely skeptical about the prospects for the mass introduction of jury trials . They talk about the organizational unpreparedness and lack of funding. We can assume that in the near future verdicts of the jury will not become a mass phenomenon in the municipal and district courts.

Practical functioning of juries problem is clearly illustrated by the case of the murder of Boris Nemtsov , who was considered by the Moscow District Military Court in 2016-2017. A panel of 12 jurors was in the conference room for three days. She had to answer 26 questions put to them by the judge. The jury could not come to a unanimous opinion, so after three hours of contentious issues have been put to the vote. 10 of the 12 jurors declared guilty of all five defendants.

Eight jurors were replaced during the process. The defendant’s lawyer Bakhaeva Zaurbek Sadahanov said: “There was a sweep of the jury, we have seen. The verdict is absolutely illegal, because no evidence of guilt Bakhaeva investigation did not present. This is only possible in a country where there is no justice. “

In discussing the questions that were to answer the jury, the objections of the accused lawyers were not taken into account, the judge approved the questions in its original version. This version of the problem was that the actions of each of the defendants, the judge invited the jury to assess the aggregate only to the actions of the other four defendants.

At the present time in Russia there was already a jury management practices. Its main elements are:

1. Selection loyal jury on board formation step. Washer courts evaluate the behavior of the jury, and depending on this jury are involved or are not involved in other processes.

2. Restrictions jury taps to participate in a particular meeting: no more than one non-motivated removal of restrictions on issues at the stage of taps (you can ask about criminal records of relatives, but you can not ask questions, the answers to which are characterized by human eyes).

3. Adjustment of the board structure by eliminating disloyal jury. For this purpose the taps on spurious grounds, creating grounds for removal from the board (the jury may hold on his way to a meeting of the traffic police, with the result that the jury is removed from the board).

4. Manipulative or control wording of the jury by the judge.

5. Prohibitions on the provision of the jury during the meeting on problems of the inquiry, such as torture . Random mention of torture, even the hint is the reason for the cancellation of the verdict.

6. Intimidation by jury, as was done during the process in the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic in the case of citizens of Ukraine and Karpyuk Klyha.

If the jury panel of the control mechanisms do not work, use the cancellation of the verdict by the Supreme Court of Russia. If needed, which is often politically motivated, the Supreme Court cancels the guilty verdict of the jury and send the case for retrial. So it was in the case of the murder Anny Politkovskoy. Grounds for cancellation of the verdict was that, according to the Armed Forces, the panel “go on about the lawyers who reported the identity of defendants in the case, and the jury presented negative information about the investigation.”

I am getting the result. A jury in Russia it is a jury trial, not sheffenskim court or some other form of participation of representatives of the people in judicial decisions. However, the jury as the “Court of Justice” in the Russian Federation operating in simulation mode. This is achieved due to two main factors: the limited scope of application of a jury and the widespread use of illegal jury management.

Summing up, it can not be said about the money. Often mention that Ukraine has no money for a jury trial. But the money in this case is irrelevant. We are talking about saving mode. See what makes the authoritarian Putin regime in Russia – is introducing jury trials at the district level. It costs a lot of money, because in Russia in 2184 the district court. is sorely lacking is the answer mode to request people to justice. Of course, the “political” as a judge in violation of all the rules, and will be judged, and to plant. But in cases of domestic murder people get this same justice in the form of trial by jury. Putin’s regime is trying to prolong its existence. If authoritarian regimes are saving yourself so why democracy in Ukraine should act differently?

Sourse, 23/10/2017

People need to learn how to control the power, local first of all

October 14, 2017

One of the most prominent dissidents of the Soviet Union, weighed after a four-month hunger strike in BC political zone 389/35 in the Perm region of 39 kg. The author of “Handbook of Psychiatry for dissidents,” a member of the American Society of Psychiatrists, UK Royal College of Psychiatrists, the rehabilitation of victims of the World Council of Torture, International PEN, the author of several books and hundreds of articles. All of this – on human rights defenders, public figures and the head of the Ukrainian Psychiatric Association Semen Gluzman.

Semen Gluzman  –  on the Maidan, and the syndrome crowd of friendship with the “Bandera” and enzyme resistance, control the power and responsibility for the past.

– Semen Fishelevich, you are one of those who supported the Maidan, but never torn his scene. Why, by the way?

– I never wanted to the scene – from the time of Rukh has never been on any shodnyak, I mean … on an important meeting decent people. Just realize that the psychology of a decent man and the psychology of thousands of decent people differ dramatically.

At the same time, I must admit, even during the Orange Revolution called me many foreign colleagues, the stars of the world of psychiatry, with one question: where’s syndrome aggressive influence of the crowd?

Ukrainian people have shown themselves quite surprisingly and in 2004 and in 2014. During the recent hurricane in Houston because of marauding police had to impose a curfew. Are there many cases of looting, we can remember when the city center, with its many shops and expensive boutiques, stood up to 200 thousand people?

– In the mid-1970s, in the Perm region, a young Jew Gluzman made friends with Ukrainian nationalists – 25 annuals. But then you have joined a common enemy and not the overall vision of the future.

– Yes, I spent several years in the camp side by side with those who were called “Bandera”. They were simple people, the names of Bandera or Shukhevych of their mouth, I had never heard. They just defended their land from “outsiders”. I once asked Uncle Vasya Basil Malozhinskogo, whom he regarded as the UPA soldier, and he was from the SS division Galicia-evil so asked reproachfully, saying how could you ?! And he did his best to explain: “Spershu boule sovєti Potіm priyshli nіmtsі OAO All – A Stranger’s one I never pobachiv i pochuv svoїh, yshli hloptsі that spіvali of Ukrainian pіsen What I first bailiff to them That Well svoї boule ……. . “That’s right, simply and without ideological pathos.

– Jewish support of the Maidan has not surprised?

– Not in the least surprised. One of the most striking childhood memories  I was 10-11 years old, I was returning to his home on the bus, with rises on Artema October Revolution Square (Maidan current). At one of the stops came an elderly lady, very polite, a good Ukrainian language, asked the passengers where it’s okay to leave. Trolley bus exploded with anger – I was scared, not knowing what was happening. Started the persecution of some lumpen, perhaps a T-shirt, he was supported by his aunt vociferous – it was a stream of insults that hit a woman, just to speak in Ukrainian. Then I realized that with me live one more Jews – Ukrainians.

Frankly, when Ukraine got its independence in 1991, I was tense, remembering how aggressively treated here to the Jews in the Soviet era. I remember how the Jewish boys and girls, which were practically closed local universities, leaving to other republics, where there were quiet and well attended. In addition-and this is for me as a dissident is very important – in Ukraine was the most ferocious in the KGB Union. I tensed and because he saw who vote for independence in Parliament : a group of 239, which is officially called “For a sovereign Radyans’ka up Ukraine”, in other words, the communist majority, sensing the winds of change. And along with them – thousands of opportunists, rinuvshihsya from the Komsomol straight into Roc. Professional killers of Ukrainian culture, instantly became the accusers “hand of Moscow”.

Then, when it became an annual index to measure the tolerance, it appears that anti-Semitism and xenophobia are retreating, although the anti-Semites, of course, is and always will be. This was true of all the other areas  the country got a chance.

I remember one of the first American ambassadors told his friends in Ukraine, saying that you frequent to Moscow, come here, there is a very different people. And it’s true, that’s not the idealization or romanticizing, and the herald of the European mentality.

Of course, at 2014 Independence were different people, and they stood for different things. But it was in the area  some seven years I have not filed a hand.

– Today, three and a half years later, do not be disappointed?

– I am not so naive as to fail to understand: the revolution does not end as the dream of its members. Therefore anticipated that possibly will be disappointed, but … did not expect so much.

You see, in his initial optimism, I relied on the camp experience. With me sat a lot of people of different nationalities, but the Ukrainians have always been the most – about 30-40% of prisoners. Very different – not very smart – and wise, educated – and almost illiterate, sincere – and on your mind. I do not quite understand what the ethnic psychology, but in all the years in the political area, I have not met one Belarusian, Kyrgyz or Uzbek dissident. But the KGB was everywhere. Therefore, unlike many former Soviet republics, Ukraine was able to gradually come to some kind of European values. There is a resistance to the enzyme, but the people are not trained in democracy and have no control over their politicians.

This, incidentally, turned out rather quickly, so, in my opinion, the only way out – a long way to majority elections.

– Where buckwheat is everything?  

– It is everything because of her hand nobody put. Of course, the new laws, withdrawal Institute, etc. needed – need to teach people to control the power, primarily local. Do many Ukrainians need a report from its regional deputies? That’s it. And who offended us?

As for buckwheat, remember the scene in Bishkek Tulip Revolution, when revolutionaries dragged on his back stolen refrigerators and television sets? In Kiev, as it was not … Here, both the Maidan demanding from the authorities not buckwheat, and quite another.

Just people accept defeat very quickly, sitting in the kitchen or in the FB and wailing: again m … Duck elected. And also choose not the best, but they are controlled -and this should be taught in Europe. I know many who are helping with the support of Western partners to build democratic institutions in Ukraine. The vast majority of them work just for money. Some of them are rascals. Unfortunately…

– In 2014, many thought that the Ukrainians are the European political nation. How far along the process, or, conversely, stopped, given the historical memory of the policy, with its cult of new heroes?

– For me, the new heroes – a Heavenly hundreds, not the leaders of the OUN and UPA. And the fact that the memory of the heroes of the new vulgarized, obviously. She vulgarized when stopper criminal cases, which should be called the perpetrators of the massacre. She vulgarized, as the country’s leadership does not want to admit that on the other side, too, were Ukrainians. I know one family in which the boy grew up, the only son, who was “bad” brought – he wanted to be a Ukrainian officer. He was burned at the Maidan. Perhaps one of my daughter’s friends, occasionally throwing Molotov cocktails.

There are many things that we uncouple. But in a situation where the people in the mass hates and despises the power, what kind of love for each other can be said?

– What do you think about decommunisation receiving more and more sophisticated form?

– As a former political prisoner and anti-Soviet, I can not but welcome this process. But in its present form it gives me a feeling of disgust. As lustration, which was clearly organized and controlled from the top and stopped as suddenly as it had begun.

Lustration was illegal and generally meaningless, and it was followed by the same kind of pointless and illegal Decommunization. Autos of the dead will not work, especially when it conducts a marginal rot.

We voted in favor at the time of Kravchuk, and after the KGB has arrested dissidents only after the approval of the Central Committee department of ideology, which he headed. Why not to prosecute? And at the same time and all the deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the group 239, by which the independence was proclaimed.

It is very convenient to demolish monuments, taking responsibility for the past. We are the eternal victim, with a demand for us? “We endlessly criticize Comrade Stalin, and, of course, to work and yet I want to ask. Who wrote denunciations of four million?” – once said Sergei Dovlatov. The question hung in the air. We’ve no sense of responsibility for the acts of their fathers and grandfathers, as in Germany, where the children and grandchildren remember well what difference their loved ones. Where they are – children of the NKVD, the party nomenklatura, which, after all, millions of ordinary people obediently raises his hands at the next party meeting, the stigma of renegades, traitors to the socialist motherland, etc.?

So it is not an ideology we have to sew in the XXI century, and the way of the future.

I am not an enemy of perpetuating the memory of Stepan Bandera, but when acting Health Minister Suprun declares that, taking important decisions, mentally consults with the leader of the OUN, this is in any gate … And apparently, it is something to her counsels, as the results of this tandem we see.

– Donbass, which has become a springboard for the “Russian world”, lost to Ukraine? Or not very much, and we need it?

– Russian is impoverished, it has fewer features include these territories, and Putin, in the end, death. Deliberately or not, but he pulled the plug by their actions many influential people in Russia who stole billions, access to which is every day more and more difficult, given the sanctions. They are used to a different level of personal freedom, where they are, after all, now the rest? On Baikal?

So I believe that sooner or later Ukraine will return to the region. But not the kind of young people who went to the Donbas and already settled in Kiev and other cities. They have made their choice.

Sometimes it occurs to me seditious thought … my camp friends were fighting for the independence of Ukraine, and once the day has come – not because we were sitting at it in the camps. If Donbass really wants to live differently, if it is him and not someone external choice, from a moral point of view, why not think about the idea of ​​independence for these people? This is only one possible solution, but it must be spoken. Apart so apart, we do so and are doing everything to isolate these areas – with the help of the blockade, for example.

– It is clear that the war promotes the division of society into friends and foes, and the formation of a black and white picture of the world. All this of course, but … if we do not turn into “Russia on the contrary”, with its contempt for the private view, the search for their fifth column, and so on?

– I am fully aware that the current president is also seeking to usurp power, but I understand that he is also not released, because, even Kuchma, Ukraine wrote – not Russia. Our man in the street is different from the Russian. There genuinely respected Putin. Here the power is changing, and every new government we do not like, and often despised or hated. And it gives grounds for optimism.

Regarding the split in society, we are thrown into the past and because they do not offer a vision of the future. This also applies to the heroes of the UPA – stranger to a large part of the country, and to the language problem, which is the vast majority of Ukrainians do not consider the problem, but that again raised the shield on …

After the trial, I spent twenty days in a cell with Vasilem Stusom – and it was a luxurious 20 days. From time to time I even forget where I was, plunging into the Ukrainian culture. But we were talking in their own language, and Stus took this quite calmly. With 25 annuals UPA camp communicated in the same way – no one ever said nothing.

I was once again transferred to the new barracks, and that same day I was admitted to the “family” Eugene Prishlyak and Vasil Pidgorodetskim. The first was to arrest referent Security Lviv OUN, the second – a simple fighter in the UPA. Collected in the bedside table meal, we shared equally and ate together. After some time went to Vasil old policeman – a bastard – and said, “Vasil you train a respected man, an old convict, are not you ashamed to Zhydenko eat?” “I have it on s … sent”, – he told me later Vasil.

I am absolutely convinced that the state language is necessary to know, but since independence can not remember a single attempt to create appropriate courses for civil servants. Told me how hard they taught language after work – reading aloud Shevchenko, etc. Ethnic Ukrainians, but completely Russified Soviet reality. Such mockery, with complete indifference of the state, caused the rejection, rather than patriotic feelings.

So let’s publish good books, cooking class teachers – the key to successful language policy. I sometimes have to deal with some of the upper class of pedagogical universities – it’s awful. They academics some of their academies, wealthy people, but are engaged in playing the Soviet zhlobstva.

Ukraine has ruined a lot. When NaUKMA took its first steps, I tried to explain to the rector that it is necessary to keep the schools of mathematicians, theoretical physicists have developed in “mailboxes”, with excellent professionals. It was just necessary to allow these professionals to teach at first in Russian, but … we got rid of high intelligence.

– Who is able to pull the country out of the vicious circle? As long as people do not totally trust the government, naively hopes on the most rabid populists – and we have already passed … Civil society is defeated – or simply lost the battle?

– Civil society must help, rather than push. I am following with great concern for the future of the country in which I live and which I am a part of. I’m afraid that if this continues, the Ukrainian state will be defeated not by external forces, it simply dissolved, as a solid in a liquid. And will Vodicka, sweet or salty – are not so important.

– And what about the resistance enzyme?

– The enzyme resistance – an important condition for independence, but not sufficient.

Build the country – it does not sit in the cooler. We need other skills. When the Soviet Union ended, many former dissidents in Moscow continued to engage in human rights activities. In Ukraine, a number of my colleagues on the Gulag have gone into politics – and what?

It is clear that the government is constantly tosses a bone of contention that we at loggerheads in the past, instead of building the future. And less remembered about the reforms that are needed, as the air, and at the same time painful, so hold on to your seats, the tops are in no hurry to carry them out. A bottoms – bottoms grow, and this is our chance.

Interview by Michael Gold

Sourse, 13/10/2017

72 NGO already have signed the Declaration of Human Rights Agenda platform with the requirement to the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to stop the attack on civil society organizations

September 25, 2017

HUMAN RIGHTS AGENDA

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform demanding the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine stop crack-down on non-governmental organizations

 In early July 2017, the presidential draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 were registered in the Parliament of Ukraine. The draft laws were elaborated allegedly to replace the scandalous amendments to the anti-corruption legislation obliging the anti-corruption activists to annually file personal asset and property electronic declarations (Law of Ukraine No. 1975-VIII of 23 March 2017). The presidential draft laws actually propose to abolish the e-declarations for public anti-corruption activists but to require instead the non-governmental organizations and individual entrepreneurs as well as enterprises, institutions and organizations providing them with services, to file additional reports to tax authorities.

The draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 burden all non-governmental organizations and individual entrepreneurs, enterprises, institutions and organizations that provide them with services with an unjustified obligation to file additional tax reports.

It is revealing that the number of tax reports required from the non-governmental organizations, which these draft laws provide for, significantly exceeds the number of reports required from the business. Moreover, even the recipients of budget funds are not required to file such a number of tax reports.

We believe that these legislative initiatives appeared not by chance, though against the background of statements about the need to reduce excessive state regulation. The punishment in form of the abolition of a non-profit status of non-governmental organization is pronouncedly punitive in nature and is nothing more than the introduction of a tool for selective pressure on the non-governmental organizations indisposed towards the authorities.

We regard the initiative of the President of Ukraine as the disproportionate interference in the activities of the non-governmental organizations. Such steps liken Ukraine to the repressive regimes of the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and others similar. Despite the ostentatious care for transparency and accountability, the regulations introduced in the abovementioned countries led to almost absolute annihilation of the non-governmental organizations which are independent from authorities and total crack-down on civil society.

No international treaties require similar state control over the activities of non-governmental organizations as the international standards endow the non-governmental organizations with the right to be free from state interference in their activities.

The Guidelines on Freedom of Association drafted by the Council of Europe and the OSCE stipulate that “the state shall not require but shall encourage and facilitate associations to be accountable and transparent.” Special reporting is permissible, however, if it is required in exchange for certain benefits, provided it is “within the discretion of the association to decide whether to comply with such reporting requirements or forgo them and forsake any related special benefits, where applicable.”

In consideration of the foregoing, we demand that the Parliament of Ukraine immediately reject the draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 of 10 July 2017 and the President of Ukraine fulfill his promise to cancel the amendments to the anti-corruption legislation dated March 2017.

For reference: the Human Rights Agenda platform is the informal coalition of human rights organizations working in the field of monitoring, analyzing and elaborating the legislation in accordance with the basic principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The platform participants are the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, the Center for Civil Liberties, the Amnesty International Ukraine, the Human Rights Information Center, the Center for Law Enforcement Studies, the Without Borders Project of the NGO “Social Action Center” and the Euromaidan SOS. The Center for Civil Liberties coordinates the platform activities. Contacts: human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

  1. Center for Civil Liberties
  2. Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
  3. Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches
  4. Eastern-Ukrainian Center for Civic Initiatives
  5. Charitable Foundation “Vostok SOS”
  6. Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”
  7. Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law Enforcement
  8. NGO “KyivPride”
  9. Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
  10. Open Dialog Foundation
  11. Human Rights Information Center
  12. Crimean Human Rights Group
  13. NGO “Helsinki Initiative XXI”
  14. NGO “Peaceful Coast”
  15. Expert Human Rights Center
  16. NGO “La Strada Ukraine”
  17. Liberation Movement Research Center
  18. Charitable Organisation “Fund of Mercy and Health”
  19. NGO “South”
  20. NGO “Ray of Changes”
  21. Kharkiv Regional Foundation “Public Alternative”
  22. Project “Without Borders”
  23. NGO “Political Studies Association”
  24. NGO “People’s Control of Kirovohrad Region”
  25. Eksampei Center for Ukrainian Policy
  26. NGO “Volunteer Association of Participants of Maidan and Fighting Action”
  27. Charitable Foundation “Dyvosvit Club”
  28. NGO “School of Public Projects”
  29. NGO “Faith. Hope. Action”
  30. NGO “JCI Kyiv”
  31. Educational Human Rights House Chernihiv
  32. NGO “Women’s Prospects Center”
  33. NGO “Zakarpattia Community”
  34. Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Organization “Young Prosvita”
  35. Ternopil Human Rights Group
  36. Human Rights Center “All rights”
  37. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Convictus Ukraine”
  38. Autonomous Bar Association
  39. NGO “MART” (Chernihiv)
  40. Ukrainian Legal Aid Foundation
  41. Information and Awareness Raising Center “Axis” (Vinnytsia)
  42. NGO “Center for Civic Education “Almenda””
  43. Center for Humanistic Technologies “AHALAR”
  44. NGO “Ukrainian Association of Assessment”
  45. NGO “Territory of Success”
  46. T-Woman of Ukraine
  47. NGO “AutoMaidan Kyiv”
  48. NGO “Human Rights Vector”
  49. Bilozerka Center for Regional Development
  50. Center for Law Enforcement Activity Research
  51. Chernihiv Public Committee for Human Rights Protection
  52. NGO “Kyiv Educational Center “Tolerspace””
  53. Human Rights Center “Postup”
  54. NGO “Liberal Democratic League of Ukraine”
  55. Bureau of Social and Political Developments
  56. Center for Legal and Political Studies “DUMA”
  57. Institute of Mass Information
  58. SOVA Group
  59. Media Initiative for Human Rights
  60. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Legalife Ukraine”
  61. NGO “Insight”
  62. Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research
  63. NGO “Informer”
  64. Information and Analytical Center “Public Space”
  65. LGBT Human Rights Center “Our World”
  66. NGO “Bakhmat”
  67. NGO “Development Foundation”
  68. NGO “All-Ukrainian League of Lawyers Against Corruption”
  69. NGO “Kharkiv Women’s Association “Sphere””
  70. NGO “Gender Center of Volyn Region”
  71. NGO “Theatre for Dialogue”
  72. NGO ‘Free Territory’

The statement is open for signature. Please contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Результаты поиска:

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform on deprivation of attorneys of the ability to cooperate with human rights organisations

March 7, 2019

In the agenda of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the consideration of the first
reading of a draft law ‘On Legal Practice and Advocacy’ No. 9055 is scheduled for 28
February.
The authors and supporters of the law are striving to prove its progressive nature,
strengthening of guarantees of advocacy and empowerment.
However, should the law be adopted, all attorneys who cooperate with human rights
organisations will be deprived of the opportunity to engage in advocacy activities
within the framework of cooperation with these organisations. Hundreds of cases
which have been filed by lawyers of these organisations with the European Court of
Human Rights, and thousands of court cases in national courts will become only a
reminder of past activities. There will be no one competent to file new applications
with the European Court and national courts on behalf of human rights organisations.
In his expert opinion which contains the analysis of the draft law No. 9055, the
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights Diego Garcia-Sayan stated that the restriction, set
forth in Article 28 of the draft law 9055, could adversely affect the lawyers who would
have to choose between full employment and the work of a human rights defender
which, obviously, would adversely affect an access to justice in the country, in
particular, for individuals with limited financial means. Also, the report provides a
whole number of risks and threats to independent advocacy, such as the procedure
of bringing attorneys to disciplinary responsibility, unfounded types of disciplinary
sanctions that affect the independence of advocacy and, consequently, affect
appropriate defence in court.
Separately, the completely opaque process of work on the draft law is to be
mentioned, and this fact has also been noted in the report by Mr. Diego Garcia-
Sayan. He wrote that consultations with representatives of the legal profession were
very limited in nature, and the final draft law was made public by the office of the
President without the opportunity to comment on its content.
A lack of transparency, marginalisation of the drafting process and introduction of the
draft law, a lack of a high-quality expert examination, for example, by the Venice
Commission, and haste with the attempts to implement this law as soon as possible

in a parliament’s session confirm the poor quality of the preparation process and the
same low-quality content of the draft law itself, which, in its present form, poses a
real threat to the protection of human rights in the human rights protection
environment of Ukraine and can be regarded as a way of attack and exertion of
pressure on the environment.
We hereby urge Members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to prevent the
consideration and adoption of the draft law 9055, as requested in the report by Diego
Garcia-Sayan, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The text of the draft law No.
9055 must be redrafted, discussed publicly and amended, taking into account the
comments made by representatives of the bar community, human rights
organisations, and international experts. We demand transparency, honesty and
high quality. Today, we cannot see these features in the draft law No. 9055.
The Human Rights Agenda platform is an informal coalition of human right organisations focused on systemic
problems of legislation and practices for defending fundamental human rights. The participants of the platform
are as follows: Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, Center for Civil Liberties, Amnesty International
Ukraine, Human Rights Information Center, Centre of Law Enforcement Activities Research (CLEAR), Project
"Without Borders", Euromaidan SOS. The platform is coordinated by the Center for Civil Liberties. You can
contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
Center for Civil Liberties
Regional Centre for Human Rights
Open Dialogue Foundation
Humanitarian Studio "Wave
Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”

NGOs call on the HQCJ to refrain from creating artificial obstacles to the establishment of the Public Integrity Council

November 22, 2018

On November 21, 2018, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) announced the results of the consideration of documents of public associations (NGOs) for the establishment of the Public Integrity Council (PIC).

 

The Commission approved a positive decision on the admission of only 2 out of 14 organizations that submitted the documents. The Commission allowed the rest of the organizations to eliminate the shortcomings which, in its opinion, were identified in the relevant documents of the NGOs.

 

Having considered the decisions of the Commission, NGOs have to state that among these alleged shortcomings there are many that are not based on the requirements of the law, do not pursue a legitimate aim and can create artificial obstacles for NGOs’ participation in the PIC establishment.

 

In particular:

 

  • In some cases (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the Commission does not accept the results of a financial audit conducted not within the past two years, whereas the law only requires the availability of an audit report and does not set any time frames for its conduct;
  • In some other cases (Center for Civil Liberties, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the HQCJ groundlessly believes that it is only the first persons of international organizations in Ukraine (the OSCE Coordinator in Ukraine, UNDP, etc.) that can make recommendations to NGOs, while the law does not contain such a requirement, and the signatures of officials of international organizations were affixed within their authorities;
  • Position of the HQCJ regarding the recognition of reports based on the financial audit results or audit findings as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements only because these reports were prepared for confidential use and submission to grantors (CRIMEASOS, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform) is unreasonable (the law does not set any requirements for the addressees of the reports and the purpose of their preparation);
  • The HQCJ did not recognize a copy of the report on the project implementation results due to the lack of signature of the person authorized to sign it (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform). However, such a requirement is unfounded since the law requires the provision of a copy rather than the original of the report, and the submitted copy of the report has been duly certified by an authorized person;  
  • The law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” does not require the publication of a declaration of a candidate to the PIC on the NACP’s website, and the HQCJ’s competencies do not cover anti-corruption verification of declarations (including the presence or absence of these declarations on the NACP’s website), while some organizations (Institute of Applied Humanitarian Research) received a reply that the absence of such declarations on the NACP’s website serves as grounds for non-admission.

 

As for documents of other NGOs (Civic Lustration Committee, E+, Nova Krayina, ТОМ14, Centre for Economic Strategy, Centre UA), only the originals of certain documents are required, whereas all the necessary information can be obtained from the duly authenticated photocopies. In some other cases (DEJURE, Nova Krayina), technical errors (incorrect indication of the candidate’s patronymic only in one of the documents or use of the phrase “annual declaration” after “declaration of a candidate for the position of the PIC member”) are considered by the Commission as “grounds for the determination of the submitted documents as not complying with … the law”.

 

We want to emphasize that the requirements of the law on the submission of documents have been established to confirm the experience, real activity and capacity of NGOs to form the PIC. The Commission’s review of these documents should pursue this legitimate aim and should not go beyond its limits.

 

The Commission’s decisions are even more surprising given the fact that 2 years ago the Commission allowed a number of organizations with similar packages of documents to participate in the NGO Meeting on the PIC establishment without any comments. The Commission did not consider the failure to submit proper declarations by the candidates for judicial office at the Anti-Corruption Court and Intellectual Property Court to be a violation and allowed them to take part in the competition to the IP-court.

 

We are concerned that at the beginning of our cooperation with the HQCJ regarding the formation of the second composition of the PIC, we faced this approach. At the same time, the NGOs will make every effort to take into account the wishes of the Commission regarding the execution of documents within a specified period as far as possible.

 

However, if the HQCJ retains this approach to the assessment of documents, there will be a high risk of groundless rejection of experienced and capable NGOs from participation in the Meeting and, as a result, the formation of an incomplete composition, delay, or even the impossibility of establishing the PIC as a form of public participation in the selection and evaluation of judges.

 

Therefore, we call on the HQCJ:

 

  • To carefully reconsider all the packages of documents submitted by the NGOs, including those that will be submitted additionally;
  • To assess the documents submitted by organizations solely on the basis of the requirements of the law, impartially and without groundless formalism;
  • To allow all NGOs whose experience and capability are confirmed by the documents submitted by them to participate in the Meeting;
  • To review the decisions on a number of NGOs (indicated in this statement or otherwise) regarding the recognition of documents as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements of the law, particularly where the law contained no such requirements.

 

Civic Lustration Committee

Initiative E+

Crimea SOS

Nova Kraina

ТОМ 14

DEJURE Foundation

Center for Civil Liberties

Centre for Economic Strategy

Centre of Policy and Legal Reform

Centre UA

Nations in Transit 2018: Confronting Illiberalism

April 11, 2018

Washington, April 12, 2018 — Attacks on opposition parties, the press, and civil society organizations are becoming the norm in Central and Eastern Europe as the spread of illiberal politics undermines the foundations of and prospects for democracy, according to Nations in Transit 2018, the 23rd edition of Freedom House’s annual report on democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Eurasia.

Ukraine’s Democracy Score declined for the first time since the 2014 revolution. With the Russian-led conflict in the east grinding on, Ukraine’s politicians are taking advantage of patriotic sentiment to attack NGOs and journalists, accusing them of undermining the war effort.

“Attacks on civil society and political opponents have sapped the momentum from the institutional reform process in Ukraine,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “Although decentralization reforms are continuing, other key priorities, including anticorruption efforts, have stalled. The window of opportunity has not closed in Ukraine, but it has shrunk. By accusing NGOs and journalists of antinational sentiment, politicians are attempting to exclude legitimate voices from public debate simply because they criticize the government.”

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON UKRAINE

 

  • Two important milestones were reached in relations between Ukraine and the European Union in 2017: the visa-free regime with the EU came into force in June, allowing millions of Ukrainians to travel freely to the neighboring Schengen zone for short-term stays, and the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement — the main trigger for the Euromaidan protests which provides a framework for major transformations in Ukrainian democracy, human rights, rule of law, good governance, trade, and sustainable development — finally came completely into force.
  • One of the main achievements in Ukraine’s national governance in 2017 was healthcare reform, which, following the passage by the Verkhovna Rada of a law on healthcare financing in October, will align the system based on the principle of “money following patients.”
  • Decentralization reform continued, with administrative territorial reform resulting in the creation of approximately 700 amalgamated communities, and fiscal decentralization resulting in increased revenues and local infrastructure investments for the first time in 23 years.
  • The conflict in the east remained largely frozen throughout the year. The socioeconomic conditions in the occupied territories, and in those areas close to the line of contact, continued to be poor. The armed separatist groups developed their own institutions, which, in turn, enacted regulations that routinely violated basic human rights, while journalists and bloggers covering the conflict continued to be arrested and detained.
  • Pressure on civil society intensified. In March, the government obliged citizens working against corruption to publicly declare their income and assets, while a legislative initiative to replace the controversial requirement with other restrictive measures against NGOs under threat of onerous restrictions for not complying with the proposed regulations was unsuccessful. The Civil Society score declined due to smear campaigns against NGOs and activists.
  • Prominent civil society organizations were targeted with criminal investigations against them and their members, and there were physical attacks on well-known activists.
  • The Independent Media score declined due to the blocking of major social media sites, as well as physical attacks on journalists and a lack of progress in investigating the murder of journalist Pavel Sheremet.
  • Progress on judicial and anti-corruption reforms was mixed. While the National Anticorruption Bureau actively investigated high-level corruption results of its work were few. The President had yet to create the High Anticorruption Court as promised. Vetting of judicial appointments to the Supreme Court stumbled as 25 candidates that had not passed public integrity checks were approved as official candidates.

“Illiberal politics are becoming the new normal in Europe,” said Michael J. Abramowitz, president of Freedom House. “Government-led smear campaigns against civil society groups, journalists, and the political opposition were pioneered in Russia and Central Asia, but they are increasingly common across the region.”

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES

  • Poland recorded the second-largest Democracy Score decline in the history of the report. The ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party’s revolutionary takeover of the judicial system, politicization of public media, smear campaigns against nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and violations of ordinary parliamentary procedure also produced the two largest single-category score declines in Nations in Transit’s history, for National Democratic Governance and Judicial Framework and Independence.

 

“The radical changes to the Polish judiciary remove any effective check on the actions of the majority party in parliament,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “What has happened in Poland in the last two years should serve as an alarm bell for anyone who believes that one-party rule could never return to Europe.”

“The EU should stand up for its commitments to the rule of law by implementing Article 7 sanctions against Poland and Hungary,” Schenkkan said, referring to the EU’s power to suspend a member’s voting rights. “It should condition access to European funds on clear rule-of-law criteria. This is the only way to convince these countries, and EU candidate states, that the union is firmly rooted in democratic principles.”

  • Hungary has registered the largest cumulative decline in Nations in Transit The country’s Democracy Score has been falling for 10 consecutive years, moving it from the status of a democratic leader at the time of EU accession in 2004 to the threshold of a “Transitional/Hybrid Regime” in 2018.

 

“The Fidesz government of Viktor Orbán led the way for illiberal forces in Central Europe, showing that it was possible to capture a state within the EU through gerrymandering, procurement manipulation, and control of the media,” said Schenkkan. “The fact that Fidesz remains a member in good standing in the European People’s Party of the European Parliament shows how effective Orbán’s approach has been.”

  • Estonia earned the biggest improvement in this edition of the report, even though it was already the best performer. A surprisingly smooth first year in government for a longtime opposition party demonstrated the resilience and independence of national institutions. Estonia’s anticorruption mechanisms appear to be addressing the municipal corruption that has long affected its major cities.

“At a time when most of the news for democracy seems bad, Estonia reminds us that liberal democracy can and does succeed,” Schenkkan said. “Even in a country with a history of foreign occupation and sensitive ethnic and regional differences, democratic national institutions can produce better governance for everyone.”

View the full report here: https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/nations-transit-2018

###

 

Freedom House is an independent watchdog organization that supports democratic change, monitors the status of freedom around the world, and advocates for democracy and human rights.

Join us on Facebook and Twitter (@FreedomHouseDC) and stay up to date with Freedom House’s latest news and events by signing up for our newsletter.

Special event to discuss Ukraine’s future at the Atlantic Council Headquarters (on Thursday, March 29, 2018)

April 4, 2018

In the four years since the end of the Revolution of Dignity, Ukraine has not answered its most important question: how will the country ensure democratic values in its future development? Much of Ukraine’s hope lies in its young leaders who will drive the country forward in the coming years. CDDRL has been fortunate to provide a year-long residency to some of these future leaders as part of the inaugural year of the Center’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program.

This event will feature three Ukrainian leaders who are in residency with CDDRL’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program this year. They will each discuss their own perspectives on opportunities and challenges to democracy and development in their home country, as well as objectives for strengthening public administration, civil society, and economic reforms upon their return to Ukraine.

We hope you can join us for this timely discussion.

Sourse, 29/03/2018

Vitaliy Tytych: Rigging of anti-corruption court competition must be prevented

March 19, 2018

The High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice cannot be trusted to conduct an objective and fair competition for the anti-corruption court without severe foreign and civil society oversight and without a drastic change in the competition’s methodology. They cannot be trusted because they violated the law and demonstrated their political bias by rigging the competition for the Supreme Court.

The discredited High Qualification Commission must be deprived of its arbitrary powers to assign scores subjectively during competitions for anti-corruption and other judges, and such scores must be based on objective criteria.

This is even more important than foreign donors’ veto powers, and this is the only way to ensure that honest and professional candidates believe in the fairness of the competition and participate, and that the commission has no way of promoting political loyalists and incompetent candidates for subjective reasons.

During the Supreme Court competition, 90 scores were assigned for anonymous legal knowledge tests, 120 scores for anonymous practical tests, and the High Qualification Commission could arbitrarily assign 790 scores without giving any explicit reasons (formally based on interviews with candidates and examining their profiles).

According to the 2016 law on the judiciary and status of judges, legal knowledge and practical tests (i.e. objective criteria) are the main method of selecting judges. This law stipulates that at least 75 percent of the total score (i.e. 750 out of 1,000 scores) must be given for anonymous legal knowledge and practical tests.

The High Qualification Commission took advantage of the vague wording of the law to set regulations that contradict the law because only 210 out of the total of 1,000 scores were assigned for legal knowledge and practical tests.

As a result of the Supreme Court competition, candidates who were at the top of the list after the anonymous knowledge tests and practical tests ended up at the bottom in the final stage for unknown reasons, while candidates who initially got lower scores and had a corrupt background ended up at the top.

Both the law on the judiciary and the High Qualification Commission’s internal regulations must be amended and clarified to clearly assign 750 scores for anonymous legal knowledge tests and practical tests (for competitions for both the anti-corruption court and all other courts). If parliament refuses to amend the law, the High Qualification Commission can just change its regulations, which is even easier.

As an option, 330 scores should be given for anonymous legal knowledge tests, another 330 scores for practical tests, and 330 scores for interviews and professional ethics (preferably based on conclusions by the Public Integrity Council and foreign donors). The law on the judiciary and status of judges should also be amended to require the publication of practical works after practical tests.

That would leave no room for arbitrary decisions and political involvement.

President Petro Poroshenko claims that the participation of foreign donors in the competition for the anti-corruption court contradicts Ukraine’s sovereignty, which is false (for example, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine was created with the participation of foreign donors).

But anyway Ukraine’s foreign partners could delegate independent Ukrainian citizens with impeccable reputation and integrity. This would halt any talk about sovereignty.

Such representatives could include people from the December 1 Initiative Group civil-society organization, Soviet dissident and human rights lawyer Myroslav Marynovych or Vyacheslav Bryukhovetsky, honorary president of the Kyiv Mohyla Academy.

Moreover, Ukraine’s foreign donors must take part in the competition for anti-corruption judges but they will have neither time nor resources to vet all the candidates and their background on their own. The Public Integrity Council, which has shown its independence from the authorities and its ability to work hard to examine candidates’ background, must take part in the competition for the anti-graft court by collecting all the available information on candidates (and the council must participate in competitions for all courts under the 2016 law on the judiciary and status of judges).

This is the only way to ensure that anti-corruption judges are truly professional and independent.

The use of the same objective methodology for assigning scores both for the anti-corruption court and other courts and the participation of the Public Integrity Council in competitions for the anti-corruption court and other courts  will totally kill the false argument that the anti-corruption court is a “special” court banned by the Constitution (the Venice Commission has already refuted this argument).

Also, it will be impossible to select independent judges if foreign donors choose representatives loyal to the Ukrainian government.  Such representatives must be completely independent from pressure by Ukrainian authorities.

In the best-case scenario, foreign donors should themselves assess candidates’ professional integrity. But at least they should have a right to suspend the competition and initiate an audit if evidence emerges that the High Qualification Commission violated procedural rules.

The Public Integrity Council believes that the competition for the Supreme Court was rigged to promote politically loyal candidates.

First, during the practical test stage, some candidates were given tests that coincided with cases that they had considered during their career, which was deemed a tool of promoting political loyalists.

Second, in March 2017 the High Qualification Commission illegally allowed 43 candidates who had not gotten sufficient scores during practical tests to take part in the next stage, changing its rules amid the competition. Members of the Public Integrity Council believe that the rules were unlawfully changed to prevent political loyalists from dropping out of the competition.

Apart from the second score assigned anonymously for practical works, the commission gave them a third score after naming them, violating the law (because practical tests should be anonymous to prevent political interference). The commission must have just assigned the second score without knowing the candidates’ names.

Third, the High Qualification Commission illegally refused to publish the scores for candidates’ psychological tests, failed to set a minimum score for psychological tests and illegally assessed the tests on its own (although they must have been assessed by psychologists). Moreover, the commission used corporate loyalty tests, which stipulated loyalty as a major characteristic of a judge – as a result, independent candidates were prevented from getting a higher score, while political loyalists were encouraged.

Fourth, the High Qualification Commission removed the profiles of candidates other than the winners from its site.

Fifth, the High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice illegally refused to give specific reasons for assigning specific total scores to candidates and refused to explain why the High Qualification Commission has overridden vetoes by the Public Integrity Council on candidates who do not meet ethical integrity standards.

Sixth, the High Council of Justice has illegally rejected 48 out of its members’ 52 recusals from voting for specific Supreme Court candidates due to a conflict of interest. This triggered accusations that the council was planning to get the necessary 14 pro-government votes to appoint politically loyal candidates.

Some of these violations are currently being disputed at Ukrainian courts and will be disputed at the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, Public Integrity Council members have opened a criminal case into the violations and will open more cases.

Sourse, 12/03/2018.

FROM OBJECTIVES TO RESULTS: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EU-UKRAINE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT AS SEEN BY STAKEHOLDERS

December 22, 2017

A jury: experience and problems

October 24, 2017

A simulation system of justice in which convulses a vestige of the people’s representatives, as the jury. Says Russian political analyst and human rights activist Mikhail Savva, who left Russia and now living in Ukraine.

The jury is in the Constitution of Ukraine, but in fact, according to human rights activists, jury trials in the country do not. The main difference between a jury trial by an ordinary court (with the participation of one judge or three professional judges) is a separate co-existence in it “judges of law” (the legal profession) and “Judges of fact” (board of jurors , which usually consists of persons who are not are lawyers). If this division is not present and professional judges work together with the representatives of the people should not talk about a jury trial, but the court sheffenskom. Sheffenskie courts adopted, for example, at their home in Germany as well as in Ukraine. Experience and problems of modern Russian jury trials may be useful in case if Ukraine, too, decides to create a jury trial.

The Soviet system of people’s assessors is an option sheffenskogo court, where a judge has unlimited opportunities to influence the decision of the representatives of the people. Sheffenskaya system can be very effective, but only for companies with extremely high legal culture .

In the course of judicial reform 90-ies of the last century, it was created in the Russian jury trials . During the counter-reforms that have been going for fifteen years, created a simulation system of justice in which convulses a vestige of the people’s representatives, as the jury.

Jury trials are traditionally regarded as the “courts of justice”. This is confirmed by the statistics of court decisions in the Russian Federation. Professional judges give less than 1% of acquittals , while the juries – 13-25% in different years.

In 2016, according to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court, in the first instance are over 239 cases with a jury. From 361 to 60 the defendant was justified, that is 17% , another 85 cases returned to the prosecutor. The number of sentences handed down without a jury, more than three orders of magnitude. According to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court in 2016 for all formulations of the Criminal Code (CC) convicted 740,380 people (to imprisonment – 206 304 people), is justified by 1493 (0.2% if you count the persons on which the case was dismissed on rehabilitative grounds, – 1.5%).

Scale application of jury trials in Russia is low. In one year, jury trials in Russia in the second decade of this century the average render verdicts to 300 (the maximum number of verdicts in the post-Soviet period – about 600 in 2010). A jury selected only 12% of the accused, who have a right to it. In the US a year by the jury shall be made about 160 thousand. Verdicts. In the XX century in the Russian empire handed down each year about 40 thousand. Verdicts. The reasons for this will be disclosed below, here I call home. This lack of political will for the development of the institute of juries. In the context of the simulation of the justice system the current Russian regime of the jury can not be complete and widespread.

The jury in the Russian Federation has a constitutional basis: according to Art. 32 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Russian citizens have the right to participate in the administration of justice. One form of such participation – review certain categories of criminal cases in the court of jury. However direct reference to the institution of jury in the Constitution does not.

The introduction of jury trials took considerable time in Russia. Pilot introduction of jury trials in Russia began with the 1993-1994, in 9 subjects of the Federation. The new Criminal Procedure Code, adopted in 2001, did the jury widespread since 2003. In the Chechen Republic the introduction of jury trials actually took place in 2010. An expert on Russian court Sergei Pashin jury, namely the phased introduction of jury trials has led to the fact that he did have in Russia.

The accused has the right to file a petition for consideration of his criminal case by the court of first instance composed of professional judges and a panel of 12 jurors in case he is accused, in particular, murder, sabotage, banditry, genocide, public appeals to the outbreak of war, kidnapping , piracy mercenarism and t. d.

I counted as of July 2017 20 of the Criminal Code articles on which possible jury . At the beginning of the introduction of jury trials in Russia of such items was 47, according Sergeya Pashina calculations, the main initiator of the introduction of jury trials in Russia.

The criminal case, which involved several defendants, the court is considered by jury in respect of all the defendants , if at least one of them said a request for consideration of a criminal case by a court in the composition.

If the defendant has not filed a motion for the consideration of the criminal case by the court by jury, the case is considered by another composition of the court in the manner prescribed by law.

The judge’s decision to hear the case from the jury is final. The subsequent failure of the defendant from the criminal trial by jury is not accepted .

Criminal cases involving jurors of federal courts of general jurisdiction is held in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the supreme courts of republics, territorial, regional courts, courts of federal cities, autonomous region and autonomous districts, the district (naval) military courts.

jury selection jurors is actually a two-step.

According to Art. 3 of the federal law, jurors can not be: persons under 25 years of age; persons with outstanding or previously convicted; persons recognized as incapable or limited in capacity; are registered in the drug treatment or mental hospital.

Such persons are not included in the lists of jurors , drawn up every four years on the basis of the voter list by random sampling. Exclude these people from the list of jurors bodies of executive power of the municipality or the region. Then, after getting acquainted with the citizens of the jury lists, these lists are excluded from the statements of the citizens themselves several categories.

The weak point of this phase of jury selection is a voluntary procedure for submitting applications for exclusion from the jury list. That is, if, for example, the police considers that nothing prevents him to be sworn he did not submit an application for delisting.

During jury selection to participate in a particular criminal case to participate in the proceedings as jurors are not allowed to persons suspected or accused of committing crimes; I do not speak the language in which the hearing is conducted; with physical and / or mental disabilities that prevent full participation in the hearing.

During the trial, the jury task boils down to, to answer three main questions: whether the proven fact of the crime, if that proved his committed by the defendant, and whether he is guilty of the crime. In the case of the issue of the recognition of the defendant’s guilt is put whether he deserves leniency. In this case the judge to the jury formulate lists of issues, which are often a few dozen items.

Jurors “should strive to adopt a unanimous decision,” but if this is not achieved within three hours, the verdict made by voting.

A guilty verdict is adopted, if the majority of the jury votes for each of the three key issues. Acquittal verdict is considered, if not less than six judges gave a negative answer to at least one of the three questions. If the deciding votes are equally divided, the adopted most favorable to the defendant’s answer for each question.

The acquittal is mandatory for the presiding judge, in this case, the court justifies the defendant. Guilty as the jury’s verdict is not binding on the court. If the judge recognizes that a guilty verdict handed down against an innocent person, then adopted a decree on the dissolution of the jury and the criminal case is sent for a new trial by another composition of the court. This decision is not subject to appeal in cassation.

From the jurisdiction of jury trials for the duration of this institution such articles were excluded, such as terrorism, hostage-taking, riots, treason, espionage, violent seizure of power, rape and sexual offenses against children. Some compounds “fell out” of crime from the jurisdiction of jury trials due to the fact that the new Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 2001 softened for him the punishment and the death penalty or life imprisonment has not been provided (eg high treason). In some cases, exceptions motive was that the jury too often render acquittals. For example, in the discussion in the State Duma in 2013, the issue of the exclusion of such a composition as sexual crimes against children, the author of the bill deputy Spring said that the jury too often justify the accused.

In February 2016 the Russian Constitutional Court found that the criminal case against women in the murder with aggravating circumstances could be considered by a jury of 12 people in the supreme courts of republics, territorial or regional courts. Prior to that, women were deprived of the possibility to be tried before a jury, because the Russian legislation does not provide for life sentences for the women.

December 3, 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed to extend the role of juries in a possible reduction in their number in the court up to 5-7 people. This was an attempt to respond to society’s demands for justice. At a time when major political offenses removed from the jurisdiction of jury trials, the expansion of the institute of juries are no longer threatened by the authorities. In other words, cases of domestic murder and some other formulations could, according to the authorities, to consider jury trials at district and city levels.

Starting from June 1, 2018 Institute of jurorsIt will be operational in the district (city) and garrison military courts. Established number of jurors for the district and garrison military courts – 6 people, in the courts of the Russian Federation and the district military courts, the number of jurors will be reduced from 12 to 8. district-level court jury will consider the criminal case at the request of the accused, for which there may not be sentenced to life imprisonment, namely, with regard to women, persons who have committed crimes under the age of 18 years, men who have attained to time of the court’s 65-year-olds sentence. Criminal cases on these articles of the Criminal Code in relation to other persons, as before, will be considered by the court of the subject of the Russian Federation. In addition, the district court with the participation of jurors,

Judges of the Russian Federation, according to a discussion at the Congress in December 2016, the judges are extremely skeptical about the prospects for the mass introduction of jury trials . They talk about the organizational unpreparedness and lack of funding. We can assume that in the near future verdicts of the jury will not become a mass phenomenon in the municipal and district courts.

Practical functioning of juries problem is clearly illustrated by the case of the murder of Boris Nemtsov , who was considered by the Moscow District Military Court in 2016-2017. A panel of 12 jurors was in the conference room for three days. She had to answer 26 questions put to them by the judge. The jury could not come to a unanimous opinion, so after three hours of contentious issues have been put to the vote. 10 of the 12 jurors declared guilty of all five defendants.

Eight jurors were replaced during the process. The defendant’s lawyer Bakhaeva Zaurbek Sadahanov said: “There was a sweep of the jury, we have seen. The verdict is absolutely illegal, because no evidence of guilt Bakhaeva investigation did not present. This is only possible in a country where there is no justice. “

In discussing the questions that were to answer the jury, the objections of the accused lawyers were not taken into account, the judge approved the questions in its original version. This version of the problem was that the actions of each of the defendants, the judge invited the jury to assess the aggregate only to the actions of the other four defendants.

At the present time in Russia there was already a jury management practices. Its main elements are:

1. Selection loyal jury on board formation step. Washer courts evaluate the behavior of the jury, and depending on this jury are involved or are not involved in other processes.

2. Restrictions jury taps to participate in a particular meeting: no more than one non-motivated removal of restrictions on issues at the stage of taps (you can ask about criminal records of relatives, but you can not ask questions, the answers to which are characterized by human eyes).

3. Adjustment of the board structure by eliminating disloyal jury. For this purpose the taps on spurious grounds, creating grounds for removal from the board (the jury may hold on his way to a meeting of the traffic police, with the result that the jury is removed from the board).

4. Manipulative or control wording of the jury by the judge.

5. Prohibitions on the provision of the jury during the meeting on problems of the inquiry, such as torture . Random mention of torture, even the hint is the reason for the cancellation of the verdict.

6. Intimidation by jury, as was done during the process in the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic in the case of citizens of Ukraine and Karpyuk Klyha.

If the jury panel of the control mechanisms do not work, use the cancellation of the verdict by the Supreme Court of Russia. If needed, which is often politically motivated, the Supreme Court cancels the guilty verdict of the jury and send the case for retrial. So it was in the case of the murder Anny Politkovskoy. Grounds for cancellation of the verdict was that, according to the Armed Forces, the panel “go on about the lawyers who reported the identity of defendants in the case, and the jury presented negative information about the investigation.”

I am getting the result. A jury in Russia it is a jury trial, not sheffenskim court or some other form of participation of representatives of the people in judicial decisions. However, the jury as the “Court of Justice” in the Russian Federation operating in simulation mode. This is achieved due to two main factors: the limited scope of application of a jury and the widespread use of illegal jury management.

Summing up, it can not be said about the money. Often mention that Ukraine has no money for a jury trial. But the money in this case is irrelevant. We are talking about saving mode. See what makes the authoritarian Putin regime in Russia – is introducing jury trials at the district level. It costs a lot of money, because in Russia in 2184 the district court. is sorely lacking is the answer mode to request people to justice. Of course, the “political” as a judge in violation of all the rules, and will be judged, and to plant. But in cases of domestic murder people get this same justice in the form of trial by jury. Putin’s regime is trying to prolong its existence. If authoritarian regimes are saving yourself so why democracy in Ukraine should act differently?

Sourse, 23/10/2017

People need to learn how to control the power, local first of all

October 14, 2017

One of the most prominent dissidents of the Soviet Union, weighed after a four-month hunger strike in BC political zone 389/35 in the Perm region of 39 kg. The author of “Handbook of Psychiatry for dissidents,” a member of the American Society of Psychiatrists, UK Royal College of Psychiatrists, the rehabilitation of victims of the World Council of Torture, International PEN, the author of several books and hundreds of articles. All of this – on human rights defenders, public figures and the head of the Ukrainian Psychiatric Association Semen Gluzman.

Semen Gluzman  –  on the Maidan, and the syndrome crowd of friendship with the “Bandera” and enzyme resistance, control the power and responsibility for the past.

– Semen Fishelevich, you are one of those who supported the Maidan, but never torn his scene. Why, by the way?

– I never wanted to the scene – from the time of Rukh has never been on any shodnyak, I mean … on an important meeting decent people. Just realize that the psychology of a decent man and the psychology of thousands of decent people differ dramatically.

At the same time, I must admit, even during the Orange Revolution called me many foreign colleagues, the stars of the world of psychiatry, with one question: where’s syndrome aggressive influence of the crowd?

Ukrainian people have shown themselves quite surprisingly and in 2004 and in 2014. During the recent hurricane in Houston because of marauding police had to impose a curfew. Are there many cases of looting, we can remember when the city center, with its many shops and expensive boutiques, stood up to 200 thousand people?

– In the mid-1970s, in the Perm region, a young Jew Gluzman made friends with Ukrainian nationalists – 25 annuals. But then you have joined a common enemy and not the overall vision of the future.

– Yes, I spent several years in the camp side by side with those who were called “Bandera”. They were simple people, the names of Bandera or Shukhevych of their mouth, I had never heard. They just defended their land from “outsiders”. I once asked Uncle Vasya Basil Malozhinskogo, whom he regarded as the UPA soldier, and he was from the SS division Galicia-evil so asked reproachfully, saying how could you ?! And he did his best to explain: “Spershu boule sovєti Potіm priyshli nіmtsі OAO All – A Stranger’s one I never pobachiv i pochuv svoїh, yshli hloptsі that spіvali of Ukrainian pіsen What I first bailiff to them That Well svoї boule ……. . “That’s right, simply and without ideological pathos.

– Jewish support of the Maidan has not surprised?

– Not in the least surprised. One of the most striking childhood memories  I was 10-11 years old, I was returning to his home on the bus, with rises on Artema October Revolution Square (Maidan current). At one of the stops came an elderly lady, very polite, a good Ukrainian language, asked the passengers where it’s okay to leave. Trolley bus exploded with anger – I was scared, not knowing what was happening. Started the persecution of some lumpen, perhaps a T-shirt, he was supported by his aunt vociferous – it was a stream of insults that hit a woman, just to speak in Ukrainian. Then I realized that with me live one more Jews – Ukrainians.

Frankly, when Ukraine got its independence in 1991, I was tense, remembering how aggressively treated here to the Jews in the Soviet era. I remember how the Jewish boys and girls, which were practically closed local universities, leaving to other republics, where there were quiet and well attended. In addition-and this is for me as a dissident is very important – in Ukraine was the most ferocious in the KGB Union. I tensed and because he saw who vote for independence in Parliament : a group of 239, which is officially called “For a sovereign Radyans’ka up Ukraine”, in other words, the communist majority, sensing the winds of change. And along with them – thousands of opportunists, rinuvshihsya from the Komsomol straight into Roc. Professional killers of Ukrainian culture, instantly became the accusers “hand of Moscow”.

Then, when it became an annual index to measure the tolerance, it appears that anti-Semitism and xenophobia are retreating, although the anti-Semites, of course, is and always will be. This was true of all the other areas  the country got a chance.

I remember one of the first American ambassadors told his friends in Ukraine, saying that you frequent to Moscow, come here, there is a very different people. And it’s true, that’s not the idealization or romanticizing, and the herald of the European mentality.

Of course, at 2014 Independence were different people, and they stood for different things. But it was in the area  some seven years I have not filed a hand.

– Today, three and a half years later, do not be disappointed?

– I am not so naive as to fail to understand: the revolution does not end as the dream of its members. Therefore anticipated that possibly will be disappointed, but … did not expect so much.

You see, in his initial optimism, I relied on the camp experience. With me sat a lot of people of different nationalities, but the Ukrainians have always been the most – about 30-40% of prisoners. Very different – not very smart – and wise, educated – and almost illiterate, sincere – and on your mind. I do not quite understand what the ethnic psychology, but in all the years in the political area, I have not met one Belarusian, Kyrgyz or Uzbek dissident. But the KGB was everywhere. Therefore, unlike many former Soviet republics, Ukraine was able to gradually come to some kind of European values. There is a resistance to the enzyme, but the people are not trained in democracy and have no control over their politicians.

This, incidentally, turned out rather quickly, so, in my opinion, the only way out – a long way to majority elections.

– Where buckwheat is everything?  

– It is everything because of her hand nobody put. Of course, the new laws, withdrawal Institute, etc. needed – need to teach people to control the power, primarily local. Do many Ukrainians need a report from its regional deputies? That’s it. And who offended us?

As for buckwheat, remember the scene in Bishkek Tulip Revolution, when revolutionaries dragged on his back stolen refrigerators and television sets? In Kiev, as it was not … Here, both the Maidan demanding from the authorities not buckwheat, and quite another.

Just people accept defeat very quickly, sitting in the kitchen or in the FB and wailing: again m … Duck elected. And also choose not the best, but they are controlled -and this should be taught in Europe. I know many who are helping with the support of Western partners to build democratic institutions in Ukraine. The vast majority of them work just for money. Some of them are rascals. Unfortunately…

– In 2014, many thought that the Ukrainians are the European political nation. How far along the process, or, conversely, stopped, given the historical memory of the policy, with its cult of new heroes?

– For me, the new heroes – a Heavenly hundreds, not the leaders of the OUN and UPA. And the fact that the memory of the heroes of the new vulgarized, obviously. She vulgarized when stopper criminal cases, which should be called the perpetrators of the massacre. She vulgarized, as the country’s leadership does not want to admit that on the other side, too, were Ukrainians. I know one family in which the boy grew up, the only son, who was “bad” brought – he wanted to be a Ukrainian officer. He was burned at the Maidan. Perhaps one of my daughter’s friends, occasionally throwing Molotov cocktails.

There are many things that we uncouple. But in a situation where the people in the mass hates and despises the power, what kind of love for each other can be said?

– What do you think about decommunisation receiving more and more sophisticated form?

– As a former political prisoner and anti-Soviet, I can not but welcome this process. But in its present form it gives me a feeling of disgust. As lustration, which was clearly organized and controlled from the top and stopped as suddenly as it had begun.

Lustration was illegal and generally meaningless, and it was followed by the same kind of pointless and illegal Decommunization. Autos of the dead will not work, especially when it conducts a marginal rot.

We voted in favor at the time of Kravchuk, and after the KGB has arrested dissidents only after the approval of the Central Committee department of ideology, which he headed. Why not to prosecute? And at the same time and all the deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the group 239, by which the independence was proclaimed.

It is very convenient to demolish monuments, taking responsibility for the past. We are the eternal victim, with a demand for us? “We endlessly criticize Comrade Stalin, and, of course, to work and yet I want to ask. Who wrote denunciations of four million?” – once said Sergei Dovlatov. The question hung in the air. We’ve no sense of responsibility for the acts of their fathers and grandfathers, as in Germany, where the children and grandchildren remember well what difference their loved ones. Where they are – children of the NKVD, the party nomenklatura, which, after all, millions of ordinary people obediently raises his hands at the next party meeting, the stigma of renegades, traitors to the socialist motherland, etc.?

So it is not an ideology we have to sew in the XXI century, and the way of the future.

I am not an enemy of perpetuating the memory of Stepan Bandera, but when acting Health Minister Suprun declares that, taking important decisions, mentally consults with the leader of the OUN, this is in any gate … And apparently, it is something to her counsels, as the results of this tandem we see.

– Donbass, which has become a springboard for the “Russian world”, lost to Ukraine? Or not very much, and we need it?

– Russian is impoverished, it has fewer features include these territories, and Putin, in the end, death. Deliberately or not, but he pulled the plug by their actions many influential people in Russia who stole billions, access to which is every day more and more difficult, given the sanctions. They are used to a different level of personal freedom, where they are, after all, now the rest? On Baikal?

So I believe that sooner or later Ukraine will return to the region. But not the kind of young people who went to the Donbas and already settled in Kiev and other cities. They have made their choice.

Sometimes it occurs to me seditious thought … my camp friends were fighting for the independence of Ukraine, and once the day has come – not because we were sitting at it in the camps. If Donbass really wants to live differently, if it is him and not someone external choice, from a moral point of view, why not think about the idea of ​​independence for these people? This is only one possible solution, but it must be spoken. Apart so apart, we do so and are doing everything to isolate these areas – with the help of the blockade, for example.

– It is clear that the war promotes the division of society into friends and foes, and the formation of a black and white picture of the world. All this of course, but … if we do not turn into “Russia on the contrary”, with its contempt for the private view, the search for their fifth column, and so on?

– I am fully aware that the current president is also seeking to usurp power, but I understand that he is also not released, because, even Kuchma, Ukraine wrote – not Russia. Our man in the street is different from the Russian. There genuinely respected Putin. Here the power is changing, and every new government we do not like, and often despised or hated. And it gives grounds for optimism.

Regarding the split in society, we are thrown into the past and because they do not offer a vision of the future. This also applies to the heroes of the UPA – stranger to a large part of the country, and to the language problem, which is the vast majority of Ukrainians do not consider the problem, but that again raised the shield on …

After the trial, I spent twenty days in a cell with Vasilem Stusom – and it was a luxurious 20 days. From time to time I even forget where I was, plunging into the Ukrainian culture. But we were talking in their own language, and Stus took this quite calmly. With 25 annuals UPA camp communicated in the same way – no one ever said nothing.

I was once again transferred to the new barracks, and that same day I was admitted to the “family” Eugene Prishlyak and Vasil Pidgorodetskim. The first was to arrest referent Security Lviv OUN, the second – a simple fighter in the UPA. Collected in the bedside table meal, we shared equally and ate together. After some time went to Vasil old policeman – a bastard – and said, “Vasil you train a respected man, an old convict, are not you ashamed to Zhydenko eat?” “I have it on s … sent”, – he told me later Vasil.

I am absolutely convinced that the state language is necessary to know, but since independence can not remember a single attempt to create appropriate courses for civil servants. Told me how hard they taught language after work – reading aloud Shevchenko, etc. Ethnic Ukrainians, but completely Russified Soviet reality. Such mockery, with complete indifference of the state, caused the rejection, rather than patriotic feelings.

So let’s publish good books, cooking class teachers – the key to successful language policy. I sometimes have to deal with some of the upper class of pedagogical universities – it’s awful. They academics some of their academies, wealthy people, but are engaged in playing the Soviet zhlobstva.

Ukraine has ruined a lot. When NaUKMA took its first steps, I tried to explain to the rector that it is necessary to keep the schools of mathematicians, theoretical physicists have developed in “mailboxes”, with excellent professionals. It was just necessary to allow these professionals to teach at first in Russian, but … we got rid of high intelligence.

– Who is able to pull the country out of the vicious circle? As long as people do not totally trust the government, naively hopes on the most rabid populists – and we have already passed … Civil society is defeated – or simply lost the battle?

– Civil society must help, rather than push. I am following with great concern for the future of the country in which I live and which I am a part of. I’m afraid that if this continues, the Ukrainian state will be defeated not by external forces, it simply dissolved, as a solid in a liquid. And will Vodicka, sweet or salty – are not so important.

– And what about the resistance enzyme?

– The enzyme resistance – an important condition for independence, but not sufficient.

Build the country – it does not sit in the cooler. We need other skills. When the Soviet Union ended, many former dissidents in Moscow continued to engage in human rights activities. In Ukraine, a number of my colleagues on the Gulag have gone into politics – and what?

It is clear that the government is constantly tosses a bone of contention that we at loggerheads in the past, instead of building the future. And less remembered about the reforms that are needed, as the air, and at the same time painful, so hold on to your seats, the tops are in no hurry to carry them out. A bottoms – bottoms grow, and this is our chance.

Interview by Michael Gold

Sourse, 13/10/2017

72 NGO already have signed the Declaration of Human Rights Agenda platform with the requirement to the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to stop the attack on civil society organizations

September 25, 2017

HUMAN RIGHTS AGENDA

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform demanding the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine stop crack-down on non-governmental organizations

 In early July 2017, the presidential draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 were registered in the Parliament of Ukraine. The draft laws were elaborated allegedly to replace the scandalous amendments to the anti-corruption legislation obliging the anti-corruption activists to annually file personal asset and property electronic declarations (Law of Ukraine No. 1975-VIII of 23 March 2017). The presidential draft laws actually propose to abolish the e-declarations for public anti-corruption activists but to require instead the non-governmental organizations and individual entrepreneurs as well as enterprises, institutions and organizations providing them with services, to file additional reports to tax authorities.

The draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 burden all non-governmental organizations and individual entrepreneurs, enterprises, institutions and organizations that provide them with services with an unjustified obligation to file additional tax reports.

It is revealing that the number of tax reports required from the non-governmental organizations, which these draft laws provide for, significantly exceeds the number of reports required from the business. Moreover, even the recipients of budget funds are not required to file such a number of tax reports.

We believe that these legislative initiatives appeared not by chance, though against the background of statements about the need to reduce excessive state regulation. The punishment in form of the abolition of a non-profit status of non-governmental organization is pronouncedly punitive in nature and is nothing more than the introduction of a tool for selective pressure on the non-governmental organizations indisposed towards the authorities.

We regard the initiative of the President of Ukraine as the disproportionate interference in the activities of the non-governmental organizations. Such steps liken Ukraine to the repressive regimes of the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and others similar. Despite the ostentatious care for transparency and accountability, the regulations introduced in the abovementioned countries led to almost absolute annihilation of the non-governmental organizations which are independent from authorities and total crack-down on civil society.

No international treaties require similar state control over the activities of non-governmental organizations as the international standards endow the non-governmental organizations with the right to be free from state interference in their activities.

The Guidelines on Freedom of Association drafted by the Council of Europe and the OSCE stipulate that “the state shall not require but shall encourage and facilitate associations to be accountable and transparent.” Special reporting is permissible, however, if it is required in exchange for certain benefits, provided it is “within the discretion of the association to decide whether to comply with such reporting requirements or forgo them and forsake any related special benefits, where applicable.”

In consideration of the foregoing, we demand that the Parliament of Ukraine immediately reject the draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 of 10 July 2017 and the President of Ukraine fulfill his promise to cancel the amendments to the anti-corruption legislation dated March 2017.

For reference: the Human Rights Agenda platform is the informal coalition of human rights organizations working in the field of monitoring, analyzing and elaborating the legislation in accordance with the basic principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The platform participants are the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, the Center for Civil Liberties, the Amnesty International Ukraine, the Human Rights Information Center, the Center for Law Enforcement Studies, the Without Borders Project of the NGO “Social Action Center” and the Euromaidan SOS. The Center for Civil Liberties coordinates the platform activities. Contacts: human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

  1. Center for Civil Liberties
  2. Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
  3. Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches
  4. Eastern-Ukrainian Center for Civic Initiatives
  5. Charitable Foundation “Vostok SOS”
  6. Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”
  7. Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law Enforcement
  8. NGO “KyivPride”
  9. Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
  10. Open Dialog Foundation
  11. Human Rights Information Center
  12. Crimean Human Rights Group
  13. NGO “Helsinki Initiative XXI”
  14. NGO “Peaceful Coast”
  15. Expert Human Rights Center
  16. NGO “La Strada Ukraine”
  17. Liberation Movement Research Center
  18. Charitable Organisation “Fund of Mercy and Health”
  19. NGO “South”
  20. NGO “Ray of Changes”
  21. Kharkiv Regional Foundation “Public Alternative”
  22. Project “Without Borders”
  23. NGO “Political Studies Association”
  24. NGO “People’s Control of Kirovohrad Region”
  25. Eksampei Center for Ukrainian Policy
  26. NGO “Volunteer Association of Participants of Maidan and Fighting Action”
  27. Charitable Foundation “Dyvosvit Club”
  28. NGO “School of Public Projects”
  29. NGO “Faith. Hope. Action”
  30. NGO “JCI Kyiv”
  31. Educational Human Rights House Chernihiv
  32. NGO “Women’s Prospects Center”
  33. NGO “Zakarpattia Community”
  34. Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Organization “Young Prosvita”
  35. Ternopil Human Rights Group
  36. Human Rights Center “All rights”
  37. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Convictus Ukraine”
  38. Autonomous Bar Association
  39. NGO “MART” (Chernihiv)
  40. Ukrainian Legal Aid Foundation
  41. Information and Awareness Raising Center “Axis” (Vinnytsia)
  42. NGO “Center for Civic Education “Almenda””
  43. Center for Humanistic Technologies “AHALAR”
  44. NGO “Ukrainian Association of Assessment”
  45. NGO “Territory of Success”
  46. T-Woman of Ukraine
  47. NGO “AutoMaidan Kyiv”
  48. NGO “Human Rights Vector”
  49. Bilozerka Center for Regional Development
  50. Center for Law Enforcement Activity Research
  51. Chernihiv Public Committee for Human Rights Protection
  52. NGO “Kyiv Educational Center “Tolerspace””
  53. Human Rights Center “Postup”
  54. NGO “Liberal Democratic League of Ukraine”
  55. Bureau of Social and Political Developments
  56. Center for Legal and Political Studies “DUMA”
  57. Institute of Mass Information
  58. SOVA Group
  59. Media Initiative for Human Rights
  60. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Legalife Ukraine”
  61. NGO “Insight”
  62. Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research
  63. NGO “Informer”
  64. Information and Analytical Center “Public Space”
  65. LGBT Human Rights Center “Our World”
  66. NGO “Bakhmat”
  67. NGO “Development Foundation”
  68. NGO “All-Ukrainian League of Lawyers Against Corruption”
  69. NGO “Kharkiv Women’s Association “Sphere””
  70. NGO “Gender Center of Volyn Region”
  71. NGO “Theatre for Dialogue”
  72. NGO ‘Free Territory’

The statement is open for signature. Please contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Результаты поиска:

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform on deprivation of attorneys of the ability to cooperate with human rights organisations

March 7, 2019

In the agenda of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the consideration of the first
reading of a draft law ‘On Legal Practice and Advocacy’ No. 9055 is scheduled for 28
February.
The authors and supporters of the law are striving to prove its progressive nature,
strengthening of guarantees of advocacy and empowerment.
However, should the law be adopted, all attorneys who cooperate with human rights
organisations will be deprived of the opportunity to engage in advocacy activities
within the framework of cooperation with these organisations. Hundreds of cases
which have been filed by lawyers of these organisations with the European Court of
Human Rights, and thousands of court cases in national courts will become only a
reminder of past activities. There will be no one competent to file new applications
with the European Court and national courts on behalf of human rights organisations.
In his expert opinion which contains the analysis of the draft law No. 9055, the
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights Diego Garcia-Sayan stated that the restriction, set
forth in Article 28 of the draft law 9055, could adversely affect the lawyers who would
have to choose between full employment and the work of a human rights defender
which, obviously, would adversely affect an access to justice in the country, in
particular, for individuals with limited financial means. Also, the report provides a
whole number of risks and threats to independent advocacy, such as the procedure
of bringing attorneys to disciplinary responsibility, unfounded types of disciplinary
sanctions that affect the independence of advocacy and, consequently, affect
appropriate defence in court.
Separately, the completely opaque process of work on the draft law is to be
mentioned, and this fact has also been noted in the report by Mr. Diego Garcia-
Sayan. He wrote that consultations with representatives of the legal profession were
very limited in nature, and the final draft law was made public by the office of the
President without the opportunity to comment on its content.
A lack of transparency, marginalisation of the drafting process and introduction of the
draft law, a lack of a high-quality expert examination, for example, by the Venice
Commission, and haste with the attempts to implement this law as soon as possible

in a parliament’s session confirm the poor quality of the preparation process and the
same low-quality content of the draft law itself, which, in its present form, poses a
real threat to the protection of human rights in the human rights protection
environment of Ukraine and can be regarded as a way of attack and exertion of
pressure on the environment.
We hereby urge Members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to prevent the
consideration and adoption of the draft law 9055, as requested in the report by Diego
Garcia-Sayan, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The text of the draft law No.
9055 must be redrafted, discussed publicly and amended, taking into account the
comments made by representatives of the bar community, human rights
organisations, and international experts. We demand transparency, honesty and
high quality. Today, we cannot see these features in the draft law No. 9055.
The Human Rights Agenda platform is an informal coalition of human right organisations focused on systemic
problems of legislation and practices for defending fundamental human rights. The participants of the platform
are as follows: Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, Center for Civil Liberties, Amnesty International
Ukraine, Human Rights Information Center, Centre of Law Enforcement Activities Research (CLEAR), Project
"Without Borders", Euromaidan SOS. The platform is coordinated by the Center for Civil Liberties. You can
contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
Center for Civil Liberties
Regional Centre for Human Rights
Open Dialogue Foundation
Humanitarian Studio "Wave
Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”

NGOs call on the HQCJ to refrain from creating artificial obstacles to the establishment of the Public Integrity Council

November 22, 2018

On November 21, 2018, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) announced the results of the consideration of documents of public associations (NGOs) for the establishment of the Public Integrity Council (PIC).

 

The Commission approved a positive decision on the admission of only 2 out of 14 organizations that submitted the documents. The Commission allowed the rest of the organizations to eliminate the shortcomings which, in its opinion, were identified in the relevant documents of the NGOs.

 

Having considered the decisions of the Commission, NGOs have to state that among these alleged shortcomings there are many that are not based on the requirements of the law, do not pursue a legitimate aim and can create artificial obstacles for NGOs’ participation in the PIC establishment.

 

In particular:

 

  • In some cases (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the Commission does not accept the results of a financial audit conducted not within the past two years, whereas the law only requires the availability of an audit report and does not set any time frames for its conduct;
  • In some other cases (Center for Civil Liberties, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the HQCJ groundlessly believes that it is only the first persons of international organizations in Ukraine (the OSCE Coordinator in Ukraine, UNDP, etc.) that can make recommendations to NGOs, while the law does not contain such a requirement, and the signatures of officials of international organizations were affixed within their authorities;
  • Position of the HQCJ regarding the recognition of reports based on the financial audit results or audit findings as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements only because these reports were prepared for confidential use and submission to grantors (CRIMEASOS, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform) is unreasonable (the law does not set any requirements for the addressees of the reports and the purpose of their preparation);
  • The HQCJ did not recognize a copy of the report on the project implementation results due to the lack of signature of the person authorized to sign it (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform). However, such a requirement is unfounded since the law requires the provision of a copy rather than the original of the report, and the submitted copy of the report has been duly certified by an authorized person;  
  • The law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” does not require the publication of a declaration of a candidate to the PIC on the NACP’s website, and the HQCJ’s competencies do not cover anti-corruption verification of declarations (including the presence or absence of these declarations on the NACP’s website), while some organizations (Institute of Applied Humanitarian Research) received a reply that the absence of such declarations on the NACP’s website serves as grounds for non-admission.

 

As for documents of other NGOs (Civic Lustration Committee, E+, Nova Krayina, ТОМ14, Centre for Economic Strategy, Centre UA), only the originals of certain documents are required, whereas all the necessary information can be obtained from the duly authenticated photocopies. In some other cases (DEJURE, Nova Krayina), technical errors (incorrect indication of the candidate’s patronymic only in one of the documents or use of the phrase “annual declaration” after “declaration of a candidate for the position of the PIC member”) are considered by the Commission as “grounds for the determination of the submitted documents as not complying with … the law”.

 

We want to emphasize that the requirements of the law on the submission of documents have been established to confirm the experience, real activity and capacity of NGOs to form the PIC. The Commission’s review of these documents should pursue this legitimate aim and should not go beyond its limits.

 

The Commission’s decisions are even more surprising given the fact that 2 years ago the Commission allowed a number of organizations with similar packages of documents to participate in the NGO Meeting on the PIC establishment without any comments. The Commission did not consider the failure to submit proper declarations by the candidates for judicial office at the Anti-Corruption Court and Intellectual Property Court to be a violation and allowed them to take part in the competition to the IP-court.

 

We are concerned that at the beginning of our cooperation with the HQCJ regarding the formation of the second composition of the PIC, we faced this approach. At the same time, the NGOs will make every effort to take into account the wishes of the Commission regarding the execution of documents within a specified period as far as possible.

 

However, if the HQCJ retains this approach to the assessment of documents, there will be a high risk of groundless rejection of experienced and capable NGOs from participation in the Meeting and, as a result, the formation of an incomplete composition, delay, or even the impossibility of establishing the PIC as a form of public participation in the selection and evaluation of judges.

 

Therefore, we call on the HQCJ:

 

  • To carefully reconsider all the packages of documents submitted by the NGOs, including those that will be submitted additionally;
  • To assess the documents submitted by organizations solely on the basis of the requirements of the law, impartially and without groundless formalism;
  • To allow all NGOs whose experience and capability are confirmed by the documents submitted by them to participate in the Meeting;
  • To review the decisions on a number of NGOs (indicated in this statement or otherwise) regarding the recognition of documents as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements of the law, particularly where the law contained no such requirements.

 

Civic Lustration Committee

Initiative E+

Crimea SOS

Nova Kraina

ТОМ 14

DEJURE Foundation

Center for Civil Liberties

Centre for Economic Strategy

Centre of Policy and Legal Reform

Centre UA

Nations in Transit 2018: Confronting Illiberalism

April 11, 2018

Washington, April 12, 2018 — Attacks on opposition parties, the press, and civil society organizations are becoming the norm in Central and Eastern Europe as the spread of illiberal politics undermines the foundations of and prospects for democracy, according to Nations in Transit 2018, the 23rd edition of Freedom House’s annual report on democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Eurasia.

Ukraine’s Democracy Score declined for the first time since the 2014 revolution. With the Russian-led conflict in the east grinding on, Ukraine’s politicians are taking advantage of patriotic sentiment to attack NGOs and journalists, accusing them of undermining the war effort.

“Attacks on civil society and political opponents have sapped the momentum from the institutional reform process in Ukraine,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “Although decentralization reforms are continuing, other key priorities, including anticorruption efforts, have stalled. The window of opportunity has not closed in Ukraine, but it has shrunk. By accusing NGOs and journalists of antinational sentiment, politicians are attempting to exclude legitimate voices from public debate simply because they criticize the government.”

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON UKRAINE

 

  • Two important milestones were reached in relations between Ukraine and the European Union in 2017: the visa-free regime with the EU came into force in June, allowing millions of Ukrainians to travel freely to the neighboring Schengen zone for short-term stays, and the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement — the main trigger for the Euromaidan protests which provides a framework for major transformations in Ukrainian democracy, human rights, rule of law, good governance, trade, and sustainable development — finally came completely into force.
  • One of the main achievements in Ukraine’s national governance in 2017 was healthcare reform, which, following the passage by the Verkhovna Rada of a law on healthcare financing in October, will align the system based on the principle of “money following patients.”
  • Decentralization reform continued, with administrative territorial reform resulting in the creation of approximately 700 amalgamated communities, and fiscal decentralization resulting in increased revenues and local infrastructure investments for the first time in 23 years.
  • The conflict in the east remained largely frozen throughout the year. The socioeconomic conditions in the occupied territories, and in those areas close to the line of contact, continued to be poor. The armed separatist groups developed their own institutions, which, in turn, enacted regulations that routinely violated basic human rights, while journalists and bloggers covering the conflict continued to be arrested and detained.
  • Pressure on civil society intensified. In March, the government obliged citizens working against corruption to publicly declare their income and assets, while a legislative initiative to replace the controversial requirement with other restrictive measures against NGOs under threat of onerous restrictions for not complying with the proposed regulations was unsuccessful. The Civil Society score declined due to smear campaigns against NGOs and activists.
  • Prominent civil society organizations were targeted with criminal investigations against them and their members, and there were physical attacks on well-known activists.
  • The Independent Media score declined due to the blocking of major social media sites, as well as physical attacks on journalists and a lack of progress in investigating the murder of journalist Pavel Sheremet.
  • Progress on judicial and anti-corruption reforms was mixed. While the National Anticorruption Bureau actively investigated high-level corruption results of its work were few. The President had yet to create the High Anticorruption Court as promised. Vetting of judicial appointments to the Supreme Court stumbled as 25 candidates that had not passed public integrity checks were approved as official candidates.

“Illiberal politics are becoming the new normal in Europe,” said Michael J. Abramowitz, president of Freedom House. “Government-led smear campaigns against civil society groups, journalists, and the political opposition were pioneered in Russia and Central Asia, but they are increasingly common across the region.”

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES

  • Poland recorded the second-largest Democracy Score decline in the history of the report. The ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party’s revolutionary takeover of the judicial system, politicization of public media, smear campaigns against nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and violations of ordinary parliamentary procedure also produced the two largest single-category score declines in Nations in Transit’s history, for National Democratic Governance and Judicial Framework and Independence.

 

“The radical changes to the Polish judiciary remove any effective check on the actions of the majority party in parliament,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “What has happened in Poland in the last two years should serve as an alarm bell for anyone who believes that one-party rule could never return to Europe.”

“The EU should stand up for its commitments to the rule of law by implementing Article 7 sanctions against Poland and Hungary,” Schenkkan said, referring to the EU’s power to suspend a member’s voting rights. “It should condition access to European funds on clear rule-of-law criteria. This is the only way to convince these countries, and EU candidate states, that the union is firmly rooted in democratic principles.”

  • Hungary has registered the largest cumulative decline in Nations in Transit The country’s Democracy Score has been falling for 10 consecutive years, moving it from the status of a democratic leader at the time of EU accession in 2004 to the threshold of a “Transitional/Hybrid Regime” in 2018.

 

“The Fidesz government of Viktor Orbán led the way for illiberal forces in Central Europe, showing that it was possible to capture a state within the EU through gerrymandering, procurement manipulation, and control of the media,” said Schenkkan. “The fact that Fidesz remains a member in good standing in the European People’s Party of the European Parliament shows how effective Orbán’s approach has been.”

  • Estonia earned the biggest improvement in this edition of the report, even though it was already the best performer. A surprisingly smooth first year in government for a longtime opposition party demonstrated the resilience and independence of national institutions. Estonia’s anticorruption mechanisms appear to be addressing the municipal corruption that has long affected its major cities.

“At a time when most of the news for democracy seems bad, Estonia reminds us that liberal democracy can and does succeed,” Schenkkan said. “Even in a country with a history of foreign occupation and sensitive ethnic and regional differences, democratic national institutions can produce better governance for everyone.”

View the full report here: https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/nations-transit-2018

###

 

Freedom House is an independent watchdog organization that supports democratic change, monitors the status of freedom around the world, and advocates for democracy and human rights.

Join us on Facebook and Twitter (@FreedomHouseDC) and stay up to date with Freedom House’s latest news and events by signing up for our newsletter.

Special event to discuss Ukraine’s future at the Atlantic Council Headquarters (on Thursday, March 29, 2018)

April 4, 2018

In the four years since the end of the Revolution of Dignity, Ukraine has not answered its most important question: how will the country ensure democratic values in its future development? Much of Ukraine’s hope lies in its young leaders who will drive the country forward in the coming years. CDDRL has been fortunate to provide a year-long residency to some of these future leaders as part of the inaugural year of the Center’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program.

This event will feature three Ukrainian leaders who are in residency with CDDRL’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program this year. They will each discuss their own perspectives on opportunities and challenges to democracy and development in their home country, as well as objectives for strengthening public administration, civil society, and economic reforms upon their return to Ukraine.

We hope you can join us for this timely discussion.

Sourse, 29/03/2018

Vitaliy Tytych: Rigging of anti-corruption court competition must be prevented

March 19, 2018

The High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice cannot be trusted to conduct an objective and fair competition for the anti-corruption court without severe foreign and civil society oversight and without a drastic change in the competition’s methodology. They cannot be trusted because they violated the law and demonstrated their political bias by rigging the competition for the Supreme Court.

The discredited High Qualification Commission must be deprived of its arbitrary powers to assign scores subjectively during competitions for anti-corruption and other judges, and such scores must be based on objective criteria.

This is even more important than foreign donors’ veto powers, and this is the only way to ensure that honest and professional candidates believe in the fairness of the competition and participate, and that the commission has no way of promoting political loyalists and incompetent candidates for subjective reasons.

During the Supreme Court competition, 90 scores were assigned for anonymous legal knowledge tests, 120 scores for anonymous practical tests, and the High Qualification Commission could arbitrarily assign 790 scores without giving any explicit reasons (formally based on interviews with candidates and examining their profiles).

According to the 2016 law on the judiciary and status of judges, legal knowledge and practical tests (i.e. objective criteria) are the main method of selecting judges. This law stipulates that at least 75 percent of the total score (i.e. 750 out of 1,000 scores) must be given for anonymous legal knowledge and practical tests.

The High Qualification Commission took advantage of the vague wording of the law to set regulations that contradict the law because only 210 out of the total of 1,000 scores were assigned for legal knowledge and practical tests.

As a result of the Supreme Court competition, candidates who were at the top of the list after the anonymous knowledge tests and practical tests ended up at the bottom in the final stage for unknown reasons, while candidates who initially got lower scores and had a corrupt background ended up at the top.

Both the law on the judiciary and the High Qualification Commission’s internal regulations must be amended and clarified to clearly assign 750 scores for anonymous legal knowledge tests and practical tests (for competitions for both the anti-corruption court and all other courts). If parliament refuses to amend the law, the High Qualification Commission can just change its regulations, which is even easier.

As an option, 330 scores should be given for anonymous legal knowledge tests, another 330 scores for practical tests, and 330 scores for interviews and professional ethics (preferably based on conclusions by the Public Integrity Council and foreign donors). The law on the judiciary and status of judges should also be amended to require the publication of practical works after practical tests.

That would leave no room for arbitrary decisions and political involvement.

President Petro Poroshenko claims that the participation of foreign donors in the competition for the anti-corruption court contradicts Ukraine’s sovereignty, which is false (for example, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine was created with the participation of foreign donors).

But anyway Ukraine’s foreign partners could delegate independent Ukrainian citizens with impeccable reputation and integrity. This would halt any talk about sovereignty.

Such representatives could include people from the December 1 Initiative Group civil-society organization, Soviet dissident and human rights lawyer Myroslav Marynovych or Vyacheslav Bryukhovetsky, honorary president of the Kyiv Mohyla Academy.

Moreover, Ukraine’s foreign donors must take part in the competition for anti-corruption judges but they will have neither time nor resources to vet all the candidates and their background on their own. The Public Integrity Council, which has shown its independence from the authorities and its ability to work hard to examine candidates’ background, must take part in the competition for the anti-graft court by collecting all the available information on candidates (and the council must participate in competitions for all courts under the 2016 law on the judiciary and status of judges).

This is the only way to ensure that anti-corruption judges are truly professional and independent.

The use of the same objective methodology for assigning scores both for the anti-corruption court and other courts and the participation of the Public Integrity Council in competitions for the anti-corruption court and other courts  will totally kill the false argument that the anti-corruption court is a “special” court banned by the Constitution (the Venice Commission has already refuted this argument).

Also, it will be impossible to select independent judges if foreign donors choose representatives loyal to the Ukrainian government.  Such representatives must be completely independent from pressure by Ukrainian authorities.

In the best-case scenario, foreign donors should themselves assess candidates’ professional integrity. But at least they should have a right to suspend the competition and initiate an audit if evidence emerges that the High Qualification Commission violated procedural rules.

The Public Integrity Council believes that the competition for the Supreme Court was rigged to promote politically loyal candidates.

First, during the practical test stage, some candidates were given tests that coincided with cases that they had considered during their career, which was deemed a tool of promoting political loyalists.

Second, in March 2017 the High Qualification Commission illegally allowed 43 candidates who had not gotten sufficient scores during practical tests to take part in the next stage, changing its rules amid the competition. Members of the Public Integrity Council believe that the rules were unlawfully changed to prevent political loyalists from dropping out of the competition.

Apart from the second score assigned anonymously for practical works, the commission gave them a third score after naming them, violating the law (because practical tests should be anonymous to prevent political interference). The commission must have just assigned the second score without knowing the candidates’ names.

Third, the High Qualification Commission illegally refused to publish the scores for candidates’ psychological tests, failed to set a minimum score for psychological tests and illegally assessed the tests on its own (although they must have been assessed by psychologists). Moreover, the commission used corporate loyalty tests, which stipulated loyalty as a major characteristic of a judge – as a result, independent candidates were prevented from getting a higher score, while political loyalists were encouraged.

Fourth, the High Qualification Commission removed the profiles of candidates other than the winners from its site.

Fifth, the High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice illegally refused to give specific reasons for assigning specific total scores to candidates and refused to explain why the High Qualification Commission has overridden vetoes by the Public Integrity Council on candidates who do not meet ethical integrity standards.

Sixth, the High Council of Justice has illegally rejected 48 out of its members’ 52 recusals from voting for specific Supreme Court candidates due to a conflict of interest. This triggered accusations that the council was planning to get the necessary 14 pro-government votes to appoint politically loyal candidates.

Some of these violations are currently being disputed at Ukrainian courts and will be disputed at the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, Public Integrity Council members have opened a criminal case into the violations and will open more cases.

Sourse, 12/03/2018.

FROM OBJECTIVES TO RESULTS: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EU-UKRAINE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT AS SEEN BY STAKEHOLDERS

December 22, 2017

A jury: experience and problems

October 24, 2017

A simulation system of justice in which convulses a vestige of the people’s representatives, as the jury. Says Russian political analyst and human rights activist Mikhail Savva, who left Russia and now living in Ukraine.

The jury is in the Constitution of Ukraine, but in fact, according to human rights activists, jury trials in the country do not. The main difference between a jury trial by an ordinary court (with the participation of one judge or three professional judges) is a separate co-existence in it “judges of law” (the legal profession) and “Judges of fact” (board of jurors , which usually consists of persons who are not are lawyers). If this division is not present and professional judges work together with the representatives of the people should not talk about a jury trial, but the court sheffenskom. Sheffenskie courts adopted, for example, at their home in Germany as well as in Ukraine. Experience and problems of modern Russian jury trials may be useful in case if Ukraine, too, decides to create a jury trial.

The Soviet system of people’s assessors is an option sheffenskogo court, where a judge has unlimited opportunities to influence the decision of the representatives of the people. Sheffenskaya system can be very effective, but only for companies with extremely high legal culture .

In the course of judicial reform 90-ies of the last century, it was created in the Russian jury trials . During the counter-reforms that have been going for fifteen years, created a simulation system of justice in which convulses a vestige of the people’s representatives, as the jury.

Jury trials are traditionally regarded as the “courts of justice”. This is confirmed by the statistics of court decisions in the Russian Federation. Professional judges give less than 1% of acquittals , while the juries – 13-25% in different years.

In 2016, according to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court, in the first instance are over 239 cases with a jury. From 361 to 60 the defendant was justified, that is 17% , another 85 cases returned to the prosecutor. The number of sentences handed down without a jury, more than three orders of magnitude. According to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court in 2016 for all formulations of the Criminal Code (CC) convicted 740,380 people (to imprisonment – 206 304 people), is justified by 1493 (0.2% if you count the persons on which the case was dismissed on rehabilitative grounds, – 1.5%).

Scale application of jury trials in Russia is low. In one year, jury trials in Russia in the second decade of this century the average render verdicts to 300 (the maximum number of verdicts in the post-Soviet period – about 600 in 2010). A jury selected only 12% of the accused, who have a right to it. In the US a year by the jury shall be made about 160 thousand. Verdicts. In the XX century in the Russian empire handed down each year about 40 thousand. Verdicts. The reasons for this will be disclosed below, here I call home. This lack of political will for the development of the institute of juries. In the context of the simulation of the justice system the current Russian regime of the jury can not be complete and widespread.

The jury in the Russian Federation has a constitutional basis: according to Art. 32 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Russian citizens have the right to participate in the administration of justice. One form of such participation – review certain categories of criminal cases in the court of jury. However direct reference to the institution of jury in the Constitution does not.

The introduction of jury trials took considerable time in Russia. Pilot introduction of jury trials in Russia began with the 1993-1994, in 9 subjects of the Federation. The new Criminal Procedure Code, adopted in 2001, did the jury widespread since 2003. In the Chechen Republic the introduction of jury trials actually took place in 2010. An expert on Russian court Sergei Pashin jury, namely the phased introduction of jury trials has led to the fact that he did have in Russia.

The accused has the right to file a petition for consideration of his criminal case by the court of first instance composed of professional judges and a panel of 12 jurors in case he is accused, in particular, murder, sabotage, banditry, genocide, public appeals to the outbreak of war, kidnapping , piracy mercenarism and t. d.

I counted as of July 2017 20 of the Criminal Code articles on which possible jury . At the beginning of the introduction of jury trials in Russia of such items was 47, according Sergeya Pashina calculations, the main initiator of the introduction of jury trials in Russia.

The criminal case, which involved several defendants, the court is considered by jury in respect of all the defendants , if at least one of them said a request for consideration of a criminal case by a court in the composition.

If the defendant has not filed a motion for the consideration of the criminal case by the court by jury, the case is considered by another composition of the court in the manner prescribed by law.

The judge’s decision to hear the case from the jury is final. The subsequent failure of the defendant from the criminal trial by jury is not accepted .

Criminal cases involving jurors of federal courts of general jurisdiction is held in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the supreme courts of republics, territorial, regional courts, courts of federal cities, autonomous region and autonomous districts, the district (naval) military courts.

jury selection jurors is actually a two-step.

According to Art. 3 of the federal law, jurors can not be: persons under 25 years of age; persons with outstanding or previously convicted; persons recognized as incapable or limited in capacity; are registered in the drug treatment or mental hospital.

Such persons are not included in the lists of jurors , drawn up every four years on the basis of the voter list by random sampling. Exclude these people from the list of jurors bodies of executive power of the municipality or the region. Then, after getting acquainted with the citizens of the jury lists, these lists are excluded from the statements of the citizens themselves several categories.

The weak point of this phase of jury selection is a voluntary procedure for submitting applications for exclusion from the jury list. That is, if, for example, the police considers that nothing prevents him to be sworn he did not submit an application for delisting.

During jury selection to participate in a particular criminal case to participate in the proceedings as jurors are not allowed to persons suspected or accused of committing crimes; I do not speak the language in which the hearing is conducted; with physical and / or mental disabilities that prevent full participation in the hearing.

During the trial, the jury task boils down to, to answer three main questions: whether the proven fact of the crime, if that proved his committed by the defendant, and whether he is guilty of the crime. In the case of the issue of the recognition of the defendant’s guilt is put whether he deserves leniency. In this case the judge to the jury formulate lists of issues, which are often a few dozen items.

Jurors “should strive to adopt a unanimous decision,” but if this is not achieved within three hours, the verdict made by voting.

A guilty verdict is adopted, if the majority of the jury votes for each of the three key issues. Acquittal verdict is considered, if not less than six judges gave a negative answer to at least one of the three questions. If the deciding votes are equally divided, the adopted most favorable to the defendant’s answer for each question.

The acquittal is mandatory for the presiding judge, in this case, the court justifies the defendant. Guilty as the jury’s verdict is not binding on the court. If the judge recognizes that a guilty verdict handed down against an innocent person, then adopted a decree on the dissolution of the jury and the criminal case is sent for a new trial by another composition of the court. This decision is not subject to appeal in cassation.

From the jurisdiction of jury trials for the duration of this institution such articles were excluded, such as terrorism, hostage-taking, riots, treason, espionage, violent seizure of power, rape and sexual offenses against children. Some compounds “fell out” of crime from the jurisdiction of jury trials due to the fact that the new Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 2001 softened for him the punishment and the death penalty or life imprisonment has not been provided (eg high treason). In some cases, exceptions motive was that the jury too often render acquittals. For example, in the discussion in the State Duma in 2013, the issue of the exclusion of such a composition as sexual crimes against children, the author of the bill deputy Spring said that the jury too often justify the accused.

In February 2016 the Russian Constitutional Court found that the criminal case against women in the murder with aggravating circumstances could be considered by a jury of 12 people in the supreme courts of republics, territorial or regional courts. Prior to that, women were deprived of the possibility to be tried before a jury, because the Russian legislation does not provide for life sentences for the women.

December 3, 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed to extend the role of juries in a possible reduction in their number in the court up to 5-7 people. This was an attempt to respond to society’s demands for justice. At a time when major political offenses removed from the jurisdiction of jury trials, the expansion of the institute of juries are no longer threatened by the authorities. In other words, cases of domestic murder and some other formulations could, according to the authorities, to consider jury trials at district and city levels.

Starting from June 1, 2018 Institute of jurorsIt will be operational in the district (city) and garrison military courts. Established number of jurors for the district and garrison military courts – 6 people, in the courts of the Russian Federation and the district military courts, the number of jurors will be reduced from 12 to 8. district-level court jury will consider the criminal case at the request of the accused, for which there may not be sentenced to life imprisonment, namely, with regard to women, persons who have committed crimes under the age of 18 years, men who have attained to time of the court’s 65-year-olds sentence. Criminal cases on these articles of the Criminal Code in relation to other persons, as before, will be considered by the court of the subject of the Russian Federation. In addition, the district court with the participation of jurors,

Judges of the Russian Federation, according to a discussion at the Congress in December 2016, the judges are extremely skeptical about the prospects for the mass introduction of jury trials . They talk about the organizational unpreparedness and lack of funding. We can assume that in the near future verdicts of the jury will not become a mass phenomenon in the municipal and district courts.

Practical functioning of juries problem is clearly illustrated by the case of the murder of Boris Nemtsov , who was considered by the Moscow District Military Court in 2016-2017. A panel of 12 jurors was in the conference room for three days. She had to answer 26 questions put to them by the judge. The jury could not come to a unanimous opinion, so after three hours of contentious issues have been put to the vote. 10 of the 12 jurors declared guilty of all five defendants.

Eight jurors were replaced during the process. The defendant’s lawyer Bakhaeva Zaurbek Sadahanov said: “There was a sweep of the jury, we have seen. The verdict is absolutely illegal, because no evidence of guilt Bakhaeva investigation did not present. This is only possible in a country where there is no justice. “

In discussing the questions that were to answer the jury, the objections of the accused lawyers were not taken into account, the judge approved the questions in its original version. This version of the problem was that the actions of each of the defendants, the judge invited the jury to assess the aggregate only to the actions of the other four defendants.

At the present time in Russia there was already a jury management practices. Its main elements are:

1. Selection loyal jury on board formation step. Washer courts evaluate the behavior of the jury, and depending on this jury are involved or are not involved in other processes.

2. Restrictions jury taps to participate in a particular meeting: no more than one non-motivated removal of restrictions on issues at the stage of taps (you can ask about criminal records of relatives, but you can not ask questions, the answers to which are characterized by human eyes).

3. Adjustment of the board structure by eliminating disloyal jury. For this purpose the taps on spurious grounds, creating grounds for removal from the board (the jury may hold on his way to a meeting of the traffic police, with the result that the jury is removed from the board).

4. Manipulative or control wording of the jury by the judge.

5. Prohibitions on the provision of the jury during the meeting on problems of the inquiry, such as torture . Random mention of torture, even the hint is the reason for the cancellation of the verdict.

6. Intimidation by jury, as was done during the process in the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic in the case of citizens of Ukraine and Karpyuk Klyha.

If the jury panel of the control mechanisms do not work, use the cancellation of the verdict by the Supreme Court of Russia. If needed, which is often politically motivated, the Supreme Court cancels the guilty verdict of the jury and send the case for retrial. So it was in the case of the murder Anny Politkovskoy. Grounds for cancellation of the verdict was that, according to the Armed Forces, the panel “go on about the lawyers who reported the identity of defendants in the case, and the jury presented negative information about the investigation.”

I am getting the result. A jury in Russia it is a jury trial, not sheffenskim court or some other form of participation of representatives of the people in judicial decisions. However, the jury as the “Court of Justice” in the Russian Federation operating in simulation mode. This is achieved due to two main factors: the limited scope of application of a jury and the widespread use of illegal jury management.

Summing up, it can not be said about the money. Often mention that Ukraine has no money for a jury trial. But the money in this case is irrelevant. We are talking about saving mode. See what makes the authoritarian Putin regime in Russia – is introducing jury trials at the district level. It costs a lot of money, because in Russia in 2184 the district court. is sorely lacking is the answer mode to request people to justice. Of course, the “political” as a judge in violation of all the rules, and will be judged, and to plant. But in cases of domestic murder people get this same justice in the form of trial by jury. Putin’s regime is trying to prolong its existence. If authoritarian regimes are saving yourself so why democracy in Ukraine should act differently?

Sourse, 23/10/2017

People need to learn how to control the power, local first of all

October 14, 2017

One of the most prominent dissidents of the Soviet Union, weighed after a four-month hunger strike in BC political zone 389/35 in the Perm region of 39 kg. The author of “Handbook of Psychiatry for dissidents,” a member of the American Society of Psychiatrists, UK Royal College of Psychiatrists, the rehabilitation of victims of the World Council of Torture, International PEN, the author of several books and hundreds of articles. All of this – on human rights defenders, public figures and the head of the Ukrainian Psychiatric Association Semen Gluzman.

Semen Gluzman  –  on the Maidan, and the syndrome crowd of friendship with the “Bandera” and enzyme resistance, control the power and responsibility for the past.

– Semen Fishelevich, you are one of those who supported the Maidan, but never torn his scene. Why, by the way?

– I never wanted to the scene – from the time of Rukh has never been on any shodnyak, I mean … on an important meeting decent people. Just realize that the psychology of a decent man and the psychology of thousands of decent people differ dramatically.

At the same time, I must admit, even during the Orange Revolution called me many foreign colleagues, the stars of the world of psychiatry, with one question: where’s syndrome aggressive influence of the crowd?

Ukrainian people have shown themselves quite surprisingly and in 2004 and in 2014. During the recent hurricane in Houston because of marauding police had to impose a curfew. Are there many cases of looting, we can remember when the city center, with its many shops and expensive boutiques, stood up to 200 thousand people?

– In the mid-1970s, in the Perm region, a young Jew Gluzman made friends with Ukrainian nationalists – 25 annuals. But then you have joined a common enemy and not the overall vision of the future.

– Yes, I spent several years in the camp side by side with those who were called “Bandera”. They were simple people, the names of Bandera or Shukhevych of their mouth, I had never heard. They just defended their land from “outsiders”. I once asked Uncle Vasya Basil Malozhinskogo, whom he regarded as the UPA soldier, and he was from the SS division Galicia-evil so asked reproachfully, saying how could you ?! And he did his best to explain: “Spershu boule sovєti Potіm priyshli nіmtsі OAO All – A Stranger’s one I never pobachiv i pochuv svoїh, yshli hloptsі that spіvali of Ukrainian pіsen What I first bailiff to them That Well svoї boule ……. . “That’s right, simply and without ideological pathos.

– Jewish support of the Maidan has not surprised?

– Not in the least surprised. One of the most striking childhood memories  I was 10-11 years old, I was returning to his home on the bus, with rises on Artema October Revolution Square (Maidan current). At one of the stops came an elderly lady, very polite, a good Ukrainian language, asked the passengers where it’s okay to leave. Trolley bus exploded with anger – I was scared, not knowing what was happening. Started the persecution of some lumpen, perhaps a T-shirt, he was supported by his aunt vociferous – it was a stream of insults that hit a woman, just to speak in Ukrainian. Then I realized that with me live one more Jews – Ukrainians.

Frankly, when Ukraine got its independence in 1991, I was tense, remembering how aggressively treated here to the Jews in the Soviet era. I remember how the Jewish boys and girls, which were practically closed local universities, leaving to other republics, where there were quiet and well attended. In addition-and this is for me as a dissident is very important – in Ukraine was the most ferocious in the KGB Union. I tensed and because he saw who vote for independence in Parliament : a group of 239, which is officially called “For a sovereign Radyans’ka up Ukraine”, in other words, the communist majority, sensing the winds of change. And along with them – thousands of opportunists, rinuvshihsya from the Komsomol straight into Roc. Professional killers of Ukrainian culture, instantly became the accusers “hand of Moscow”.

Then, when it became an annual index to measure the tolerance, it appears that anti-Semitism and xenophobia are retreating, although the anti-Semites, of course, is and always will be. This was true of all the other areas  the country got a chance.

I remember one of the first American ambassadors told his friends in Ukraine, saying that you frequent to Moscow, come here, there is a very different people. And it’s true, that’s not the idealization or romanticizing, and the herald of the European mentality.

Of course, at 2014 Independence were different people, and they stood for different things. But it was in the area  some seven years I have not filed a hand.

– Today, three and a half years later, do not be disappointed?

– I am not so naive as to fail to understand: the revolution does not end as the dream of its members. Therefore anticipated that possibly will be disappointed, but … did not expect so much.

You see, in his initial optimism, I relied on the camp experience. With me sat a lot of people of different nationalities, but the Ukrainians have always been the most – about 30-40% of prisoners. Very different – not very smart – and wise, educated – and almost illiterate, sincere – and on your mind. I do not quite understand what the ethnic psychology, but in all the years in the political area, I have not met one Belarusian, Kyrgyz or Uzbek dissident. But the KGB was everywhere. Therefore, unlike many former Soviet republics, Ukraine was able to gradually come to some kind of European values. There is a resistance to the enzyme, but the people are not trained in democracy and have no control over their politicians.

This, incidentally, turned out rather quickly, so, in my opinion, the only way out – a long way to majority elections.

– Where buckwheat is everything?  

– It is everything because of her hand nobody put. Of course, the new laws, withdrawal Institute, etc. needed – need to teach people to control the power, primarily local. Do many Ukrainians need a report from its regional deputies? That’s it. And who offended us?

As for buckwheat, remember the scene in Bishkek Tulip Revolution, when revolutionaries dragged on his back stolen refrigerators and television sets? In Kiev, as it was not … Here, both the Maidan demanding from the authorities not buckwheat, and quite another.

Just people accept defeat very quickly, sitting in the kitchen or in the FB and wailing: again m … Duck elected. And also choose not the best, but they are controlled -and this should be taught in Europe. I know many who are helping with the support of Western partners to build democratic institutions in Ukraine. The vast majority of them work just for money. Some of them are rascals. Unfortunately…

– In 2014, many thought that the Ukrainians are the European political nation. How far along the process, or, conversely, stopped, given the historical memory of the policy, with its cult of new heroes?

– For me, the new heroes – a Heavenly hundreds, not the leaders of the OUN and UPA. And the fact that the memory of the heroes of the new vulgarized, obviously. She vulgarized when stopper criminal cases, which should be called the perpetrators of the massacre. She vulgarized, as the country’s leadership does not want to admit that on the other side, too, were Ukrainians. I know one family in which the boy grew up, the only son, who was “bad” brought – he wanted to be a Ukrainian officer. He was burned at the Maidan. Perhaps one of my daughter’s friends, occasionally throwing Molotov cocktails.

There are many things that we uncouple. But in a situation where the people in the mass hates and despises the power, what kind of love for each other can be said?

– What do you think about decommunisation receiving more and more sophisticated form?

– As a former political prisoner and anti-Soviet, I can not but welcome this process. But in its present form it gives me a feeling of disgust. As lustration, which was clearly organized and controlled from the top and stopped as suddenly as it had begun.

Lustration was illegal and generally meaningless, and it was followed by the same kind of pointless and illegal Decommunization. Autos of the dead will not work, especially when it conducts a marginal rot.

We voted in favor at the time of Kravchuk, and after the KGB has arrested dissidents only after the approval of the Central Committee department of ideology, which he headed. Why not to prosecute? And at the same time and all the deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the group 239, by which the independence was proclaimed.

It is very convenient to demolish monuments, taking responsibility for the past. We are the eternal victim, with a demand for us? “We endlessly criticize Comrade Stalin, and, of course, to work and yet I want to ask. Who wrote denunciations of four million?” – once said Sergei Dovlatov. The question hung in the air. We’ve no sense of responsibility for the acts of their fathers and grandfathers, as in Germany, where the children and grandchildren remember well what difference their loved ones. Where they are – children of the NKVD, the party nomenklatura, which, after all, millions of ordinary people obediently raises his hands at the next party meeting, the stigma of renegades, traitors to the socialist motherland, etc.?

So it is not an ideology we have to sew in the XXI century, and the way of the future.

I am not an enemy of perpetuating the memory of Stepan Bandera, but when acting Health Minister Suprun declares that, taking important decisions, mentally consults with the leader of the OUN, this is in any gate … And apparently, it is something to her counsels, as the results of this tandem we see.

– Donbass, which has become a springboard for the “Russian world”, lost to Ukraine? Or not very much, and we need it?

– Russian is impoverished, it has fewer features include these territories, and Putin, in the end, death. Deliberately or not, but he pulled the plug by their actions many influential people in Russia who stole billions, access to which is every day more and more difficult, given the sanctions. They are used to a different level of personal freedom, where they are, after all, now the rest? On Baikal?

So I believe that sooner or later Ukraine will return to the region. But not the kind of young people who went to the Donbas and already settled in Kiev and other cities. They have made their choice.

Sometimes it occurs to me seditious thought … my camp friends were fighting for the independence of Ukraine, and once the day has come – not because we were sitting at it in the camps. If Donbass really wants to live differently, if it is him and not someone external choice, from a moral point of view, why not think about the idea of ​​independence for these people? This is only one possible solution, but it must be spoken. Apart so apart, we do so and are doing everything to isolate these areas – with the help of the blockade, for example.

– It is clear that the war promotes the division of society into friends and foes, and the formation of a black and white picture of the world. All this of course, but … if we do not turn into “Russia on the contrary”, with its contempt for the private view, the search for their fifth column, and so on?

– I am fully aware that the current president is also seeking to usurp power, but I understand that he is also not released, because, even Kuchma, Ukraine wrote – not Russia. Our man in the street is different from the Russian. There genuinely respected Putin. Here the power is changing, and every new government we do not like, and often despised or hated. And it gives grounds for optimism.

Regarding the split in society, we are thrown into the past and because they do not offer a vision of the future. This also applies to the heroes of the UPA – stranger to a large part of the country, and to the language problem, which is the vast majority of Ukrainians do not consider the problem, but that again raised the shield on …

After the trial, I spent twenty days in a cell with Vasilem Stusom – and it was a luxurious 20 days. From time to time I even forget where I was, plunging into the Ukrainian culture. But we were talking in their own language, and Stus took this quite calmly. With 25 annuals UPA camp communicated in the same way – no one ever said nothing.

I was once again transferred to the new barracks, and that same day I was admitted to the “family” Eugene Prishlyak and Vasil Pidgorodetskim. The first was to arrest referent Security Lviv OUN, the second – a simple fighter in the UPA. Collected in the bedside table meal, we shared equally and ate together. After some time went to Vasil old policeman – a bastard – and said, “Vasil you train a respected man, an old convict, are not you ashamed to Zhydenko eat?” “I have it on s … sent”, – he told me later Vasil.

I am absolutely convinced that the state language is necessary to know, but since independence can not remember a single attempt to create appropriate courses for civil servants. Told me how hard they taught language after work – reading aloud Shevchenko, etc. Ethnic Ukrainians, but completely Russified Soviet reality. Such mockery, with complete indifference of the state, caused the rejection, rather than patriotic feelings.

So let’s publish good books, cooking class teachers – the key to successful language policy. I sometimes have to deal with some of the upper class of pedagogical universities – it’s awful. They academics some of their academies, wealthy people, but are engaged in playing the Soviet zhlobstva.

Ukraine has ruined a lot. When NaUKMA took its first steps, I tried to explain to the rector that it is necessary to keep the schools of mathematicians, theoretical physicists have developed in “mailboxes”, with excellent professionals. It was just necessary to allow these professionals to teach at first in Russian, but … we got rid of high intelligence.

– Who is able to pull the country out of the vicious circle? As long as people do not totally trust the government, naively hopes on the most rabid populists – and we have already passed … Civil society is defeated – or simply lost the battle?

– Civil society must help, rather than push. I am following with great concern for the future of the country in which I live and which I am a part of. I’m afraid that if this continues, the Ukrainian state will be defeated not by external forces, it simply dissolved, as a solid in a liquid. And will Vodicka, sweet or salty – are not so important.

– And what about the resistance enzyme?

– The enzyme resistance – an important condition for independence, but not sufficient.

Build the country – it does not sit in the cooler. We need other skills. When the Soviet Union ended, many former dissidents in Moscow continued to engage in human rights activities. In Ukraine, a number of my colleagues on the Gulag have gone into politics – and what?

It is clear that the government is constantly tosses a bone of contention that we at loggerheads in the past, instead of building the future. And less remembered about the reforms that are needed, as the air, and at the same time painful, so hold on to your seats, the tops are in no hurry to carry them out. A bottoms – bottoms grow, and this is our chance.

Interview by Michael Gold

Sourse, 13/10/2017

72 NGO already have signed the Declaration of Human Rights Agenda platform with the requirement to the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to stop the attack on civil society organizations

September 25, 2017

HUMAN RIGHTS AGENDA

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform demanding the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine stop crack-down on non-governmental organizations

 In early July 2017, the presidential draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 were registered in the Parliament of Ukraine. The draft laws were elaborated allegedly to replace the scandalous amendments to the anti-corruption legislation obliging the anti-corruption activists to annually file personal asset and property electronic declarations (Law of Ukraine No. 1975-VIII of 23 March 2017). The presidential draft laws actually propose to abolish the e-declarations for public anti-corruption activists but to require instead the non-governmental organizations and individual entrepreneurs as well as enterprises, institutions and organizations providing them with services, to file additional reports to tax authorities.

The draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 burden all non-governmental organizations and individual entrepreneurs, enterprises, institutions and organizations that provide them with services with an unjustified obligation to file additional tax reports.

It is revealing that the number of tax reports required from the non-governmental organizations, which these draft laws provide for, significantly exceeds the number of reports required from the business. Moreover, even the recipients of budget funds are not required to file such a number of tax reports.

We believe that these legislative initiatives appeared not by chance, though against the background of statements about the need to reduce excessive state regulation. The punishment in form of the abolition of a non-profit status of non-governmental organization is pronouncedly punitive in nature and is nothing more than the introduction of a tool for selective pressure on the non-governmental organizations indisposed towards the authorities.

We regard the initiative of the President of Ukraine as the disproportionate interference in the activities of the non-governmental organizations. Such steps liken Ukraine to the repressive regimes of the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and others similar. Despite the ostentatious care for transparency and accountability, the regulations introduced in the abovementioned countries led to almost absolute annihilation of the non-governmental organizations which are independent from authorities and total crack-down on civil society.

No international treaties require similar state control over the activities of non-governmental organizations as the international standards endow the non-governmental organizations with the right to be free from state interference in their activities.

The Guidelines on Freedom of Association drafted by the Council of Europe and the OSCE stipulate that “the state shall not require but shall encourage and facilitate associations to be accountable and transparent.” Special reporting is permissible, however, if it is required in exchange for certain benefits, provided it is “within the discretion of the association to decide whether to comply with such reporting requirements or forgo them and forsake any related special benefits, where applicable.”

In consideration of the foregoing, we demand that the Parliament of Ukraine immediately reject the draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 of 10 July 2017 and the President of Ukraine fulfill his promise to cancel the amendments to the anti-corruption legislation dated March 2017.

For reference: the Human Rights Agenda platform is the informal coalition of human rights organizations working in the field of monitoring, analyzing and elaborating the legislation in accordance with the basic principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The platform participants are the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, the Center for Civil Liberties, the Amnesty International Ukraine, the Human Rights Information Center, the Center for Law Enforcement Studies, the Without Borders Project of the NGO “Social Action Center” and the Euromaidan SOS. The Center for Civil Liberties coordinates the platform activities. Contacts: human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

  1. Center for Civil Liberties
  2. Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
  3. Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches
  4. Eastern-Ukrainian Center for Civic Initiatives
  5. Charitable Foundation “Vostok SOS”
  6. Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”
  7. Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law Enforcement
  8. NGO “KyivPride”
  9. Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
  10. Open Dialog Foundation
  11. Human Rights Information Center
  12. Crimean Human Rights Group
  13. NGO “Helsinki Initiative XXI”
  14. NGO “Peaceful Coast”
  15. Expert Human Rights Center
  16. NGO “La Strada Ukraine”
  17. Liberation Movement Research Center
  18. Charitable Organisation “Fund of Mercy and Health”
  19. NGO “South”
  20. NGO “Ray of Changes”
  21. Kharkiv Regional Foundation “Public Alternative”
  22. Project “Without Borders”
  23. NGO “Political Studies Association”
  24. NGO “People’s Control of Kirovohrad Region”
  25. Eksampei Center for Ukrainian Policy
  26. NGO “Volunteer Association of Participants of Maidan and Fighting Action”
  27. Charitable Foundation “Dyvosvit Club”
  28. NGO “School of Public Projects”
  29. NGO “Faith. Hope. Action”
  30. NGO “JCI Kyiv”
  31. Educational Human Rights House Chernihiv
  32. NGO “Women’s Prospects Center”
  33. NGO “Zakarpattia Community”
  34. Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Organization “Young Prosvita”
  35. Ternopil Human Rights Group
  36. Human Rights Center “All rights”
  37. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Convictus Ukraine”
  38. Autonomous Bar Association
  39. NGO “MART” (Chernihiv)
  40. Ukrainian Legal Aid Foundation
  41. Information and Awareness Raising Center “Axis” (Vinnytsia)
  42. NGO “Center for Civic Education “Almenda””
  43. Center for Humanistic Technologies “AHALAR”
  44. NGO “Ukrainian Association of Assessment”
  45. NGO “Territory of Success”
  46. T-Woman of Ukraine
  47. NGO “AutoMaidan Kyiv”
  48. NGO “Human Rights Vector”
  49. Bilozerka Center for Regional Development
  50. Center for Law Enforcement Activity Research
  51. Chernihiv Public Committee for Human Rights Protection
  52. NGO “Kyiv Educational Center “Tolerspace””
  53. Human Rights Center “Postup”
  54. NGO “Liberal Democratic League of Ukraine”
  55. Bureau of Social and Political Developments
  56. Center for Legal and Political Studies “DUMA”
  57. Institute of Mass Information
  58. SOVA Group
  59. Media Initiative for Human Rights
  60. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Legalife Ukraine”
  61. NGO “Insight”
  62. Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research
  63. NGO “Informer”
  64. Information and Analytical Center “Public Space”
  65. LGBT Human Rights Center “Our World”
  66. NGO “Bakhmat”
  67. NGO “Development Foundation”
  68. NGO “All-Ukrainian League of Lawyers Against Corruption”
  69. NGO “Kharkiv Women’s Association “Sphere””
  70. NGO “Gender Center of Volyn Region”
  71. NGO “Theatre for Dialogue”
  72. NGO ‘Free Territory’

The statement is open for signature. Please contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Результаты поиска:

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform on deprivation of attorneys of the ability to cooperate with human rights organisations

March 7, 2019

In the agenda of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the consideration of the first
reading of a draft law ‘On Legal Practice and Advocacy’ No. 9055 is scheduled for 28
February.
The authors and supporters of the law are striving to prove its progressive nature,
strengthening of guarantees of advocacy and empowerment.
However, should the law be adopted, all attorneys who cooperate with human rights
organisations will be deprived of the opportunity to engage in advocacy activities
within the framework of cooperation with these organisations. Hundreds of cases
which have been filed by lawyers of these organisations with the European Court of
Human Rights, and thousands of court cases in national courts will become only a
reminder of past activities. There will be no one competent to file new applications
with the European Court and national courts on behalf of human rights organisations.
In his expert opinion which contains the analysis of the draft law No. 9055, the
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights Diego Garcia-Sayan stated that the restriction, set
forth in Article 28 of the draft law 9055, could adversely affect the lawyers who would
have to choose between full employment and the work of a human rights defender
which, obviously, would adversely affect an access to justice in the country, in
particular, for individuals with limited financial means. Also, the report provides a
whole number of risks and threats to independent advocacy, such as the procedure
of bringing attorneys to disciplinary responsibility, unfounded types of disciplinary
sanctions that affect the independence of advocacy and, consequently, affect
appropriate defence in court.
Separately, the completely opaque process of work on the draft law is to be
mentioned, and this fact has also been noted in the report by Mr. Diego Garcia-
Sayan. He wrote that consultations with representatives of the legal profession were
very limited in nature, and the final draft law was made public by the office of the
President without the opportunity to comment on its content.
A lack of transparency, marginalisation of the drafting process and introduction of the
draft law, a lack of a high-quality expert examination, for example, by the Venice
Commission, and haste with the attempts to implement this law as soon as possible

in a parliament’s session confirm the poor quality of the preparation process and the
same low-quality content of the draft law itself, which, in its present form, poses a
real threat to the protection of human rights in the human rights protection
environment of Ukraine and can be regarded as a way of attack and exertion of
pressure on the environment.
We hereby urge Members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to prevent the
consideration and adoption of the draft law 9055, as requested in the report by Diego
Garcia-Sayan, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The text of the draft law No.
9055 must be redrafted, discussed publicly and amended, taking into account the
comments made by representatives of the bar community, human rights
organisations, and international experts. We demand transparency, honesty and
high quality. Today, we cannot see these features in the draft law No. 9055.
The Human Rights Agenda platform is an informal coalition of human right organisations focused on systemic
problems of legislation and practices for defending fundamental human rights. The participants of the platform
are as follows: Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, Center for Civil Liberties, Amnesty International
Ukraine, Human Rights Information Center, Centre of Law Enforcement Activities Research (CLEAR), Project
"Without Borders", Euromaidan SOS. The platform is coordinated by the Center for Civil Liberties. You can
contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
Center for Civil Liberties
Regional Centre for Human Rights
Open Dialogue Foundation
Humanitarian Studio "Wave
Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”

NGOs call on the HQCJ to refrain from creating artificial obstacles to the establishment of the Public Integrity Council

November 22, 2018

On November 21, 2018, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) announced the results of the consideration of documents of public associations (NGOs) for the establishment of the Public Integrity Council (PIC).

 

The Commission approved a positive decision on the admission of only 2 out of 14 organizations that submitted the documents. The Commission allowed the rest of the organizations to eliminate the shortcomings which, in its opinion, were identified in the relevant documents of the NGOs.

 

Having considered the decisions of the Commission, NGOs have to state that among these alleged shortcomings there are many that are not based on the requirements of the law, do not pursue a legitimate aim and can create artificial obstacles for NGOs’ participation in the PIC establishment.

 

In particular:

 

  • In some cases (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the Commission does not accept the results of a financial audit conducted not within the past two years, whereas the law only requires the availability of an audit report and does not set any time frames for its conduct;
  • In some other cases (Center for Civil Liberties, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the HQCJ groundlessly believes that it is only the first persons of international organizations in Ukraine (the OSCE Coordinator in Ukraine, UNDP, etc.) that can make recommendations to NGOs, while the law does not contain such a requirement, and the signatures of officials of international organizations were affixed within their authorities;
  • Position of the HQCJ regarding the recognition of reports based on the financial audit results or audit findings as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements only because these reports were prepared for confidential use and submission to grantors (CRIMEASOS, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform) is unreasonable (the law does not set any requirements for the addressees of the reports and the purpose of their preparation);
  • The HQCJ did not recognize a copy of the report on the project implementation results due to the lack of signature of the person authorized to sign it (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform). However, such a requirement is unfounded since the law requires the provision of a copy rather than the original of the report, and the submitted copy of the report has been duly certified by an authorized person;  
  • The law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” does not require the publication of a declaration of a candidate to the PIC on the NACP’s website, and the HQCJ’s competencies do not cover anti-corruption verification of declarations (including the presence or absence of these declarations on the NACP’s website), while some organizations (Institute of Applied Humanitarian Research) received a reply that the absence of such declarations on the NACP’s website serves as grounds for non-admission.

 

As for documents of other NGOs (Civic Lustration Committee, E+, Nova Krayina, ТОМ14, Centre for Economic Strategy, Centre UA), only the originals of certain documents are required, whereas all the necessary information can be obtained from the duly authenticated photocopies. In some other cases (DEJURE, Nova Krayina), technical errors (incorrect indication of the candidate’s patronymic only in one of the documents or use of the phrase “annual declaration” after “declaration of a candidate for the position of the PIC member”) are considered by the Commission as “grounds for the determination of the submitted documents as not complying with … the law”.

 

We want to emphasize that the requirements of the law on the submission of documents have been established to confirm the experience, real activity and capacity of NGOs to form the PIC. The Commission’s review of these documents should pursue this legitimate aim and should not go beyond its limits.

 

The Commission’s decisions are even more surprising given the fact that 2 years ago the Commission allowed a number of organizations with similar packages of documents to participate in the NGO Meeting on the PIC establishment without any comments. The Commission did not consider the failure to submit proper declarations by the candidates for judicial office at the Anti-Corruption Court and Intellectual Property Court to be a violation and allowed them to take part in the competition to the IP-court.

 

We are concerned that at the beginning of our cooperation with the HQCJ regarding the formation of the second composition of the PIC, we faced this approach. At the same time, the NGOs will make every effort to take into account the wishes of the Commission regarding the execution of documents within a specified period as far as possible.

 

However, if the HQCJ retains this approach to the assessment of documents, there will be a high risk of groundless rejection of experienced and capable NGOs from participation in the Meeting and, as a result, the formation of an incomplete composition, delay, or even the impossibility of establishing the PIC as a form of public participation in the selection and evaluation of judges.

 

Therefore, we call on the HQCJ:

 

  • To carefully reconsider all the packages of documents submitted by the NGOs, including those that will be submitted additionally;
  • To assess the documents submitted by organizations solely on the basis of the requirements of the law, impartially and without groundless formalism;
  • To allow all NGOs whose experience and capability are confirmed by the documents submitted by them to participate in the Meeting;
  • To review the decisions on a number of NGOs (indicated in this statement or otherwise) regarding the recognition of documents as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements of the law, particularly where the law contained no such requirements.

 

Civic Lustration Committee

Initiative E+

Crimea SOS

Nova Kraina

ТОМ 14

DEJURE Foundation

Center for Civil Liberties

Centre for Economic Strategy

Centre of Policy and Legal Reform

Centre UA

Nations in Transit 2018: Confronting Illiberalism

April 11, 2018

Washington, April 12, 2018 — Attacks on opposition parties, the press, and civil society organizations are becoming the norm in Central and Eastern Europe as the spread of illiberal politics undermines the foundations of and prospects for democracy, according to Nations in Transit 2018, the 23rd edition of Freedom House’s annual report on democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Eurasia.

Ukraine’s Democracy Score declined for the first time since the 2014 revolution. With the Russian-led conflict in the east grinding on, Ukraine’s politicians are taking advantage of patriotic sentiment to attack NGOs and journalists, accusing them of undermining the war effort.

“Attacks on civil society and political opponents have sapped the momentum from the institutional reform process in Ukraine,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “Although decentralization reforms are continuing, other key priorities, including anticorruption efforts, have stalled. The window of opportunity has not closed in Ukraine, but it has shrunk. By accusing NGOs and journalists of antinational sentiment, politicians are attempting to exclude legitimate voices from public debate simply because they criticize the government.”

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON UKRAINE

 

  • Two important milestones were reached in relations between Ukraine and the European Union in 2017: the visa-free regime with the EU came into force in June, allowing millions of Ukrainians to travel freely to the neighboring Schengen zone for short-term stays, and the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement — the main trigger for the Euromaidan protests which provides a framework for major transformations in Ukrainian democracy, human rights, rule of law, good governance, trade, and sustainable development — finally came completely into force.
  • One of the main achievements in Ukraine’s national governance in 2017 was healthcare reform, which, following the passage by the Verkhovna Rada of a law on healthcare financing in October, will align the system based on the principle of “money following patients.”
  • Decentralization reform continued, with administrative territorial reform resulting in the creation of approximately 700 amalgamated communities, and fiscal decentralization resulting in increased revenues and local infrastructure investments for the first time in 23 years.
  • The conflict in the east remained largely frozen throughout the year. The socioeconomic conditions in the occupied territories, and in those areas close to the line of contact, continued to be poor. The armed separatist groups developed their own institutions, which, in turn, enacted regulations that routinely violated basic human rights, while journalists and bloggers covering the conflict continued to be arrested and detained.
  • Pressure on civil society intensified. In March, the government obliged citizens working against corruption to publicly declare their income and assets, while a legislative initiative to replace the controversial requirement with other restrictive measures against NGOs under threat of onerous restrictions for not complying with the proposed regulations was unsuccessful. The Civil Society score declined due to smear campaigns against NGOs and activists.
  • Prominent civil society organizations were targeted with criminal investigations against them and their members, and there were physical attacks on well-known activists.
  • The Independent Media score declined due to the blocking of major social media sites, as well as physical attacks on journalists and a lack of progress in investigating the murder of journalist Pavel Sheremet.
  • Progress on judicial and anti-corruption reforms was mixed. While the National Anticorruption Bureau actively investigated high-level corruption results of its work were few. The President had yet to create the High Anticorruption Court as promised. Vetting of judicial appointments to the Supreme Court stumbled as 25 candidates that had not passed public integrity checks were approved as official candidates.

“Illiberal politics are becoming the new normal in Europe,” said Michael J. Abramowitz, president of Freedom House. “Government-led smear campaigns against civil society groups, journalists, and the political opposition were pioneered in Russia and Central Asia, but they are increasingly common across the region.”

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES

  • Poland recorded the second-largest Democracy Score decline in the history of the report. The ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party’s revolutionary takeover of the judicial system, politicization of public media, smear campaigns against nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and violations of ordinary parliamentary procedure also produced the two largest single-category score declines in Nations in Transit’s history, for National Democratic Governance and Judicial Framework and Independence.

 

“The radical changes to the Polish judiciary remove any effective check on the actions of the majority party in parliament,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “What has happened in Poland in the last two years should serve as an alarm bell for anyone who believes that one-party rule could never return to Europe.”

“The EU should stand up for its commitments to the rule of law by implementing Article 7 sanctions against Poland and Hungary,” Schenkkan said, referring to the EU’s power to suspend a member’s voting rights. “It should condition access to European funds on clear rule-of-law criteria. This is the only way to convince these countries, and EU candidate states, that the union is firmly rooted in democratic principles.”

  • Hungary has registered the largest cumulative decline in Nations in Transit The country’s Democracy Score has been falling for 10 consecutive years, moving it from the status of a democratic leader at the time of EU accession in 2004 to the threshold of a “Transitional/Hybrid Regime” in 2018.

 

“The Fidesz government of Viktor Orbán led the way for illiberal forces in Central Europe, showing that it was possible to capture a state within the EU through gerrymandering, procurement manipulation, and control of the media,” said Schenkkan. “The fact that Fidesz remains a member in good standing in the European People’s Party of the European Parliament shows how effective Orbán’s approach has been.”

  • Estonia earned the biggest improvement in this edition of the report, even though it was already the best performer. A surprisingly smooth first year in government for a longtime opposition party demonstrated the resilience and independence of national institutions. Estonia’s anticorruption mechanisms appear to be addressing the municipal corruption that has long affected its major cities.

“At a time when most of the news for democracy seems bad, Estonia reminds us that liberal democracy can and does succeed,” Schenkkan said. “Even in a country with a history of foreign occupation and sensitive ethnic and regional differences, democratic national institutions can produce better governance for everyone.”

View the full report here: https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/nations-transit-2018

###

 

Freedom House is an independent watchdog organization that supports democratic change, monitors the status of freedom around the world, and advocates for democracy and human rights.

Join us on Facebook and Twitter (@FreedomHouseDC) and stay up to date with Freedom House’s latest news and events by signing up for our newsletter.

Special event to discuss Ukraine’s future at the Atlantic Council Headquarters (on Thursday, March 29, 2018)

April 4, 2018

In the four years since the end of the Revolution of Dignity, Ukraine has not answered its most important question: how will the country ensure democratic values in its future development? Much of Ukraine’s hope lies in its young leaders who will drive the country forward in the coming years. CDDRL has been fortunate to provide a year-long residency to some of these future leaders as part of the inaugural year of the Center’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program.

This event will feature three Ukrainian leaders who are in residency with CDDRL’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program this year. They will each discuss their own perspectives on opportunities and challenges to democracy and development in their home country, as well as objectives for strengthening public administration, civil society, and economic reforms upon their return to Ukraine.

We hope you can join us for this timely discussion.

Sourse, 29/03/2018

Vitaliy Tytych: Rigging of anti-corruption court competition must be prevented

March 19, 2018

The High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice cannot be trusted to conduct an objective and fair competition for the anti-corruption court without severe foreign and civil society oversight and without a drastic change in the competition’s methodology. They cannot be trusted because they violated the law and demonstrated their political bias by rigging the competition for the Supreme Court.

The discredited High Qualification Commission must be deprived of its arbitrary powers to assign scores subjectively during competitions for anti-corruption and other judges, and such scores must be based on objective criteria.

This is even more important than foreign donors’ veto powers, and this is the only way to ensure that honest and professional candidates believe in the fairness of the competition and participate, and that the commission has no way of promoting political loyalists and incompetent candidates for subjective reasons.

During the Supreme Court competition, 90 scores were assigned for anonymous legal knowledge tests, 120 scores for anonymous practical tests, and the High Qualification Commission could arbitrarily assign 790 scores without giving any explicit reasons (formally based on interviews with candidates and examining their profiles).

According to the 2016 law on the judiciary and status of judges, legal knowledge and practical tests (i.e. objective criteria) are the main method of selecting judges. This law stipulates that at least 75 percent of the total score (i.e. 750 out of 1,000 scores) must be given for anonymous legal knowledge and practical tests.

The High Qualification Commission took advantage of the vague wording of the law to set regulations that contradict the law because only 210 out of the total of 1,000 scores were assigned for legal knowledge and practical tests.

As a result of the Supreme Court competition, candidates who were at the top of the list after the anonymous knowledge tests and practical tests ended up at the bottom in the final stage for unknown reasons, while candidates who initially got lower scores and had a corrupt background ended up at the top.

Both the law on the judiciary and the High Qualification Commission’s internal regulations must be amended and clarified to clearly assign 750 scores for anonymous legal knowledge tests and practical tests (for competitions for both the anti-corruption court and all other courts). If parliament refuses to amend the law, the High Qualification Commission can just change its regulations, which is even easier.

As an option, 330 scores should be given for anonymous legal knowledge tests, another 330 scores for practical tests, and 330 scores for interviews and professional ethics (preferably based on conclusions by the Public Integrity Council and foreign donors). The law on the judiciary and status of judges should also be amended to require the publication of practical works after practical tests.

That would leave no room for arbitrary decisions and political involvement.

President Petro Poroshenko claims that the participation of foreign donors in the competition for the anti-corruption court contradicts Ukraine’s sovereignty, which is false (for example, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine was created with the participation of foreign donors).

But anyway Ukraine’s foreign partners could delegate independent Ukrainian citizens with impeccable reputation and integrity. This would halt any talk about sovereignty.

Such representatives could include people from the December 1 Initiative Group civil-society organization, Soviet dissident and human rights lawyer Myroslav Marynovych or Vyacheslav Bryukhovetsky, honorary president of the Kyiv Mohyla Academy.

Moreover, Ukraine’s foreign donors must take part in the competition for anti-corruption judges but they will have neither time nor resources to vet all the candidates and their background on their own. The Public Integrity Council, which has shown its independence from the authorities and its ability to work hard to examine candidates’ background, must take part in the competition for the anti-graft court by collecting all the available information on candidates (and the council must participate in competitions for all courts under the 2016 law on the judiciary and status of judges).

This is the only way to ensure that anti-corruption judges are truly professional and independent.

The use of the same objective methodology for assigning scores both for the anti-corruption court and other courts and the participation of the Public Integrity Council in competitions for the anti-corruption court and other courts  will totally kill the false argument that the anti-corruption court is a “special” court banned by the Constitution (the Venice Commission has already refuted this argument).

Also, it will be impossible to select independent judges if foreign donors choose representatives loyal to the Ukrainian government.  Such representatives must be completely independent from pressure by Ukrainian authorities.

In the best-case scenario, foreign donors should themselves assess candidates’ professional integrity. But at least they should have a right to suspend the competition and initiate an audit if evidence emerges that the High Qualification Commission violated procedural rules.

The Public Integrity Council believes that the competition for the Supreme Court was rigged to promote politically loyal candidates.

First, during the practical test stage, some candidates were given tests that coincided with cases that they had considered during their career, which was deemed a tool of promoting political loyalists.

Second, in March 2017 the High Qualification Commission illegally allowed 43 candidates who had not gotten sufficient scores during practical tests to take part in the next stage, changing its rules amid the competition. Members of the Public Integrity Council believe that the rules were unlawfully changed to prevent political loyalists from dropping out of the competition.

Apart from the second score assigned anonymously for practical works, the commission gave them a third score after naming them, violating the law (because practical tests should be anonymous to prevent political interference). The commission must have just assigned the second score without knowing the candidates’ names.

Third, the High Qualification Commission illegally refused to publish the scores for candidates’ psychological tests, failed to set a minimum score for psychological tests and illegally assessed the tests on its own (although they must have been assessed by psychologists). Moreover, the commission used corporate loyalty tests, which stipulated loyalty as a major characteristic of a judge – as a result, independent candidates were prevented from getting a higher score, while political loyalists were encouraged.

Fourth, the High Qualification Commission removed the profiles of candidates other than the winners from its site.

Fifth, the High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice illegally refused to give specific reasons for assigning specific total scores to candidates and refused to explain why the High Qualification Commission has overridden vetoes by the Public Integrity Council on candidates who do not meet ethical integrity standards.

Sixth, the High Council of Justice has illegally rejected 48 out of its members’ 52 recusals from voting for specific Supreme Court candidates due to a conflict of interest. This triggered accusations that the council was planning to get the necessary 14 pro-government votes to appoint politically loyal candidates.

Some of these violations are currently being disputed at Ukrainian courts and will be disputed at the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, Public Integrity Council members have opened a criminal case into the violations and will open more cases.

Sourse, 12/03/2018.

FROM OBJECTIVES TO RESULTS: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EU-UKRAINE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT AS SEEN BY STAKEHOLDERS

December 22, 2017

A jury: experience and problems

October 24, 2017

A simulation system of justice in which convulses a vestige of the people’s representatives, as the jury. Says Russian political analyst and human rights activist Mikhail Savva, who left Russia and now living in Ukraine.

The jury is in the Constitution of Ukraine, but in fact, according to human rights activists, jury trials in the country do not. The main difference between a jury trial by an ordinary court (with the participation of one judge or three professional judges) is a separate co-existence in it “judges of law” (the legal profession) and “Judges of fact” (board of jurors , which usually consists of persons who are not are lawyers). If this division is not present and professional judges work together with the representatives of the people should not talk about a jury trial, but the court sheffenskom. Sheffenskie courts adopted, for example, at their home in Germany as well as in Ukraine. Experience and problems of modern Russian jury trials may be useful in case if Ukraine, too, decides to create a jury trial.

The Soviet system of people’s assessors is an option sheffenskogo court, where a judge has unlimited opportunities to influence the decision of the representatives of the people. Sheffenskaya system can be very effective, but only for companies with extremely high legal culture .

In the course of judicial reform 90-ies of the last century, it was created in the Russian jury trials . During the counter-reforms that have been going for fifteen years, created a simulation system of justice in which convulses a vestige of the people’s representatives, as the jury.

Jury trials are traditionally regarded as the “courts of justice”. This is confirmed by the statistics of court decisions in the Russian Federation. Professional judges give less than 1% of acquittals , while the juries – 13-25% in different years.

In 2016, according to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court, in the first instance are over 239 cases with a jury. From 361 to 60 the defendant was justified, that is 17% , another 85 cases returned to the prosecutor. The number of sentences handed down without a jury, more than three orders of magnitude. According to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court in 2016 for all formulations of the Criminal Code (CC) convicted 740,380 people (to imprisonment – 206 304 people), is justified by 1493 (0.2% if you count the persons on which the case was dismissed on rehabilitative grounds, – 1.5%).

Scale application of jury trials in Russia is low. In one year, jury trials in Russia in the second decade of this century the average render verdicts to 300 (the maximum number of verdicts in the post-Soviet period – about 600 in 2010). A jury selected only 12% of the accused, who have a right to it. In the US a year by the jury shall be made about 160 thousand. Verdicts. In the XX century in the Russian empire handed down each year about 40 thousand. Verdicts. The reasons for this will be disclosed below, here I call home. This lack of political will for the development of the institute of juries. In the context of the simulation of the justice system the current Russian regime of the jury can not be complete and widespread.

The jury in the Russian Federation has a constitutional basis: according to Art. 32 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Russian citizens have the right to participate in the administration of justice. One form of such participation – review certain categories of criminal cases in the court of jury. However direct reference to the institution of jury in the Constitution does not.

The introduction of jury trials took considerable time in Russia. Pilot introduction of jury trials in Russia began with the 1993-1994, in 9 subjects of the Federation. The new Criminal Procedure Code, adopted in 2001, did the jury widespread since 2003. In the Chechen Republic the introduction of jury trials actually took place in 2010. An expert on Russian court Sergei Pashin jury, namely the phased introduction of jury trials has led to the fact that he did have in Russia.

The accused has the right to file a petition for consideration of his criminal case by the court of first instance composed of professional judges and a panel of 12 jurors in case he is accused, in particular, murder, sabotage, banditry, genocide, public appeals to the outbreak of war, kidnapping , piracy mercenarism and t. d.

I counted as of July 2017 20 of the Criminal Code articles on which possible jury . At the beginning of the introduction of jury trials in Russia of such items was 47, according Sergeya Pashina calculations, the main initiator of the introduction of jury trials in Russia.

The criminal case, which involved several defendants, the court is considered by jury in respect of all the defendants , if at least one of them said a request for consideration of a criminal case by a court in the composition.

If the defendant has not filed a motion for the consideration of the criminal case by the court by jury, the case is considered by another composition of the court in the manner prescribed by law.

The judge’s decision to hear the case from the jury is final. The subsequent failure of the defendant from the criminal trial by jury is not accepted .

Criminal cases involving jurors of federal courts of general jurisdiction is held in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the supreme courts of republics, territorial, regional courts, courts of federal cities, autonomous region and autonomous districts, the district (naval) military courts.

jury selection jurors is actually a two-step.

According to Art. 3 of the federal law, jurors can not be: persons under 25 years of age; persons with outstanding or previously convicted; persons recognized as incapable or limited in capacity; are registered in the drug treatment or mental hospital.

Such persons are not included in the lists of jurors , drawn up every four years on the basis of the voter list by random sampling. Exclude these people from the list of jurors bodies of executive power of the municipality or the region. Then, after getting acquainted with the citizens of the jury lists, these lists are excluded from the statements of the citizens themselves several categories.

The weak point of this phase of jury selection is a voluntary procedure for submitting applications for exclusion from the jury list. That is, if, for example, the police considers that nothing prevents him to be sworn he did not submit an application for delisting.

During jury selection to participate in a particular criminal case to participate in the proceedings as jurors are not allowed to persons suspected or accused of committing crimes; I do not speak the language in which the hearing is conducted; with physical and / or mental disabilities that prevent full participation in the hearing.

During the trial, the jury task boils down to, to answer three main questions: whether the proven fact of the crime, if that proved his committed by the defendant, and whether he is guilty of the crime. In the case of the issue of the recognition of the defendant’s guilt is put whether he deserves leniency. In this case the judge to the jury formulate lists of issues, which are often a few dozen items.

Jurors “should strive to adopt a unanimous decision,” but if this is not achieved within three hours, the verdict made by voting.

A guilty verdict is adopted, if the majority of the jury votes for each of the three key issues. Acquittal verdict is considered, if not less than six judges gave a negative answer to at least one of the three questions. If the deciding votes are equally divided, the adopted most favorable to the defendant’s answer for each question.

The acquittal is mandatory for the presiding judge, in this case, the court justifies the defendant. Guilty as the jury’s verdict is not binding on the court. If the judge recognizes that a guilty verdict handed down against an innocent person, then adopted a decree on the dissolution of the jury and the criminal case is sent for a new trial by another composition of the court. This decision is not subject to appeal in cassation.

From the jurisdiction of jury trials for the duration of this institution such articles were excluded, such as terrorism, hostage-taking, riots, treason, espionage, violent seizure of power, rape and sexual offenses against children. Some compounds “fell out” of crime from the jurisdiction of jury trials due to the fact that the new Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 2001 softened for him the punishment and the death penalty or life imprisonment has not been provided (eg high treason). In some cases, exceptions motive was that the jury too often render acquittals. For example, in the discussion in the State Duma in 2013, the issue of the exclusion of such a composition as sexual crimes against children, the author of the bill deputy Spring said that the jury too often justify the accused.

In February 2016 the Russian Constitutional Court found that the criminal case against women in the murder with aggravating circumstances could be considered by a jury of 12 people in the supreme courts of republics, territorial or regional courts. Prior to that, women were deprived of the possibility to be tried before a jury, because the Russian legislation does not provide for life sentences for the women.

December 3, 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed to extend the role of juries in a possible reduction in their number in the court up to 5-7 people. This was an attempt to respond to society’s demands for justice. At a time when major political offenses removed from the jurisdiction of jury trials, the expansion of the institute of juries are no longer threatened by the authorities. In other words, cases of domestic murder and some other formulations could, according to the authorities, to consider jury trials at district and city levels.

Starting from June 1, 2018 Institute of jurorsIt will be operational in the district (city) and garrison military courts. Established number of jurors for the district and garrison military courts – 6 people, in the courts of the Russian Federation and the district military courts, the number of jurors will be reduced from 12 to 8. district-level court jury will consider the criminal case at the request of the accused, for which there may not be sentenced to life imprisonment, namely, with regard to women, persons who have committed crimes under the age of 18 years, men who have attained to time of the court’s 65-year-olds sentence. Criminal cases on these articles of the Criminal Code in relation to other persons, as before, will be considered by the court of the subject of the Russian Federation. In addition, the district court with the participation of jurors,

Judges of the Russian Federation, according to a discussion at the Congress in December 2016, the judges are extremely skeptical about the prospects for the mass introduction of jury trials . They talk about the organizational unpreparedness and lack of funding. We can assume that in the near future verdicts of the jury will not become a mass phenomenon in the municipal and district courts.

Practical functioning of juries problem is clearly illustrated by the case of the murder of Boris Nemtsov , who was considered by the Moscow District Military Court in 2016-2017. A panel of 12 jurors was in the conference room for three days. She had to answer 26 questions put to them by the judge. The jury could not come to a unanimous opinion, so after three hours of contentious issues have been put to the vote. 10 of the 12 jurors declared guilty of all five defendants.

Eight jurors were replaced during the process. The defendant’s lawyer Bakhaeva Zaurbek Sadahanov said: “There was a sweep of the jury, we have seen. The verdict is absolutely illegal, because no evidence of guilt Bakhaeva investigation did not present. This is only possible in a country where there is no justice. “

In discussing the questions that were to answer the jury, the objections of the accused lawyers were not taken into account, the judge approved the questions in its original version. This version of the problem was that the actions of each of the defendants, the judge invited the jury to assess the aggregate only to the actions of the other four defendants.

At the present time in Russia there was already a jury management practices. Its main elements are:

1. Selection loyal jury on board formation step. Washer courts evaluate the behavior of the jury, and depending on this jury are involved or are not involved in other processes.

2. Restrictions jury taps to participate in a particular meeting: no more than one non-motivated removal of restrictions on issues at the stage of taps (you can ask about criminal records of relatives, but you can not ask questions, the answers to which are characterized by human eyes).

3. Adjustment of the board structure by eliminating disloyal jury. For this purpose the taps on spurious grounds, creating grounds for removal from the board (the jury may hold on his way to a meeting of the traffic police, with the result that the jury is removed from the board).

4. Manipulative or control wording of the jury by the judge.

5. Prohibitions on the provision of the jury during the meeting on problems of the inquiry, such as torture . Random mention of torture, even the hint is the reason for the cancellation of the verdict.

6. Intimidation by jury, as was done during the process in the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic in the case of citizens of Ukraine and Karpyuk Klyha.

If the jury panel of the control mechanisms do not work, use the cancellation of the verdict by the Supreme Court of Russia. If needed, which is often politically motivated, the Supreme Court cancels the guilty verdict of the jury and send the case for retrial. So it was in the case of the murder Anny Politkovskoy. Grounds for cancellation of the verdict was that, according to the Armed Forces, the panel “go on about the lawyers who reported the identity of defendants in the case, and the jury presented negative information about the investigation.”

I am getting the result. A jury in Russia it is a jury trial, not sheffenskim court or some other form of participation of representatives of the people in judicial decisions. However, the jury as the “Court of Justice” in the Russian Federation operating in simulation mode. This is achieved due to two main factors: the limited scope of application of a jury and the widespread use of illegal jury management.

Summing up, it can not be said about the money. Often mention that Ukraine has no money for a jury trial. But the money in this case is irrelevant. We are talking about saving mode. See what makes the authoritarian Putin regime in Russia – is introducing jury trials at the district level. It costs a lot of money, because in Russia in 2184 the district court. is sorely lacking is the answer mode to request people to justice. Of course, the “political” as a judge in violation of all the rules, and will be judged, and to plant. But in cases of domestic murder people get this same justice in the form of trial by jury. Putin’s regime is trying to prolong its existence. If authoritarian regimes are saving yourself so why democracy in Ukraine should act differently?

Sourse, 23/10/2017

People need to learn how to control the power, local first of all

October 14, 2017

One of the most prominent dissidents of the Soviet Union, weighed after a four-month hunger strike in BC political zone 389/35 in the Perm region of 39 kg. The author of “Handbook of Psychiatry for dissidents,” a member of the American Society of Psychiatrists, UK Royal College of Psychiatrists, the rehabilitation of victims of the World Council of Torture, International PEN, the author of several books and hundreds of articles. All of this – on human rights defenders, public figures and the head of the Ukrainian Psychiatric Association Semen Gluzman.

Semen Gluzman  –  on the Maidan, and the syndrome crowd of friendship with the “Bandera” and enzyme resistance, control the power and responsibility for the past.

– Semen Fishelevich, you are one of those who supported the Maidan, but never torn his scene. Why, by the way?

– I never wanted to the scene – from the time of Rukh has never been on any shodnyak, I mean … on an important meeting decent people. Just realize that the psychology of a decent man and the psychology of thousands of decent people differ dramatically.

At the same time, I must admit, even during the Orange Revolution called me many foreign colleagues, the stars of the world of psychiatry, with one question: where’s syndrome aggressive influence of the crowd?

Ukrainian people have shown themselves quite surprisingly and in 2004 and in 2014. During the recent hurricane in Houston because of marauding police had to impose a curfew. Are there many cases of looting, we can remember when the city center, with its many shops and expensive boutiques, stood up to 200 thousand people?

– In the mid-1970s, in the Perm region, a young Jew Gluzman made friends with Ukrainian nationalists – 25 annuals. But then you have joined a common enemy and not the overall vision of the future.

– Yes, I spent several years in the camp side by side with those who were called “Bandera”. They were simple people, the names of Bandera or Shukhevych of their mouth, I had never heard. They just defended their land from “outsiders”. I once asked Uncle Vasya Basil Malozhinskogo, whom he regarded as the UPA soldier, and he was from the SS division Galicia-evil so asked reproachfully, saying how could you ?! And he did his best to explain: “Spershu boule sovєti Potіm priyshli nіmtsі OAO All – A Stranger’s one I never pobachiv i pochuv svoїh, yshli hloptsі that spіvali of Ukrainian pіsen What I first bailiff to them That Well svoї boule ……. . “That’s right, simply and without ideological pathos.

– Jewish support of the Maidan has not surprised?

– Not in the least surprised. One of the most striking childhood memories  I was 10-11 years old, I was returning to his home on the bus, with rises on Artema October Revolution Square (Maidan current). At one of the stops came an elderly lady, very polite, a good Ukrainian language, asked the passengers where it’s okay to leave. Trolley bus exploded with anger – I was scared, not knowing what was happening. Started the persecution of some lumpen, perhaps a T-shirt, he was supported by his aunt vociferous – it was a stream of insults that hit a woman, just to speak in Ukrainian. Then I realized that with me live one more Jews – Ukrainians.

Frankly, when Ukraine got its independence in 1991, I was tense, remembering how aggressively treated here to the Jews in the Soviet era. I remember how the Jewish boys and girls, which were practically closed local universities, leaving to other republics, where there were quiet and well attended. In addition-and this is for me as a dissident is very important – in Ukraine was the most ferocious in the KGB Union. I tensed and because he saw who vote for independence in Parliament : a group of 239, which is officially called “For a sovereign Radyans’ka up Ukraine”, in other words, the communist majority, sensing the winds of change. And along with them – thousands of opportunists, rinuvshihsya from the Komsomol straight into Roc. Professional killers of Ukrainian culture, instantly became the accusers “hand of Moscow”.

Then, when it became an annual index to measure the tolerance, it appears that anti-Semitism and xenophobia are retreating, although the anti-Semites, of course, is and always will be. This was true of all the other areas  the country got a chance.

I remember one of the first American ambassadors told his friends in Ukraine, saying that you frequent to Moscow, come here, there is a very different people. And it’s true, that’s not the idealization or romanticizing, and the herald of the European mentality.

Of course, at 2014 Independence were different people, and they stood for different things. But it was in the area  some seven years I have not filed a hand.

– Today, three and a half years later, do not be disappointed?

– I am not so naive as to fail to understand: the revolution does not end as the dream of its members. Therefore anticipated that possibly will be disappointed, but … did not expect so much.

You see, in his initial optimism, I relied on the camp experience. With me sat a lot of people of different nationalities, but the Ukrainians have always been the most – about 30-40% of prisoners. Very different – not very smart – and wise, educated – and almost illiterate, sincere – and on your mind. I do not quite understand what the ethnic psychology, but in all the years in the political area, I have not met one Belarusian, Kyrgyz or Uzbek dissident. But the KGB was everywhere. Therefore, unlike many former Soviet republics, Ukraine was able to gradually come to some kind of European values. There is a resistance to the enzyme, but the people are not trained in democracy and have no control over their politicians.

This, incidentally, turned out rather quickly, so, in my opinion, the only way out – a long way to majority elections.

– Where buckwheat is everything?  

– It is everything because of her hand nobody put. Of course, the new laws, withdrawal Institute, etc. needed – need to teach people to control the power, primarily local. Do many Ukrainians need a report from its regional deputies? That’s it. And who offended us?

As for buckwheat, remember the scene in Bishkek Tulip Revolution, when revolutionaries dragged on his back stolen refrigerators and television sets? In Kiev, as it was not … Here, both the Maidan demanding from the authorities not buckwheat, and quite another.

Just people accept defeat very quickly, sitting in the kitchen or in the FB and wailing: again m … Duck elected. And also choose not the best, but they are controlled -and this should be taught in Europe. I know many who are helping with the support of Western partners to build democratic institutions in Ukraine. The vast majority of them work just for money. Some of them are rascals. Unfortunately…

– In 2014, many thought that the Ukrainians are the European political nation. How far along the process, or, conversely, stopped, given the historical memory of the policy, with its cult of new heroes?

– For me, the new heroes – a Heavenly hundreds, not the leaders of the OUN and UPA. And the fact that the memory of the heroes of the new vulgarized, obviously. She vulgarized when stopper criminal cases, which should be called the perpetrators of the massacre. She vulgarized, as the country’s leadership does not want to admit that on the other side, too, were Ukrainians. I know one family in which the boy grew up, the only son, who was “bad” brought – he wanted to be a Ukrainian officer. He was burned at the Maidan. Perhaps one of my daughter’s friends, occasionally throwing Molotov cocktails.

There are many things that we uncouple. But in a situation where the people in the mass hates and despises the power, what kind of love for each other can be said?

– What do you think about decommunisation receiving more and more sophisticated form?

– As a former political prisoner and anti-Soviet, I can not but welcome this process. But in its present form it gives me a feeling of disgust. As lustration, which was clearly organized and controlled from the top and stopped as suddenly as it had begun.

Lustration was illegal and generally meaningless, and it was followed by the same kind of pointless and illegal Decommunization. Autos of the dead will not work, especially when it conducts a marginal rot.

We voted in favor at the time of Kravchuk, and after the KGB has arrested dissidents only after the approval of the Central Committee department of ideology, which he headed. Why not to prosecute? And at the same time and all the deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the group 239, by which the independence was proclaimed.

It is very convenient to demolish monuments, taking responsibility for the past. We are the eternal victim, with a demand for us? “We endlessly criticize Comrade Stalin, and, of course, to work and yet I want to ask. Who wrote denunciations of four million?” – once said Sergei Dovlatov. The question hung in the air. We’ve no sense of responsibility for the acts of their fathers and grandfathers, as in Germany, where the children and grandchildren remember well what difference their loved ones. Where they are – children of the NKVD, the party nomenklatura, which, after all, millions of ordinary people obediently raises his hands at the next party meeting, the stigma of renegades, traitors to the socialist motherland, etc.?

So it is not an ideology we have to sew in the XXI century, and the way of the future.

I am not an enemy of perpetuating the memory of Stepan Bandera, but when acting Health Minister Suprun declares that, taking important decisions, mentally consults with the leader of the OUN, this is in any gate … And apparently, it is something to her counsels, as the results of this tandem we see.

– Donbass, which has become a springboard for the “Russian world”, lost to Ukraine? Or not very much, and we need it?

– Russian is impoverished, it has fewer features include these territories, and Putin, in the end, death. Deliberately or not, but he pulled the plug by their actions many influential people in Russia who stole billions, access to which is every day more and more difficult, given the sanctions. They are used to a different level of personal freedom, where they are, after all, now the rest? On Baikal?

So I believe that sooner or later Ukraine will return to the region. But not the kind of young people who went to the Donbas and already settled in Kiev and other cities. They have made their choice.

Sometimes it occurs to me seditious thought … my camp friends were fighting for the independence of Ukraine, and once the day has come – not because we were sitting at it in the camps. If Donbass really wants to live differently, if it is him and not someone external choice, from a moral point of view, why not think about the idea of ​​independence for these people? This is only one possible solution, but it must be spoken. Apart so apart, we do so and are doing everything to isolate these areas – with the help of the blockade, for example.

– It is clear that the war promotes the division of society into friends and foes, and the formation of a black and white picture of the world. All this of course, but … if we do not turn into “Russia on the contrary”, with its contempt for the private view, the search for their fifth column, and so on?

– I am fully aware that the current president is also seeking to usurp power, but I understand that he is also not released, because, even Kuchma, Ukraine wrote – not Russia. Our man in the street is different from the Russian. There genuinely respected Putin. Here the power is changing, and every new government we do not like, and often despised or hated. And it gives grounds for optimism.

Regarding the split in society, we are thrown into the past and because they do not offer a vision of the future. This also applies to the heroes of the UPA – stranger to a large part of the country, and to the language problem, which is the vast majority of Ukrainians do not consider the problem, but that again raised the shield on …

After the trial, I spent twenty days in a cell with Vasilem Stusom – and it was a luxurious 20 days. From time to time I even forget where I was, plunging into the Ukrainian culture. But we were talking in their own language, and Stus took this quite calmly. With 25 annuals UPA camp communicated in the same way – no one ever said nothing.

I was once again transferred to the new barracks, and that same day I was admitted to the “family” Eugene Prishlyak and Vasil Pidgorodetskim. The first was to arrest referent Security Lviv OUN, the second – a simple fighter in the UPA. Collected in the bedside table meal, we shared equally and ate together. After some time went to Vasil old policeman – a bastard – and said, “Vasil you train a respected man, an old convict, are not you ashamed to Zhydenko eat?” “I have it on s … sent”, – he told me later Vasil.

I am absolutely convinced that the state language is necessary to know, but since independence can not remember a single attempt to create appropriate courses for civil servants. Told me how hard they taught language after work – reading aloud Shevchenko, etc. Ethnic Ukrainians, but completely Russified Soviet reality. Such mockery, with complete indifference of the state, caused the rejection, rather than patriotic feelings.

So let’s publish good books, cooking class teachers – the key to successful language policy. I sometimes have to deal with some of the upper class of pedagogical universities – it’s awful. They academics some of their academies, wealthy people, but are engaged in playing the Soviet zhlobstva.

Ukraine has ruined a lot. When NaUKMA took its first steps, I tried to explain to the rector that it is necessary to keep the schools of mathematicians, theoretical physicists have developed in “mailboxes”, with excellent professionals. It was just necessary to allow these professionals to teach at first in Russian, but … we got rid of high intelligence.

– Who is able to pull the country out of the vicious circle? As long as people do not totally trust the government, naively hopes on the most rabid populists – and we have already passed … Civil society is defeated – or simply lost the battle?

– Civil society must help, rather than push. I am following with great concern for the future of the country in which I live and which I am a part of. I’m afraid that if this continues, the Ukrainian state will be defeated not by external forces, it simply dissolved, as a solid in a liquid. And will Vodicka, sweet or salty – are not so important.

– And what about the resistance enzyme?

– The enzyme resistance – an important condition for independence, but not sufficient.

Build the country – it does not sit in the cooler. We need other skills. When the Soviet Union ended, many former dissidents in Moscow continued to engage in human rights activities. In Ukraine, a number of my colleagues on the Gulag have gone into politics – and what?

It is clear that the government is constantly tosses a bone of contention that we at loggerheads in the past, instead of building the future. And less remembered about the reforms that are needed, as the air, and at the same time painful, so hold on to your seats, the tops are in no hurry to carry them out. A bottoms – bottoms grow, and this is our chance.

Interview by Michael Gold

Sourse, 13/10/2017

72 NGO already have signed the Declaration of Human Rights Agenda platform with the requirement to the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to stop the attack on civil society organizations

September 25, 2017

HUMAN RIGHTS AGENDA

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform demanding the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine stop crack-down on non-governmental organizations

 In early July 2017, the presidential draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 were registered in the Parliament of Ukraine. The draft laws were elaborated allegedly to replace the scandalous amendments to the anti-corruption legislation obliging the anti-corruption activists to annually file personal asset and property electronic declarations (Law of Ukraine No. 1975-VIII of 23 March 2017). The presidential draft laws actually propose to abolish the e-declarations for public anti-corruption activists but to require instead the non-governmental organizations and individual entrepreneurs as well as enterprises, institutions and organizations providing them with services, to file additional reports to tax authorities.

The draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 burden all non-governmental organizations and individual entrepreneurs, enterprises, institutions and organizations that provide them with services with an unjustified obligation to file additional tax reports.

It is revealing that the number of tax reports required from the non-governmental organizations, which these draft laws provide for, significantly exceeds the number of reports required from the business. Moreover, even the recipients of budget funds are not required to file such a number of tax reports.

We believe that these legislative initiatives appeared not by chance, though against the background of statements about the need to reduce excessive state regulation. The punishment in form of the abolition of a non-profit status of non-governmental organization is pronouncedly punitive in nature and is nothing more than the introduction of a tool for selective pressure on the non-governmental organizations indisposed towards the authorities.

We regard the initiative of the President of Ukraine as the disproportionate interference in the activities of the non-governmental organizations. Such steps liken Ukraine to the repressive regimes of the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and others similar. Despite the ostentatious care for transparency and accountability, the regulations introduced in the abovementioned countries led to almost absolute annihilation of the non-governmental organizations which are independent from authorities and total crack-down on civil society.

No international treaties require similar state control over the activities of non-governmental organizations as the international standards endow the non-governmental organizations with the right to be free from state interference in their activities.

The Guidelines on Freedom of Association drafted by the Council of Europe and the OSCE stipulate that “the state shall not require but shall encourage and facilitate associations to be accountable and transparent.” Special reporting is permissible, however, if it is required in exchange for certain benefits, provided it is “within the discretion of the association to decide whether to comply with such reporting requirements or forgo them and forsake any related special benefits, where applicable.”

In consideration of the foregoing, we demand that the Parliament of Ukraine immediately reject the draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 of 10 July 2017 and the President of Ukraine fulfill his promise to cancel the amendments to the anti-corruption legislation dated March 2017.

For reference: the Human Rights Agenda platform is the informal coalition of human rights organizations working in the field of monitoring, analyzing and elaborating the legislation in accordance with the basic principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The platform participants are the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, the Center for Civil Liberties, the Amnesty International Ukraine, the Human Rights Information Center, the Center for Law Enforcement Studies, the Without Borders Project of the NGO “Social Action Center” and the Euromaidan SOS. The Center for Civil Liberties coordinates the platform activities. Contacts: human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

  1. Center for Civil Liberties
  2. Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
  3. Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches
  4. Eastern-Ukrainian Center for Civic Initiatives
  5. Charitable Foundation “Vostok SOS”
  6. Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”
  7. Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law Enforcement
  8. NGO “KyivPride”
  9. Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
  10. Open Dialog Foundation
  11. Human Rights Information Center
  12. Crimean Human Rights Group
  13. NGO “Helsinki Initiative XXI”
  14. NGO “Peaceful Coast”
  15. Expert Human Rights Center
  16. NGO “La Strada Ukraine”
  17. Liberation Movement Research Center
  18. Charitable Organisation “Fund of Mercy and Health”
  19. NGO “South”
  20. NGO “Ray of Changes”
  21. Kharkiv Regional Foundation “Public Alternative”
  22. Project “Without Borders”
  23. NGO “Political Studies Association”
  24. NGO “People’s Control of Kirovohrad Region”
  25. Eksampei Center for Ukrainian Policy
  26. NGO “Volunteer Association of Participants of Maidan and Fighting Action”
  27. Charitable Foundation “Dyvosvit Club”
  28. NGO “School of Public Projects”
  29. NGO “Faith. Hope. Action”
  30. NGO “JCI Kyiv”
  31. Educational Human Rights House Chernihiv
  32. NGO “Women’s Prospects Center”
  33. NGO “Zakarpattia Community”
  34. Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Organization “Young Prosvita”
  35. Ternopil Human Rights Group
  36. Human Rights Center “All rights”
  37. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Convictus Ukraine”
  38. Autonomous Bar Association
  39. NGO “MART” (Chernihiv)
  40. Ukrainian Legal Aid Foundation
  41. Information and Awareness Raising Center “Axis” (Vinnytsia)
  42. NGO “Center for Civic Education “Almenda””
  43. Center for Humanistic Technologies “AHALAR”
  44. NGO “Ukrainian Association of Assessment”
  45. NGO “Territory of Success”
  46. T-Woman of Ukraine
  47. NGO “AutoMaidan Kyiv”
  48. NGO “Human Rights Vector”
  49. Bilozerka Center for Regional Development
  50. Center for Law Enforcement Activity Research
  51. Chernihiv Public Committee for Human Rights Protection
  52. NGO “Kyiv Educational Center “Tolerspace””
  53. Human Rights Center “Postup”
  54. NGO “Liberal Democratic League of Ukraine”
  55. Bureau of Social and Political Developments
  56. Center for Legal and Political Studies “DUMA”
  57. Institute of Mass Information
  58. SOVA Group
  59. Media Initiative for Human Rights
  60. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Legalife Ukraine”
  61. NGO “Insight”
  62. Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research
  63. NGO “Informer”
  64. Information and Analytical Center “Public Space”
  65. LGBT Human Rights Center “Our World”
  66. NGO “Bakhmat”
  67. NGO “Development Foundation”
  68. NGO “All-Ukrainian League of Lawyers Against Corruption”
  69. NGO “Kharkiv Women’s Association “Sphere””
  70. NGO “Gender Center of Volyn Region”
  71. NGO “Theatre for Dialogue”
  72. NGO ‘Free Territory’

The statement is open for signature. Please contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Результаты поиска:

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform on deprivation of attorneys of the ability to cooperate with human rights organisations

March 7, 2019

In the agenda of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the consideration of the first
reading of a draft law ‘On Legal Practice and Advocacy’ No. 9055 is scheduled for 28
February.
The authors and supporters of the law are striving to prove its progressive nature,
strengthening of guarantees of advocacy and empowerment.
However, should the law be adopted, all attorneys who cooperate with human rights
organisations will be deprived of the opportunity to engage in advocacy activities
within the framework of cooperation with these organisations. Hundreds of cases
which have been filed by lawyers of these organisations with the European Court of
Human Rights, and thousands of court cases in national courts will become only a
reminder of past activities. There will be no one competent to file new applications
with the European Court and national courts on behalf of human rights organisations.
In his expert opinion which contains the analysis of the draft law No. 9055, the
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights Diego Garcia-Sayan stated that the restriction, set
forth in Article 28 of the draft law 9055, could adversely affect the lawyers who would
have to choose between full employment and the work of a human rights defender
which, obviously, would adversely affect an access to justice in the country, in
particular, for individuals with limited financial means. Also, the report provides a
whole number of risks and threats to independent advocacy, such as the procedure
of bringing attorneys to disciplinary responsibility, unfounded types of disciplinary
sanctions that affect the independence of advocacy and, consequently, affect
appropriate defence in court.
Separately, the completely opaque process of work on the draft law is to be
mentioned, and this fact has also been noted in the report by Mr. Diego Garcia-
Sayan. He wrote that consultations with representatives of the legal profession were
very limited in nature, and the final draft law was made public by the office of the
President without the opportunity to comment on its content.
A lack of transparency, marginalisation of the drafting process and introduction of the
draft law, a lack of a high-quality expert examination, for example, by the Venice
Commission, and haste with the attempts to implement this law as soon as possible

in a parliament’s session confirm the poor quality of the preparation process and the
same low-quality content of the draft law itself, which, in its present form, poses a
real threat to the protection of human rights in the human rights protection
environment of Ukraine and can be regarded as a way of attack and exertion of
pressure on the environment.
We hereby urge Members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to prevent the
consideration and adoption of the draft law 9055, as requested in the report by Diego
Garcia-Sayan, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The text of the draft law No.
9055 must be redrafted, discussed publicly and amended, taking into account the
comments made by representatives of the bar community, human rights
organisations, and international experts. We demand transparency, honesty and
high quality. Today, we cannot see these features in the draft law No. 9055.
The Human Rights Agenda platform is an informal coalition of human right organisations focused on systemic
problems of legislation and practices for defending fundamental human rights. The participants of the platform
are as follows: Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, Center for Civil Liberties, Amnesty International
Ukraine, Human Rights Information Center, Centre of Law Enforcement Activities Research (CLEAR), Project
"Without Borders", Euromaidan SOS. The platform is coordinated by the Center for Civil Liberties. You can
contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
Center for Civil Liberties
Regional Centre for Human Rights
Open Dialogue Foundation
Humanitarian Studio "Wave
Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”

NGOs call on the HQCJ to refrain from creating artificial obstacles to the establishment of the Public Integrity Council

November 22, 2018

On November 21, 2018, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) announced the results of the consideration of documents of public associations (NGOs) for the establishment of the Public Integrity Council (PIC).

 

The Commission approved a positive decision on the admission of only 2 out of 14 organizations that submitted the documents. The Commission allowed the rest of the organizations to eliminate the shortcomings which, in its opinion, were identified in the relevant documents of the NGOs.

 

Having considered the decisions of the Commission, NGOs have to state that among these alleged shortcomings there are many that are not based on the requirements of the law, do not pursue a legitimate aim and can create artificial obstacles for NGOs’ participation in the PIC establishment.

 

In particular:

 

  • In some cases (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the Commission does not accept the results of a financial audit conducted not within the past two years, whereas the law only requires the availability of an audit report and does not set any time frames for its conduct;
  • In some other cases (Center for Civil Liberties, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the HQCJ groundlessly believes that it is only the first persons of international organizations in Ukraine (the OSCE Coordinator in Ukraine, UNDP, etc.) that can make recommendations to NGOs, while the law does not contain such a requirement, and the signatures of officials of international organizations were affixed within their authorities;
  • Position of the HQCJ regarding the recognition of reports based on the financial audit results or audit findings as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements only because these reports were prepared for confidential use and submission to grantors (CRIMEASOS, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform) is unreasonable (the law does not set any requirements for the addressees of the reports and the purpose of their preparation);
  • The HQCJ did not recognize a copy of the report on the project implementation results due to the lack of signature of the person authorized to sign it (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform). However, such a requirement is unfounded since the law requires the provision of a copy rather than the original of the report, and the submitted copy of the report has been duly certified by an authorized person;  
  • The law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” does not require the publication of a declaration of a candidate to the PIC on the NACP’s website, and the HQCJ’s competencies do not cover anti-corruption verification of declarations (including the presence or absence of these declarations on the NACP’s website), while some organizations (Institute of Applied Humanitarian Research) received a reply that the absence of such declarations on the NACP’s website serves as grounds for non-admission.

 

As for documents of other NGOs (Civic Lustration Committee, E+, Nova Krayina, ТОМ14, Centre for Economic Strategy, Centre UA), only the originals of certain documents are required, whereas all the necessary information can be obtained from the duly authenticated photocopies. In some other cases (DEJURE, Nova Krayina), technical errors (incorrect indication of the candidate’s patronymic only in one of the documents or use of the phrase “annual declaration” after “declaration of a candidate for the position of the PIC member”) are considered by the Commission as “grounds for the determination of the submitted documents as not complying with … the law”.

 

We want to emphasize that the requirements of the law on the submission of documents have been established to confirm the experience, real activity and capacity of NGOs to form the PIC. The Commission’s review of these documents should pursue this legitimate aim and should not go beyond its limits.

 

The Commission’s decisions are even more surprising given the fact that 2 years ago the Commission allowed a number of organizations with similar packages of documents to participate in the NGO Meeting on the PIC establishment without any comments. The Commission did not consider the failure to submit proper declarations by the candidates for judicial office at the Anti-Corruption Court and Intellectual Property Court to be a violation and allowed them to take part in the competition to the IP-court.

 

We are concerned that at the beginning of our cooperation with the HQCJ regarding the formation of the second composition of the PIC, we faced this approach. At the same time, the NGOs will make every effort to take into account the wishes of the Commission regarding the execution of documents within a specified period as far as possible.

 

However, if the HQCJ retains this approach to the assessment of documents, there will be a high risk of groundless rejection of experienced and capable NGOs from participation in the Meeting and, as a result, the formation of an incomplete composition, delay, or even the impossibility of establishing the PIC as a form of public participation in the selection and evaluation of judges.

 

Therefore, we call on the HQCJ:

 

  • To carefully reconsider all the packages of documents submitted by the NGOs, including those that will be submitted additionally;
  • To assess the documents submitted by organizations solely on the basis of the requirements of the law, impartially and without groundless formalism;
  • To allow all NGOs whose experience and capability are confirmed by the documents submitted by them to participate in the Meeting;
  • To review the decisions on a number of NGOs (indicated in this statement or otherwise) regarding the recognition of documents as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements of the law, particularly where the law contained no such requirements.

 

Civic Lustration Committee

Initiative E+

Crimea SOS

Nova Kraina

ТОМ 14

DEJURE Foundation

Center for Civil Liberties

Centre for Economic Strategy

Centre of Policy and Legal Reform

Centre UA

Nations in Transit 2018: Confronting Illiberalism

April 11, 2018

Washington, April 12, 2018 — Attacks on opposition parties, the press, and civil society organizations are becoming the norm in Central and Eastern Europe as the spread of illiberal politics undermines the foundations of and prospects for democracy, according to Nations in Transit 2018, the 23rd edition of Freedom House’s annual report on democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Eurasia.

Ukraine’s Democracy Score declined for the first time since the 2014 revolution. With the Russian-led conflict in the east grinding on, Ukraine’s politicians are taking advantage of patriotic sentiment to attack NGOs and journalists, accusing them of undermining the war effort.

“Attacks on civil society and political opponents have sapped the momentum from the institutional reform process in Ukraine,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “Although decentralization reforms are continuing, other key priorities, including anticorruption efforts, have stalled. The window of opportunity has not closed in Ukraine, but it has shrunk. By accusing NGOs and journalists of antinational sentiment, politicians are attempting to exclude legitimate voices from public debate simply because they criticize the government.”

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON UKRAINE

 

  • Two important milestones were reached in relations between Ukraine and the European Union in 2017: the visa-free regime with the EU came into force in June, allowing millions of Ukrainians to travel freely to the neighboring Schengen zone for short-term stays, and the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement — the main trigger for the Euromaidan protests which provides a framework for major transformations in Ukrainian democracy, human rights, rule of law, good governance, trade, and sustainable development — finally came completely into force.
  • One of the main achievements in Ukraine’s national governance in 2017 was healthcare reform, which, following the passage by the Verkhovna Rada of a law on healthcare financing in October, will align the system based on the principle of “money following patients.”
  • Decentralization reform continued, with administrative territorial reform resulting in the creation of approximately 700 amalgamated communities, and fiscal decentralization resulting in increased revenues and local infrastructure investments for the first time in 23 years.
  • The conflict in the east remained largely frozen throughout the year. The socioeconomic conditions in the occupied territories, and in those areas close to the line of contact, continued to be poor. The armed separatist groups developed their own institutions, which, in turn, enacted regulations that routinely violated basic human rights, while journalists and bloggers covering the conflict continued to be arrested and detained.
  • Pressure on civil society intensified. In March, the government obliged citizens working against corruption to publicly declare their income and assets, while a legislative initiative to replace the controversial requirement with other restrictive measures against NGOs under threat of onerous restrictions for not complying with the proposed regulations was unsuccessful. The Civil Society score declined due to smear campaigns against NGOs and activists.
  • Prominent civil society organizations were targeted with criminal investigations against them and their members, and there were physical attacks on well-known activists.
  • The Independent Media score declined due to the blocking of major social media sites, as well as physical attacks on journalists and a lack of progress in investigating the murder of journalist Pavel Sheremet.
  • Progress on judicial and anti-corruption reforms was mixed. While the National Anticorruption Bureau actively investigated high-level corruption results of its work were few. The President had yet to create the High Anticorruption Court as promised. Vetting of judicial appointments to the Supreme Court stumbled as 25 candidates that had not passed public integrity checks were approved as official candidates.

“Illiberal politics are becoming the new normal in Europe,” said Michael J. Abramowitz, president of Freedom House. “Government-led smear campaigns against civil society groups, journalists, and the political opposition were pioneered in Russia and Central Asia, but they are increasingly common across the region.”

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES

  • Poland recorded the second-largest Democracy Score decline in the history of the report. The ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party’s revolutionary takeover of the judicial system, politicization of public media, smear campaigns against nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and violations of ordinary parliamentary procedure also produced the two largest single-category score declines in Nations in Transit’s history, for National Democratic Governance and Judicial Framework and Independence.

 

“The radical changes to the Polish judiciary remove any effective check on the actions of the majority party in parliament,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “What has happened in Poland in the last two years should serve as an alarm bell for anyone who believes that one-party rule could never return to Europe.”

“The EU should stand up for its commitments to the rule of law by implementing Article 7 sanctions against Poland and Hungary,” Schenkkan said, referring to the EU’s power to suspend a member’s voting rights. “It should condition access to European funds on clear rule-of-law criteria. This is the only way to convince these countries, and EU candidate states, that the union is firmly rooted in democratic principles.”

  • Hungary has registered the largest cumulative decline in Nations in Transit The country’s Democracy Score has been falling for 10 consecutive years, moving it from the status of a democratic leader at the time of EU accession in 2004 to the threshold of a “Transitional/Hybrid Regime” in 2018.

 

“The Fidesz government of Viktor Orbán led the way for illiberal forces in Central Europe, showing that it was possible to capture a state within the EU through gerrymandering, procurement manipulation, and control of the media,” said Schenkkan. “The fact that Fidesz remains a member in good standing in the European People’s Party of the European Parliament shows how effective Orbán’s approach has been.”

  • Estonia earned the biggest improvement in this edition of the report, even though it was already the best performer. A surprisingly smooth first year in government for a longtime opposition party demonstrated the resilience and independence of national institutions. Estonia’s anticorruption mechanisms appear to be addressing the municipal corruption that has long affected its major cities.

“At a time when most of the news for democracy seems bad, Estonia reminds us that liberal democracy can and does succeed,” Schenkkan said. “Even in a country with a history of foreign occupation and sensitive ethnic and regional differences, democratic national institutions can produce better governance for everyone.”

View the full report here: https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/nations-transit-2018

###

 

Freedom House is an independent watchdog organization that supports democratic change, monitors the status of freedom around the world, and advocates for democracy and human rights.

Join us on Facebook and Twitter (@FreedomHouseDC) and stay up to date with Freedom House’s latest news and events by signing up for our newsletter.

Special event to discuss Ukraine’s future at the Atlantic Council Headquarters (on Thursday, March 29, 2018)

April 4, 2018

In the four years since the end of the Revolution of Dignity, Ukraine has not answered its most important question: how will the country ensure democratic values in its future development? Much of Ukraine’s hope lies in its young leaders who will drive the country forward in the coming years. CDDRL has been fortunate to provide a year-long residency to some of these future leaders as part of the inaugural year of the Center’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program.

This event will feature three Ukrainian leaders who are in residency with CDDRL’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program this year. They will each discuss their own perspectives on opportunities and challenges to democracy and development in their home country, as well as objectives for strengthening public administration, civil society, and economic reforms upon their return to Ukraine.

We hope you can join us for this timely discussion.

Sourse, 29/03/2018

Vitaliy Tytych: Rigging of anti-corruption court competition must be prevented

March 19, 2018

The High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice cannot be trusted to conduct an objective and fair competition for the anti-corruption court without severe foreign and civil society oversight and without a drastic change in the competition’s methodology. They cannot be trusted because they violated the law and demonstrated their political bias by rigging the competition for the Supreme Court.

The discredited High Qualification Commission must be deprived of its arbitrary powers to assign scores subjectively during competitions for anti-corruption and other judges, and such scores must be based on objective criteria.

This is even more important than foreign donors’ veto powers, and this is the only way to ensure that honest and professional candidates believe in the fairness of the competition and participate, and that the commission has no way of promoting political loyalists and incompetent candidates for subjective reasons.

During the Supreme Court competition, 90 scores were assigned for anonymous legal knowledge tests, 120 scores for anonymous practical tests, and the High Qualification Commission could arbitrarily assign 790 scores without giving any explicit reasons (formally based on interviews with candidates and examining their profiles).

According to the 2016 law on the judiciary and status of judges, legal knowledge and practical tests (i.e. objective criteria) are the main method of selecting judges. This law stipulates that at least 75 percent of the total score (i.e. 750 out of 1,000 scores) must be given for anonymous legal knowledge and practical tests.

The High Qualification Commission took advantage of the vague wording of the law to set regulations that contradict the law because only 210 out of the total of 1,000 scores were assigned for legal knowledge and practical tests.

As a result of the Supreme Court competition, candidates who were at the top of the list after the anonymous knowledge tests and practical tests ended up at the bottom in the final stage for unknown reasons, while candidates who initially got lower scores and had a corrupt background ended up at the top.

Both the law on the judiciary and the High Qualification Commission’s internal regulations must be amended and clarified to clearly assign 750 scores for anonymous legal knowledge tests and practical tests (for competitions for both the anti-corruption court and all other courts). If parliament refuses to amend the law, the High Qualification Commission can just change its regulations, which is even easier.

As an option, 330 scores should be given for anonymous legal knowledge tests, another 330 scores for practical tests, and 330 scores for interviews and professional ethics (preferably based on conclusions by the Public Integrity Council and foreign donors). The law on the judiciary and status of judges should also be amended to require the publication of practical works after practical tests.

That would leave no room for arbitrary decisions and political involvement.

President Petro Poroshenko claims that the participation of foreign donors in the competition for the anti-corruption court contradicts Ukraine’s sovereignty, which is false (for example, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine was created with the participation of foreign donors).

But anyway Ukraine’s foreign partners could delegate independent Ukrainian citizens with impeccable reputation and integrity. This would halt any talk about sovereignty.

Such representatives could include people from the December 1 Initiative Group civil-society organization, Soviet dissident and human rights lawyer Myroslav Marynovych or Vyacheslav Bryukhovetsky, honorary president of the Kyiv Mohyla Academy.

Moreover, Ukraine’s foreign donors must take part in the competition for anti-corruption judges but they will have neither time nor resources to vet all the candidates and their background on their own. The Public Integrity Council, which has shown its independence from the authorities and its ability to work hard to examine candidates’ background, must take part in the competition for the anti-graft court by collecting all the available information on candidates (and the council must participate in competitions for all courts under the 2016 law on the judiciary and status of judges).

This is the only way to ensure that anti-corruption judges are truly professional and independent.

The use of the same objective methodology for assigning scores both for the anti-corruption court and other courts and the participation of the Public Integrity Council in competitions for the anti-corruption court and other courts  will totally kill the false argument that the anti-corruption court is a “special” court banned by the Constitution (the Venice Commission has already refuted this argument).

Also, it will be impossible to select independent judges if foreign donors choose representatives loyal to the Ukrainian government.  Such representatives must be completely independent from pressure by Ukrainian authorities.

In the best-case scenario, foreign donors should themselves assess candidates’ professional integrity. But at least they should have a right to suspend the competition and initiate an audit if evidence emerges that the High Qualification Commission violated procedural rules.

The Public Integrity Council believes that the competition for the Supreme Court was rigged to promote politically loyal candidates.

First, during the practical test stage, some candidates were given tests that coincided with cases that they had considered during their career, which was deemed a tool of promoting political loyalists.

Second, in March 2017 the High Qualification Commission illegally allowed 43 candidates who had not gotten sufficient scores during practical tests to take part in the next stage, changing its rules amid the competition. Members of the Public Integrity Council believe that the rules were unlawfully changed to prevent political loyalists from dropping out of the competition.

Apart from the second score assigned anonymously for practical works, the commission gave them a third score after naming them, violating the law (because practical tests should be anonymous to prevent political interference). The commission must have just assigned the second score without knowing the candidates’ names.

Third, the High Qualification Commission illegally refused to publish the scores for candidates’ psychological tests, failed to set a minimum score for psychological tests and illegally assessed the tests on its own (although they must have been assessed by psychologists). Moreover, the commission used corporate loyalty tests, which stipulated loyalty as a major characteristic of a judge – as a result, independent candidates were prevented from getting a higher score, while political loyalists were encouraged.

Fourth, the High Qualification Commission removed the profiles of candidates other than the winners from its site.

Fifth, the High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice illegally refused to give specific reasons for assigning specific total scores to candidates and refused to explain why the High Qualification Commission has overridden vetoes by the Public Integrity Council on candidates who do not meet ethical integrity standards.

Sixth, the High Council of Justice has illegally rejected 48 out of its members’ 52 recusals from voting for specific Supreme Court candidates due to a conflict of interest. This triggered accusations that the council was planning to get the necessary 14 pro-government votes to appoint politically loyal candidates.

Some of these violations are currently being disputed at Ukrainian courts and will be disputed at the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, Public Integrity Council members have opened a criminal case into the violations and will open more cases.

Sourse, 12/03/2018.

FROM OBJECTIVES TO RESULTS: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EU-UKRAINE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT AS SEEN BY STAKEHOLDERS

December 22, 2017

A jury: experience and problems

October 24, 2017

A simulation system of justice in which convulses a vestige of the people’s representatives, as the jury. Says Russian political analyst and human rights activist Mikhail Savva, who left Russia and now living in Ukraine.

The jury is in the Constitution of Ukraine, but in fact, according to human rights activists, jury trials in the country do not. The main difference between a jury trial by an ordinary court (with the participation of one judge or three professional judges) is a separate co-existence in it “judges of law” (the legal profession) and “Judges of fact” (board of jurors , which usually consists of persons who are not are lawyers). If this division is not present and professional judges work together with the representatives of the people should not talk about a jury trial, but the court sheffenskom. Sheffenskie courts adopted, for example, at their home in Germany as well as in Ukraine. Experience and problems of modern Russian jury trials may be useful in case if Ukraine, too, decides to create a jury trial.

The Soviet system of people’s assessors is an option sheffenskogo court, where a judge has unlimited opportunities to influence the decision of the representatives of the people. Sheffenskaya system can be very effective, but only for companies with extremely high legal culture .

In the course of judicial reform 90-ies of the last century, it was created in the Russian jury trials . During the counter-reforms that have been going for fifteen years, created a simulation system of justice in which convulses a vestige of the people’s representatives, as the jury.

Jury trials are traditionally regarded as the “courts of justice”. This is confirmed by the statistics of court decisions in the Russian Federation. Professional judges give less than 1% of acquittals , while the juries – 13-25% in different years.

In 2016, according to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court, in the first instance are over 239 cases with a jury. From 361 to 60 the defendant was justified, that is 17% , another 85 cases returned to the prosecutor. The number of sentences handed down without a jury, more than three orders of magnitude. According to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court in 2016 for all formulations of the Criminal Code (CC) convicted 740,380 people (to imprisonment – 206 304 people), is justified by 1493 (0.2% if you count the persons on which the case was dismissed on rehabilitative grounds, – 1.5%).

Scale application of jury trials in Russia is low. In one year, jury trials in Russia in the second decade of this century the average render verdicts to 300 (the maximum number of verdicts in the post-Soviet period – about 600 in 2010). A jury selected only 12% of the accused, who have a right to it. In the US a year by the jury shall be made about 160 thousand. Verdicts. In the XX century in the Russian empire handed down each year about 40 thousand. Verdicts. The reasons for this will be disclosed below, here I call home. This lack of political will for the development of the institute of juries. In the context of the simulation of the justice system the current Russian regime of the jury can not be complete and widespread.

The jury in the Russian Federation has a constitutional basis: according to Art. 32 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Russian citizens have the right to participate in the administration of justice. One form of such participation – review certain categories of criminal cases in the court of jury. However direct reference to the institution of jury in the Constitution does not.

The introduction of jury trials took considerable time in Russia. Pilot introduction of jury trials in Russia began with the 1993-1994, in 9 subjects of the Federation. The new Criminal Procedure Code, adopted in 2001, did the jury widespread since 2003. In the Chechen Republic the introduction of jury trials actually took place in 2010. An expert on Russian court Sergei Pashin jury, namely the phased introduction of jury trials has led to the fact that he did have in Russia.

The accused has the right to file a petition for consideration of his criminal case by the court of first instance composed of professional judges and a panel of 12 jurors in case he is accused, in particular, murder, sabotage, banditry, genocide, public appeals to the outbreak of war, kidnapping , piracy mercenarism and t. d.

I counted as of July 2017 20 of the Criminal Code articles on which possible jury . At the beginning of the introduction of jury trials in Russia of such items was 47, according Sergeya Pashina calculations, the main initiator of the introduction of jury trials in Russia.

The criminal case, which involved several defendants, the court is considered by jury in respect of all the defendants , if at least one of them said a request for consideration of a criminal case by a court in the composition.

If the defendant has not filed a motion for the consideration of the criminal case by the court by jury, the case is considered by another composition of the court in the manner prescribed by law.

The judge’s decision to hear the case from the jury is final. The subsequent failure of the defendant from the criminal trial by jury is not accepted .

Criminal cases involving jurors of federal courts of general jurisdiction is held in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the supreme courts of republics, territorial, regional courts, courts of federal cities, autonomous region and autonomous districts, the district (naval) military courts.

jury selection jurors is actually a two-step.

According to Art. 3 of the federal law, jurors can not be: persons under 25 years of age; persons with outstanding or previously convicted; persons recognized as incapable or limited in capacity; are registered in the drug treatment or mental hospital.

Such persons are not included in the lists of jurors , drawn up every four years on the basis of the voter list by random sampling. Exclude these people from the list of jurors bodies of executive power of the municipality or the region. Then, after getting acquainted with the citizens of the jury lists, these lists are excluded from the statements of the citizens themselves several categories.

The weak point of this phase of jury selection is a voluntary procedure for submitting applications for exclusion from the jury list. That is, if, for example, the police considers that nothing prevents him to be sworn he did not submit an application for delisting.

During jury selection to participate in a particular criminal case to participate in the proceedings as jurors are not allowed to persons suspected or accused of committing crimes; I do not speak the language in which the hearing is conducted; with physical and / or mental disabilities that prevent full participation in the hearing.

During the trial, the jury task boils down to, to answer three main questions: whether the proven fact of the crime, if that proved his committed by the defendant, and whether he is guilty of the crime. In the case of the issue of the recognition of the defendant’s guilt is put whether he deserves leniency. In this case the judge to the jury formulate lists of issues, which are often a few dozen items.

Jurors “should strive to adopt a unanimous decision,” but if this is not achieved within three hours, the verdict made by voting.

A guilty verdict is adopted, if the majority of the jury votes for each of the three key issues. Acquittal verdict is considered, if not less than six judges gave a negative answer to at least one of the three questions. If the deciding votes are equally divided, the adopted most favorable to the defendant’s answer for each question.

The acquittal is mandatory for the presiding judge, in this case, the court justifies the defendant. Guilty as the jury’s verdict is not binding on the court. If the judge recognizes that a guilty verdict handed down against an innocent person, then adopted a decree on the dissolution of the jury and the criminal case is sent for a new trial by another composition of the court. This decision is not subject to appeal in cassation.

From the jurisdiction of jury trials for the duration of this institution such articles were excluded, such as terrorism, hostage-taking, riots, treason, espionage, violent seizure of power, rape and sexual offenses against children. Some compounds “fell out” of crime from the jurisdiction of jury trials due to the fact that the new Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 2001 softened for him the punishment and the death penalty or life imprisonment has not been provided (eg high treason). In some cases, exceptions motive was that the jury too often render acquittals. For example, in the discussion in the State Duma in 2013, the issue of the exclusion of such a composition as sexual crimes against children, the author of the bill deputy Spring said that the jury too often justify the accused.

In February 2016 the Russian Constitutional Court found that the criminal case against women in the murder with aggravating circumstances could be considered by a jury of 12 people in the supreme courts of republics, territorial or regional courts. Prior to that, women were deprived of the possibility to be tried before a jury, because the Russian legislation does not provide for life sentences for the women.

December 3, 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed to extend the role of juries in a possible reduction in their number in the court up to 5-7 people. This was an attempt to respond to society’s demands for justice. At a time when major political offenses removed from the jurisdiction of jury trials, the expansion of the institute of juries are no longer threatened by the authorities. In other words, cases of domestic murder and some other formulations could, according to the authorities, to consider jury trials at district and city levels.

Starting from June 1, 2018 Institute of jurorsIt will be operational in the district (city) and garrison military courts. Established number of jurors for the district and garrison military courts – 6 people, in the courts of the Russian Federation and the district military courts, the number of jurors will be reduced from 12 to 8. district-level court jury will consider the criminal case at the request of the accused, for which there may not be sentenced to life imprisonment, namely, with regard to women, persons who have committed crimes under the age of 18 years, men who have attained to time of the court’s 65-year-olds sentence. Criminal cases on these articles of the Criminal Code in relation to other persons, as before, will be considered by the court of the subject of the Russian Federation. In addition, the district court with the participation of jurors,

Judges of the Russian Federation, according to a discussion at the Congress in December 2016, the judges are extremely skeptical about the prospects for the mass introduction of jury trials . They talk about the organizational unpreparedness and lack of funding. We can assume that in the near future verdicts of the jury will not become a mass phenomenon in the municipal and district courts.

Practical functioning of juries problem is clearly illustrated by the case of the murder of Boris Nemtsov , who was considered by the Moscow District Military Court in 2016-2017. A panel of 12 jurors was in the conference room for three days. She had to answer 26 questions put to them by the judge. The jury could not come to a unanimous opinion, so after three hours of contentious issues have been put to the vote. 10 of the 12 jurors declared guilty of all five defendants.

Eight jurors were replaced during the process. The defendant’s lawyer Bakhaeva Zaurbek Sadahanov said: “There was a sweep of the jury, we have seen. The verdict is absolutely illegal, because no evidence of guilt Bakhaeva investigation did not present. This is only possible in a country where there is no justice. “

In discussing the questions that were to answer the jury, the objections of the accused lawyers were not taken into account, the judge approved the questions in its original version. This version of the problem was that the actions of each of the defendants, the judge invited the jury to assess the aggregate only to the actions of the other four defendants.

At the present time in Russia there was already a jury management practices. Its main elements are:

1. Selection loyal jury on board formation step. Washer courts evaluate the behavior of the jury, and depending on this jury are involved or are not involved in other processes.

2. Restrictions jury taps to participate in a particular meeting: no more than one non-motivated removal of restrictions on issues at the stage of taps (you can ask about criminal records of relatives, but you can not ask questions, the answers to which are characterized by human eyes).

3. Adjustment of the board structure by eliminating disloyal jury. For this purpose the taps on spurious grounds, creating grounds for removal from the board (the jury may hold on his way to a meeting of the traffic police, with the result that the jury is removed from the board).

4. Manipulative or control wording of the jury by the judge.

5. Prohibitions on the provision of the jury during the meeting on problems of the inquiry, such as torture . Random mention of torture, even the hint is the reason for the cancellation of the verdict.

6. Intimidation by jury, as was done during the process in the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic in the case of citizens of Ukraine and Karpyuk Klyha.

If the jury panel of the control mechanisms do not work, use the cancellation of the verdict by the Supreme Court of Russia. If needed, which is often politically motivated, the Supreme Court cancels the guilty verdict of the jury and send the case for retrial. So it was in the case of the murder Anny Politkovskoy. Grounds for cancellation of the verdict was that, according to the Armed Forces, the panel “go on about the lawyers who reported the identity of defendants in the case, and the jury presented negative information about the investigation.”

I am getting the result. A jury in Russia it is a jury trial, not sheffenskim court or some other form of participation of representatives of the people in judicial decisions. However, the jury as the “Court of Justice” in the Russian Federation operating in simulation mode. This is achieved due to two main factors: the limited scope of application of a jury and the widespread use of illegal jury management.

Summing up, it can not be said about the money. Often mention that Ukraine has no money for a jury trial. But the money in this case is irrelevant. We are talking about saving mode. See what makes the authoritarian Putin regime in Russia – is introducing jury trials at the district level. It costs a lot of money, because in Russia in 2184 the district court. is sorely lacking is the answer mode to request people to justice. Of course, the “political” as a judge in violation of all the rules, and will be judged, and to plant. But in cases of domestic murder people get this same justice in the form of trial by jury. Putin’s regime is trying to prolong its existence. If authoritarian regimes are saving yourself so why democracy in Ukraine should act differently?

Sourse, 23/10/2017

People need to learn how to control the power, local first of all

October 14, 2017

One of the most prominent dissidents of the Soviet Union, weighed after a four-month hunger strike in BC political zone 389/35 in the Perm region of 39 kg. The author of “Handbook of Psychiatry for dissidents,” a member of the American Society of Psychiatrists, UK Royal College of Psychiatrists, the rehabilitation of victims of the World Council of Torture, International PEN, the author of several books and hundreds of articles. All of this – on human rights defenders, public figures and the head of the Ukrainian Psychiatric Association Semen Gluzman.

Semen Gluzman  –  on the Maidan, and the syndrome crowd of friendship with the “Bandera” and enzyme resistance, control the power and responsibility for the past.

– Semen Fishelevich, you are one of those who supported the Maidan, but never torn his scene. Why, by the way?

– I never wanted to the scene – from the time of Rukh has never been on any shodnyak, I mean … on an important meeting decent people. Just realize that the psychology of a decent man and the psychology of thousands of decent people differ dramatically.

At the same time, I must admit, even during the Orange Revolution called me many foreign colleagues, the stars of the world of psychiatry, with one question: where’s syndrome aggressive influence of the crowd?

Ukrainian people have shown themselves quite surprisingly and in 2004 and in 2014. During the recent hurricane in Houston because of marauding police had to impose a curfew. Are there many cases of looting, we can remember when the city center, with its many shops and expensive boutiques, stood up to 200 thousand people?

– In the mid-1970s, in the Perm region, a young Jew Gluzman made friends with Ukrainian nationalists – 25 annuals. But then you have joined a common enemy and not the overall vision of the future.

– Yes, I spent several years in the camp side by side with those who were called “Bandera”. They were simple people, the names of Bandera or Shukhevych of their mouth, I had never heard. They just defended their land from “outsiders”. I once asked Uncle Vasya Basil Malozhinskogo, whom he regarded as the UPA soldier, and he was from the SS division Galicia-evil so asked reproachfully, saying how could you ?! And he did his best to explain: “Spershu boule sovєti Potіm priyshli nіmtsі OAO All – A Stranger’s one I never pobachiv i pochuv svoїh, yshli hloptsі that spіvali of Ukrainian pіsen What I first bailiff to them That Well svoї boule ……. . “That’s right, simply and without ideological pathos.

– Jewish support of the Maidan has not surprised?

– Not in the least surprised. One of the most striking childhood memories  I was 10-11 years old, I was returning to his home on the bus, with rises on Artema October Revolution Square (Maidan current). At one of the stops came an elderly lady, very polite, a good Ukrainian language, asked the passengers where it’s okay to leave. Trolley bus exploded with anger – I was scared, not knowing what was happening. Started the persecution of some lumpen, perhaps a T-shirt, he was supported by his aunt vociferous – it was a stream of insults that hit a woman, just to speak in Ukrainian. Then I realized that with me live one more Jews – Ukrainians.

Frankly, when Ukraine got its independence in 1991, I was tense, remembering how aggressively treated here to the Jews in the Soviet era. I remember how the Jewish boys and girls, which were practically closed local universities, leaving to other republics, where there were quiet and well attended. In addition-and this is for me as a dissident is very important – in Ukraine was the most ferocious in the KGB Union. I tensed and because he saw who vote for independence in Parliament : a group of 239, which is officially called “For a sovereign Radyans’ka up Ukraine”, in other words, the communist majority, sensing the winds of change. And along with them – thousands of opportunists, rinuvshihsya from the Komsomol straight into Roc. Professional killers of Ukrainian culture, instantly became the accusers “hand of Moscow”.

Then, when it became an annual index to measure the tolerance, it appears that anti-Semitism and xenophobia are retreating, although the anti-Semites, of course, is and always will be. This was true of all the other areas  the country got a chance.

I remember one of the first American ambassadors told his friends in Ukraine, saying that you frequent to Moscow, come here, there is a very different people. And it’s true, that’s not the idealization or romanticizing, and the herald of the European mentality.

Of course, at 2014 Independence were different people, and they stood for different things. But it was in the area  some seven years I have not filed a hand.

– Today, three and a half years later, do not be disappointed?

– I am not so naive as to fail to understand: the revolution does not end as the dream of its members. Therefore anticipated that possibly will be disappointed, but … did not expect so much.

You see, in his initial optimism, I relied on the camp experience. With me sat a lot of people of different nationalities, but the Ukrainians have always been the most – about 30-40% of prisoners. Very different – not very smart – and wise, educated – and almost illiterate, sincere – and on your mind. I do not quite understand what the ethnic psychology, but in all the years in the political area, I have not met one Belarusian, Kyrgyz or Uzbek dissident. But the KGB was everywhere. Therefore, unlike many former Soviet republics, Ukraine was able to gradually come to some kind of European values. There is a resistance to the enzyme, but the people are not trained in democracy and have no control over their politicians.

This, incidentally, turned out rather quickly, so, in my opinion, the only way out – a long way to majority elections.

– Where buckwheat is everything?  

– It is everything because of her hand nobody put. Of course, the new laws, withdrawal Institute, etc. needed – need to teach people to control the power, primarily local. Do many Ukrainians need a report from its regional deputies? That’s it. And who offended us?

As for buckwheat, remember the scene in Bishkek Tulip Revolution, when revolutionaries dragged on his back stolen refrigerators and television sets? In Kiev, as it was not … Here, both the Maidan demanding from the authorities not buckwheat, and quite another.

Just people accept defeat very quickly, sitting in the kitchen or in the FB and wailing: again m … Duck elected. And also choose not the best, but they are controlled -and this should be taught in Europe. I know many who are helping with the support of Western partners to build democratic institutions in Ukraine. The vast majority of them work just for money. Some of them are rascals. Unfortunately…

– In 2014, many thought that the Ukrainians are the European political nation. How far along the process, or, conversely, stopped, given the historical memory of the policy, with its cult of new heroes?

– For me, the new heroes – a Heavenly hundreds, not the leaders of the OUN and UPA. And the fact that the memory of the heroes of the new vulgarized, obviously. She vulgarized when stopper criminal cases, which should be called the perpetrators of the massacre. She vulgarized, as the country’s leadership does not want to admit that on the other side, too, were Ukrainians. I know one family in which the boy grew up, the only son, who was “bad” brought – he wanted to be a Ukrainian officer. He was burned at the Maidan. Perhaps one of my daughter’s friends, occasionally throwing Molotov cocktails.

There are many things that we uncouple. But in a situation where the people in the mass hates and despises the power, what kind of love for each other can be said?

– What do you think about decommunisation receiving more and more sophisticated form?

– As a former political prisoner and anti-Soviet, I can not but welcome this process. But in its present form it gives me a feeling of disgust. As lustration, which was clearly organized and controlled from the top and stopped as suddenly as it had begun.

Lustration was illegal and generally meaningless, and it was followed by the same kind of pointless and illegal Decommunization. Autos of the dead will not work, especially when it conducts a marginal rot.

We voted in favor at the time of Kravchuk, and after the KGB has arrested dissidents only after the approval of the Central Committee department of ideology, which he headed. Why not to prosecute? And at the same time and all the deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the group 239, by which the independence was proclaimed.

It is very convenient to demolish monuments, taking responsibility for the past. We are the eternal victim, with a demand for us? “We endlessly criticize Comrade Stalin, and, of course, to work and yet I want to ask. Who wrote denunciations of four million?” – once said Sergei Dovlatov. The question hung in the air. We’ve no sense of responsibility for the acts of their fathers and grandfathers, as in Germany, where the children and grandchildren remember well what difference their loved ones. Where they are – children of the NKVD, the party nomenklatura, which, after all, millions of ordinary people obediently raises his hands at the next party meeting, the stigma of renegades, traitors to the socialist motherland, etc.?

So it is not an ideology we have to sew in the XXI century, and the way of the future.

I am not an enemy of perpetuating the memory of Stepan Bandera, but when acting Health Minister Suprun declares that, taking important decisions, mentally consults with the leader of the OUN, this is in any gate … And apparently, it is something to her counsels, as the results of this tandem we see.

– Donbass, which has become a springboard for the “Russian world”, lost to Ukraine? Or not very much, and we need it?

– Russian is impoverished, it has fewer features include these territories, and Putin, in the end, death. Deliberately or not, but he pulled the plug by their actions many influential people in Russia who stole billions, access to which is every day more and more difficult, given the sanctions. They are used to a different level of personal freedom, where they are, after all, now the rest? On Baikal?

So I believe that sooner or later Ukraine will return to the region. But not the kind of young people who went to the Donbas and already settled in Kiev and other cities. They have made their choice.

Sometimes it occurs to me seditious thought … my camp friends were fighting for the independence of Ukraine, and once the day has come – not because we were sitting at it in the camps. If Donbass really wants to live differently, if it is him and not someone external choice, from a moral point of view, why not think about the idea of ​​independence for these people? This is only one possible solution, but it must be spoken. Apart so apart, we do so and are doing everything to isolate these areas – with the help of the blockade, for example.

– It is clear that the war promotes the division of society into friends and foes, and the formation of a black and white picture of the world. All this of course, but … if we do not turn into “Russia on the contrary”, with its contempt for the private view, the search for their fifth column, and so on?

– I am fully aware that the current president is also seeking to usurp power, but I understand that he is also not released, because, even Kuchma, Ukraine wrote – not Russia. Our man in the street is different from the Russian. There genuinely respected Putin. Here the power is changing, and every new government we do not like, and often despised or hated. And it gives grounds for optimism.

Regarding the split in society, we are thrown into the past and because they do not offer a vision of the future. This also applies to the heroes of the UPA – stranger to a large part of the country, and to the language problem, which is the vast majority of Ukrainians do not consider the problem, but that again raised the shield on …

After the trial, I spent twenty days in a cell with Vasilem Stusom – and it was a luxurious 20 days. From time to time I even forget where I was, plunging into the Ukrainian culture. But we were talking in their own language, and Stus took this quite calmly. With 25 annuals UPA camp communicated in the same way – no one ever said nothing.

I was once again transferred to the new barracks, and that same day I was admitted to the “family” Eugene Prishlyak and Vasil Pidgorodetskim. The first was to arrest referent Security Lviv OUN, the second – a simple fighter in the UPA. Collected in the bedside table meal, we shared equally and ate together. After some time went to Vasil old policeman – a bastard – and said, “Vasil you train a respected man, an old convict, are not you ashamed to Zhydenko eat?” “I have it on s … sent”, – he told me later Vasil.

I am absolutely convinced that the state language is necessary to know, but since independence can not remember a single attempt to create appropriate courses for civil servants. Told me how hard they taught language after work – reading aloud Shevchenko, etc. Ethnic Ukrainians, but completely Russified Soviet reality. Such mockery, with complete indifference of the state, caused the rejection, rather than patriotic feelings.

So let’s publish good books, cooking class teachers – the key to successful language policy. I sometimes have to deal with some of the upper class of pedagogical universities – it’s awful. They academics some of their academies, wealthy people, but are engaged in playing the Soviet zhlobstva.

Ukraine has ruined a lot. When NaUKMA took its first steps, I tried to explain to the rector that it is necessary to keep the schools of mathematicians, theoretical physicists have developed in “mailboxes”, with excellent professionals. It was just necessary to allow these professionals to teach at first in Russian, but … we got rid of high intelligence.

– Who is able to pull the country out of the vicious circle? As long as people do not totally trust the government, naively hopes on the most rabid populists – and we have already passed … Civil society is defeated – or simply lost the battle?

– Civil society must help, rather than push. I am following with great concern for the future of the country in which I live and which I am a part of. I’m afraid that if this continues, the Ukrainian state will be defeated not by external forces, it simply dissolved, as a solid in a liquid. And will Vodicka, sweet or salty – are not so important.

– And what about the resistance enzyme?

– The enzyme resistance – an important condition for independence, but not sufficient.

Build the country – it does not sit in the cooler. We need other skills. When the Soviet Union ended, many former dissidents in Moscow continued to engage in human rights activities. In Ukraine, a number of my colleagues on the Gulag have gone into politics – and what?

It is clear that the government is constantly tosses a bone of contention that we at loggerheads in the past, instead of building the future. And less remembered about the reforms that are needed, as the air, and at the same time painful, so hold on to your seats, the tops are in no hurry to carry them out. A bottoms – bottoms grow, and this is our chance.

Interview by Michael Gold

Sourse, 13/10/2017

72 NGO already have signed the Declaration of Human Rights Agenda platform with the requirement to the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to stop the attack on civil society organizations

September 25, 2017

HUMAN RIGHTS AGENDA

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform demanding the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine stop crack-down on non-governmental organizations

 In early July 2017, the presidential draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 were registered in the Parliament of Ukraine. The draft laws were elaborated allegedly to replace the scandalous amendments to the anti-corruption legislation obliging the anti-corruption activists to annually file personal asset and property electronic declarations (Law of Ukraine No. 1975-VIII of 23 March 2017). The presidential draft laws actually propose to abolish the e-declarations for public anti-corruption activists but to require instead the non-governmental organizations and individual entrepreneurs as well as enterprises, institutions and organizations providing them with services, to file additional reports to tax authorities.

The draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 burden all non-governmental organizations and individual entrepreneurs, enterprises, institutions and organizations that provide them with services with an unjustified obligation to file additional tax reports.

It is revealing that the number of tax reports required from the non-governmental organizations, which these draft laws provide for, significantly exceeds the number of reports required from the business. Moreover, even the recipients of budget funds are not required to file such a number of tax reports.

We believe that these legislative initiatives appeared not by chance, though against the background of statements about the need to reduce excessive state regulation. The punishment in form of the abolition of a non-profit status of non-governmental organization is pronouncedly punitive in nature and is nothing more than the introduction of a tool for selective pressure on the non-governmental organizations indisposed towards the authorities.

We regard the initiative of the President of Ukraine as the disproportionate interference in the activities of the non-governmental organizations. Such steps liken Ukraine to the repressive regimes of the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and others similar. Despite the ostentatious care for transparency and accountability, the regulations introduced in the abovementioned countries led to almost absolute annihilation of the non-governmental organizations which are independent from authorities and total crack-down on civil society.

No international treaties require similar state control over the activities of non-governmental organizations as the international standards endow the non-governmental organizations with the right to be free from state interference in their activities.

The Guidelines on Freedom of Association drafted by the Council of Europe and the OSCE stipulate that “the state shall not require but shall encourage and facilitate associations to be accountable and transparent.” Special reporting is permissible, however, if it is required in exchange for certain benefits, provided it is “within the discretion of the association to decide whether to comply with such reporting requirements or forgo them and forsake any related special benefits, where applicable.”

In consideration of the foregoing, we demand that the Parliament of Ukraine immediately reject the draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 of 10 July 2017 and the President of Ukraine fulfill his promise to cancel the amendments to the anti-corruption legislation dated March 2017.

For reference: the Human Rights Agenda platform is the informal coalition of human rights organizations working in the field of monitoring, analyzing and elaborating the legislation in accordance with the basic principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The platform participants are the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, the Center for Civil Liberties, the Amnesty International Ukraine, the Human Rights Information Center, the Center for Law Enforcement Studies, the Without Borders Project of the NGO “Social Action Center” and the Euromaidan SOS. The Center for Civil Liberties coordinates the platform activities. Contacts: human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

  1. Center for Civil Liberties
  2. Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
  3. Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches
  4. Eastern-Ukrainian Center for Civic Initiatives
  5. Charitable Foundation “Vostok SOS”
  6. Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”
  7. Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law Enforcement
  8. NGO “KyivPride”
  9. Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
  10. Open Dialog Foundation
  11. Human Rights Information Center
  12. Crimean Human Rights Group
  13. NGO “Helsinki Initiative XXI”
  14. NGO “Peaceful Coast”
  15. Expert Human Rights Center
  16. NGO “La Strada Ukraine”
  17. Liberation Movement Research Center
  18. Charitable Organisation “Fund of Mercy and Health”
  19. NGO “South”
  20. NGO “Ray of Changes”
  21. Kharkiv Regional Foundation “Public Alternative”
  22. Project “Without Borders”
  23. NGO “Political Studies Association”
  24. NGO “People’s Control of Kirovohrad Region”
  25. Eksampei Center for Ukrainian Policy
  26. NGO “Volunteer Association of Participants of Maidan and Fighting Action”
  27. Charitable Foundation “Dyvosvit Club”
  28. NGO “School of Public Projects”
  29. NGO “Faith. Hope. Action”
  30. NGO “JCI Kyiv”
  31. Educational Human Rights House Chernihiv
  32. NGO “Women’s Prospects Center”
  33. NGO “Zakarpattia Community”
  34. Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Organization “Young Prosvita”
  35. Ternopil Human Rights Group
  36. Human Rights Center “All rights”
  37. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Convictus Ukraine”
  38. Autonomous Bar Association
  39. NGO “MART” (Chernihiv)
  40. Ukrainian Legal Aid Foundation
  41. Information and Awareness Raising Center “Axis” (Vinnytsia)
  42. NGO “Center for Civic Education “Almenda””
  43. Center for Humanistic Technologies “AHALAR”
  44. NGO “Ukrainian Association of Assessment”
  45. NGO “Territory of Success”
  46. T-Woman of Ukraine
  47. NGO “AutoMaidan Kyiv”
  48. NGO “Human Rights Vector”
  49. Bilozerka Center for Regional Development
  50. Center for Law Enforcement Activity Research
  51. Chernihiv Public Committee for Human Rights Protection
  52. NGO “Kyiv Educational Center “Tolerspace””
  53. Human Rights Center “Postup”
  54. NGO “Liberal Democratic League of Ukraine”
  55. Bureau of Social and Political Developments
  56. Center for Legal and Political Studies “DUMA”
  57. Institute of Mass Information
  58. SOVA Group
  59. Media Initiative for Human Rights
  60. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Legalife Ukraine”
  61. NGO “Insight”
  62. Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research
  63. NGO “Informer”
  64. Information and Analytical Center “Public Space”
  65. LGBT Human Rights Center “Our World”
  66. NGO “Bakhmat”
  67. NGO “Development Foundation”
  68. NGO “All-Ukrainian League of Lawyers Against Corruption”
  69. NGO “Kharkiv Women’s Association “Sphere””
  70. NGO “Gender Center of Volyn Region”
  71. NGO “Theatre for Dialogue”
  72. NGO ‘Free Territory’

The statement is open for signature. Please contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Результаты поиска:

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform on deprivation of attorneys of the ability to cooperate with human rights organisations

March 7, 2019

In the agenda of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the consideration of the first
reading of a draft law ‘On Legal Practice and Advocacy’ No. 9055 is scheduled for 28
February.
The authors and supporters of the law are striving to prove its progressive nature,
strengthening of guarantees of advocacy and empowerment.
However, should the law be adopted, all attorneys who cooperate with human rights
organisations will be deprived of the opportunity to engage in advocacy activities
within the framework of cooperation with these organisations. Hundreds of cases
which have been filed by lawyers of these organisations with the European Court of
Human Rights, and thousands of court cases in national courts will become only a
reminder of past activities. There will be no one competent to file new applications
with the European Court and national courts on behalf of human rights organisations.
In his expert opinion which contains the analysis of the draft law No. 9055, the
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights Diego Garcia-Sayan stated that the restriction, set
forth in Article 28 of the draft law 9055, could adversely affect the lawyers who would
have to choose between full employment and the work of a human rights defender
which, obviously, would adversely affect an access to justice in the country, in
particular, for individuals with limited financial means. Also, the report provides a
whole number of risks and threats to independent advocacy, such as the procedure
of bringing attorneys to disciplinary responsibility, unfounded types of disciplinary
sanctions that affect the independence of advocacy and, consequently, affect
appropriate defence in court.
Separately, the completely opaque process of work on the draft law is to be
mentioned, and this fact has also been noted in the report by Mr. Diego Garcia-
Sayan. He wrote that consultations with representatives of the legal profession were
very limited in nature, and the final draft law was made public by the office of the
President without the opportunity to comment on its content.
A lack of transparency, marginalisation of the drafting process and introduction of the
draft law, a lack of a high-quality expert examination, for example, by the Venice
Commission, and haste with the attempts to implement this law as soon as possible

in a parliament’s session confirm the poor quality of the preparation process and the
same low-quality content of the draft law itself, which, in its present form, poses a
real threat to the protection of human rights in the human rights protection
environment of Ukraine and can be regarded as a way of attack and exertion of
pressure on the environment.
We hereby urge Members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to prevent the
consideration and adoption of the draft law 9055, as requested in the report by Diego
Garcia-Sayan, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The text of the draft law No.
9055 must be redrafted, discussed publicly and amended, taking into account the
comments made by representatives of the bar community, human rights
organisations, and international experts. We demand transparency, honesty and
high quality. Today, we cannot see these features in the draft law No. 9055.
The Human Rights Agenda platform is an informal coalition of human right organisations focused on systemic
problems of legislation and practices for defending fundamental human rights. The participants of the platform
are as follows: Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, Center for Civil Liberties, Amnesty International
Ukraine, Human Rights Information Center, Centre of Law Enforcement Activities Research (CLEAR), Project
"Without Borders", Euromaidan SOS. The platform is coordinated by the Center for Civil Liberties. You can
contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
Center for Civil Liberties
Regional Centre for Human Rights
Open Dialogue Foundation
Humanitarian Studio "Wave
Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”

NGOs call on the HQCJ to refrain from creating artificial obstacles to the establishment of the Public Integrity Council

November 22, 2018

On November 21, 2018, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) announced the results of the consideration of documents of public associations (NGOs) for the establishment of the Public Integrity Council (PIC).

 

The Commission approved a positive decision on the admission of only 2 out of 14 organizations that submitted the documents. The Commission allowed the rest of the organizations to eliminate the shortcomings which, in its opinion, were identified in the relevant documents of the NGOs.

 

Having considered the decisions of the Commission, NGOs have to state that among these alleged shortcomings there are many that are not based on the requirements of the law, do not pursue a legitimate aim and can create artificial obstacles for NGOs’ participation in the PIC establishment.

 

In particular:

 

  • In some cases (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the Commission does not accept the results of a financial audit conducted not within the past two years, whereas the law only requires the availability of an audit report and does not set any time frames for its conduct;
  • In some other cases (Center for Civil Liberties, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the HQCJ groundlessly believes that it is only the first persons of international organizations in Ukraine (the OSCE Coordinator in Ukraine, UNDP, etc.) that can make recommendations to NGOs, while the law does not contain such a requirement, and the signatures of officials of international organizations were affixed within their authorities;
  • Position of the HQCJ regarding the recognition of reports based on the financial audit results or audit findings as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements only because these reports were prepared for confidential use and submission to grantors (CRIMEASOS, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform) is unreasonable (the law does not set any requirements for the addressees of the reports and the purpose of their preparation);
  • The HQCJ did not recognize a copy of the report on the project implementation results due to the lack of signature of the person authorized to sign it (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform). However, such a requirement is unfounded since the law requires the provision of a copy rather than the original of the report, and the submitted copy of the report has been duly certified by an authorized person;  
  • The law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” does not require the publication of a declaration of a candidate to the PIC on the NACP’s website, and the HQCJ’s competencies do not cover anti-corruption verification of declarations (including the presence or absence of these declarations on the NACP’s website), while some organizations (Institute of Applied Humanitarian Research) received a reply that the absence of such declarations on the NACP’s website serves as grounds for non-admission.

 

As for documents of other NGOs (Civic Lustration Committee, E+, Nova Krayina, ТОМ14, Centre for Economic Strategy, Centre UA), only the originals of certain documents are required, whereas all the necessary information can be obtained from the duly authenticated photocopies. In some other cases (DEJURE, Nova Krayina), technical errors (incorrect indication of the candidate’s patronymic only in one of the documents or use of the phrase “annual declaration” after “declaration of a candidate for the position of the PIC member”) are considered by the Commission as “grounds for the determination of the submitted documents as not complying with … the law”.

 

We want to emphasize that the requirements of the law on the submission of documents have been established to confirm the experience, real activity and capacity of NGOs to form the PIC. The Commission’s review of these documents should pursue this legitimate aim and should not go beyond its limits.

 

The Commission’s decisions are even more surprising given the fact that 2 years ago the Commission allowed a number of organizations with similar packages of documents to participate in the NGO Meeting on the PIC establishment without any comments. The Commission did not consider the failure to submit proper declarations by the candidates for judicial office at the Anti-Corruption Court and Intellectual Property Court to be a violation and allowed them to take part in the competition to the IP-court.

 

We are concerned that at the beginning of our cooperation with the HQCJ regarding the formation of the second composition of the PIC, we faced this approach. At the same time, the NGOs will make every effort to take into account the wishes of the Commission regarding the execution of documents within a specified period as far as possible.

 

However, if the HQCJ retains this approach to the assessment of documents, there will be a high risk of groundless rejection of experienced and capable NGOs from participation in the Meeting and, as a result, the formation of an incomplete composition, delay, or even the impossibility of establishing the PIC as a form of public participation in the selection and evaluation of judges.

 

Therefore, we call on the HQCJ:

 

  • To carefully reconsider all the packages of documents submitted by the NGOs, including those that will be submitted additionally;
  • To assess the documents submitted by organizations solely on the basis of the requirements of the law, impartially and without groundless formalism;
  • To allow all NGOs whose experience and capability are confirmed by the documents submitted by them to participate in the Meeting;
  • To review the decisions on a number of NGOs (indicated in this statement or otherwise) regarding the recognition of documents as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements of the law, particularly where the law contained no such requirements.

 

Civic Lustration Committee

Initiative E+

Crimea SOS

Nova Kraina

ТОМ 14

DEJURE Foundation

Center for Civil Liberties

Centre for Economic Strategy

Centre of Policy and Legal Reform

Centre UA

Nations in Transit 2018: Confronting Illiberalism

April 11, 2018

Washington, April 12, 2018 — Attacks on opposition parties, the press, and civil society organizations are becoming the norm in Central and Eastern Europe as the spread of illiberal politics undermines the foundations of and prospects for democracy, according to Nations in Transit 2018, the 23rd edition of Freedom House’s annual report on democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Eurasia.

Ukraine’s Democracy Score declined for the first time since the 2014 revolution. With the Russian-led conflict in the east grinding on, Ukraine’s politicians are taking advantage of patriotic sentiment to attack NGOs and journalists, accusing them of undermining the war effort.

“Attacks on civil society and political opponents have sapped the momentum from the institutional reform process in Ukraine,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “Although decentralization reforms are continuing, other key priorities, including anticorruption efforts, have stalled. The window of opportunity has not closed in Ukraine, but it has shrunk. By accusing NGOs and journalists of antinational sentiment, politicians are attempting to exclude legitimate voices from public debate simply because they criticize the government.”

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON UKRAINE

 

  • Two important milestones were reached in relations between Ukraine and the European Union in 2017: the visa-free regime with the EU came into force in June, allowing millions of Ukrainians to travel freely to the neighboring Schengen zone for short-term stays, and the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement — the main trigger for the Euromaidan protests which provides a framework for major transformations in Ukrainian democracy, human rights, rule of law, good governance, trade, and sustainable development — finally came completely into force.
  • One of the main achievements in Ukraine’s national governance in 2017 was healthcare reform, which, following the passage by the Verkhovna Rada of a law on healthcare financing in October, will align the system based on the principle of “money following patients.”
  • Decentralization reform continued, with administrative territorial reform resulting in the creation of approximately 700 amalgamated communities, and fiscal decentralization resulting in increased revenues and local infrastructure investments for the first time in 23 years.
  • The conflict in the east remained largely frozen throughout the year. The socioeconomic conditions in the occupied territories, and in those areas close to the line of contact, continued to be poor. The armed separatist groups developed their own institutions, which, in turn, enacted regulations that routinely violated basic human rights, while journalists and bloggers covering the conflict continued to be arrested and detained.
  • Pressure on civil society intensified. In March, the government obliged citizens working against corruption to publicly declare their income and assets, while a legislative initiative to replace the controversial requirement with other restrictive measures against NGOs under threat of onerous restrictions for not complying with the proposed regulations was unsuccessful. The Civil Society score declined due to smear campaigns against NGOs and activists.
  • Prominent civil society organizations were targeted with criminal investigations against them and their members, and there were physical attacks on well-known activists.
  • The Independent Media score declined due to the blocking of major social media sites, as well as physical attacks on journalists and a lack of progress in investigating the murder of journalist Pavel Sheremet.
  • Progress on judicial and anti-corruption reforms was mixed. While the National Anticorruption Bureau actively investigated high-level corruption results of its work were few. The President had yet to create the High Anticorruption Court as promised. Vetting of judicial appointments to the Supreme Court stumbled as 25 candidates that had not passed public integrity checks were approved as official candidates.

“Illiberal politics are becoming the new normal in Europe,” said Michael J. Abramowitz, president of Freedom House. “Government-led smear campaigns against civil society groups, journalists, and the political opposition were pioneered in Russia and Central Asia, but they are increasingly common across the region.”

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES

  • Poland recorded the second-largest Democracy Score decline in the history of the report. The ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party’s revolutionary takeover of the judicial system, politicization of public media, smear campaigns against nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and violations of ordinary parliamentary procedure also produced the two largest single-category score declines in Nations in Transit’s history, for National Democratic Governance and Judicial Framework and Independence.

 

“The radical changes to the Polish judiciary remove any effective check on the actions of the majority party in parliament,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “What has happened in Poland in the last two years should serve as an alarm bell for anyone who believes that one-party rule could never return to Europe.”

“The EU should stand up for its commitments to the rule of law by implementing Article 7 sanctions against Poland and Hungary,” Schenkkan said, referring to the EU’s power to suspend a member’s voting rights. “It should condition access to European funds on clear rule-of-law criteria. This is the only way to convince these countries, and EU candidate states, that the union is firmly rooted in democratic principles.”

  • Hungary has registered the largest cumulative decline in Nations in Transit The country’s Democracy Score has been falling for 10 consecutive years, moving it from the status of a democratic leader at the time of EU accession in 2004 to the threshold of a “Transitional/Hybrid Regime” in 2018.

 

“The Fidesz government of Viktor Orbán led the way for illiberal forces in Central Europe, showing that it was possible to capture a state within the EU through gerrymandering, procurement manipulation, and control of the media,” said Schenkkan. “The fact that Fidesz remains a member in good standing in the European People’s Party of the European Parliament shows how effective Orbán’s approach has been.”

  • Estonia earned the biggest improvement in this edition of the report, even though it was already the best performer. A surprisingly smooth first year in government for a longtime opposition party demonstrated the resilience and independence of national institutions. Estonia’s anticorruption mechanisms appear to be addressing the municipal corruption that has long affected its major cities.

“At a time when most of the news for democracy seems bad, Estonia reminds us that liberal democracy can and does succeed,” Schenkkan said. “Even in a country with a history of foreign occupation and sensitive ethnic and regional differences, democratic national institutions can produce better governance for everyone.”

View the full report here: https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/nations-transit-2018

###

 

Freedom House is an independent watchdog organization that supports democratic change, monitors the status of freedom around the world, and advocates for democracy and human rights.

Join us on Facebook and Twitter (@FreedomHouseDC) and stay up to date with Freedom House’s latest news and events by signing up for our newsletter.

Special event to discuss Ukraine’s future at the Atlantic Council Headquarters (on Thursday, March 29, 2018)

April 4, 2018

In the four years since the end of the Revolution of Dignity, Ukraine has not answered its most important question: how will the country ensure democratic values in its future development? Much of Ukraine’s hope lies in its young leaders who will drive the country forward in the coming years. CDDRL has been fortunate to provide a year-long residency to some of these future leaders as part of the inaugural year of the Center’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program.

This event will feature three Ukrainian leaders who are in residency with CDDRL’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program this year. They will each discuss their own perspectives on opportunities and challenges to democracy and development in their home country, as well as objectives for strengthening public administration, civil society, and economic reforms upon their return to Ukraine.

We hope you can join us for this timely discussion.

Sourse, 29/03/2018

Vitaliy Tytych: Rigging of anti-corruption court competition must be prevented

March 19, 2018

The High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice cannot be trusted to conduct an objective and fair competition for the anti-corruption court without severe foreign and civil society oversight and without a drastic change in the competition’s methodology. They cannot be trusted because they violated the law and demonstrated their political bias by rigging the competition for the Supreme Court.

The discredited High Qualification Commission must be deprived of its arbitrary powers to assign scores subjectively during competitions for anti-corruption and other judges, and such scores must be based on objective criteria.

This is even more important than foreign donors’ veto powers, and this is the only way to ensure that honest and professional candidates believe in the fairness of the competition and participate, and that the commission has no way of promoting political loyalists and incompetent candidates for subjective reasons.

During the Supreme Court competition, 90 scores were assigned for anonymous legal knowledge tests, 120 scores for anonymous practical tests, and the High Qualification Commission could arbitrarily assign 790 scores without giving any explicit reasons (formally based on interviews with candidates and examining their profiles).

According to the 2016 law on the judiciary and status of judges, legal knowledge and practical tests (i.e. objective criteria) are the main method of selecting judges. This law stipulates that at least 75 percent of the total score (i.e. 750 out of 1,000 scores) must be given for anonymous legal knowledge and practical tests.

The High Qualification Commission took advantage of the vague wording of the law to set regulations that contradict the law because only 210 out of the total of 1,000 scores were assigned for legal knowledge and practical tests.

As a result of the Supreme Court competition, candidates who were at the top of the list after the anonymous knowledge tests and practical tests ended up at the bottom in the final stage for unknown reasons, while candidates who initially got lower scores and had a corrupt background ended up at the top.

Both the law on the judiciary and the High Qualification Commission’s internal regulations must be amended and clarified to clearly assign 750 scores for anonymous legal knowledge tests and practical tests (for competitions for both the anti-corruption court and all other courts). If parliament refuses to amend the law, the High Qualification Commission can just change its regulations, which is even easier.

As an option, 330 scores should be given for anonymous legal knowledge tests, another 330 scores for practical tests, and 330 scores for interviews and professional ethics (preferably based on conclusions by the Public Integrity Council and foreign donors). The law on the judiciary and status of judges should also be amended to require the publication of practical works after practical tests.

That would leave no room for arbitrary decisions and political involvement.

President Petro Poroshenko claims that the participation of foreign donors in the competition for the anti-corruption court contradicts Ukraine’s sovereignty, which is false (for example, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine was created with the participation of foreign donors).

But anyway Ukraine’s foreign partners could delegate independent Ukrainian citizens with impeccable reputation and integrity. This would halt any talk about sovereignty.

Such representatives could include people from the December 1 Initiative Group civil-society organization, Soviet dissident and human rights lawyer Myroslav Marynovych or Vyacheslav Bryukhovetsky, honorary president of the Kyiv Mohyla Academy.

Moreover, Ukraine’s foreign donors must take part in the competition for anti-corruption judges but they will have neither time nor resources to vet all the candidates and their background on their own. The Public Integrity Council, which has shown its independence from the authorities and its ability to work hard to examine candidates’ background, must take part in the competition for the anti-graft court by collecting all the available information on candidates (and the council must participate in competitions for all courts under the 2016 law on the judiciary and status of judges).

This is the only way to ensure that anti-corruption judges are truly professional and independent.

The use of the same objective methodology for assigning scores both for the anti-corruption court and other courts and the participation of the Public Integrity Council in competitions for the anti-corruption court and other courts  will totally kill the false argument that the anti-corruption court is a “special” court banned by the Constitution (the Venice Commission has already refuted this argument).

Also, it will be impossible to select independent judges if foreign donors choose representatives loyal to the Ukrainian government.  Such representatives must be completely independent from pressure by Ukrainian authorities.

In the best-case scenario, foreign donors should themselves assess candidates’ professional integrity. But at least they should have a right to suspend the competition and initiate an audit if evidence emerges that the High Qualification Commission violated procedural rules.

The Public Integrity Council believes that the competition for the Supreme Court was rigged to promote politically loyal candidates.

First, during the practical test stage, some candidates were given tests that coincided with cases that they had considered during their career, which was deemed a tool of promoting political loyalists.

Second, in March 2017 the High Qualification Commission illegally allowed 43 candidates who had not gotten sufficient scores during practical tests to take part in the next stage, changing its rules amid the competition. Members of the Public Integrity Council believe that the rules were unlawfully changed to prevent political loyalists from dropping out of the competition.

Apart from the second score assigned anonymously for practical works, the commission gave them a third score after naming them, violating the law (because practical tests should be anonymous to prevent political interference). The commission must have just assigned the second score without knowing the candidates’ names.

Third, the High Qualification Commission illegally refused to publish the scores for candidates’ psychological tests, failed to set a minimum score for psychological tests and illegally assessed the tests on its own (although they must have been assessed by psychologists). Moreover, the commission used corporate loyalty tests, which stipulated loyalty as a major characteristic of a judge – as a result, independent candidates were prevented from getting a higher score, while political loyalists were encouraged.

Fourth, the High Qualification Commission removed the profiles of candidates other than the winners from its site.

Fifth, the High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice illegally refused to give specific reasons for assigning specific total scores to candidates and refused to explain why the High Qualification Commission has overridden vetoes by the Public Integrity Council on candidates who do not meet ethical integrity standards.

Sixth, the High Council of Justice has illegally rejected 48 out of its members’ 52 recusals from voting for specific Supreme Court candidates due to a conflict of interest. This triggered accusations that the council was planning to get the necessary 14 pro-government votes to appoint politically loyal candidates.

Some of these violations are currently being disputed at Ukrainian courts and will be disputed at the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, Public Integrity Council members have opened a criminal case into the violations and will open more cases.

Sourse, 12/03/2018.

FROM OBJECTIVES TO RESULTS: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EU-UKRAINE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT AS SEEN BY STAKEHOLDERS

December 22, 2017

A jury: experience and problems

October 24, 2017

A simulation system of justice in which convulses a vestige of the people’s representatives, as the jury. Says Russian political analyst and human rights activist Mikhail Savva, who left Russia and now living in Ukraine.

The jury is in the Constitution of Ukraine, but in fact, according to human rights activists, jury trials in the country do not. The main difference between a jury trial by an ordinary court (with the participation of one judge or three professional judges) is a separate co-existence in it “judges of law” (the legal profession) and “Judges of fact” (board of jurors , which usually consists of persons who are not are lawyers). If this division is not present and professional judges work together with the representatives of the people should not talk about a jury trial, but the court sheffenskom. Sheffenskie courts adopted, for example, at their home in Germany as well as in Ukraine. Experience and problems of modern Russian jury trials may be useful in case if Ukraine, too, decides to create a jury trial.

The Soviet system of people’s assessors is an option sheffenskogo court, where a judge has unlimited opportunities to influence the decision of the representatives of the people. Sheffenskaya system can be very effective, but only for companies with extremely high legal culture .

In the course of judicial reform 90-ies of the last century, it was created in the Russian jury trials . During the counter-reforms that have been going for fifteen years, created a simulation system of justice in which convulses a vestige of the people’s representatives, as the jury.

Jury trials are traditionally regarded as the “courts of justice”. This is confirmed by the statistics of court decisions in the Russian Federation. Professional judges give less than 1% of acquittals , while the juries – 13-25% in different years.

In 2016, according to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court, in the first instance are over 239 cases with a jury. From 361 to 60 the defendant was justified, that is 17% , another 85 cases returned to the prosecutor. The number of sentences handed down without a jury, more than three orders of magnitude. According to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court in 2016 for all formulations of the Criminal Code (CC) convicted 740,380 people (to imprisonment – 206 304 people), is justified by 1493 (0.2% if you count the persons on which the case was dismissed on rehabilitative grounds, – 1.5%).

Scale application of jury trials in Russia is low. In one year, jury trials in Russia in the second decade of this century the average render verdicts to 300 (the maximum number of verdicts in the post-Soviet period – about 600 in 2010). A jury selected only 12% of the accused, who have a right to it. In the US a year by the jury shall be made about 160 thousand. Verdicts. In the XX century in the Russian empire handed down each year about 40 thousand. Verdicts. The reasons for this will be disclosed below, here I call home. This lack of political will for the development of the institute of juries. In the context of the simulation of the justice system the current Russian regime of the jury can not be complete and widespread.

The jury in the Russian Federation has a constitutional basis: according to Art. 32 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Russian citizens have the right to participate in the administration of justice. One form of such participation – review certain categories of criminal cases in the court of jury. However direct reference to the institution of jury in the Constitution does not.

The introduction of jury trials took considerable time in Russia. Pilot introduction of jury trials in Russia began with the 1993-1994, in 9 subjects of the Federation. The new Criminal Procedure Code, adopted in 2001, did the jury widespread since 2003. In the Chechen Republic the introduction of jury trials actually took place in 2010. An expert on Russian court Sergei Pashin jury, namely the phased introduction of jury trials has led to the fact that he did have in Russia.

The accused has the right to file a petition for consideration of his criminal case by the court of first instance composed of professional judges and a panel of 12 jurors in case he is accused, in particular, murder, sabotage, banditry, genocide, public appeals to the outbreak of war, kidnapping , piracy mercenarism and t. d.

I counted as of July 2017 20 of the Criminal Code articles on which possible jury . At the beginning of the introduction of jury trials in Russia of such items was 47, according Sergeya Pashina calculations, the main initiator of the introduction of jury trials in Russia.

The criminal case, which involved several defendants, the court is considered by jury in respect of all the defendants , if at least one of them said a request for consideration of a criminal case by a court in the composition.

If the defendant has not filed a motion for the consideration of the criminal case by the court by jury, the case is considered by another composition of the court in the manner prescribed by law.

The judge’s decision to hear the case from the jury is final. The subsequent failure of the defendant from the criminal trial by jury is not accepted .

Criminal cases involving jurors of federal courts of general jurisdiction is held in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the supreme courts of republics, territorial, regional courts, courts of federal cities, autonomous region and autonomous districts, the district (naval) military courts.

jury selection jurors is actually a two-step.

According to Art. 3 of the federal law, jurors can not be: persons under 25 years of age; persons with outstanding or previously convicted; persons recognized as incapable or limited in capacity; are registered in the drug treatment or mental hospital.

Such persons are not included in the lists of jurors , drawn up every four years on the basis of the voter list by random sampling. Exclude these people from the list of jurors bodies of executive power of the municipality or the region. Then, after getting acquainted with the citizens of the jury lists, these lists are excluded from the statements of the citizens themselves several categories.

The weak point of this phase of jury selection is a voluntary procedure for submitting applications for exclusion from the jury list. That is, if, for example, the police considers that nothing prevents him to be sworn he did not submit an application for delisting.

During jury selection to participate in a particular criminal case to participate in the proceedings as jurors are not allowed to persons suspected or accused of committing crimes; I do not speak the language in which the hearing is conducted; with physical and / or mental disabilities that prevent full participation in the hearing.

During the trial, the jury task boils down to, to answer three main questions: whether the proven fact of the crime, if that proved his committed by the defendant, and whether he is guilty of the crime. In the case of the issue of the recognition of the defendant’s guilt is put whether he deserves leniency. In this case the judge to the jury formulate lists of issues, which are often a few dozen items.

Jurors “should strive to adopt a unanimous decision,” but if this is not achieved within three hours, the verdict made by voting.

A guilty verdict is adopted, if the majority of the jury votes for each of the three key issues. Acquittal verdict is considered, if not less than six judges gave a negative answer to at least one of the three questions. If the deciding votes are equally divided, the adopted most favorable to the defendant’s answer for each question.

The acquittal is mandatory for the presiding judge, in this case, the court justifies the defendant. Guilty as the jury’s verdict is not binding on the court. If the judge recognizes that a guilty verdict handed down against an innocent person, then adopted a decree on the dissolution of the jury and the criminal case is sent for a new trial by another composition of the court. This decision is not subject to appeal in cassation.

From the jurisdiction of jury trials for the duration of this institution such articles were excluded, such as terrorism, hostage-taking, riots, treason, espionage, violent seizure of power, rape and sexual offenses against children. Some compounds “fell out” of crime from the jurisdiction of jury trials due to the fact that the new Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 2001 softened for him the punishment and the death penalty or life imprisonment has not been provided (eg high treason). In some cases, exceptions motive was that the jury too often render acquittals. For example, in the discussion in the State Duma in 2013, the issue of the exclusion of such a composition as sexual crimes against children, the author of the bill deputy Spring said that the jury too often justify the accused.

In February 2016 the Russian Constitutional Court found that the criminal case against women in the murder with aggravating circumstances could be considered by a jury of 12 people in the supreme courts of republics, territorial or regional courts. Prior to that, women were deprived of the possibility to be tried before a jury, because the Russian legislation does not provide for life sentences for the women.

December 3, 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed to extend the role of juries in a possible reduction in their number in the court up to 5-7 people. This was an attempt to respond to society’s demands for justice. At a time when major political offenses removed from the jurisdiction of jury trials, the expansion of the institute of juries are no longer threatened by the authorities. In other words, cases of domestic murder and some other formulations could, according to the authorities, to consider jury trials at district and city levels.

Starting from June 1, 2018 Institute of jurorsIt will be operational in the district (city) and garrison military courts. Established number of jurors for the district and garrison military courts – 6 people, in the courts of the Russian Federation and the district military courts, the number of jurors will be reduced from 12 to 8. district-level court jury will consider the criminal case at the request of the accused, for which there may not be sentenced to life imprisonment, namely, with regard to women, persons who have committed crimes under the age of 18 years, men who have attained to time of the court’s 65-year-olds sentence. Criminal cases on these articles of the Criminal Code in relation to other persons, as before, will be considered by the court of the subject of the Russian Federation. In addition, the district court with the participation of jurors,

Judges of the Russian Federation, according to a discussion at the Congress in December 2016, the judges are extremely skeptical about the prospects for the mass introduction of jury trials . They talk about the organizational unpreparedness and lack of funding. We can assume that in the near future verdicts of the jury will not become a mass phenomenon in the municipal and district courts.

Practical functioning of juries problem is clearly illustrated by the case of the murder of Boris Nemtsov , who was considered by the Moscow District Military Court in 2016-2017. A panel of 12 jurors was in the conference room for three days. She had to answer 26 questions put to them by the judge. The jury could not come to a unanimous opinion, so after three hours of contentious issues have been put to the vote. 10 of the 12 jurors declared guilty of all five defendants.

Eight jurors were replaced during the process. The defendant’s lawyer Bakhaeva Zaurbek Sadahanov said: “There was a sweep of the jury, we have seen. The verdict is absolutely illegal, because no evidence of guilt Bakhaeva investigation did not present. This is only possible in a country where there is no justice. “

In discussing the questions that were to answer the jury, the objections of the accused lawyers were not taken into account, the judge approved the questions in its original version. This version of the problem was that the actions of each of the defendants, the judge invited the jury to assess the aggregate only to the actions of the other four defendants.

At the present time in Russia there was already a jury management practices. Its main elements are:

1. Selection loyal jury on board formation step. Washer courts evaluate the behavior of the jury, and depending on this jury are involved or are not involved in other processes.

2. Restrictions jury taps to participate in a particular meeting: no more than one non-motivated removal of restrictions on issues at the stage of taps (you can ask about criminal records of relatives, but you can not ask questions, the answers to which are characterized by human eyes).

3. Adjustment of the board structure by eliminating disloyal jury. For this purpose the taps on spurious grounds, creating grounds for removal from the board (the jury may hold on his way to a meeting of the traffic police, with the result that the jury is removed from the board).

4. Manipulative or control wording of the jury by the judge.

5. Prohibitions on the provision of the jury during the meeting on problems of the inquiry, such as torture . Random mention of torture, even the hint is the reason for the cancellation of the verdict.

6. Intimidation by jury, as was done during the process in the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic in the case of citizens of Ukraine and Karpyuk Klyha.

If the jury panel of the control mechanisms do not work, use the cancellation of the verdict by the Supreme Court of Russia. If needed, which is often politically motivated, the Supreme Court cancels the guilty verdict of the jury and send the case for retrial. So it was in the case of the murder Anny Politkovskoy. Grounds for cancellation of the verdict was that, according to the Armed Forces, the panel “go on about the lawyers who reported the identity of defendants in the case, and the jury presented negative information about the investigation.”

I am getting the result. A jury in Russia it is a jury trial, not sheffenskim court or some other form of participation of representatives of the people in judicial decisions. However, the jury as the “Court of Justice” in the Russian Federation operating in simulation mode. This is achieved due to two main factors: the limited scope of application of a jury and the widespread use of illegal jury management.

Summing up, it can not be said about the money. Often mention that Ukraine has no money for a jury trial. But the money in this case is irrelevant. We are talking about saving mode. See what makes the authoritarian Putin regime in Russia – is introducing jury trials at the district level. It costs a lot of money, because in Russia in 2184 the district court. is sorely lacking is the answer mode to request people to justice. Of course, the “political” as a judge in violation of all the rules, and will be judged, and to plant. But in cases of domestic murder people get this same justice in the form of trial by jury. Putin’s regime is trying to prolong its existence. If authoritarian regimes are saving yourself so why democracy in Ukraine should act differently?

Sourse, 23/10/2017

People need to learn how to control the power, local first of all

October 14, 2017

One of the most prominent dissidents of the Soviet Union, weighed after a four-month hunger strike in BC political zone 389/35 in the Perm region of 39 kg. The author of “Handbook of Psychiatry for dissidents,” a member of the American Society of Psychiatrists, UK Royal College of Psychiatrists, the rehabilitation of victims of the World Council of Torture, International PEN, the author of several books and hundreds of articles. All of this – on human rights defenders, public figures and the head of the Ukrainian Psychiatric Association Semen Gluzman.

Semen Gluzman  –  on the Maidan, and the syndrome crowd of friendship with the “Bandera” and enzyme resistance, control the power and responsibility for the past.

– Semen Fishelevich, you are one of those who supported the Maidan, but never torn his scene. Why, by the way?

– I never wanted to the scene – from the time of Rukh has never been on any shodnyak, I mean … on an important meeting decent people. Just realize that the psychology of a decent man and the psychology of thousands of decent people differ dramatically.

At the same time, I must admit, even during the Orange Revolution called me many foreign colleagues, the stars of the world of psychiatry, with one question: where’s syndrome aggressive influence of the crowd?

Ukrainian people have shown themselves quite surprisingly and in 2004 and in 2014. During the recent hurricane in Houston because of marauding police had to impose a curfew. Are there many cases of looting, we can remember when the city center, with its many shops and expensive boutiques, stood up to 200 thousand people?

– In the mid-1970s, in the Perm region, a young Jew Gluzman made friends with Ukrainian nationalists – 25 annuals. But then you have joined a common enemy and not the overall vision of the future.

– Yes, I spent several years in the camp side by side with those who were called “Bandera”. They were simple people, the names of Bandera or Shukhevych of their mouth, I had never heard. They just defended their land from “outsiders”. I once asked Uncle Vasya Basil Malozhinskogo, whom he regarded as the UPA soldier, and he was from the SS division Galicia-evil so asked reproachfully, saying how could you ?! And he did his best to explain: “Spershu boule sovєti Potіm priyshli nіmtsі OAO All – A Stranger’s one I never pobachiv i pochuv svoїh, yshli hloptsі that spіvali of Ukrainian pіsen What I first bailiff to them That Well svoї boule ……. . “That’s right, simply and without ideological pathos.

– Jewish support of the Maidan has not surprised?

– Not in the least surprised. One of the most striking childhood memories  I was 10-11 years old, I was returning to his home on the bus, with rises on Artema October Revolution Square (Maidan current). At one of the stops came an elderly lady, very polite, a good Ukrainian language, asked the passengers where it’s okay to leave. Trolley bus exploded with anger – I was scared, not knowing what was happening. Started the persecution of some lumpen, perhaps a T-shirt, he was supported by his aunt vociferous – it was a stream of insults that hit a woman, just to speak in Ukrainian. Then I realized that with me live one more Jews – Ukrainians.

Frankly, when Ukraine got its independence in 1991, I was tense, remembering how aggressively treated here to the Jews in the Soviet era. I remember how the Jewish boys and girls, which were practically closed local universities, leaving to other republics, where there were quiet and well attended. In addition-and this is for me as a dissident is very important – in Ukraine was the most ferocious in the KGB Union. I tensed and because he saw who vote for independence in Parliament : a group of 239, which is officially called “For a sovereign Radyans’ka up Ukraine”, in other words, the communist majority, sensing the winds of change. And along with them – thousands of opportunists, rinuvshihsya from the Komsomol straight into Roc. Professional killers of Ukrainian culture, instantly became the accusers “hand of Moscow”.

Then, when it became an annual index to measure the tolerance, it appears that anti-Semitism and xenophobia are retreating, although the anti-Semites, of course, is and always will be. This was true of all the other areas  the country got a chance.

I remember one of the first American ambassadors told his friends in Ukraine, saying that you frequent to Moscow, come here, there is a very different people. And it’s true, that’s not the idealization or romanticizing, and the herald of the European mentality.

Of course, at 2014 Independence were different people, and they stood for different things. But it was in the area  some seven years I have not filed a hand.

– Today, three and a half years later, do not be disappointed?

– I am not so naive as to fail to understand: the revolution does not end as the dream of its members. Therefore anticipated that possibly will be disappointed, but … did not expect so much.

You see, in his initial optimism, I relied on the camp experience. With me sat a lot of people of different nationalities, but the Ukrainians have always been the most – about 30-40% of prisoners. Very different – not very smart – and wise, educated – and almost illiterate, sincere – and on your mind. I do not quite understand what the ethnic psychology, but in all the years in the political area, I have not met one Belarusian, Kyrgyz or Uzbek dissident. But the KGB was everywhere. Therefore, unlike many former Soviet republics, Ukraine was able to gradually come to some kind of European values. There is a resistance to the enzyme, but the people are not trained in democracy and have no control over their politicians.

This, incidentally, turned out rather quickly, so, in my opinion, the only way out – a long way to majority elections.

– Where buckwheat is everything?  

– It is everything because of her hand nobody put. Of course, the new laws, withdrawal Institute, etc. needed – need to teach people to control the power, primarily local. Do many Ukrainians need a report from its regional deputies? That’s it. And who offended us?

As for buckwheat, remember the scene in Bishkek Tulip Revolution, when revolutionaries dragged on his back stolen refrigerators and television sets? In Kiev, as it was not … Here, both the Maidan demanding from the authorities not buckwheat, and quite another.

Just people accept defeat very quickly, sitting in the kitchen or in the FB and wailing: again m … Duck elected. And also choose not the best, but they are controlled -and this should be taught in Europe. I know many who are helping with the support of Western partners to build democratic institutions in Ukraine. The vast majority of them work just for money. Some of them are rascals. Unfortunately…

– In 2014, many thought that the Ukrainians are the European political nation. How far along the process, or, conversely, stopped, given the historical memory of the policy, with its cult of new heroes?

– For me, the new heroes – a Heavenly hundreds, not the leaders of the OUN and UPA. And the fact that the memory of the heroes of the new vulgarized, obviously. She vulgarized when stopper criminal cases, which should be called the perpetrators of the massacre. She vulgarized, as the country’s leadership does not want to admit that on the other side, too, were Ukrainians. I know one family in which the boy grew up, the only son, who was “bad” brought – he wanted to be a Ukrainian officer. He was burned at the Maidan. Perhaps one of my daughter’s friends, occasionally throwing Molotov cocktails.

There are many things that we uncouple. But in a situation where the people in the mass hates and despises the power, what kind of love for each other can be said?

– What do you think about decommunisation receiving more and more sophisticated form?

– As a former political prisoner and anti-Soviet, I can not but welcome this process. But in its present form it gives me a feeling of disgust. As lustration, which was clearly organized and controlled from the top and stopped as suddenly as it had begun.

Lustration was illegal and generally meaningless, and it was followed by the same kind of pointless and illegal Decommunization. Autos of the dead will not work, especially when it conducts a marginal rot.

We voted in favor at the time of Kravchuk, and after the KGB has arrested dissidents only after the approval of the Central Committee department of ideology, which he headed. Why not to prosecute? And at the same time and all the deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the group 239, by which the independence was proclaimed.

It is very convenient to demolish monuments, taking responsibility for the past. We are the eternal victim, with a demand for us? “We endlessly criticize Comrade Stalin, and, of course, to work and yet I want to ask. Who wrote denunciations of four million?” – once said Sergei Dovlatov. The question hung in the air. We’ve no sense of responsibility for the acts of their fathers and grandfathers, as in Germany, where the children and grandchildren remember well what difference their loved ones. Where they are – children of the NKVD, the party nomenklatura, which, after all, millions of ordinary people obediently raises his hands at the next party meeting, the stigma of renegades, traitors to the socialist motherland, etc.?

So it is not an ideology we have to sew in the XXI century, and the way of the future.

I am not an enemy of perpetuating the memory of Stepan Bandera, but when acting Health Minister Suprun declares that, taking important decisions, mentally consults with the leader of the OUN, this is in any gate … And apparently, it is something to her counsels, as the results of this tandem we see.

– Donbass, which has become a springboard for the “Russian world”, lost to Ukraine? Or not very much, and we need it?

– Russian is impoverished, it has fewer features include these territories, and Putin, in the end, death. Deliberately or not, but he pulled the plug by their actions many influential people in Russia who stole billions, access to which is every day more and more difficult, given the sanctions. They are used to a different level of personal freedom, where they are, after all, now the rest? On Baikal?

So I believe that sooner or later Ukraine will return to the region. But not the kind of young people who went to the Donbas and already settled in Kiev and other cities. They have made their choice.

Sometimes it occurs to me seditious thought … my camp friends were fighting for the independence of Ukraine, and once the day has come – not because we were sitting at it in the camps. If Donbass really wants to live differently, if it is him and not someone external choice, from a moral point of view, why not think about the idea of ​​independence for these people? This is only one possible solution, but it must be spoken. Apart so apart, we do so and are doing everything to isolate these areas – with the help of the blockade, for example.

– It is clear that the war promotes the division of society into friends and foes, and the formation of a black and white picture of the world. All this of course, but … if we do not turn into “Russia on the contrary”, with its contempt for the private view, the search for their fifth column, and so on?

– I am fully aware that the current president is also seeking to usurp power, but I understand that he is also not released, because, even Kuchma, Ukraine wrote – not Russia. Our man in the street is different from the Russian. There genuinely respected Putin. Here the power is changing, and every new government we do not like, and often despised or hated. And it gives grounds for optimism.

Regarding the split in society, we are thrown into the past and because they do not offer a vision of the future. This also applies to the heroes of the UPA – stranger to a large part of the country, and to the language problem, which is the vast majority of Ukrainians do not consider the problem, but that again raised the shield on …

After the trial, I spent twenty days in a cell with Vasilem Stusom – and it was a luxurious 20 days. From time to time I even forget where I was, plunging into the Ukrainian culture. But we were talking in their own language, and Stus took this quite calmly. With 25 annuals UPA camp communicated in the same way – no one ever said nothing.

I was once again transferred to the new barracks, and that same day I was admitted to the “family” Eugene Prishlyak and Vasil Pidgorodetskim. The first was to arrest referent Security Lviv OUN, the second – a simple fighter in the UPA. Collected in the bedside table meal, we shared equally and ate together. After some time went to Vasil old policeman – a bastard – and said, “Vasil you train a respected man, an old convict, are not you ashamed to Zhydenko eat?” “I have it on s … sent”, – he told me later Vasil.

I am absolutely convinced that the state language is necessary to know, but since independence can not remember a single attempt to create appropriate courses for civil servants. Told me how hard they taught language after work – reading aloud Shevchenko, etc. Ethnic Ukrainians, but completely Russified Soviet reality. Such mockery, with complete indifference of the state, caused the rejection, rather than patriotic feelings.

So let’s publish good books, cooking class teachers – the key to successful language policy. I sometimes have to deal with some of the upper class of pedagogical universities – it’s awful. They academics some of their academies, wealthy people, but are engaged in playing the Soviet zhlobstva.

Ukraine has ruined a lot. When NaUKMA took its first steps, I tried to explain to the rector that it is necessary to keep the schools of mathematicians, theoretical physicists have developed in “mailboxes”, with excellent professionals. It was just necessary to allow these professionals to teach at first in Russian, but … we got rid of high intelligence.

– Who is able to pull the country out of the vicious circle? As long as people do not totally trust the government, naively hopes on the most rabid populists – and we have already passed … Civil society is defeated – or simply lost the battle?

– Civil society must help, rather than push. I am following with great concern for the future of the country in which I live and which I am a part of. I’m afraid that if this continues, the Ukrainian state will be defeated not by external forces, it simply dissolved, as a solid in a liquid. And will Vodicka, sweet or salty – are not so important.

– And what about the resistance enzyme?

– The enzyme resistance – an important condition for independence, but not sufficient.

Build the country – it does not sit in the cooler. We need other skills. When the Soviet Union ended, many former dissidents in Moscow continued to engage in human rights activities. In Ukraine, a number of my colleagues on the Gulag have gone into politics – and what?

It is clear that the government is constantly tosses a bone of contention that we at loggerheads in the past, instead of building the future. And less remembered about the reforms that are needed, as the air, and at the same time painful, so hold on to your seats, the tops are in no hurry to carry them out. A bottoms – bottoms grow, and this is our chance.

Interview by Michael Gold

Sourse, 13/10/2017

72 NGO already have signed the Declaration of Human Rights Agenda platform with the requirement to the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to stop the attack on civil society organizations

September 25, 2017

HUMAN RIGHTS AGENDA

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform demanding the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine stop crack-down on non-governmental organizations

 In early July 2017, the presidential draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 were registered in the Parliament of Ukraine. The draft laws were elaborated allegedly to replace the scandalous amendments to the anti-corruption legislation obliging the anti-corruption activists to annually file personal asset and property electronic declarations (Law of Ukraine No. 1975-VIII of 23 March 2017). The presidential draft laws actually propose to abolish the e-declarations for public anti-corruption activists but to require instead the non-governmental organizations and individual entrepreneurs as well as enterprises, institutions and organizations providing them with services, to file additional reports to tax authorities.

The draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 burden all non-governmental organizations and individual entrepreneurs, enterprises, institutions and organizations that provide them with services with an unjustified obligation to file additional tax reports.

It is revealing that the number of tax reports required from the non-governmental organizations, which these draft laws provide for, significantly exceeds the number of reports required from the business. Moreover, even the recipients of budget funds are not required to file such a number of tax reports.

We believe that these legislative initiatives appeared not by chance, though against the background of statements about the need to reduce excessive state regulation. The punishment in form of the abolition of a non-profit status of non-governmental organization is pronouncedly punitive in nature and is nothing more than the introduction of a tool for selective pressure on the non-governmental organizations indisposed towards the authorities.

We regard the initiative of the President of Ukraine as the disproportionate interference in the activities of the non-governmental organizations. Such steps liken Ukraine to the repressive regimes of the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and others similar. Despite the ostentatious care for transparency and accountability, the regulations introduced in the abovementioned countries led to almost absolute annihilation of the non-governmental organizations which are independent from authorities and total crack-down on civil society.

No international treaties require similar state control over the activities of non-governmental organizations as the international standards endow the non-governmental organizations with the right to be free from state interference in their activities.

The Guidelines on Freedom of Association drafted by the Council of Europe and the OSCE stipulate that “the state shall not require but shall encourage and facilitate associations to be accountable and transparent.” Special reporting is permissible, however, if it is required in exchange for certain benefits, provided it is “within the discretion of the association to decide whether to comply with such reporting requirements or forgo them and forsake any related special benefits, where applicable.”

In consideration of the foregoing, we demand that the Parliament of Ukraine immediately reject the draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 of 10 July 2017 and the President of Ukraine fulfill his promise to cancel the amendments to the anti-corruption legislation dated March 2017.

For reference: the Human Rights Agenda platform is the informal coalition of human rights organizations working in the field of monitoring, analyzing and elaborating the legislation in accordance with the basic principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The platform participants are the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, the Center for Civil Liberties, the Amnesty International Ukraine, the Human Rights Information Center, the Center for Law Enforcement Studies, the Without Borders Project of the NGO “Social Action Center” and the Euromaidan SOS. The Center for Civil Liberties coordinates the platform activities. Contacts: human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

  1. Center for Civil Liberties
  2. Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
  3. Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches
  4. Eastern-Ukrainian Center for Civic Initiatives
  5. Charitable Foundation “Vostok SOS”
  6. Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”
  7. Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law Enforcement
  8. NGO “KyivPride”
  9. Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
  10. Open Dialog Foundation
  11. Human Rights Information Center
  12. Crimean Human Rights Group
  13. NGO “Helsinki Initiative XXI”
  14. NGO “Peaceful Coast”
  15. Expert Human Rights Center
  16. NGO “La Strada Ukraine”
  17. Liberation Movement Research Center
  18. Charitable Organisation “Fund of Mercy and Health”
  19. NGO “South”
  20. NGO “Ray of Changes”
  21. Kharkiv Regional Foundation “Public Alternative”
  22. Project “Without Borders”
  23. NGO “Political Studies Association”
  24. NGO “People’s Control of Kirovohrad Region”
  25. Eksampei Center for Ukrainian Policy
  26. NGO “Volunteer Association of Participants of Maidan and Fighting Action”
  27. Charitable Foundation “Dyvosvit Club”
  28. NGO “School of Public Projects”
  29. NGO “Faith. Hope. Action”
  30. NGO “JCI Kyiv”
  31. Educational Human Rights House Chernihiv
  32. NGO “Women’s Prospects Center”
  33. NGO “Zakarpattia Community”
  34. Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Organization “Young Prosvita”
  35. Ternopil Human Rights Group
  36. Human Rights Center “All rights”
  37. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Convictus Ukraine”
  38. Autonomous Bar Association
  39. NGO “MART” (Chernihiv)
  40. Ukrainian Legal Aid Foundation
  41. Information and Awareness Raising Center “Axis” (Vinnytsia)
  42. NGO “Center for Civic Education “Almenda””
  43. Center for Humanistic Technologies “AHALAR”
  44. NGO “Ukrainian Association of Assessment”
  45. NGO “Territory of Success”
  46. T-Woman of Ukraine
  47. NGO “AutoMaidan Kyiv”
  48. NGO “Human Rights Vector”
  49. Bilozerka Center for Regional Development
  50. Center for Law Enforcement Activity Research
  51. Chernihiv Public Committee for Human Rights Protection
  52. NGO “Kyiv Educational Center “Tolerspace””
  53. Human Rights Center “Postup”
  54. NGO “Liberal Democratic League of Ukraine”
  55. Bureau of Social and Political Developments
  56. Center for Legal and Political Studies “DUMA”
  57. Institute of Mass Information
  58. SOVA Group
  59. Media Initiative for Human Rights
  60. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Legalife Ukraine”
  61. NGO “Insight”
  62. Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research
  63. NGO “Informer”
  64. Information and Analytical Center “Public Space”
  65. LGBT Human Rights Center “Our World”
  66. NGO “Bakhmat”
  67. NGO “Development Foundation”
  68. NGO “All-Ukrainian League of Lawyers Against Corruption”
  69. NGO “Kharkiv Women’s Association “Sphere””
  70. NGO “Gender Center of Volyn Region”
  71. NGO “Theatre for Dialogue”
  72. NGO ‘Free Territory’

The statement is open for signature. Please contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Результаты поиска:

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform on deprivation of attorneys of the ability to cooperate with human rights organisations

March 7, 2019

In the agenda of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the consideration of the first
reading of a draft law ‘On Legal Practice and Advocacy’ No. 9055 is scheduled for 28
February.
The authors and supporters of the law are striving to prove its progressive nature,
strengthening of guarantees of advocacy and empowerment.
However, should the law be adopted, all attorneys who cooperate with human rights
organisations will be deprived of the opportunity to engage in advocacy activities
within the framework of cooperation with these organisations. Hundreds of cases
which have been filed by lawyers of these organisations with the European Court of
Human Rights, and thousands of court cases in national courts will become only a
reminder of past activities. There will be no one competent to file new applications
with the European Court and national courts on behalf of human rights organisations.
In his expert opinion which contains the analysis of the draft law No. 9055, the
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights Diego Garcia-Sayan stated that the restriction, set
forth in Article 28 of the draft law 9055, could adversely affect the lawyers who would
have to choose between full employment and the work of a human rights defender
which, obviously, would adversely affect an access to justice in the country, in
particular, for individuals with limited financial means. Also, the report provides a
whole number of risks and threats to independent advocacy, such as the procedure
of bringing attorneys to disciplinary responsibility, unfounded types of disciplinary
sanctions that affect the independence of advocacy and, consequently, affect
appropriate defence in court.
Separately, the completely opaque process of work on the draft law is to be
mentioned, and this fact has also been noted in the report by Mr. Diego Garcia-
Sayan. He wrote that consultations with representatives of the legal profession were
very limited in nature, and the final draft law was made public by the office of the
President without the opportunity to comment on its content.
A lack of transparency, marginalisation of the drafting process and introduction of the
draft law, a lack of a high-quality expert examination, for example, by the Venice
Commission, and haste with the attempts to implement this law as soon as possible

in a parliament’s session confirm the poor quality of the preparation process and the
same low-quality content of the draft law itself, which, in its present form, poses a
real threat to the protection of human rights in the human rights protection
environment of Ukraine and can be regarded as a way of attack and exertion of
pressure on the environment.
We hereby urge Members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to prevent the
consideration and adoption of the draft law 9055, as requested in the report by Diego
Garcia-Sayan, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The text of the draft law No.
9055 must be redrafted, discussed publicly and amended, taking into account the
comments made by representatives of the bar community, human rights
organisations, and international experts. We demand transparency, honesty and
high quality. Today, we cannot see these features in the draft law No. 9055.
The Human Rights Agenda platform is an informal coalition of human right organisations focused on systemic
problems of legislation and practices for defending fundamental human rights. The participants of the platform
are as follows: Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, Center for Civil Liberties, Amnesty International
Ukraine, Human Rights Information Center, Centre of Law Enforcement Activities Research (CLEAR), Project
"Without Borders", Euromaidan SOS. The platform is coordinated by the Center for Civil Liberties. You can
contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
Center for Civil Liberties
Regional Centre for Human Rights
Open Dialogue Foundation
Humanitarian Studio "Wave
Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”

NGOs call on the HQCJ to refrain from creating artificial obstacles to the establishment of the Public Integrity Council

November 22, 2018

On November 21, 2018, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) announced the results of the consideration of documents of public associations (NGOs) for the establishment of the Public Integrity Council (PIC).

 

The Commission approved a positive decision on the admission of only 2 out of 14 organizations that submitted the documents. The Commission allowed the rest of the organizations to eliminate the shortcomings which, in its opinion, were identified in the relevant documents of the NGOs.

 

Having considered the decisions of the Commission, NGOs have to state that among these alleged shortcomings there are many that are not based on the requirements of the law, do not pursue a legitimate aim and can create artificial obstacles for NGOs’ participation in the PIC establishment.

 

In particular:

 

  • In some cases (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the Commission does not accept the results of a financial audit conducted not within the past two years, whereas the law only requires the availability of an audit report and does not set any time frames for its conduct;
  • In some other cases (Center for Civil Liberties, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the HQCJ groundlessly believes that it is only the first persons of international organizations in Ukraine (the OSCE Coordinator in Ukraine, UNDP, etc.) that can make recommendations to NGOs, while the law does not contain such a requirement, and the signatures of officials of international organizations were affixed within their authorities;
  • Position of the HQCJ regarding the recognition of reports based on the financial audit results or audit findings as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements only because these reports were prepared for confidential use and submission to grantors (CRIMEASOS, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform) is unreasonable (the law does not set any requirements for the addressees of the reports and the purpose of their preparation);
  • The HQCJ did not recognize a copy of the report on the project implementation results due to the lack of signature of the person authorized to sign it (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform). However, such a requirement is unfounded since the law requires the provision of a copy rather than the original of the report, and the submitted copy of the report has been duly certified by an authorized person;  
  • The law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” does not require the publication of a declaration of a candidate to the PIC on the NACP’s website, and the HQCJ’s competencies do not cover anti-corruption verification of declarations (including the presence or absence of these declarations on the NACP’s website), while some organizations (Institute of Applied Humanitarian Research) received a reply that the absence of such declarations on the NACP’s website serves as grounds for non-admission.

 

As for documents of other NGOs (Civic Lustration Committee, E+, Nova Krayina, ТОМ14, Centre for Economic Strategy, Centre UA), only the originals of certain documents are required, whereas all the necessary information can be obtained from the duly authenticated photocopies. In some other cases (DEJURE, Nova Krayina), technical errors (incorrect indication of the candidate’s patronymic only in one of the documents or use of the phrase “annual declaration” after “declaration of a candidate for the position of the PIC member”) are considered by the Commission as “grounds for the determination of the submitted documents as not complying with … the law”.

 

We want to emphasize that the requirements of the law on the submission of documents have been established to confirm the experience, real activity and capacity of NGOs to form the PIC. The Commission’s review of these documents should pursue this legitimate aim and should not go beyond its limits.

 

The Commission’s decisions are even more surprising given the fact that 2 years ago the Commission allowed a number of organizations with similar packages of documents to participate in the NGO Meeting on the PIC establishment without any comments. The Commission did not consider the failure to submit proper declarations by the candidates for judicial office at the Anti-Corruption Court and Intellectual Property Court to be a violation and allowed them to take part in the competition to the IP-court.

 

We are concerned that at the beginning of our cooperation with the HQCJ regarding the formation of the second composition of the PIC, we faced this approach. At the same time, the NGOs will make every effort to take into account the wishes of the Commission regarding the execution of documents within a specified period as far as possible.

 

However, if the HQCJ retains this approach to the assessment of documents, there will be a high risk of groundless rejection of experienced and capable NGOs from participation in the Meeting and, as a result, the formation of an incomplete composition, delay, or even the impossibility of establishing the PIC as a form of public participation in the selection and evaluation of judges.

 

Therefore, we call on the HQCJ:

 

  • To carefully reconsider all the packages of documents submitted by the NGOs, including those that will be submitted additionally;
  • To assess the documents submitted by organizations solely on the basis of the requirements of the law, impartially and without groundless formalism;
  • To allow all NGOs whose experience and capability are confirmed by the documents submitted by them to participate in the Meeting;
  • To review the decisions on a number of NGOs (indicated in this statement or otherwise) regarding the recognition of documents as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements of the law, particularly where the law contained no such requirements.

 

Civic Lustration Committee

Initiative E+

Crimea SOS

Nova Kraina

ТОМ 14

DEJURE Foundation

Center for Civil Liberties

Centre for Economic Strategy

Centre of Policy and Legal Reform

Centre UA

Nations in Transit 2018: Confronting Illiberalism

April 11, 2018

Washington, April 12, 2018 — Attacks on opposition parties, the press, and civil society organizations are becoming the norm in Central and Eastern Europe as the spread of illiberal politics undermines the foundations of and prospects for democracy, according to Nations in Transit 2018, the 23rd edition of Freedom House’s annual report on democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Eurasia.

Ukraine’s Democracy Score declined for the first time since the 2014 revolution. With the Russian-led conflict in the east grinding on, Ukraine’s politicians are taking advantage of patriotic sentiment to attack NGOs and journalists, accusing them of undermining the war effort.

“Attacks on civil society and political opponents have sapped the momentum from the institutional reform process in Ukraine,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “Although decentralization reforms are continuing, other key priorities, including anticorruption efforts, have stalled. The window of opportunity has not closed in Ukraine, but it has shrunk. By accusing NGOs and journalists of antinational sentiment, politicians are attempting to exclude legitimate voices from public debate simply because they criticize the government.”

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON UKRAINE

 

  • Two important milestones were reached in relations between Ukraine and the European Union in 2017: the visa-free regime with the EU came into force in June, allowing millions of Ukrainians to travel freely to the neighboring Schengen zone for short-term stays, and the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement — the main trigger for the Euromaidan protests which provides a framework for major transformations in Ukrainian democracy, human rights, rule of law, good governance, trade, and sustainable development — finally came completely into force.
  • One of the main achievements in Ukraine’s national governance in 2017 was healthcare reform, which, following the passage by the Verkhovna Rada of a law on healthcare financing in October, will align the system based on the principle of “money following patients.”
  • Decentralization reform continued, with administrative territorial reform resulting in the creation of approximately 700 amalgamated communities, and fiscal decentralization resulting in increased revenues and local infrastructure investments for the first time in 23 years.
  • The conflict in the east remained largely frozen throughout the year. The socioeconomic conditions in the occupied territories, and in those areas close to the line of contact, continued to be poor. The armed separatist groups developed their own institutions, which, in turn, enacted regulations that routinely violated basic human rights, while journalists and bloggers covering the conflict continued to be arrested and detained.
  • Pressure on civil society intensified. In March, the government obliged citizens working against corruption to publicly declare their income and assets, while a legislative initiative to replace the controversial requirement with other restrictive measures against NGOs under threat of onerous restrictions for not complying with the proposed regulations was unsuccessful. The Civil Society score declined due to smear campaigns against NGOs and activists.
  • Prominent civil society organizations were targeted with criminal investigations against them and their members, and there were physical attacks on well-known activists.
  • The Independent Media score declined due to the blocking of major social media sites, as well as physical attacks on journalists and a lack of progress in investigating the murder of journalist Pavel Sheremet.
  • Progress on judicial and anti-corruption reforms was mixed. While the National Anticorruption Bureau actively investigated high-level corruption results of its work were few. The President had yet to create the High Anticorruption Court as promised. Vetting of judicial appointments to the Supreme Court stumbled as 25 candidates that had not passed public integrity checks were approved as official candidates.

“Illiberal politics are becoming the new normal in Europe,” said Michael J. Abramowitz, president of Freedom House. “Government-led smear campaigns against civil society groups, journalists, and the political opposition were pioneered in Russia and Central Asia, but they are increasingly common across the region.”

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES

  • Poland recorded the second-largest Democracy Score decline in the history of the report. The ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party’s revolutionary takeover of the judicial system, politicization of public media, smear campaigns against nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and violations of ordinary parliamentary procedure also produced the two largest single-category score declines in Nations in Transit’s history, for National Democratic Governance and Judicial Framework and Independence.

 

“The radical changes to the Polish judiciary remove any effective check on the actions of the majority party in parliament,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “What has happened in Poland in the last two years should serve as an alarm bell for anyone who believes that one-party rule could never return to Europe.”

“The EU should stand up for its commitments to the rule of law by implementing Article 7 sanctions against Poland and Hungary,” Schenkkan said, referring to the EU’s power to suspend a member’s voting rights. “It should condition access to European funds on clear rule-of-law criteria. This is the only way to convince these countries, and EU candidate states, that the union is firmly rooted in democratic principles.”

  • Hungary has registered the largest cumulative decline in Nations in Transit The country’s Democracy Score has been falling for 10 consecutive years, moving it from the status of a democratic leader at the time of EU accession in 2004 to the threshold of a “Transitional/Hybrid Regime” in 2018.

 

“The Fidesz government of Viktor Orbán led the way for illiberal forces in Central Europe, showing that it was possible to capture a state within the EU through gerrymandering, procurement manipulation, and control of the media,” said Schenkkan. “The fact that Fidesz remains a member in good standing in the European People’s Party of the European Parliament shows how effective Orbán’s approach has been.”

  • Estonia earned the biggest improvement in this edition of the report, even though it was already the best performer. A surprisingly smooth first year in government for a longtime opposition party demonstrated the resilience and independence of national institutions. Estonia’s anticorruption mechanisms appear to be addressing the municipal corruption that has long affected its major cities.

“At a time when most of the news for democracy seems bad, Estonia reminds us that liberal democracy can and does succeed,” Schenkkan said. “Even in a country with a history of foreign occupation and sensitive ethnic and regional differences, democratic national institutions can produce better governance for everyone.”

View the full report here: https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/nations-transit-2018

###

 

Freedom House is an independent watchdog organization that supports democratic change, monitors the status of freedom around the world, and advocates for democracy and human rights.

Join us on Facebook and Twitter (@FreedomHouseDC) and stay up to date with Freedom House’s latest news and events by signing up for our newsletter.

Special event to discuss Ukraine’s future at the Atlantic Council Headquarters (on Thursday, March 29, 2018)

April 4, 2018

In the four years since the end of the Revolution of Dignity, Ukraine has not answered its most important question: how will the country ensure democratic values in its future development? Much of Ukraine’s hope lies in its young leaders who will drive the country forward in the coming years. CDDRL has been fortunate to provide a year-long residency to some of these future leaders as part of the inaugural year of the Center’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program.

This event will feature three Ukrainian leaders who are in residency with CDDRL’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program this year. They will each discuss their own perspectives on opportunities and challenges to democracy and development in their home country, as well as objectives for strengthening public administration, civil society, and economic reforms upon their return to Ukraine.

We hope you can join us for this timely discussion.

Sourse, 29/03/2018

Vitaliy Tytych: Rigging of anti-corruption court competition must be prevented

March 19, 2018

The High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice cannot be trusted to conduct an objective and fair competition for the anti-corruption court without severe foreign and civil society oversight and without a drastic change in the competition’s methodology. They cannot be trusted because they violated the law and demonstrated their political bias by rigging the competition for the Supreme Court.

The discredited High Qualification Commission must be deprived of its arbitrary powers to assign scores subjectively during competitions for anti-corruption and other judges, and such scores must be based on objective criteria.

This is even more important than foreign donors’ veto powers, and this is the only way to ensure that honest and professional candidates believe in the fairness of the competition and participate, and that the commission has no way of promoting political loyalists and incompetent candidates for subjective reasons.

During the Supreme Court competition, 90 scores were assigned for anonymous legal knowledge tests, 120 scores for anonymous practical tests, and the High Qualification Commission could arbitrarily assign 790 scores without giving any explicit reasons (formally based on interviews with candidates and examining their profiles).

According to the 2016 law on the judiciary and status of judges, legal knowledge and practical tests (i.e. objective criteria) are the main method of selecting judges. This law stipulates that at least 75 percent of the total score (i.e. 750 out of 1,000 scores) must be given for anonymous legal knowledge and practical tests.

The High Qualification Commission took advantage of the vague wording of the law to set regulations that contradict the law because only 210 out of the total of 1,000 scores were assigned for legal knowledge and practical tests.

As a result of the Supreme Court competition, candidates who were at the top of the list after the anonymous knowledge tests and practical tests ended up at the bottom in the final stage for unknown reasons, while candidates who initially got lower scores and had a corrupt background ended up at the top.

Both the law on the judiciary and the High Qualification Commission’s internal regulations must be amended and clarified to clearly assign 750 scores for anonymous legal knowledge tests and practical tests (for competitions for both the anti-corruption court and all other courts). If parliament refuses to amend the law, the High Qualification Commission can just change its regulations, which is even easier.

As an option, 330 scores should be given for anonymous legal knowledge tests, another 330 scores for practical tests, and 330 scores for interviews and professional ethics (preferably based on conclusions by the Public Integrity Council and foreign donors). The law on the judiciary and status of judges should also be amended to require the publication of practical works after practical tests.

That would leave no room for arbitrary decisions and political involvement.

President Petro Poroshenko claims that the participation of foreign donors in the competition for the anti-corruption court contradicts Ukraine’s sovereignty, which is false (for example, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine was created with the participation of foreign donors).

But anyway Ukraine’s foreign partners could delegate independent Ukrainian citizens with impeccable reputation and integrity. This would halt any talk about sovereignty.

Such representatives could include people from the December 1 Initiative Group civil-society organization, Soviet dissident and human rights lawyer Myroslav Marynovych or Vyacheslav Bryukhovetsky, honorary president of the Kyiv Mohyla Academy.

Moreover, Ukraine’s foreign donors must take part in the competition for anti-corruption judges but they will have neither time nor resources to vet all the candidates and their background on their own. The Public Integrity Council, which has shown its independence from the authorities and its ability to work hard to examine candidates’ background, must take part in the competition for the anti-graft court by collecting all the available information on candidates (and the council must participate in competitions for all courts under the 2016 law on the judiciary and status of judges).

This is the only way to ensure that anti-corruption judges are truly professional and independent.

The use of the same objective methodology for assigning scores both for the anti-corruption court and other courts and the participation of the Public Integrity Council in competitions for the anti-corruption court and other courts  will totally kill the false argument that the anti-corruption court is a “special” court banned by the Constitution (the Venice Commission has already refuted this argument).

Also, it will be impossible to select independent judges if foreign donors choose representatives loyal to the Ukrainian government.  Such representatives must be completely independent from pressure by Ukrainian authorities.

In the best-case scenario, foreign donors should themselves assess candidates’ professional integrity. But at least they should have a right to suspend the competition and initiate an audit if evidence emerges that the High Qualification Commission violated procedural rules.

The Public Integrity Council believes that the competition for the Supreme Court was rigged to promote politically loyal candidates.

First, during the practical test stage, some candidates were given tests that coincided with cases that they had considered during their career, which was deemed a tool of promoting political loyalists.

Second, in March 2017 the High Qualification Commission illegally allowed 43 candidates who had not gotten sufficient scores during practical tests to take part in the next stage, changing its rules amid the competition. Members of the Public Integrity Council believe that the rules were unlawfully changed to prevent political loyalists from dropping out of the competition.

Apart from the second score assigned anonymously for practical works, the commission gave them a third score after naming them, violating the law (because practical tests should be anonymous to prevent political interference). The commission must have just assigned the second score without knowing the candidates’ names.

Third, the High Qualification Commission illegally refused to publish the scores for candidates’ psychological tests, failed to set a minimum score for psychological tests and illegally assessed the tests on its own (although they must have been assessed by psychologists). Moreover, the commission used corporate loyalty tests, which stipulated loyalty as a major characteristic of a judge – as a result, independent candidates were prevented from getting a higher score, while political loyalists were encouraged.

Fourth, the High Qualification Commission removed the profiles of candidates other than the winners from its site.

Fifth, the High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice illegally refused to give specific reasons for assigning specific total scores to candidates and refused to explain why the High Qualification Commission has overridden vetoes by the Public Integrity Council on candidates who do not meet ethical integrity standards.

Sixth, the High Council of Justice has illegally rejected 48 out of its members’ 52 recusals from voting for specific Supreme Court candidates due to a conflict of interest. This triggered accusations that the council was planning to get the necessary 14 pro-government votes to appoint politically loyal candidates.

Some of these violations are currently being disputed at Ukrainian courts and will be disputed at the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, Public Integrity Council members have opened a criminal case into the violations and will open more cases.

Sourse, 12/03/2018.

FROM OBJECTIVES TO RESULTS: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EU-UKRAINE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT AS SEEN BY STAKEHOLDERS

December 22, 2017

A jury: experience and problems

October 24, 2017

A simulation system of justice in which convulses a vestige of the people’s representatives, as the jury. Says Russian political analyst and human rights activist Mikhail Savva, who left Russia and now living in Ukraine.

The jury is in the Constitution of Ukraine, but in fact, according to human rights activists, jury trials in the country do not. The main difference between a jury trial by an ordinary court (with the participation of one judge or three professional judges) is a separate co-existence in it “judges of law” (the legal profession) and “Judges of fact” (board of jurors , which usually consists of persons who are not are lawyers). If this division is not present and professional judges work together with the representatives of the people should not talk about a jury trial, but the court sheffenskom. Sheffenskie courts adopted, for example, at their home in Germany as well as in Ukraine. Experience and problems of modern Russian jury trials may be useful in case if Ukraine, too, decides to create a jury trial.

The Soviet system of people’s assessors is an option sheffenskogo court, where a judge has unlimited opportunities to influence the decision of the representatives of the people. Sheffenskaya system can be very effective, but only for companies with extremely high legal culture .

In the course of judicial reform 90-ies of the last century, it was created in the Russian jury trials . During the counter-reforms that have been going for fifteen years, created a simulation system of justice in which convulses a vestige of the people’s representatives, as the jury.

Jury trials are traditionally regarded as the “courts of justice”. This is confirmed by the statistics of court decisions in the Russian Federation. Professional judges give less than 1% of acquittals , while the juries – 13-25% in different years.

In 2016, according to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court, in the first instance are over 239 cases with a jury. From 361 to 60 the defendant was justified, that is 17% , another 85 cases returned to the prosecutor. The number of sentences handed down without a jury, more than three orders of magnitude. According to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court in 2016 for all formulations of the Criminal Code (CC) convicted 740,380 people (to imprisonment – 206 304 people), is justified by 1493 (0.2% if you count the persons on which the case was dismissed on rehabilitative grounds, – 1.5%).

Scale application of jury trials in Russia is low. In one year, jury trials in Russia in the second decade of this century the average render verdicts to 300 (the maximum number of verdicts in the post-Soviet period – about 600 in 2010). A jury selected only 12% of the accused, who have a right to it. In the US a year by the jury shall be made about 160 thousand. Verdicts. In the XX century in the Russian empire handed down each year about 40 thousand. Verdicts. The reasons for this will be disclosed below, here I call home. This lack of political will for the development of the institute of juries. In the context of the simulation of the justice system the current Russian regime of the jury can not be complete and widespread.

The jury in the Russian Federation has a constitutional basis: according to Art. 32 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Russian citizens have the right to participate in the administration of justice. One form of such participation – review certain categories of criminal cases in the court of jury. However direct reference to the institution of jury in the Constitution does not.

The introduction of jury trials took considerable time in Russia. Pilot introduction of jury trials in Russia began with the 1993-1994, in 9 subjects of the Federation. The new Criminal Procedure Code, adopted in 2001, did the jury widespread since 2003. In the Chechen Republic the introduction of jury trials actually took place in 2010. An expert on Russian court Sergei Pashin jury, namely the phased introduction of jury trials has led to the fact that he did have in Russia.

The accused has the right to file a petition for consideration of his criminal case by the court of first instance composed of professional judges and a panel of 12 jurors in case he is accused, in particular, murder, sabotage, banditry, genocide, public appeals to the outbreak of war, kidnapping , piracy mercenarism and t. d.

I counted as of July 2017 20 of the Criminal Code articles on which possible jury . At the beginning of the introduction of jury trials in Russia of such items was 47, according Sergeya Pashina calculations, the main initiator of the introduction of jury trials in Russia.

The criminal case, which involved several defendants, the court is considered by jury in respect of all the defendants , if at least one of them said a request for consideration of a criminal case by a court in the composition.

If the defendant has not filed a motion for the consideration of the criminal case by the court by jury, the case is considered by another composition of the court in the manner prescribed by law.

The judge’s decision to hear the case from the jury is final. The subsequent failure of the defendant from the criminal trial by jury is not accepted .

Criminal cases involving jurors of federal courts of general jurisdiction is held in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the supreme courts of republics, territorial, regional courts, courts of federal cities, autonomous region and autonomous districts, the district (naval) military courts.

jury selection jurors is actually a two-step.

According to Art. 3 of the federal law, jurors can not be: persons under 25 years of age; persons with outstanding or previously convicted; persons recognized as incapable or limited in capacity; are registered in the drug treatment or mental hospital.

Such persons are not included in the lists of jurors , drawn up every four years on the basis of the voter list by random sampling. Exclude these people from the list of jurors bodies of executive power of the municipality or the region. Then, after getting acquainted with the citizens of the jury lists, these lists are excluded from the statements of the citizens themselves several categories.

The weak point of this phase of jury selection is a voluntary procedure for submitting applications for exclusion from the jury list. That is, if, for example, the police considers that nothing prevents him to be sworn he did not submit an application for delisting.

During jury selection to participate in a particular criminal case to participate in the proceedings as jurors are not allowed to persons suspected or accused of committing crimes; I do not speak the language in which the hearing is conducted; with physical and / or mental disabilities that prevent full participation in the hearing.

During the trial, the jury task boils down to, to answer three main questions: whether the proven fact of the crime, if that proved his committed by the defendant, and whether he is guilty of the crime. In the case of the issue of the recognition of the defendant’s guilt is put whether he deserves leniency. In this case the judge to the jury formulate lists of issues, which are often a few dozen items.

Jurors “should strive to adopt a unanimous decision,” but if this is not achieved within three hours, the verdict made by voting.

A guilty verdict is adopted, if the majority of the jury votes for each of the three key issues. Acquittal verdict is considered, if not less than six judges gave a negative answer to at least one of the three questions. If the deciding votes are equally divided, the adopted most favorable to the defendant’s answer for each question.

The acquittal is mandatory for the presiding judge, in this case, the court justifies the defendant. Guilty as the jury’s verdict is not binding on the court. If the judge recognizes that a guilty verdict handed down against an innocent person, then adopted a decree on the dissolution of the jury and the criminal case is sent for a new trial by another composition of the court. This decision is not subject to appeal in cassation.

From the jurisdiction of jury trials for the duration of this institution such articles were excluded, such as terrorism, hostage-taking, riots, treason, espionage, violent seizure of power, rape and sexual offenses against children. Some compounds “fell out” of crime from the jurisdiction of jury trials due to the fact that the new Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 2001 softened for him the punishment and the death penalty or life imprisonment has not been provided (eg high treason). In some cases, exceptions motive was that the jury too often render acquittals. For example, in the discussion in the State Duma in 2013, the issue of the exclusion of such a composition as sexual crimes against children, the author of the bill deputy Spring said that the jury too often justify the accused.

In February 2016 the Russian Constitutional Court found that the criminal case against women in the murder with aggravating circumstances could be considered by a jury of 12 people in the supreme courts of republics, territorial or regional courts. Prior to that, women were deprived of the possibility to be tried before a jury, because the Russian legislation does not provide for life sentences for the women.

December 3, 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed to extend the role of juries in a possible reduction in their number in the court up to 5-7 people. This was an attempt to respond to society’s demands for justice. At a time when major political offenses removed from the jurisdiction of jury trials, the expansion of the institute of juries are no longer threatened by the authorities. In other words, cases of domestic murder and some other formulations could, according to the authorities, to consider jury trials at district and city levels.

Starting from June 1, 2018 Institute of jurorsIt will be operational in the district (city) and garrison military courts. Established number of jurors for the district and garrison military courts – 6 people, in the courts of the Russian Federation and the district military courts, the number of jurors will be reduced from 12 to 8. district-level court jury will consider the criminal case at the request of the accused, for which there may not be sentenced to life imprisonment, namely, with regard to women, persons who have committed crimes under the age of 18 years, men who have attained to time of the court’s 65-year-olds sentence. Criminal cases on these articles of the Criminal Code in relation to other persons, as before, will be considered by the court of the subject of the Russian Federation. In addition, the district court with the participation of jurors,

Judges of the Russian Federation, according to a discussion at the Congress in December 2016, the judges are extremely skeptical about the prospects for the mass introduction of jury trials . They talk about the organizational unpreparedness and lack of funding. We can assume that in the near future verdicts of the jury will not become a mass phenomenon in the municipal and district courts.

Practical functioning of juries problem is clearly illustrated by the case of the murder of Boris Nemtsov , who was considered by the Moscow District Military Court in 2016-2017. A panel of 12 jurors was in the conference room for three days. She had to answer 26 questions put to them by the judge. The jury could not come to a unanimous opinion, so after three hours of contentious issues have been put to the vote. 10 of the 12 jurors declared guilty of all five defendants.

Eight jurors were replaced during the process. The defendant’s lawyer Bakhaeva Zaurbek Sadahanov said: “There was a sweep of the jury, we have seen. The verdict is absolutely illegal, because no evidence of guilt Bakhaeva investigation did not present. This is only possible in a country where there is no justice. “

In discussing the questions that were to answer the jury, the objections of the accused lawyers were not taken into account, the judge approved the questions in its original version. This version of the problem was that the actions of each of the defendants, the judge invited the jury to assess the aggregate only to the actions of the other four defendants.

At the present time in Russia there was already a jury management practices. Its main elements are:

1. Selection loyal jury on board formation step. Washer courts evaluate the behavior of the jury, and depending on this jury are involved or are not involved in other processes.

2. Restrictions jury taps to participate in a particular meeting: no more than one non-motivated removal of restrictions on issues at the stage of taps (you can ask about criminal records of relatives, but you can not ask questions, the answers to which are characterized by human eyes).

3. Adjustment of the board structure by eliminating disloyal jury. For this purpose the taps on spurious grounds, creating grounds for removal from the board (the jury may hold on his way to a meeting of the traffic police, with the result that the jury is removed from the board).

4. Manipulative or control wording of the jury by the judge.

5. Prohibitions on the provision of the jury during the meeting on problems of the inquiry, such as torture . Random mention of torture, even the hint is the reason for the cancellation of the verdict.

6. Intimidation by jury, as was done during the process in the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic in the case of citizens of Ukraine and Karpyuk Klyha.

If the jury panel of the control mechanisms do not work, use the cancellation of the verdict by the Supreme Court of Russia. If needed, which is often politically motivated, the Supreme Court cancels the guilty verdict of the jury and send the case for retrial. So it was in the case of the murder Anny Politkovskoy. Grounds for cancellation of the verdict was that, according to the Armed Forces, the panel “go on about the lawyers who reported the identity of defendants in the case, and the jury presented negative information about the investigation.”

I am getting the result. A jury in Russia it is a jury trial, not sheffenskim court or some other form of participation of representatives of the people in judicial decisions. However, the jury as the “Court of Justice” in the Russian Federation operating in simulation mode. This is achieved due to two main factors: the limited scope of application of a jury and the widespread use of illegal jury management.

Summing up, it can not be said about the money. Often mention that Ukraine has no money for a jury trial. But the money in this case is irrelevant. We are talking about saving mode. See what makes the authoritarian Putin regime in Russia – is introducing jury trials at the district level. It costs a lot of money, because in Russia in 2184 the district court. is sorely lacking is the answer mode to request people to justice. Of course, the “political” as a judge in violation of all the rules, and will be judged, and to plant. But in cases of domestic murder people get this same justice in the form of trial by jury. Putin’s regime is trying to prolong its existence. If authoritarian regimes are saving yourself so why democracy in Ukraine should act differently?

Sourse, 23/10/2017

People need to learn how to control the power, local first of all

October 14, 2017

One of the most prominent dissidents of the Soviet Union, weighed after a four-month hunger strike in BC political zone 389/35 in the Perm region of 39 kg. The author of “Handbook of Psychiatry for dissidents,” a member of the American Society of Psychiatrists, UK Royal College of Psychiatrists, the rehabilitation of victims of the World Council of Torture, International PEN, the author of several books and hundreds of articles. All of this – on human rights defenders, public figures and the head of the Ukrainian Psychiatric Association Semen Gluzman.

Semen Gluzman  –  on the Maidan, and the syndrome crowd of friendship with the “Bandera” and enzyme resistance, control the power and responsibility for the past.

– Semen Fishelevich, you are one of those who supported the Maidan, but never torn his scene. Why, by the way?

– I never wanted to the scene – from the time of Rukh has never been on any shodnyak, I mean … on an important meeting decent people. Just realize that the psychology of a decent man and the psychology of thousands of decent people differ dramatically.

At the same time, I must admit, even during the Orange Revolution called me many foreign colleagues, the stars of the world of psychiatry, with one question: where’s syndrome aggressive influence of the crowd?

Ukrainian people have shown themselves quite surprisingly and in 2004 and in 2014. During the recent hurricane in Houston because of marauding police had to impose a curfew. Are there many cases of looting, we can remember when the city center, with its many shops and expensive boutiques, stood up to 200 thousand people?

– In the mid-1970s, in the Perm region, a young Jew Gluzman made friends with Ukrainian nationalists – 25 annuals. But then you have joined a common enemy and not the overall vision of the future.

– Yes, I spent several years in the camp side by side with those who were called “Bandera”. They were simple people, the names of Bandera or Shukhevych of their mouth, I had never heard. They just defended their land from “outsiders”. I once asked Uncle Vasya Basil Malozhinskogo, whom he regarded as the UPA soldier, and he was from the SS division Galicia-evil so asked reproachfully, saying how could you ?! And he did his best to explain: “Spershu boule sovєti Potіm priyshli nіmtsі OAO All – A Stranger’s one I never pobachiv i pochuv svoїh, yshli hloptsі that spіvali of Ukrainian pіsen What I first bailiff to them That Well svoї boule ……. . “That’s right, simply and without ideological pathos.

– Jewish support of the Maidan has not surprised?

– Not in the least surprised. One of the most striking childhood memories  I was 10-11 years old, I was returning to his home on the bus, with rises on Artema October Revolution Square (Maidan current). At one of the stops came an elderly lady, very polite, a good Ukrainian language, asked the passengers where it’s okay to leave. Trolley bus exploded with anger – I was scared, not knowing what was happening. Started the persecution of some lumpen, perhaps a T-shirt, he was supported by his aunt vociferous – it was a stream of insults that hit a woman, just to speak in Ukrainian. Then I realized that with me live one more Jews – Ukrainians.

Frankly, when Ukraine got its independence in 1991, I was tense, remembering how aggressively treated here to the Jews in the Soviet era. I remember how the Jewish boys and girls, which were practically closed local universities, leaving to other republics, where there were quiet and well attended. In addition-and this is for me as a dissident is very important – in Ukraine was the most ferocious in the KGB Union. I tensed and because he saw who vote for independence in Parliament : a group of 239, which is officially called “For a sovereign Radyans’ka up Ukraine”, in other words, the communist majority, sensing the winds of change. And along with them – thousands of opportunists, rinuvshihsya from the Komsomol straight into Roc. Professional killers of Ukrainian culture, instantly became the accusers “hand of Moscow”.

Then, when it became an annual index to measure the tolerance, it appears that anti-Semitism and xenophobia are retreating, although the anti-Semites, of course, is and always will be. This was true of all the other areas  the country got a chance.

I remember one of the first American ambassadors told his friends in Ukraine, saying that you frequent to Moscow, come here, there is a very different people. And it’s true, that’s not the idealization or romanticizing, and the herald of the European mentality.

Of course, at 2014 Independence were different people, and they stood for different things. But it was in the area  some seven years I have not filed a hand.

– Today, three and a half years later, do not be disappointed?

– I am not so naive as to fail to understand: the revolution does not end as the dream of its members. Therefore anticipated that possibly will be disappointed, but … did not expect so much.

You see, in his initial optimism, I relied on the camp experience. With me sat a lot of people of different nationalities, but the Ukrainians have always been the most – about 30-40% of prisoners. Very different – not very smart – and wise, educated – and almost illiterate, sincere – and on your mind. I do not quite understand what the ethnic psychology, but in all the years in the political area, I have not met one Belarusian, Kyrgyz or Uzbek dissident. But the KGB was everywhere. Therefore, unlike many former Soviet republics, Ukraine was able to gradually come to some kind of European values. There is a resistance to the enzyme, but the people are not trained in democracy and have no control over their politicians.

This, incidentally, turned out rather quickly, so, in my opinion, the only way out – a long way to majority elections.

– Where buckwheat is everything?  

– It is everything because of her hand nobody put. Of course, the new laws, withdrawal Institute, etc. needed – need to teach people to control the power, primarily local. Do many Ukrainians need a report from its regional deputies? That’s it. And who offended us?

As for buckwheat, remember the scene in Bishkek Tulip Revolution, when revolutionaries dragged on his back stolen refrigerators and television sets? In Kiev, as it was not … Here, both the Maidan demanding from the authorities not buckwheat, and quite another.

Just people accept defeat very quickly, sitting in the kitchen or in the FB and wailing: again m … Duck elected. And also choose not the best, but they are controlled -and this should be taught in Europe. I know many who are helping with the support of Western partners to build democratic institutions in Ukraine. The vast majority of them work just for money. Some of them are rascals. Unfortunately…

– In 2014, many thought that the Ukrainians are the European political nation. How far along the process, or, conversely, stopped, given the historical memory of the policy, with its cult of new heroes?

– For me, the new heroes – a Heavenly hundreds, not the leaders of the OUN and UPA. And the fact that the memory of the heroes of the new vulgarized, obviously. She vulgarized when stopper criminal cases, which should be called the perpetrators of the massacre. She vulgarized, as the country’s leadership does not want to admit that on the other side, too, were Ukrainians. I know one family in which the boy grew up, the only son, who was “bad” brought – he wanted to be a Ukrainian officer. He was burned at the Maidan. Perhaps one of my daughter’s friends, occasionally throwing Molotov cocktails.

There are many things that we uncouple. But in a situation where the people in the mass hates and despises the power, what kind of love for each other can be said?

– What do you think about decommunisation receiving more and more sophisticated form?

– As a former political prisoner and anti-Soviet, I can not but welcome this process. But in its present form it gives me a feeling of disgust. As lustration, which was clearly organized and controlled from the top and stopped as suddenly as it had begun.

Lustration was illegal and generally meaningless, and it was followed by the same kind of pointless and illegal Decommunization. Autos of the dead will not work, especially when it conducts a marginal rot.

We voted in favor at the time of Kravchuk, and after the KGB has arrested dissidents only after the approval of the Central Committee department of ideology, which he headed. Why not to prosecute? And at the same time and all the deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the group 239, by which the independence was proclaimed.

It is very convenient to demolish monuments, taking responsibility for the past. We are the eternal victim, with a demand for us? “We endlessly criticize Comrade Stalin, and, of course, to work and yet I want to ask. Who wrote denunciations of four million?” – once said Sergei Dovlatov. The question hung in the air. We’ve no sense of responsibility for the acts of their fathers and grandfathers, as in Germany, where the children and grandchildren remember well what difference their loved ones. Where they are – children of the NKVD, the party nomenklatura, which, after all, millions of ordinary people obediently raises his hands at the next party meeting, the stigma of renegades, traitors to the socialist motherland, etc.?

So it is not an ideology we have to sew in the XXI century, and the way of the future.

I am not an enemy of perpetuating the memory of Stepan Bandera, but when acting Health Minister Suprun declares that, taking important decisions, mentally consults with the leader of the OUN, this is in any gate … And apparently, it is something to her counsels, as the results of this tandem we see.

– Donbass, which has become a springboard for the “Russian world”, lost to Ukraine? Or not very much, and we need it?

– Russian is impoverished, it has fewer features include these territories, and Putin, in the end, death. Deliberately or not, but he pulled the plug by their actions many influential people in Russia who stole billions, access to which is every day more and more difficult, given the sanctions. They are used to a different level of personal freedom, where they are, after all, now the rest? On Baikal?

So I believe that sooner or later Ukraine will return to the region. But not the kind of young people who went to the Donbas and already settled in Kiev and other cities. They have made their choice.

Sometimes it occurs to me seditious thought … my camp friends were fighting for the independence of Ukraine, and once the day has come – not because we were sitting at it in the camps. If Donbass really wants to live differently, if it is him and not someone external choice, from a moral point of view, why not think about the idea of ​​independence for these people? This is only one possible solution, but it must be spoken. Apart so apart, we do so and are doing everything to isolate these areas – with the help of the blockade, for example.

– It is clear that the war promotes the division of society into friends and foes, and the formation of a black and white picture of the world. All this of course, but … if we do not turn into “Russia on the contrary”, with its contempt for the private view, the search for their fifth column, and so on?

– I am fully aware that the current president is also seeking to usurp power, but I understand that he is also not released, because, even Kuchma, Ukraine wrote – not Russia. Our man in the street is different from the Russian. There genuinely respected Putin. Here the power is changing, and every new government we do not like, and often despised or hated. And it gives grounds for optimism.

Regarding the split in society, we are thrown into the past and because they do not offer a vision of the future. This also applies to the heroes of the UPA – stranger to a large part of the country, and to the language problem, which is the vast majority of Ukrainians do not consider the problem, but that again raised the shield on …

After the trial, I spent twenty days in a cell with Vasilem Stusom – and it was a luxurious 20 days. From time to time I even forget where I was, plunging into the Ukrainian culture. But we were talking in their own language, and Stus took this quite calmly. With 25 annuals UPA camp communicated in the same way – no one ever said nothing.

I was once again transferred to the new barracks, and that same day I was admitted to the “family” Eugene Prishlyak and Vasil Pidgorodetskim. The first was to arrest referent Security Lviv OUN, the second – a simple fighter in the UPA. Collected in the bedside table meal, we shared equally and ate together. After some time went to Vasil old policeman – a bastard – and said, “Vasil you train a respected man, an old convict, are not you ashamed to Zhydenko eat?” “I have it on s … sent”, – he told me later Vasil.

I am absolutely convinced that the state language is necessary to know, but since independence can not remember a single attempt to create appropriate courses for civil servants. Told me how hard they taught language after work – reading aloud Shevchenko, etc. Ethnic Ukrainians, but completely Russified Soviet reality. Such mockery, with complete indifference of the state, caused the rejection, rather than patriotic feelings.

So let’s publish good books, cooking class teachers – the key to successful language policy. I sometimes have to deal with some of the upper class of pedagogical universities – it’s awful. They academics some of their academies, wealthy people, but are engaged in playing the Soviet zhlobstva.

Ukraine has ruined a lot. When NaUKMA took its first steps, I tried to explain to the rector that it is necessary to keep the schools of mathematicians, theoretical physicists have developed in “mailboxes”, with excellent professionals. It was just necessary to allow these professionals to teach at first in Russian, but … we got rid of high intelligence.

– Who is able to pull the country out of the vicious circle? As long as people do not totally trust the government, naively hopes on the most rabid populists – and we have already passed … Civil society is defeated – or simply lost the battle?

– Civil society must help, rather than push. I am following with great concern for the future of the country in which I live and which I am a part of. I’m afraid that if this continues, the Ukrainian state will be defeated not by external forces, it simply dissolved, as a solid in a liquid. And will Vodicka, sweet or salty – are not so important.

– And what about the resistance enzyme?

– The enzyme resistance – an important condition for independence, but not sufficient.

Build the country – it does not sit in the cooler. We need other skills. When the Soviet Union ended, many former dissidents in Moscow continued to engage in human rights activities. In Ukraine, a number of my colleagues on the Gulag have gone into politics – and what?

It is clear that the government is constantly tosses a bone of contention that we at loggerheads in the past, instead of building the future. And less remembered about the reforms that are needed, as the air, and at the same time painful, so hold on to your seats, the tops are in no hurry to carry them out. A bottoms – bottoms grow, and this is our chance.

Interview by Michael Gold

Sourse, 13/10/2017

72 NGO already have signed the Declaration of Human Rights Agenda platform with the requirement to the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to stop the attack on civil society organizations

September 25, 2017

HUMAN RIGHTS AGENDA

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform demanding the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine stop crack-down on non-governmental organizations

 In early July 2017, the presidential draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 were registered in the Parliament of Ukraine. The draft laws were elaborated allegedly to replace the scandalous amendments to the anti-corruption legislation obliging the anti-corruption activists to annually file personal asset and property electronic declarations (Law of Ukraine No. 1975-VIII of 23 March 2017). The presidential draft laws actually propose to abolish the e-declarations for public anti-corruption activists but to require instead the non-governmental organizations and individual entrepreneurs as well as enterprises, institutions and organizations providing them with services, to file additional reports to tax authorities.

The draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 burden all non-governmental organizations and individual entrepreneurs, enterprises, institutions and organizations that provide them with services with an unjustified obligation to file additional tax reports.

It is revealing that the number of tax reports required from the non-governmental organizations, which these draft laws provide for, significantly exceeds the number of reports required from the business. Moreover, even the recipients of budget funds are not required to file such a number of tax reports.

We believe that these legislative initiatives appeared not by chance, though against the background of statements about the need to reduce excessive state regulation. The punishment in form of the abolition of a non-profit status of non-governmental organization is pronouncedly punitive in nature and is nothing more than the introduction of a tool for selective pressure on the non-governmental organizations indisposed towards the authorities.

We regard the initiative of the President of Ukraine as the disproportionate interference in the activities of the non-governmental organizations. Such steps liken Ukraine to the repressive regimes of the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and others similar. Despite the ostentatious care for transparency and accountability, the regulations introduced in the abovementioned countries led to almost absolute annihilation of the non-governmental organizations which are independent from authorities and total crack-down on civil society.

No international treaties require similar state control over the activities of non-governmental organizations as the international standards endow the non-governmental organizations with the right to be free from state interference in their activities.

The Guidelines on Freedom of Association drafted by the Council of Europe and the OSCE stipulate that “the state shall not require but shall encourage and facilitate associations to be accountable and transparent.” Special reporting is permissible, however, if it is required in exchange for certain benefits, provided it is “within the discretion of the association to decide whether to comply with such reporting requirements or forgo them and forsake any related special benefits, where applicable.”

In consideration of the foregoing, we demand that the Parliament of Ukraine immediately reject the draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 of 10 July 2017 and the President of Ukraine fulfill his promise to cancel the amendments to the anti-corruption legislation dated March 2017.

For reference: the Human Rights Agenda platform is the informal coalition of human rights organizations working in the field of monitoring, analyzing and elaborating the legislation in accordance with the basic principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The platform participants are the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, the Center for Civil Liberties, the Amnesty International Ukraine, the Human Rights Information Center, the Center for Law Enforcement Studies, the Without Borders Project of the NGO “Social Action Center” and the Euromaidan SOS. The Center for Civil Liberties coordinates the platform activities. Contacts: human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

  1. Center for Civil Liberties
  2. Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
  3. Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches
  4. Eastern-Ukrainian Center for Civic Initiatives
  5. Charitable Foundation “Vostok SOS”
  6. Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”
  7. Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law Enforcement
  8. NGO “KyivPride”
  9. Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
  10. Open Dialog Foundation
  11. Human Rights Information Center
  12. Crimean Human Rights Group
  13. NGO “Helsinki Initiative XXI”
  14. NGO “Peaceful Coast”
  15. Expert Human Rights Center
  16. NGO “La Strada Ukraine”
  17. Liberation Movement Research Center
  18. Charitable Organisation “Fund of Mercy and Health”
  19. NGO “South”
  20. NGO “Ray of Changes”
  21. Kharkiv Regional Foundation “Public Alternative”
  22. Project “Without Borders”
  23. NGO “Political Studies Association”
  24. NGO “People’s Control of Kirovohrad Region”
  25. Eksampei Center for Ukrainian Policy
  26. NGO “Volunteer Association of Participants of Maidan and Fighting Action”
  27. Charitable Foundation “Dyvosvit Club”
  28. NGO “School of Public Projects”
  29. NGO “Faith. Hope. Action”
  30. NGO “JCI Kyiv”
  31. Educational Human Rights House Chernihiv
  32. NGO “Women’s Prospects Center”
  33. NGO “Zakarpattia Community”
  34. Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Organization “Young Prosvita”
  35. Ternopil Human Rights Group
  36. Human Rights Center “All rights”
  37. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Convictus Ukraine”
  38. Autonomous Bar Association
  39. NGO “MART” (Chernihiv)
  40. Ukrainian Legal Aid Foundation
  41. Information and Awareness Raising Center “Axis” (Vinnytsia)
  42. NGO “Center for Civic Education “Almenda””
  43. Center for Humanistic Technologies “AHALAR”
  44. NGO “Ukrainian Association of Assessment”
  45. NGO “Territory of Success”
  46. T-Woman of Ukraine
  47. NGO “AutoMaidan Kyiv”
  48. NGO “Human Rights Vector”
  49. Bilozerka Center for Regional Development
  50. Center for Law Enforcement Activity Research
  51. Chernihiv Public Committee for Human Rights Protection
  52. NGO “Kyiv Educational Center “Tolerspace””
  53. Human Rights Center “Postup”
  54. NGO “Liberal Democratic League of Ukraine”
  55. Bureau of Social and Political Developments
  56. Center for Legal and Political Studies “DUMA”
  57. Institute of Mass Information
  58. SOVA Group
  59. Media Initiative for Human Rights
  60. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Legalife Ukraine”
  61. NGO “Insight”
  62. Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research
  63. NGO “Informer”
  64. Information and Analytical Center “Public Space”
  65. LGBT Human Rights Center “Our World”
  66. NGO “Bakhmat”
  67. NGO “Development Foundation”
  68. NGO “All-Ukrainian League of Lawyers Against Corruption”
  69. NGO “Kharkiv Women’s Association “Sphere””
  70. NGO “Gender Center of Volyn Region”
  71. NGO “Theatre for Dialogue”
  72. NGO ‘Free Territory’

The statement is open for signature. Please contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Результаты поиска:

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform on deprivation of attorneys of the ability to cooperate with human rights organisations

March 7, 2019

In the agenda of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the consideration of the first
reading of a draft law ‘On Legal Practice and Advocacy’ No. 9055 is scheduled for 28
February.
The authors and supporters of the law are striving to prove its progressive nature,
strengthening of guarantees of advocacy and empowerment.
However, should the law be adopted, all attorneys who cooperate with human rights
organisations will be deprived of the opportunity to engage in advocacy activities
within the framework of cooperation with these organisations. Hundreds of cases
which have been filed by lawyers of these organisations with the European Court of
Human Rights, and thousands of court cases in national courts will become only a
reminder of past activities. There will be no one competent to file new applications
with the European Court and national courts on behalf of human rights organisations.
In his expert opinion which contains the analysis of the draft law No. 9055, the
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights Diego Garcia-Sayan stated that the restriction, set
forth in Article 28 of the draft law 9055, could adversely affect the lawyers who would
have to choose between full employment and the work of a human rights defender
which, obviously, would adversely affect an access to justice in the country, in
particular, for individuals with limited financial means. Also, the report provides a
whole number of risks and threats to independent advocacy, such as the procedure
of bringing attorneys to disciplinary responsibility, unfounded types of disciplinary
sanctions that affect the independence of advocacy and, consequently, affect
appropriate defence in court.
Separately, the completely opaque process of work on the draft law is to be
mentioned, and this fact has also been noted in the report by Mr. Diego Garcia-
Sayan. He wrote that consultations with representatives of the legal profession were
very limited in nature, and the final draft law was made public by the office of the
President without the opportunity to comment on its content.
A lack of transparency, marginalisation of the drafting process and introduction of the
draft law, a lack of a high-quality expert examination, for example, by the Venice
Commission, and haste with the attempts to implement this law as soon as possible

in a parliament’s session confirm the poor quality of the preparation process and the
same low-quality content of the draft law itself, which, in its present form, poses a
real threat to the protection of human rights in the human rights protection
environment of Ukraine and can be regarded as a way of attack and exertion of
pressure on the environment.
We hereby urge Members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to prevent the
consideration and adoption of the draft law 9055, as requested in the report by Diego
Garcia-Sayan, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The text of the draft law No.
9055 must be redrafted, discussed publicly and amended, taking into account the
comments made by representatives of the bar community, human rights
organisations, and international experts. We demand transparency, honesty and
high quality. Today, we cannot see these features in the draft law No. 9055.
The Human Rights Agenda platform is an informal coalition of human right organisations focused on systemic
problems of legislation and practices for defending fundamental human rights. The participants of the platform
are as follows: Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, Center for Civil Liberties, Amnesty International
Ukraine, Human Rights Information Center, Centre of Law Enforcement Activities Research (CLEAR), Project
"Without Borders", Euromaidan SOS. The platform is coordinated by the Center for Civil Liberties. You can
contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
Center for Civil Liberties
Regional Centre for Human Rights
Open Dialogue Foundation
Humanitarian Studio "Wave
Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”

NGOs call on the HQCJ to refrain from creating artificial obstacles to the establishment of the Public Integrity Council

November 22, 2018

On November 21, 2018, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) announced the results of the consideration of documents of public associations (NGOs) for the establishment of the Public Integrity Council (PIC).

 

The Commission approved a positive decision on the admission of only 2 out of 14 organizations that submitted the documents. The Commission allowed the rest of the organizations to eliminate the shortcomings which, in its opinion, were identified in the relevant documents of the NGOs.

 

Having considered the decisions of the Commission, NGOs have to state that among these alleged shortcomings there are many that are not based on the requirements of the law, do not pursue a legitimate aim and can create artificial obstacles for NGOs’ participation in the PIC establishment.

 

In particular:

 

  • In some cases (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the Commission does not accept the results of a financial audit conducted not within the past two years, whereas the law only requires the availability of an audit report and does not set any time frames for its conduct;
  • In some other cases (Center for Civil Liberties, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the HQCJ groundlessly believes that it is only the first persons of international organizations in Ukraine (the OSCE Coordinator in Ukraine, UNDP, etc.) that can make recommendations to NGOs, while the law does not contain such a requirement, and the signatures of officials of international organizations were affixed within their authorities;
  • Position of the HQCJ regarding the recognition of reports based on the financial audit results or audit findings as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements only because these reports were prepared for confidential use and submission to grantors (CRIMEASOS, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform) is unreasonable (the law does not set any requirements for the addressees of the reports and the purpose of their preparation);
  • The HQCJ did not recognize a copy of the report on the project implementation results due to the lack of signature of the person authorized to sign it (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform). However, such a requirement is unfounded since the law requires the provision of a copy rather than the original of the report, and the submitted copy of the report has been duly certified by an authorized person;  
  • The law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” does not require the publication of a declaration of a candidate to the PIC on the NACP’s website, and the HQCJ’s competencies do not cover anti-corruption verification of declarations (including the presence or absence of these declarations on the NACP’s website), while some organizations (Institute of Applied Humanitarian Research) received a reply that the absence of such declarations on the NACP’s website serves as grounds for non-admission.

 

As for documents of other NGOs (Civic Lustration Committee, E+, Nova Krayina, ТОМ14, Centre for Economic Strategy, Centre UA), only the originals of certain documents are required, whereas all the necessary information can be obtained from the duly authenticated photocopies. In some other cases (DEJURE, Nova Krayina), technical errors (incorrect indication of the candidate’s patronymic only in one of the documents or use of the phrase “annual declaration” after “declaration of a candidate for the position of the PIC member”) are considered by the Commission as “grounds for the determination of the submitted documents as not complying with … the law”.

 

We want to emphasize that the requirements of the law on the submission of documents have been established to confirm the experience, real activity and capacity of NGOs to form the PIC. The Commission’s review of these documents should pursue this legitimate aim and should not go beyond its limits.

 

The Commission’s decisions are even more surprising given the fact that 2 years ago the Commission allowed a number of organizations with similar packages of documents to participate in the NGO Meeting on the PIC establishment without any comments. The Commission did not consider the failure to submit proper declarations by the candidates for judicial office at the Anti-Corruption Court and Intellectual Property Court to be a violation and allowed them to take part in the competition to the IP-court.

 

We are concerned that at the beginning of our cooperation with the HQCJ regarding the formation of the second composition of the PIC, we faced this approach. At the same time, the NGOs will make every effort to take into account the wishes of the Commission regarding the execution of documents within a specified period as far as possible.

 

However, if the HQCJ retains this approach to the assessment of documents, there will be a high risk of groundless rejection of experienced and capable NGOs from participation in the Meeting and, as a result, the formation of an incomplete composition, delay, or even the impossibility of establishing the PIC as a form of public participation in the selection and evaluation of judges.

 

Therefore, we call on the HQCJ:

 

  • To carefully reconsider all the packages of documents submitted by the NGOs, including those that will be submitted additionally;
  • To assess the documents submitted by organizations solely on the basis of the requirements of the law, impartially and without groundless formalism;
  • To allow all NGOs whose experience and capability are confirmed by the documents submitted by them to participate in the Meeting;
  • To review the decisions on a number of NGOs (indicated in this statement or otherwise) regarding the recognition of documents as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements of the law, particularly where the law contained no such requirements.

 

Civic Lustration Committee

Initiative E+

Crimea SOS

Nova Kraina

ТОМ 14

DEJURE Foundation

Center for Civil Liberties

Centre for Economic Strategy

Centre of Policy and Legal Reform

Centre UA

Nations in Transit 2018: Confronting Illiberalism

April 11, 2018

Washington, April 12, 2018 — Attacks on opposition parties, the press, and civil society organizations are becoming the norm in Central and Eastern Europe as the spread of illiberal politics undermines the foundations of and prospects for democracy, according to Nations in Transit 2018, the 23rd edition of Freedom House’s annual report on democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Eurasia.

Ukraine’s Democracy Score declined for the first time since the 2014 revolution. With the Russian-led conflict in the east grinding on, Ukraine’s politicians are taking advantage of patriotic sentiment to attack NGOs and journalists, accusing them of undermining the war effort.

“Attacks on civil society and political opponents have sapped the momentum from the institutional reform process in Ukraine,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “Although decentralization reforms are continuing, other key priorities, including anticorruption efforts, have stalled. The window of opportunity has not closed in Ukraine, but it has shrunk. By accusing NGOs and journalists of antinational sentiment, politicians are attempting to exclude legitimate voices from public debate simply because they criticize the government.”

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON UKRAINE

 

  • Two important milestones were reached in relations between Ukraine and the European Union in 2017: the visa-free regime with the EU came into force in June, allowing millions of Ukrainians to travel freely to the neighboring Schengen zone for short-term stays, and the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement — the main trigger for the Euromaidan protests which provides a framework for major transformations in Ukrainian democracy, human rights, rule of law, good governance, trade, and sustainable development — finally came completely into force.
  • One of the main achievements in Ukraine’s national governance in 2017 was healthcare reform, which, following the passage by the Verkhovna Rada of a law on healthcare financing in October, will align the system based on the principle of “money following patients.”
  • Decentralization reform continued, with administrative territorial reform resulting in the creation of approximately 700 amalgamated communities, and fiscal decentralization resulting in increased revenues and local infrastructure investments for the first time in 23 years.
  • The conflict in the east remained largely frozen throughout the year. The socioeconomic conditions in the occupied territories, and in those areas close to the line of contact, continued to be poor. The armed separatist groups developed their own institutions, which, in turn, enacted regulations that routinely violated basic human rights, while journalists and bloggers covering the conflict continued to be arrested and detained.
  • Pressure on civil society intensified. In March, the government obliged citizens working against corruption to publicly declare their income and assets, while a legislative initiative to replace the controversial requirement with other restrictive measures against NGOs under threat of onerous restrictions for not complying with the proposed regulations was unsuccessful. The Civil Society score declined due to smear campaigns against NGOs and activists.
  • Prominent civil society organizations were targeted with criminal investigations against them and their members, and there were physical attacks on well-known activists.
  • The Independent Media score declined due to the blocking of major social media sites, as well as physical attacks on journalists and a lack of progress in investigating the murder of journalist Pavel Sheremet.
  • Progress on judicial and anti-corruption reforms was mixed. While the National Anticorruption Bureau actively investigated high-level corruption results of its work were few. The President had yet to create the High Anticorruption Court as promised. Vetting of judicial appointments to the Supreme Court stumbled as 25 candidates that had not passed public integrity checks were approved as official candidates.

“Illiberal politics are becoming the new normal in Europe,” said Michael J. Abramowitz, president of Freedom House. “Government-led smear campaigns against civil society groups, journalists, and the political opposition were pioneered in Russia and Central Asia, but they are increasingly common across the region.”

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES

  • Poland recorded the second-largest Democracy Score decline in the history of the report. The ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party’s revolutionary takeover of the judicial system, politicization of public media, smear campaigns against nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and violations of ordinary parliamentary procedure also produced the two largest single-category score declines in Nations in Transit’s history, for National Democratic Governance and Judicial Framework and Independence.

 

“The radical changes to the Polish judiciary remove any effective check on the actions of the majority party in parliament,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “What has happened in Poland in the last two years should serve as an alarm bell for anyone who believes that one-party rule could never return to Europe.”

“The EU should stand up for its commitments to the rule of law by implementing Article 7 sanctions against Poland and Hungary,” Schenkkan said, referring to the EU’s power to suspend a member’s voting rights. “It should condition access to European funds on clear rule-of-law criteria. This is the only way to convince these countries, and EU candidate states, that the union is firmly rooted in democratic principles.”

  • Hungary has registered the largest cumulative decline in Nations in Transit The country’s Democracy Score has been falling for 10 consecutive years, moving it from the status of a democratic leader at the time of EU accession in 2004 to the threshold of a “Transitional/Hybrid Regime” in 2018.

 

“The Fidesz government of Viktor Orbán led the way for illiberal forces in Central Europe, showing that it was possible to capture a state within the EU through gerrymandering, procurement manipulation, and control of the media,” said Schenkkan. “The fact that Fidesz remains a member in good standing in the European People’s Party of the European Parliament shows how effective Orbán’s approach has been.”

  • Estonia earned the biggest improvement in this edition of the report, even though it was already the best performer. A surprisingly smooth first year in government for a longtime opposition party demonstrated the resilience and independence of national institutions. Estonia’s anticorruption mechanisms appear to be addressing the municipal corruption that has long affected its major cities.

“At a time when most of the news for democracy seems bad, Estonia reminds us that liberal democracy can and does succeed,” Schenkkan said. “Even in a country with a history of foreign occupation and sensitive ethnic and regional differences, democratic national institutions can produce better governance for everyone.”

View the full report here: https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/nations-transit-2018

###

 

Freedom House is an independent watchdog organization that supports democratic change, monitors the status of freedom around the world, and advocates for democracy and human rights.

Join us on Facebook and Twitter (@FreedomHouseDC) and stay up to date with Freedom House’s latest news and events by signing up for our newsletter.

Special event to discuss Ukraine’s future at the Atlantic Council Headquarters (on Thursday, March 29, 2018)

April 4, 2018

In the four years since the end of the Revolution of Dignity, Ukraine has not answered its most important question: how will the country ensure democratic values in its future development? Much of Ukraine’s hope lies in its young leaders who will drive the country forward in the coming years. CDDRL has been fortunate to provide a year-long residency to some of these future leaders as part of the inaugural year of the Center’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program.

This event will feature three Ukrainian leaders who are in residency with CDDRL’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program this year. They will each discuss their own perspectives on opportunities and challenges to democracy and development in their home country, as well as objectives for strengthening public administration, civil society, and economic reforms upon their return to Ukraine.

We hope you can join us for this timely discussion.

Sourse, 29/03/2018

Vitaliy Tytych: Rigging of anti-corruption court competition must be prevented

March 19, 2018

The High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice cannot be trusted to conduct an objective and fair competition for the anti-corruption court without severe foreign and civil society oversight and without a drastic change in the competition’s methodology. They cannot be trusted because they violated the law and demonstrated their political bias by rigging the competition for the Supreme Court.

The discredited High Qualification Commission must be deprived of its arbitrary powers to assign scores subjectively during competitions for anti-corruption and other judges, and such scores must be based on objective criteria.

This is even more important than foreign donors’ veto powers, and this is the only way to ensure that honest and professional candidates believe in the fairness of the competition and participate, and that the commission has no way of promoting political loyalists and incompetent candidates for subjective reasons.

During the Supreme Court competition, 90 scores were assigned for anonymous legal knowledge tests, 120 scores for anonymous practical tests, and the High Qualification Commission could arbitrarily assign 790 scores without giving any explicit reasons (formally based on interviews with candidates and examining their profiles).

According to the 2016 law on the judiciary and status of judges, legal knowledge and practical tests (i.e. objective criteria) are the main method of selecting judges. This law stipulates that at least 75 percent of the total score (i.e. 750 out of 1,000 scores) must be given for anonymous legal knowledge and practical tests.

The High Qualification Commission took advantage of the vague wording of the law to set regulations that contradict the law because only 210 out of the total of 1,000 scores were assigned for legal knowledge and practical tests.

As a result of the Supreme Court competition, candidates who were at the top of the list after the anonymous knowledge tests and practical tests ended up at the bottom in the final stage for unknown reasons, while candidates who initially got lower scores and had a corrupt background ended up at the top.

Both the law on the judiciary and the High Qualification Commission’s internal regulations must be amended and clarified to clearly assign 750 scores for anonymous legal knowledge tests and practical tests (for competitions for both the anti-corruption court and all other courts). If parliament refuses to amend the law, the High Qualification Commission can just change its regulations, which is even easier.

As an option, 330 scores should be given for anonymous legal knowledge tests, another 330 scores for practical tests, and 330 scores for interviews and professional ethics (preferably based on conclusions by the Public Integrity Council and foreign donors). The law on the judiciary and status of judges should also be amended to require the publication of practical works after practical tests.

That would leave no room for arbitrary decisions and political involvement.

President Petro Poroshenko claims that the participation of foreign donors in the competition for the anti-corruption court contradicts Ukraine’s sovereignty, which is false (for example, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine was created with the participation of foreign donors).

But anyway Ukraine’s foreign partners could delegate independent Ukrainian citizens with impeccable reputation and integrity. This would halt any talk about sovereignty.

Such representatives could include people from the December 1 Initiative Group civil-society organization, Soviet dissident and human rights lawyer Myroslav Marynovych or Vyacheslav Bryukhovetsky, honorary president of the Kyiv Mohyla Academy.

Moreover, Ukraine’s foreign donors must take part in the competition for anti-corruption judges but they will have neither time nor resources to vet all the candidates and their background on their own. The Public Integrity Council, which has shown its independence from the authorities and its ability to work hard to examine candidates’ background, must take part in the competition for the anti-graft court by collecting all the available information on candidates (and the council must participate in competitions for all courts under the 2016 law on the judiciary and status of judges).

This is the only way to ensure that anti-corruption judges are truly professional and independent.

The use of the same objective methodology for assigning scores both for the anti-corruption court and other courts and the participation of the Public Integrity Council in competitions for the anti-corruption court and other courts  will totally kill the false argument that the anti-corruption court is a “special” court banned by the Constitution (the Venice Commission has already refuted this argument).

Also, it will be impossible to select independent judges if foreign donors choose representatives loyal to the Ukrainian government.  Such representatives must be completely independent from pressure by Ukrainian authorities.

In the best-case scenario, foreign donors should themselves assess candidates’ professional integrity. But at least they should have a right to suspend the competition and initiate an audit if evidence emerges that the High Qualification Commission violated procedural rules.

The Public Integrity Council believes that the competition for the Supreme Court was rigged to promote politically loyal candidates.

First, during the practical test stage, some candidates were given tests that coincided with cases that they had considered during their career, which was deemed a tool of promoting political loyalists.

Second, in March 2017 the High Qualification Commission illegally allowed 43 candidates who had not gotten sufficient scores during practical tests to take part in the next stage, changing its rules amid the competition. Members of the Public Integrity Council believe that the rules were unlawfully changed to prevent political loyalists from dropping out of the competition.

Apart from the second score assigned anonymously for practical works, the commission gave them a third score after naming them, violating the law (because practical tests should be anonymous to prevent political interference). The commission must have just assigned the second score without knowing the candidates’ names.

Third, the High Qualification Commission illegally refused to publish the scores for candidates’ psychological tests, failed to set a minimum score for psychological tests and illegally assessed the tests on its own (although they must have been assessed by psychologists). Moreover, the commission used corporate loyalty tests, which stipulated loyalty as a major characteristic of a judge – as a result, independent candidates were prevented from getting a higher score, while political loyalists were encouraged.

Fourth, the High Qualification Commission removed the profiles of candidates other than the winners from its site.

Fifth, the High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice illegally refused to give specific reasons for assigning specific total scores to candidates and refused to explain why the High Qualification Commission has overridden vetoes by the Public Integrity Council on candidates who do not meet ethical integrity standards.

Sixth, the High Council of Justice has illegally rejected 48 out of its members’ 52 recusals from voting for specific Supreme Court candidates due to a conflict of interest. This triggered accusations that the council was planning to get the necessary 14 pro-government votes to appoint politically loyal candidates.

Some of these violations are currently being disputed at Ukrainian courts and will be disputed at the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, Public Integrity Council members have opened a criminal case into the violations and will open more cases.

Sourse, 12/03/2018.

FROM OBJECTIVES TO RESULTS: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EU-UKRAINE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT AS SEEN BY STAKEHOLDERS

December 22, 2017

A jury: experience and problems

October 24, 2017

A simulation system of justice in which convulses a vestige of the people’s representatives, as the jury. Says Russian political analyst and human rights activist Mikhail Savva, who left Russia and now living in Ukraine.

The jury is in the Constitution of Ukraine, but in fact, according to human rights activists, jury trials in the country do not. The main difference between a jury trial by an ordinary court (with the participation of one judge or three professional judges) is a separate co-existence in it “judges of law” (the legal profession) and “Judges of fact” (board of jurors , which usually consists of persons who are not are lawyers). If this division is not present and professional judges work together with the representatives of the people should not talk about a jury trial, but the court sheffenskom. Sheffenskie courts adopted, for example, at their home in Germany as well as in Ukraine. Experience and problems of modern Russian jury trials may be useful in case if Ukraine, too, decides to create a jury trial.

The Soviet system of people’s assessors is an option sheffenskogo court, where a judge has unlimited opportunities to influence the decision of the representatives of the people. Sheffenskaya system can be very effective, but only for companies with extremely high legal culture .

In the course of judicial reform 90-ies of the last century, it was created in the Russian jury trials . During the counter-reforms that have been going for fifteen years, created a simulation system of justice in which convulses a vestige of the people’s representatives, as the jury.

Jury trials are traditionally regarded as the “courts of justice”. This is confirmed by the statistics of court decisions in the Russian Federation. Professional judges give less than 1% of acquittals , while the juries – 13-25% in different years.

In 2016, according to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court, in the first instance are over 239 cases with a jury. From 361 to 60 the defendant was justified, that is 17% , another 85 cases returned to the prosecutor. The number of sentences handed down without a jury, more than three orders of magnitude. According to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court in 2016 for all formulations of the Criminal Code (CC) convicted 740,380 people (to imprisonment – 206 304 people), is justified by 1493 (0.2% if you count the persons on which the case was dismissed on rehabilitative grounds, – 1.5%).

Scale application of jury trials in Russia is low. In one year, jury trials in Russia in the second decade of this century the average render verdicts to 300 (the maximum number of verdicts in the post-Soviet period – about 600 in 2010). A jury selected only 12% of the accused, who have a right to it. In the US a year by the jury shall be made about 160 thousand. Verdicts. In the XX century in the Russian empire handed down each year about 40 thousand. Verdicts. The reasons for this will be disclosed below, here I call home. This lack of political will for the development of the institute of juries. In the context of the simulation of the justice system the current Russian regime of the jury can not be complete and widespread.

The jury in the Russian Federation has a constitutional basis: according to Art. 32 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Russian citizens have the right to participate in the administration of justice. One form of such participation – review certain categories of criminal cases in the court of jury. However direct reference to the institution of jury in the Constitution does not.

The introduction of jury trials took considerable time in Russia. Pilot introduction of jury trials in Russia began with the 1993-1994, in 9 subjects of the Federation. The new Criminal Procedure Code, adopted in 2001, did the jury widespread since 2003. In the Chechen Republic the introduction of jury trials actually took place in 2010. An expert on Russian court Sergei Pashin jury, namely the phased introduction of jury trials has led to the fact that he did have in Russia.

The accused has the right to file a petition for consideration of his criminal case by the court of first instance composed of professional judges and a panel of 12 jurors in case he is accused, in particular, murder, sabotage, banditry, genocide, public appeals to the outbreak of war, kidnapping , piracy mercenarism and t. d.

I counted as of July 2017 20 of the Criminal Code articles on which possible jury . At the beginning of the introduction of jury trials in Russia of such items was 47, according Sergeya Pashina calculations, the main initiator of the introduction of jury trials in Russia.

The criminal case, which involved several defendants, the court is considered by jury in respect of all the defendants , if at least one of them said a request for consideration of a criminal case by a court in the composition.

If the defendant has not filed a motion for the consideration of the criminal case by the court by jury, the case is considered by another composition of the court in the manner prescribed by law.

The judge’s decision to hear the case from the jury is final. The subsequent failure of the defendant from the criminal trial by jury is not accepted .

Criminal cases involving jurors of federal courts of general jurisdiction is held in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the supreme courts of republics, territorial, regional courts, courts of federal cities, autonomous region and autonomous districts, the district (naval) military courts.

jury selection jurors is actually a two-step.

According to Art. 3 of the federal law, jurors can not be: persons under 25 years of age; persons with outstanding or previously convicted; persons recognized as incapable or limited in capacity; are registered in the drug treatment or mental hospital.

Such persons are not included in the lists of jurors , drawn up every four years on the basis of the voter list by random sampling. Exclude these people from the list of jurors bodies of executive power of the municipality or the region. Then, after getting acquainted with the citizens of the jury lists, these lists are excluded from the statements of the citizens themselves several categories.

The weak point of this phase of jury selection is a voluntary procedure for submitting applications for exclusion from the jury list. That is, if, for example, the police considers that nothing prevents him to be sworn he did not submit an application for delisting.

During jury selection to participate in a particular criminal case to participate in the proceedings as jurors are not allowed to persons suspected or accused of committing crimes; I do not speak the language in which the hearing is conducted; with physical and / or mental disabilities that prevent full participation in the hearing.

During the trial, the jury task boils down to, to answer three main questions: whether the proven fact of the crime, if that proved his committed by the defendant, and whether he is guilty of the crime. In the case of the issue of the recognition of the defendant’s guilt is put whether he deserves leniency. In this case the judge to the jury formulate lists of issues, which are often a few dozen items.

Jurors “should strive to adopt a unanimous decision,” but if this is not achieved within three hours, the verdict made by voting.

A guilty verdict is adopted, if the majority of the jury votes for each of the three key issues. Acquittal verdict is considered, if not less than six judges gave a negative answer to at least one of the three questions. If the deciding votes are equally divided, the adopted most favorable to the defendant’s answer for each question.

The acquittal is mandatory for the presiding judge, in this case, the court justifies the defendant. Guilty as the jury’s verdict is not binding on the court. If the judge recognizes that a guilty verdict handed down against an innocent person, then adopted a decree on the dissolution of the jury and the criminal case is sent for a new trial by another composition of the court. This decision is not subject to appeal in cassation.

From the jurisdiction of jury trials for the duration of this institution such articles were excluded, such as terrorism, hostage-taking, riots, treason, espionage, violent seizure of power, rape and sexual offenses against children. Some compounds “fell out” of crime from the jurisdiction of jury trials due to the fact that the new Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 2001 softened for him the punishment and the death penalty or life imprisonment has not been provided (eg high treason). In some cases, exceptions motive was that the jury too often render acquittals. For example, in the discussion in the State Duma in 2013, the issue of the exclusion of such a composition as sexual crimes against children, the author of the bill deputy Spring said that the jury too often justify the accused.

In February 2016 the Russian Constitutional Court found that the criminal case against women in the murder with aggravating circumstances could be considered by a jury of 12 people in the supreme courts of republics, territorial or regional courts. Prior to that, women were deprived of the possibility to be tried before a jury, because the Russian legislation does not provide for life sentences for the women.

December 3, 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed to extend the role of juries in a possible reduction in their number in the court up to 5-7 people. This was an attempt to respond to society’s demands for justice. At a time when major political offenses removed from the jurisdiction of jury trials, the expansion of the institute of juries are no longer threatened by the authorities. In other words, cases of domestic murder and some other formulations could, according to the authorities, to consider jury trials at district and city levels.

Starting from June 1, 2018 Institute of jurorsIt will be operational in the district (city) and garrison military courts. Established number of jurors for the district and garrison military courts – 6 people, in the courts of the Russian Federation and the district military courts, the number of jurors will be reduced from 12 to 8. district-level court jury will consider the criminal case at the request of the accused, for which there may not be sentenced to life imprisonment, namely, with regard to women, persons who have committed crimes under the age of 18 years, men who have attained to time of the court’s 65-year-olds sentence. Criminal cases on these articles of the Criminal Code in relation to other persons, as before, will be considered by the court of the subject of the Russian Federation. In addition, the district court with the participation of jurors,

Judges of the Russian Federation, according to a discussion at the Congress in December 2016, the judges are extremely skeptical about the prospects for the mass introduction of jury trials . They talk about the organizational unpreparedness and lack of funding. We can assume that in the near future verdicts of the jury will not become a mass phenomenon in the municipal and district courts.

Practical functioning of juries problem is clearly illustrated by the case of the murder of Boris Nemtsov , who was considered by the Moscow District Military Court in 2016-2017. A panel of 12 jurors was in the conference room for three days. She had to answer 26 questions put to them by the judge. The jury could not come to a unanimous opinion, so after three hours of contentious issues have been put to the vote. 10 of the 12 jurors declared guilty of all five defendants.

Eight jurors were replaced during the process. The defendant’s lawyer Bakhaeva Zaurbek Sadahanov said: “There was a sweep of the jury, we have seen. The verdict is absolutely illegal, because no evidence of guilt Bakhaeva investigation did not present. This is only possible in a country where there is no justice. “

In discussing the questions that were to answer the jury, the objections of the accused lawyers were not taken into account, the judge approved the questions in its original version. This version of the problem was that the actions of each of the defendants, the judge invited the jury to assess the aggregate only to the actions of the other four defendants.

At the present time in Russia there was already a jury management practices. Its main elements are:

1. Selection loyal jury on board formation step. Washer courts evaluate the behavior of the jury, and depending on this jury are involved or are not involved in other processes.

2. Restrictions jury taps to participate in a particular meeting: no more than one non-motivated removal of restrictions on issues at the stage of taps (you can ask about criminal records of relatives, but you can not ask questions, the answers to which are characterized by human eyes).

3. Adjustment of the board structure by eliminating disloyal jury. For this purpose the taps on spurious grounds, creating grounds for removal from the board (the jury may hold on his way to a meeting of the traffic police, with the result that the jury is removed from the board).

4. Manipulative or control wording of the jury by the judge.

5. Prohibitions on the provision of the jury during the meeting on problems of the inquiry, such as torture . Random mention of torture, even the hint is the reason for the cancellation of the verdict.

6. Intimidation by jury, as was done during the process in the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic in the case of citizens of Ukraine and Karpyuk Klyha.

If the jury panel of the control mechanisms do not work, use the cancellation of the verdict by the Supreme Court of Russia. If needed, which is often politically motivated, the Supreme Court cancels the guilty verdict of the jury and send the case for retrial. So it was in the case of the murder Anny Politkovskoy. Grounds for cancellation of the verdict was that, according to the Armed Forces, the panel “go on about the lawyers who reported the identity of defendants in the case, and the jury presented negative information about the investigation.”

I am getting the result. A jury in Russia it is a jury trial, not sheffenskim court or some other form of participation of representatives of the people in judicial decisions. However, the jury as the “Court of Justice” in the Russian Federation operating in simulation mode. This is achieved due to two main factors: the limited scope of application of a jury and the widespread use of illegal jury management.

Summing up, it can not be said about the money. Often mention that Ukraine has no money for a jury trial. But the money in this case is irrelevant. We are talking about saving mode. See what makes the authoritarian Putin regime in Russia – is introducing jury trials at the district level. It costs a lot of money, because in Russia in 2184 the district court. is sorely lacking is the answer mode to request people to justice. Of course, the “political” as a judge in violation of all the rules, and will be judged, and to plant. But in cases of domestic murder people get this same justice in the form of trial by jury. Putin’s regime is trying to prolong its existence. If authoritarian regimes are saving yourself so why democracy in Ukraine should act differently?

Sourse, 23/10/2017

People need to learn how to control the power, local first of all

October 14, 2017

One of the most prominent dissidents of the Soviet Union, weighed after a four-month hunger strike in BC political zone 389/35 in the Perm region of 39 kg. The author of “Handbook of Psychiatry for dissidents,” a member of the American Society of Psychiatrists, UK Royal College of Psychiatrists, the rehabilitation of victims of the World Council of Torture, International PEN, the author of several books and hundreds of articles. All of this – on human rights defenders, public figures and the head of the Ukrainian Psychiatric Association Semen Gluzman.

Semen Gluzman  –  on the Maidan, and the syndrome crowd of friendship with the “Bandera” and enzyme resistance, control the power and responsibility for the past.

– Semen Fishelevich, you are one of those who supported the Maidan, but never torn his scene. Why, by the way?

– I never wanted to the scene – from the time of Rukh has never been on any shodnyak, I mean … on an important meeting decent people. Just realize that the psychology of a decent man and the psychology of thousands of decent people differ dramatically.

At the same time, I must admit, even during the Orange Revolution called me many foreign colleagues, the stars of the world of psychiatry, with one question: where’s syndrome aggressive influence of the crowd?

Ukrainian people have shown themselves quite surprisingly and in 2004 and in 2014. During the recent hurricane in Houston because of marauding police had to impose a curfew. Are there many cases of looting, we can remember when the city center, with its many shops and expensive boutiques, stood up to 200 thousand people?

– In the mid-1970s, in the Perm region, a young Jew Gluzman made friends with Ukrainian nationalists – 25 annuals. But then you have joined a common enemy and not the overall vision of the future.

– Yes, I spent several years in the camp side by side with those who were called “Bandera”. They were simple people, the names of Bandera or Shukhevych of their mouth, I had never heard. They just defended their land from “outsiders”. I once asked Uncle Vasya Basil Malozhinskogo, whom he regarded as the UPA soldier, and he was from the SS division Galicia-evil so asked reproachfully, saying how could you ?! And he did his best to explain: “Spershu boule sovєti Potіm priyshli nіmtsі OAO All – A Stranger’s one I never pobachiv i pochuv svoїh, yshli hloptsі that spіvali of Ukrainian pіsen What I first bailiff to them That Well svoї boule ……. . “That’s right, simply and without ideological pathos.

– Jewish support of the Maidan has not surprised?

– Not in the least surprised. One of the most striking childhood memories  I was 10-11 years old, I was returning to his home on the bus, with rises on Artema October Revolution Square (Maidan current). At one of the stops came an elderly lady, very polite, a good Ukrainian language, asked the passengers where it’s okay to leave. Trolley bus exploded with anger – I was scared, not knowing what was happening. Started the persecution of some lumpen, perhaps a T-shirt, he was supported by his aunt vociferous – it was a stream of insults that hit a woman, just to speak in Ukrainian. Then I realized that with me live one more Jews – Ukrainians.

Frankly, when Ukraine got its independence in 1991, I was tense, remembering how aggressively treated here to the Jews in the Soviet era. I remember how the Jewish boys and girls, which were practically closed local universities, leaving to other republics, where there were quiet and well attended. In addition-and this is for me as a dissident is very important – in Ukraine was the most ferocious in the KGB Union. I tensed and because he saw who vote for independence in Parliament : a group of 239, which is officially called “For a sovereign Radyans’ka up Ukraine”, in other words, the communist majority, sensing the winds of change. And along with them – thousands of opportunists, rinuvshihsya from the Komsomol straight into Roc. Professional killers of Ukrainian culture, instantly became the accusers “hand of Moscow”.

Then, when it became an annual index to measure the tolerance, it appears that anti-Semitism and xenophobia are retreating, although the anti-Semites, of course, is and always will be. This was true of all the other areas  the country got a chance.

I remember one of the first American ambassadors told his friends in Ukraine, saying that you frequent to Moscow, come here, there is a very different people. And it’s true, that’s not the idealization or romanticizing, and the herald of the European mentality.

Of course, at 2014 Independence were different people, and they stood for different things. But it was in the area  some seven years I have not filed a hand.

– Today, three and a half years later, do not be disappointed?

– I am not so naive as to fail to understand: the revolution does not end as the dream of its members. Therefore anticipated that possibly will be disappointed, but … did not expect so much.

You see, in his initial optimism, I relied on the camp experience. With me sat a lot of people of different nationalities, but the Ukrainians have always been the most – about 30-40% of prisoners. Very different – not very smart – and wise, educated – and almost illiterate, sincere – and on your mind. I do not quite understand what the ethnic psychology, but in all the years in the political area, I have not met one Belarusian, Kyrgyz or Uzbek dissident. But the KGB was everywhere. Therefore, unlike many former Soviet republics, Ukraine was able to gradually come to some kind of European values. There is a resistance to the enzyme, but the people are not trained in democracy and have no control over their politicians.

This, incidentally, turned out rather quickly, so, in my opinion, the only way out – a long way to majority elections.

– Where buckwheat is everything?  

– It is everything because of her hand nobody put. Of course, the new laws, withdrawal Institute, etc. needed – need to teach people to control the power, primarily local. Do many Ukrainians need a report from its regional deputies? That’s it. And who offended us?

As for buckwheat, remember the scene in Bishkek Tulip Revolution, when revolutionaries dragged on his back stolen refrigerators and television sets? In Kiev, as it was not … Here, both the Maidan demanding from the authorities not buckwheat, and quite another.

Just people accept defeat very quickly, sitting in the kitchen or in the FB and wailing: again m … Duck elected. And also choose not the best, but they are controlled -and this should be taught in Europe. I know many who are helping with the support of Western partners to build democratic institutions in Ukraine. The vast majority of them work just for money. Some of them are rascals. Unfortunately…

– In 2014, many thought that the Ukrainians are the European political nation. How far along the process, or, conversely, stopped, given the historical memory of the policy, with its cult of new heroes?

– For me, the new heroes – a Heavenly hundreds, not the leaders of the OUN and UPA. And the fact that the memory of the heroes of the new vulgarized, obviously. She vulgarized when stopper criminal cases, which should be called the perpetrators of the massacre. She vulgarized, as the country’s leadership does not want to admit that on the other side, too, were Ukrainians. I know one family in which the boy grew up, the only son, who was “bad” brought – he wanted to be a Ukrainian officer. He was burned at the Maidan. Perhaps one of my daughter’s friends, occasionally throwing Molotov cocktails.

There are many things that we uncouple. But in a situation where the people in the mass hates and despises the power, what kind of love for each other can be said?

– What do you think about decommunisation receiving more and more sophisticated form?

– As a former political prisoner and anti-Soviet, I can not but welcome this process. But in its present form it gives me a feeling of disgust. As lustration, which was clearly organized and controlled from the top and stopped as suddenly as it had begun.

Lustration was illegal and generally meaningless, and it was followed by the same kind of pointless and illegal Decommunization. Autos of the dead will not work, especially when it conducts a marginal rot.

We voted in favor at the time of Kravchuk, and after the KGB has arrested dissidents only after the approval of the Central Committee department of ideology, which he headed. Why not to prosecute? And at the same time and all the deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the group 239, by which the independence was proclaimed.

It is very convenient to demolish monuments, taking responsibility for the past. We are the eternal victim, with a demand for us? “We endlessly criticize Comrade Stalin, and, of course, to work and yet I want to ask. Who wrote denunciations of four million?” – once said Sergei Dovlatov. The question hung in the air. We’ve no sense of responsibility for the acts of their fathers and grandfathers, as in Germany, where the children and grandchildren remember well what difference their loved ones. Where they are – children of the NKVD, the party nomenklatura, which, after all, millions of ordinary people obediently raises his hands at the next party meeting, the stigma of renegades, traitors to the socialist motherland, etc.?

So it is not an ideology we have to sew in the XXI century, and the way of the future.

I am not an enemy of perpetuating the memory of Stepan Bandera, but when acting Health Minister Suprun declares that, taking important decisions, mentally consults with the leader of the OUN, this is in any gate … And apparently, it is something to her counsels, as the results of this tandem we see.

– Donbass, which has become a springboard for the “Russian world”, lost to Ukraine? Or not very much, and we need it?

– Russian is impoverished, it has fewer features include these territories, and Putin, in the end, death. Deliberately or not, but he pulled the plug by their actions many influential people in Russia who stole billions, access to which is every day more and more difficult, given the sanctions. They are used to a different level of personal freedom, where they are, after all, now the rest? On Baikal?

So I believe that sooner or later Ukraine will return to the region. But not the kind of young people who went to the Donbas and already settled in Kiev and other cities. They have made their choice.

Sometimes it occurs to me seditious thought … my camp friends were fighting for the independence of Ukraine, and once the day has come – not because we were sitting at it in the camps. If Donbass really wants to live differently, if it is him and not someone external choice, from a moral point of view, why not think about the idea of ​​independence for these people? This is only one possible solution, but it must be spoken. Apart so apart, we do so and are doing everything to isolate these areas – with the help of the blockade, for example.

– It is clear that the war promotes the division of society into friends and foes, and the formation of a black and white picture of the world. All this of course, but … if we do not turn into “Russia on the contrary”, with its contempt for the private view, the search for their fifth column, and so on?

– I am fully aware that the current president is also seeking to usurp power, but I understand that he is also not released, because, even Kuchma, Ukraine wrote – not Russia. Our man in the street is different from the Russian. There genuinely respected Putin. Here the power is changing, and every new government we do not like, and often despised or hated. And it gives grounds for optimism.

Regarding the split in society, we are thrown into the past and because they do not offer a vision of the future. This also applies to the heroes of the UPA – stranger to a large part of the country, and to the language problem, which is the vast majority of Ukrainians do not consider the problem, but that again raised the shield on …

After the trial, I spent twenty days in a cell with Vasilem Stusom – and it was a luxurious 20 days. From time to time I even forget where I was, plunging into the Ukrainian culture. But we were talking in their own language, and Stus took this quite calmly. With 25 annuals UPA camp communicated in the same way – no one ever said nothing.

I was once again transferred to the new barracks, and that same day I was admitted to the “family” Eugene Prishlyak and Vasil Pidgorodetskim. The first was to arrest referent Security Lviv OUN, the second – a simple fighter in the UPA. Collected in the bedside table meal, we shared equally and ate together. After some time went to Vasil old policeman – a bastard – and said, “Vasil you train a respected man, an old convict, are not you ashamed to Zhydenko eat?” “I have it on s … sent”, – he told me later Vasil.

I am absolutely convinced that the state language is necessary to know, but since independence can not remember a single attempt to create appropriate courses for civil servants. Told me how hard they taught language after work – reading aloud Shevchenko, etc. Ethnic Ukrainians, but completely Russified Soviet reality. Such mockery, with complete indifference of the state, caused the rejection, rather than patriotic feelings.

So let’s publish good books, cooking class teachers – the key to successful language policy. I sometimes have to deal with some of the upper class of pedagogical universities – it’s awful. They academics some of their academies, wealthy people, but are engaged in playing the Soviet zhlobstva.

Ukraine has ruined a lot. When NaUKMA took its first steps, I tried to explain to the rector that it is necessary to keep the schools of mathematicians, theoretical physicists have developed in “mailboxes”, with excellent professionals. It was just necessary to allow these professionals to teach at first in Russian, but … we got rid of high intelligence.

– Who is able to pull the country out of the vicious circle? As long as people do not totally trust the government, naively hopes on the most rabid populists – and we have already passed … Civil society is defeated – or simply lost the battle?

– Civil society must help, rather than push. I am following with great concern for the future of the country in which I live and which I am a part of. I’m afraid that if this continues, the Ukrainian state will be defeated not by external forces, it simply dissolved, as a solid in a liquid. And will Vodicka, sweet or salty – are not so important.

– And what about the resistance enzyme?

– The enzyme resistance – an important condition for independence, but not sufficient.

Build the country – it does not sit in the cooler. We need other skills. When the Soviet Union ended, many former dissidents in Moscow continued to engage in human rights activities. In Ukraine, a number of my colleagues on the Gulag have gone into politics – and what?

It is clear that the government is constantly tosses a bone of contention that we at loggerheads in the past, instead of building the future. And less remembered about the reforms that are needed, as the air, and at the same time painful, so hold on to your seats, the tops are in no hurry to carry them out. A bottoms – bottoms grow, and this is our chance.

Interview by Michael Gold

Sourse, 13/10/2017

72 NGO already have signed the Declaration of Human Rights Agenda platform with the requirement to the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to stop the attack on civil society organizations

September 25, 2017

HUMAN RIGHTS AGENDA

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform demanding the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine stop crack-down on non-governmental organizations

 In early July 2017, the presidential draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 were registered in the Parliament of Ukraine. The draft laws were elaborated allegedly to replace the scandalous amendments to the anti-corruption legislation obliging the anti-corruption activists to annually file personal asset and property electronic declarations (Law of Ukraine No. 1975-VIII of 23 March 2017). The presidential draft laws actually propose to abolish the e-declarations for public anti-corruption activists but to require instead the non-governmental organizations and individual entrepreneurs as well as enterprises, institutions and organizations providing them with services, to file additional reports to tax authorities.

The draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 burden all non-governmental organizations and individual entrepreneurs, enterprises, institutions and organizations that provide them with services with an unjustified obligation to file additional tax reports.

It is revealing that the number of tax reports required from the non-governmental organizations, which these draft laws provide for, significantly exceeds the number of reports required from the business. Moreover, even the recipients of budget funds are not required to file such a number of tax reports.

We believe that these legislative initiatives appeared not by chance, though against the background of statements about the need to reduce excessive state regulation. The punishment in form of the abolition of a non-profit status of non-governmental organization is pronouncedly punitive in nature and is nothing more than the introduction of a tool for selective pressure on the non-governmental organizations indisposed towards the authorities.

We regard the initiative of the President of Ukraine as the disproportionate interference in the activities of the non-governmental organizations. Such steps liken Ukraine to the repressive regimes of the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and others similar. Despite the ostentatious care for transparency and accountability, the regulations introduced in the abovementioned countries led to almost absolute annihilation of the non-governmental organizations which are independent from authorities and total crack-down on civil society.

No international treaties require similar state control over the activities of non-governmental organizations as the international standards endow the non-governmental organizations with the right to be free from state interference in their activities.

The Guidelines on Freedom of Association drafted by the Council of Europe and the OSCE stipulate that “the state shall not require but shall encourage and facilitate associations to be accountable and transparent.” Special reporting is permissible, however, if it is required in exchange for certain benefits, provided it is “within the discretion of the association to decide whether to comply with such reporting requirements or forgo them and forsake any related special benefits, where applicable.”

In consideration of the foregoing, we demand that the Parliament of Ukraine immediately reject the draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 of 10 July 2017 and the President of Ukraine fulfill his promise to cancel the amendments to the anti-corruption legislation dated March 2017.

For reference: the Human Rights Agenda platform is the informal coalition of human rights organizations working in the field of monitoring, analyzing and elaborating the legislation in accordance with the basic principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The platform participants are the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, the Center for Civil Liberties, the Amnesty International Ukraine, the Human Rights Information Center, the Center for Law Enforcement Studies, the Without Borders Project of the NGO “Social Action Center” and the Euromaidan SOS. The Center for Civil Liberties coordinates the platform activities. Contacts: human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

  1. Center for Civil Liberties
  2. Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
  3. Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches
  4. Eastern-Ukrainian Center for Civic Initiatives
  5. Charitable Foundation “Vostok SOS”
  6. Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”
  7. Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law Enforcement
  8. NGO “KyivPride”
  9. Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
  10. Open Dialog Foundation
  11. Human Rights Information Center
  12. Crimean Human Rights Group
  13. NGO “Helsinki Initiative XXI”
  14. NGO “Peaceful Coast”
  15. Expert Human Rights Center
  16. NGO “La Strada Ukraine”
  17. Liberation Movement Research Center
  18. Charitable Organisation “Fund of Mercy and Health”
  19. NGO “South”
  20. NGO “Ray of Changes”
  21. Kharkiv Regional Foundation “Public Alternative”
  22. Project “Without Borders”
  23. NGO “Political Studies Association”
  24. NGO “People’s Control of Kirovohrad Region”
  25. Eksampei Center for Ukrainian Policy
  26. NGO “Volunteer Association of Participants of Maidan and Fighting Action”
  27. Charitable Foundation “Dyvosvit Club”
  28. NGO “School of Public Projects”
  29. NGO “Faith. Hope. Action”
  30. NGO “JCI Kyiv”
  31. Educational Human Rights House Chernihiv
  32. NGO “Women’s Prospects Center”
  33. NGO “Zakarpattia Community”
  34. Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Organization “Young Prosvita”
  35. Ternopil Human Rights Group
  36. Human Rights Center “All rights”
  37. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Convictus Ukraine”
  38. Autonomous Bar Association
  39. NGO “MART” (Chernihiv)
  40. Ukrainian Legal Aid Foundation
  41. Information and Awareness Raising Center “Axis” (Vinnytsia)
  42. NGO “Center for Civic Education “Almenda””
  43. Center for Humanistic Technologies “AHALAR”
  44. NGO “Ukrainian Association of Assessment”
  45. NGO “Territory of Success”
  46. T-Woman of Ukraine
  47. NGO “AutoMaidan Kyiv”
  48. NGO “Human Rights Vector”
  49. Bilozerka Center for Regional Development
  50. Center for Law Enforcement Activity Research
  51. Chernihiv Public Committee for Human Rights Protection
  52. NGO “Kyiv Educational Center “Tolerspace””
  53. Human Rights Center “Postup”
  54. NGO “Liberal Democratic League of Ukraine”
  55. Bureau of Social and Political Developments
  56. Center for Legal and Political Studies “DUMA”
  57. Institute of Mass Information
  58. SOVA Group
  59. Media Initiative for Human Rights
  60. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Legalife Ukraine”
  61. NGO “Insight”
  62. Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research
  63. NGO “Informer”
  64. Information and Analytical Center “Public Space”
  65. LGBT Human Rights Center “Our World”
  66. NGO “Bakhmat”
  67. NGO “Development Foundation”
  68. NGO “All-Ukrainian League of Lawyers Against Corruption”
  69. NGO “Kharkiv Women’s Association “Sphere””
  70. NGO “Gender Center of Volyn Region”
  71. NGO “Theatre for Dialogue”
  72. NGO ‘Free Territory’

The statement is open for signature. Please contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Результаты поиска:

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform on deprivation of attorneys of the ability to cooperate with human rights organisations

March 7, 2019

In the agenda of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the consideration of the first
reading of a draft law ‘On Legal Practice and Advocacy’ No. 9055 is scheduled for 28
February.
The authors and supporters of the law are striving to prove its progressive nature,
strengthening of guarantees of advocacy and empowerment.
However, should the law be adopted, all attorneys who cooperate with human rights
organisations will be deprived of the opportunity to engage in advocacy activities
within the framework of cooperation with these organisations. Hundreds of cases
which have been filed by lawyers of these organisations with the European Court of
Human Rights, and thousands of court cases in national courts will become only a
reminder of past activities. There will be no one competent to file new applications
with the European Court and national courts on behalf of human rights organisations.
In his expert opinion which contains the analysis of the draft law No. 9055, the
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights Diego Garcia-Sayan stated that the restriction, set
forth in Article 28 of the draft law 9055, could adversely affect the lawyers who would
have to choose between full employment and the work of a human rights defender
which, obviously, would adversely affect an access to justice in the country, in
particular, for individuals with limited financial means. Also, the report provides a
whole number of risks and threats to independent advocacy, such as the procedure
of bringing attorneys to disciplinary responsibility, unfounded types of disciplinary
sanctions that affect the independence of advocacy and, consequently, affect
appropriate defence in court.
Separately, the completely opaque process of work on the draft law is to be
mentioned, and this fact has also been noted in the report by Mr. Diego Garcia-
Sayan. He wrote that consultations with representatives of the legal profession were
very limited in nature, and the final draft law was made public by the office of the
President without the opportunity to comment on its content.
A lack of transparency, marginalisation of the drafting process and introduction of the
draft law, a lack of a high-quality expert examination, for example, by the Venice
Commission, and haste with the attempts to implement this law as soon as possible

in a parliament’s session confirm the poor quality of the preparation process and the
same low-quality content of the draft law itself, which, in its present form, poses a
real threat to the protection of human rights in the human rights protection
environment of Ukraine and can be regarded as a way of attack and exertion of
pressure on the environment.
We hereby urge Members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to prevent the
consideration and adoption of the draft law 9055, as requested in the report by Diego
Garcia-Sayan, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The text of the draft law No.
9055 must be redrafted, discussed publicly and amended, taking into account the
comments made by representatives of the bar community, human rights
organisations, and international experts. We demand transparency, honesty and
high quality. Today, we cannot see these features in the draft law No. 9055.
The Human Rights Agenda platform is an informal coalition of human right organisations focused on systemic
problems of legislation and practices for defending fundamental human rights. The participants of the platform
are as follows: Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, Center for Civil Liberties, Amnesty International
Ukraine, Human Rights Information Center, Centre of Law Enforcement Activities Research (CLEAR), Project
"Without Borders", Euromaidan SOS. The platform is coordinated by the Center for Civil Liberties. You can
contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
Center for Civil Liberties
Regional Centre for Human Rights
Open Dialogue Foundation
Humanitarian Studio "Wave
Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”

NGOs call on the HQCJ to refrain from creating artificial obstacles to the establishment of the Public Integrity Council

November 22, 2018

On November 21, 2018, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) announced the results of the consideration of documents of public associations (NGOs) for the establishment of the Public Integrity Council (PIC).

 

The Commission approved a positive decision on the admission of only 2 out of 14 organizations that submitted the documents. The Commission allowed the rest of the organizations to eliminate the shortcomings which, in its opinion, were identified in the relevant documents of the NGOs.

 

Having considered the decisions of the Commission, NGOs have to state that among these alleged shortcomings there are many that are not based on the requirements of the law, do not pursue a legitimate aim and can create artificial obstacles for NGOs’ participation in the PIC establishment.

 

In particular:

 

  • In some cases (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the Commission does not accept the results of a financial audit conducted not within the past two years, whereas the law only requires the availability of an audit report and does not set any time frames for its conduct;
  • In some other cases (Center for Civil Liberties, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the HQCJ groundlessly believes that it is only the first persons of international organizations in Ukraine (the OSCE Coordinator in Ukraine, UNDP, etc.) that can make recommendations to NGOs, while the law does not contain such a requirement, and the signatures of officials of international organizations were affixed within their authorities;
  • Position of the HQCJ regarding the recognition of reports based on the financial audit results or audit findings as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements only because these reports were prepared for confidential use and submission to grantors (CRIMEASOS, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform) is unreasonable (the law does not set any requirements for the addressees of the reports and the purpose of their preparation);
  • The HQCJ did not recognize a copy of the report on the project implementation results due to the lack of signature of the person authorized to sign it (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform). However, such a requirement is unfounded since the law requires the provision of a copy rather than the original of the report, and the submitted copy of the report has been duly certified by an authorized person;  
  • The law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” does not require the publication of a declaration of a candidate to the PIC on the NACP’s website, and the HQCJ’s competencies do not cover anti-corruption verification of declarations (including the presence or absence of these declarations on the NACP’s website), while some organizations (Institute of Applied Humanitarian Research) received a reply that the absence of such declarations on the NACP’s website serves as grounds for non-admission.

 

As for documents of other NGOs (Civic Lustration Committee, E+, Nova Krayina, ТОМ14, Centre for Economic Strategy, Centre UA), only the originals of certain documents are required, whereas all the necessary information can be obtained from the duly authenticated photocopies. In some other cases (DEJURE, Nova Krayina), technical errors (incorrect indication of the candidate’s patronymic only in one of the documents or use of the phrase “annual declaration” after “declaration of a candidate for the position of the PIC member”) are considered by the Commission as “grounds for the determination of the submitted documents as not complying with … the law”.

 

We want to emphasize that the requirements of the law on the submission of documents have been established to confirm the experience, real activity and capacity of NGOs to form the PIC. The Commission’s review of these documents should pursue this legitimate aim and should not go beyond its limits.

 

The Commission’s decisions are even more surprising given the fact that 2 years ago the Commission allowed a number of organizations with similar packages of documents to participate in the NGO Meeting on the PIC establishment without any comments. The Commission did not consider the failure to submit proper declarations by the candidates for judicial office at the Anti-Corruption Court and Intellectual Property Court to be a violation and allowed them to take part in the competition to the IP-court.

 

We are concerned that at the beginning of our cooperation with the HQCJ regarding the formation of the second composition of the PIC, we faced this approach. At the same time, the NGOs will make every effort to take into account the wishes of the Commission regarding the execution of documents within a specified period as far as possible.

 

However, if the HQCJ retains this approach to the assessment of documents, there will be a high risk of groundless rejection of experienced and capable NGOs from participation in the Meeting and, as a result, the formation of an incomplete composition, delay, or even the impossibility of establishing the PIC as a form of public participation in the selection and evaluation of judges.

 

Therefore, we call on the HQCJ:

 

  • To carefully reconsider all the packages of documents submitted by the NGOs, including those that will be submitted additionally;
  • To assess the documents submitted by organizations solely on the basis of the requirements of the law, impartially and without groundless formalism;
  • To allow all NGOs whose experience and capability are confirmed by the documents submitted by them to participate in the Meeting;
  • To review the decisions on a number of NGOs (indicated in this statement or otherwise) regarding the recognition of documents as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements of the law, particularly where the law contained no such requirements.

 

Civic Lustration Committee

Initiative E+

Crimea SOS

Nova Kraina

ТОМ 14

DEJURE Foundation

Center for Civil Liberties

Centre for Economic Strategy

Centre of Policy and Legal Reform

Centre UA

Nations in Transit 2018: Confronting Illiberalism

April 11, 2018

Washington, April 12, 2018 — Attacks on opposition parties, the press, and civil society organizations are becoming the norm in Central and Eastern Europe as the spread of illiberal politics undermines the foundations of and prospects for democracy, according to Nations in Transit 2018, the 23rd edition of Freedom House’s annual report on democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Eurasia.

Ukraine’s Democracy Score declined for the first time since the 2014 revolution. With the Russian-led conflict in the east grinding on, Ukraine’s politicians are taking advantage of patriotic sentiment to attack NGOs and journalists, accusing them of undermining the war effort.

“Attacks on civil society and political opponents have sapped the momentum from the institutional reform process in Ukraine,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “Although decentralization reforms are continuing, other key priorities, including anticorruption efforts, have stalled. The window of opportunity has not closed in Ukraine, but it has shrunk. By accusing NGOs and journalists of antinational sentiment, politicians are attempting to exclude legitimate voices from public debate simply because they criticize the government.”

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON UKRAINE

 

  • Two important milestones were reached in relations between Ukraine and the European Union in 2017: the visa-free regime with the EU came into force in June, allowing millions of Ukrainians to travel freely to the neighboring Schengen zone for short-term stays, and the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement — the main trigger for the Euromaidan protests which provides a framework for major transformations in Ukrainian democracy, human rights, rule of law, good governance, trade, and sustainable development — finally came completely into force.
  • One of the main achievements in Ukraine’s national governance in 2017 was healthcare reform, which, following the passage by the Verkhovna Rada of a law on healthcare financing in October, will align the system based on the principle of “money following patients.”
  • Decentralization reform continued, with administrative territorial reform resulting in the creation of approximately 700 amalgamated communities, and fiscal decentralization resulting in increased revenues and local infrastructure investments for the first time in 23 years.
  • The conflict in the east remained largely frozen throughout the year. The socioeconomic conditions in the occupied territories, and in those areas close to the line of contact, continued to be poor. The armed separatist groups developed their own institutions, which, in turn, enacted regulations that routinely violated basic human rights, while journalists and bloggers covering the conflict continued to be arrested and detained.
  • Pressure on civil society intensified. In March, the government obliged citizens working against corruption to publicly declare their income and assets, while a legislative initiative to replace the controversial requirement with other restrictive measures against NGOs under threat of onerous restrictions for not complying with the proposed regulations was unsuccessful. The Civil Society score declined due to smear campaigns against NGOs and activists.
  • Prominent civil society organizations were targeted with criminal investigations against them and their members, and there were physical attacks on well-known activists.
  • The Independent Media score declined due to the blocking of major social media sites, as well as physical attacks on journalists and a lack of progress in investigating the murder of journalist Pavel Sheremet.
  • Progress on judicial and anti-corruption reforms was mixed. While the National Anticorruption Bureau actively investigated high-level corruption results of its work were few. The President had yet to create the High Anticorruption Court as promised. Vetting of judicial appointments to the Supreme Court stumbled as 25 candidates that had not passed public integrity checks were approved as official candidates.

“Illiberal politics are becoming the new normal in Europe,” said Michael J. Abramowitz, president of Freedom House. “Government-led smear campaigns against civil society groups, journalists, and the political opposition were pioneered in Russia and Central Asia, but they are increasingly common across the region.”

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES

  • Poland recorded the second-largest Democracy Score decline in the history of the report. The ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party’s revolutionary takeover of the judicial system, politicization of public media, smear campaigns against nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and violations of ordinary parliamentary procedure also produced the two largest single-category score declines in Nations in Transit’s history, for National Democratic Governance and Judicial Framework and Independence.

 

“The radical changes to the Polish judiciary remove any effective check on the actions of the majority party in parliament,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “What has happened in Poland in the last two years should serve as an alarm bell for anyone who believes that one-party rule could never return to Europe.”

“The EU should stand up for its commitments to the rule of law by implementing Article 7 sanctions against Poland and Hungary,” Schenkkan said, referring to the EU’s power to suspend a member’s voting rights. “It should condition access to European funds on clear rule-of-law criteria. This is the only way to convince these countries, and EU candidate states, that the union is firmly rooted in democratic principles.”

  • Hungary has registered the largest cumulative decline in Nations in Transit The country’s Democracy Score has been falling for 10 consecutive years, moving it from the status of a democratic leader at the time of EU accession in 2004 to the threshold of a “Transitional/Hybrid Regime” in 2018.

 

“The Fidesz government of Viktor Orbán led the way for illiberal forces in Central Europe, showing that it was possible to capture a state within the EU through gerrymandering, procurement manipulation, and control of the media,” said Schenkkan. “The fact that Fidesz remains a member in good standing in the European People’s Party of the European Parliament shows how effective Orbán’s approach has been.”

  • Estonia earned the biggest improvement in this edition of the report, even though it was already the best performer. A surprisingly smooth first year in government for a longtime opposition party demonstrated the resilience and independence of national institutions. Estonia’s anticorruption mechanisms appear to be addressing the municipal corruption that has long affected its major cities.

“At a time when most of the news for democracy seems bad, Estonia reminds us that liberal democracy can and does succeed,” Schenkkan said. “Even in a country with a history of foreign occupation and sensitive ethnic and regional differences, democratic national institutions can produce better governance for everyone.”

View the full report here: https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/nations-transit-2018

###

 

Freedom House is an independent watchdog organization that supports democratic change, monitors the status of freedom around the world, and advocates for democracy and human rights.

Join us on Facebook and Twitter (@FreedomHouseDC) and stay up to date with Freedom House’s latest news and events by signing up for our newsletter.

Special event to discuss Ukraine’s future at the Atlantic Council Headquarters (on Thursday, March 29, 2018)

April 4, 2018

In the four years since the end of the Revolution of Dignity, Ukraine has not answered its most important question: how will the country ensure democratic values in its future development? Much of Ukraine’s hope lies in its young leaders who will drive the country forward in the coming years. CDDRL has been fortunate to provide a year-long residency to some of these future leaders as part of the inaugural year of the Center’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program.

This event will feature three Ukrainian leaders who are in residency with CDDRL’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program this year. They will each discuss their own perspectives on opportunities and challenges to democracy and development in their home country, as well as objectives for strengthening public administration, civil society, and economic reforms upon their return to Ukraine.

We hope you can join us for this timely discussion.

Sourse, 29/03/2018

Vitaliy Tytych: Rigging of anti-corruption court competition must be prevented

March 19, 2018

The High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice cannot be trusted to conduct an objective and fair competition for the anti-corruption court without severe foreign and civil society oversight and without a drastic change in the competition’s methodology. They cannot be trusted because they violated the law and demonstrated their political bias by rigging the competition for the Supreme Court.

The discredited High Qualification Commission must be deprived of its arbitrary powers to assign scores subjectively during competitions for anti-corruption and other judges, and such scores must be based on objective criteria.

This is even more important than foreign donors’ veto powers, and this is the only way to ensure that honest and professional candidates believe in the fairness of the competition and participate, and that the commission has no way of promoting political loyalists and incompetent candidates for subjective reasons.

During the Supreme Court competition, 90 scores were assigned for anonymous legal knowledge tests, 120 scores for anonymous practical tests, and the High Qualification Commission could arbitrarily assign 790 scores without giving any explicit reasons (formally based on interviews with candidates and examining their profiles).

According to the 2016 law on the judiciary and status of judges, legal knowledge and practical tests (i.e. objective criteria) are the main method of selecting judges. This law stipulates that at least 75 percent of the total score (i.e. 750 out of 1,000 scores) must be given for anonymous legal knowledge and practical tests.

The High Qualification Commission took advantage of the vague wording of the law to set regulations that contradict the law because only 210 out of the total of 1,000 scores were assigned for legal knowledge and practical tests.

As a result of the Supreme Court competition, candidates who were at the top of the list after the anonymous knowledge tests and practical tests ended up at the bottom in the final stage for unknown reasons, while candidates who initially got lower scores and had a corrupt background ended up at the top.

Both the law on the judiciary and the High Qualification Commission’s internal regulations must be amended and clarified to clearly assign 750 scores for anonymous legal knowledge tests and practical tests (for competitions for both the anti-corruption court and all other courts). If parliament refuses to amend the law, the High Qualification Commission can just change its regulations, which is even easier.

As an option, 330 scores should be given for anonymous legal knowledge tests, another 330 scores for practical tests, and 330 scores for interviews and professional ethics (preferably based on conclusions by the Public Integrity Council and foreign donors). The law on the judiciary and status of judges should also be amended to require the publication of practical works after practical tests.

That would leave no room for arbitrary decisions and political involvement.

President Petro Poroshenko claims that the participation of foreign donors in the competition for the anti-corruption court contradicts Ukraine’s sovereignty, which is false (for example, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine was created with the participation of foreign donors).

But anyway Ukraine’s foreign partners could delegate independent Ukrainian citizens with impeccable reputation and integrity. This would halt any talk about sovereignty.

Such representatives could include people from the December 1 Initiative Group civil-society organization, Soviet dissident and human rights lawyer Myroslav Marynovych or Vyacheslav Bryukhovetsky, honorary president of the Kyiv Mohyla Academy.

Moreover, Ukraine’s foreign donors must take part in the competition for anti-corruption judges but they will have neither time nor resources to vet all the candidates and their background on their own. The Public Integrity Council, which has shown its independence from the authorities and its ability to work hard to examine candidates’ background, must take part in the competition for the anti-graft court by collecting all the available information on candidates (and the council must participate in competitions for all courts under the 2016 law on the judiciary and status of judges).

This is the only way to ensure that anti-corruption judges are truly professional and independent.

The use of the same objective methodology for assigning scores both for the anti-corruption court and other courts and the participation of the Public Integrity Council in competitions for the anti-corruption court and other courts  will totally kill the false argument that the anti-corruption court is a “special” court banned by the Constitution (the Venice Commission has already refuted this argument).

Also, it will be impossible to select independent judges if foreign donors choose representatives loyal to the Ukrainian government.  Such representatives must be completely independent from pressure by Ukrainian authorities.

In the best-case scenario, foreign donors should themselves assess candidates’ professional integrity. But at least they should have a right to suspend the competition and initiate an audit if evidence emerges that the High Qualification Commission violated procedural rules.

The Public Integrity Council believes that the competition for the Supreme Court was rigged to promote politically loyal candidates.

First, during the practical test stage, some candidates were given tests that coincided with cases that they had considered during their career, which was deemed a tool of promoting political loyalists.

Second, in March 2017 the High Qualification Commission illegally allowed 43 candidates who had not gotten sufficient scores during practical tests to take part in the next stage, changing its rules amid the competition. Members of the Public Integrity Council believe that the rules were unlawfully changed to prevent political loyalists from dropping out of the competition.

Apart from the second score assigned anonymously for practical works, the commission gave them a third score after naming them, violating the law (because practical tests should be anonymous to prevent political interference). The commission must have just assigned the second score without knowing the candidates’ names.

Third, the High Qualification Commission illegally refused to publish the scores for candidates’ psychological tests, failed to set a minimum score for psychological tests and illegally assessed the tests on its own (although they must have been assessed by psychologists). Moreover, the commission used corporate loyalty tests, which stipulated loyalty as a major characteristic of a judge – as a result, independent candidates were prevented from getting a higher score, while political loyalists were encouraged.

Fourth, the High Qualification Commission removed the profiles of candidates other than the winners from its site.

Fifth, the High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice illegally refused to give specific reasons for assigning specific total scores to candidates and refused to explain why the High Qualification Commission has overridden vetoes by the Public Integrity Council on candidates who do not meet ethical integrity standards.

Sixth, the High Council of Justice has illegally rejected 48 out of its members’ 52 recusals from voting for specific Supreme Court candidates due to a conflict of interest. This triggered accusations that the council was planning to get the necessary 14 pro-government votes to appoint politically loyal candidates.

Some of these violations are currently being disputed at Ukrainian courts and will be disputed at the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, Public Integrity Council members have opened a criminal case into the violations and will open more cases.

Sourse, 12/03/2018.

FROM OBJECTIVES TO RESULTS: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EU-UKRAINE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT AS SEEN BY STAKEHOLDERS

December 22, 2017

A jury: experience and problems

October 24, 2017

A simulation system of justice in which convulses a vestige of the people’s representatives, as the jury. Says Russian political analyst and human rights activist Mikhail Savva, who left Russia and now living in Ukraine.

The jury is in the Constitution of Ukraine, but in fact, according to human rights activists, jury trials in the country do not. The main difference between a jury trial by an ordinary court (with the participation of one judge or three professional judges) is a separate co-existence in it “judges of law” (the legal profession) and “Judges of fact” (board of jurors , which usually consists of persons who are not are lawyers). If this division is not present and professional judges work together with the representatives of the people should not talk about a jury trial, but the court sheffenskom. Sheffenskie courts adopted, for example, at their home in Germany as well as in Ukraine. Experience and problems of modern Russian jury trials may be useful in case if Ukraine, too, decides to create a jury trial.

The Soviet system of people’s assessors is an option sheffenskogo court, where a judge has unlimited opportunities to influence the decision of the representatives of the people. Sheffenskaya system can be very effective, but only for companies with extremely high legal culture .

In the course of judicial reform 90-ies of the last century, it was created in the Russian jury trials . During the counter-reforms that have been going for fifteen years, created a simulation system of justice in which convulses a vestige of the people’s representatives, as the jury.

Jury trials are traditionally regarded as the “courts of justice”. This is confirmed by the statistics of court decisions in the Russian Federation. Professional judges give less than 1% of acquittals , while the juries – 13-25% in different years.

In 2016, according to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court, in the first instance are over 239 cases with a jury. From 361 to 60 the defendant was justified, that is 17% , another 85 cases returned to the prosecutor. The number of sentences handed down without a jury, more than three orders of magnitude. According to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court in 2016 for all formulations of the Criminal Code (CC) convicted 740,380 people (to imprisonment – 206 304 people), is justified by 1493 (0.2% if you count the persons on which the case was dismissed on rehabilitative grounds, – 1.5%).

Scale application of jury trials in Russia is low. In one year, jury trials in Russia in the second decade of this century the average render verdicts to 300 (the maximum number of verdicts in the post-Soviet period – about 600 in 2010). A jury selected only 12% of the accused, who have a right to it. In the US a year by the jury shall be made about 160 thousand. Verdicts. In the XX century in the Russian empire handed down each year about 40 thousand. Verdicts. The reasons for this will be disclosed below, here I call home. This lack of political will for the development of the institute of juries. In the context of the simulation of the justice system the current Russian regime of the jury can not be complete and widespread.

The jury in the Russian Federation has a constitutional basis: according to Art. 32 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Russian citizens have the right to participate in the administration of justice. One form of such participation – review certain categories of criminal cases in the court of jury. However direct reference to the institution of jury in the Constitution does not.

The introduction of jury trials took considerable time in Russia. Pilot introduction of jury trials in Russia began with the 1993-1994, in 9 subjects of the Federation. The new Criminal Procedure Code, adopted in 2001, did the jury widespread since 2003. In the Chechen Republic the introduction of jury trials actually took place in 2010. An expert on Russian court Sergei Pashin jury, namely the phased introduction of jury trials has led to the fact that he did have in Russia.

The accused has the right to file a petition for consideration of his criminal case by the court of first instance composed of professional judges and a panel of 12 jurors in case he is accused, in particular, murder, sabotage, banditry, genocide, public appeals to the outbreak of war, kidnapping , piracy mercenarism and t. d.

I counted as of July 2017 20 of the Criminal Code articles on which possible jury . At the beginning of the introduction of jury trials in Russia of such items was 47, according Sergeya Pashina calculations, the main initiator of the introduction of jury trials in Russia.

The criminal case, which involved several defendants, the court is considered by jury in respect of all the defendants , if at least one of them said a request for consideration of a criminal case by a court in the composition.

If the defendant has not filed a motion for the consideration of the criminal case by the court by jury, the case is considered by another composition of the court in the manner prescribed by law.

The judge’s decision to hear the case from the jury is final. The subsequent failure of the defendant from the criminal trial by jury is not accepted .

Criminal cases involving jurors of federal courts of general jurisdiction is held in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the supreme courts of republics, territorial, regional courts, courts of federal cities, autonomous region and autonomous districts, the district (naval) military courts.

jury selection jurors is actually a two-step.

According to Art. 3 of the federal law, jurors can not be: persons under 25 years of age; persons with outstanding or previously convicted; persons recognized as incapable or limited in capacity; are registered in the drug treatment or mental hospital.

Such persons are not included in the lists of jurors , drawn up every four years on the basis of the voter list by random sampling. Exclude these people from the list of jurors bodies of executive power of the municipality or the region. Then, after getting acquainted with the citizens of the jury lists, these lists are excluded from the statements of the citizens themselves several categories.

The weak point of this phase of jury selection is a voluntary procedure for submitting applications for exclusion from the jury list. That is, if, for example, the police considers that nothing prevents him to be sworn he did not submit an application for delisting.

During jury selection to participate in a particular criminal case to participate in the proceedings as jurors are not allowed to persons suspected or accused of committing crimes; I do not speak the language in which the hearing is conducted; with physical and / or mental disabilities that prevent full participation in the hearing.

During the trial, the jury task boils down to, to answer three main questions: whether the proven fact of the crime, if that proved his committed by the defendant, and whether he is guilty of the crime. In the case of the issue of the recognition of the defendant’s guilt is put whether he deserves leniency. In this case the judge to the jury formulate lists of issues, which are often a few dozen items.

Jurors “should strive to adopt a unanimous decision,” but if this is not achieved within three hours, the verdict made by voting.

A guilty verdict is adopted, if the majority of the jury votes for each of the three key issues. Acquittal verdict is considered, if not less than six judges gave a negative answer to at least one of the three questions. If the deciding votes are equally divided, the adopted most favorable to the defendant’s answer for each question.

The acquittal is mandatory for the presiding judge, in this case, the court justifies the defendant. Guilty as the jury’s verdict is not binding on the court. If the judge recognizes that a guilty verdict handed down against an innocent person, then adopted a decree on the dissolution of the jury and the criminal case is sent for a new trial by another composition of the court. This decision is not subject to appeal in cassation.

From the jurisdiction of jury trials for the duration of this institution such articles were excluded, such as terrorism, hostage-taking, riots, treason, espionage, violent seizure of power, rape and sexual offenses against children. Some compounds “fell out” of crime from the jurisdiction of jury trials due to the fact that the new Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 2001 softened for him the punishment and the death penalty or life imprisonment has not been provided (eg high treason). In some cases, exceptions motive was that the jury too often render acquittals. For example, in the discussion in the State Duma in 2013, the issue of the exclusion of such a composition as sexual crimes against children, the author of the bill deputy Spring said that the jury too often justify the accused.

In February 2016 the Russian Constitutional Court found that the criminal case against women in the murder with aggravating circumstances could be considered by a jury of 12 people in the supreme courts of republics, territorial or regional courts. Prior to that, women were deprived of the possibility to be tried before a jury, because the Russian legislation does not provide for life sentences for the women.

December 3, 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed to extend the role of juries in a possible reduction in their number in the court up to 5-7 people. This was an attempt to respond to society’s demands for justice. At a time when major political offenses removed from the jurisdiction of jury trials, the expansion of the institute of juries are no longer threatened by the authorities. In other words, cases of domestic murder and some other formulations could, according to the authorities, to consider jury trials at district and city levels.

Starting from June 1, 2018 Institute of jurorsIt will be operational in the district (city) and garrison military courts. Established number of jurors for the district and garrison military courts – 6 people, in the courts of the Russian Federation and the district military courts, the number of jurors will be reduced from 12 to 8. district-level court jury will consider the criminal case at the request of the accused, for which there may not be sentenced to life imprisonment, namely, with regard to women, persons who have committed crimes under the age of 18 years, men who have attained to time of the court’s 65-year-olds sentence. Criminal cases on these articles of the Criminal Code in relation to other persons, as before, will be considered by the court of the subject of the Russian Federation. In addition, the district court with the participation of jurors,

Judges of the Russian Federation, according to a discussion at the Congress in December 2016, the judges are extremely skeptical about the prospects for the mass introduction of jury trials . They talk about the organizational unpreparedness and lack of funding. We can assume that in the near future verdicts of the jury will not become a mass phenomenon in the municipal and district courts.

Practical functioning of juries problem is clearly illustrated by the case of the murder of Boris Nemtsov , who was considered by the Moscow District Military Court in 2016-2017. A panel of 12 jurors was in the conference room for three days. She had to answer 26 questions put to them by the judge. The jury could not come to a unanimous opinion, so after three hours of contentious issues have been put to the vote. 10 of the 12 jurors declared guilty of all five defendants.

Eight jurors were replaced during the process. The defendant’s lawyer Bakhaeva Zaurbek Sadahanov said: “There was a sweep of the jury, we have seen. The verdict is absolutely illegal, because no evidence of guilt Bakhaeva investigation did not present. This is only possible in a country where there is no justice. “

In discussing the questions that were to answer the jury, the objections of the accused lawyers were not taken into account, the judge approved the questions in its original version. This version of the problem was that the actions of each of the defendants, the judge invited the jury to assess the aggregate only to the actions of the other four defendants.

At the present time in Russia there was already a jury management practices. Its main elements are:

1. Selection loyal jury on board formation step. Washer courts evaluate the behavior of the jury, and depending on this jury are involved or are not involved in other processes.

2. Restrictions jury taps to participate in a particular meeting: no more than one non-motivated removal of restrictions on issues at the stage of taps (you can ask about criminal records of relatives, but you can not ask questions, the answers to which are characterized by human eyes).

3. Adjustment of the board structure by eliminating disloyal jury. For this purpose the taps on spurious grounds, creating grounds for removal from the board (the jury may hold on his way to a meeting of the traffic police, with the result that the jury is removed from the board).

4. Manipulative or control wording of the jury by the judge.

5. Prohibitions on the provision of the jury during the meeting on problems of the inquiry, such as torture . Random mention of torture, even the hint is the reason for the cancellation of the verdict.

6. Intimidation by jury, as was done during the process in the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic in the case of citizens of Ukraine and Karpyuk Klyha.

If the jury panel of the control mechanisms do not work, use the cancellation of the verdict by the Supreme Court of Russia. If needed, which is often politically motivated, the Supreme Court cancels the guilty verdict of the jury and send the case for retrial. So it was in the case of the murder Anny Politkovskoy. Grounds for cancellation of the verdict was that, according to the Armed Forces, the panel “go on about the lawyers who reported the identity of defendants in the case, and the jury presented negative information about the investigation.”

I am getting the result. A jury in Russia it is a jury trial, not sheffenskim court or some other form of participation of representatives of the people in judicial decisions. However, the jury as the “Court of Justice” in the Russian Federation operating in simulation mode. This is achieved due to two main factors: the limited scope of application of a jury and the widespread use of illegal jury management.

Summing up, it can not be said about the money. Often mention that Ukraine has no money for a jury trial. But the money in this case is irrelevant. We are talking about saving mode. See what makes the authoritarian Putin regime in Russia – is introducing jury trials at the district level. It costs a lot of money, because in Russia in 2184 the district court. is sorely lacking is the answer mode to request people to justice. Of course, the “political” as a judge in violation of all the rules, and will be judged, and to plant. But in cases of domestic murder people get this same justice in the form of trial by jury. Putin’s regime is trying to prolong its existence. If authoritarian regimes are saving yourself so why democracy in Ukraine should act differently?

Sourse, 23/10/2017

People need to learn how to control the power, local first of all

October 14, 2017

One of the most prominent dissidents of the Soviet Union, weighed after a four-month hunger strike in BC political zone 389/35 in the Perm region of 39 kg. The author of “Handbook of Psychiatry for dissidents,” a member of the American Society of Psychiatrists, UK Royal College of Psychiatrists, the rehabilitation of victims of the World Council of Torture, International PEN, the author of several books and hundreds of articles. All of this – on human rights defenders, public figures and the head of the Ukrainian Psychiatric Association Semen Gluzman.

Semen Gluzman  –  on the Maidan, and the syndrome crowd of friendship with the “Bandera” and enzyme resistance, control the power and responsibility for the past.

– Semen Fishelevich, you are one of those who supported the Maidan, but never torn his scene. Why, by the way?

– I never wanted to the scene – from the time of Rukh has never been on any shodnyak, I mean … on an important meeting decent people. Just realize that the psychology of a decent man and the psychology of thousands of decent people differ dramatically.

At the same time, I must admit, even during the Orange Revolution called me many foreign colleagues, the stars of the world of psychiatry, with one question: where’s syndrome aggressive influence of the crowd?

Ukrainian people have shown themselves quite surprisingly and in 2004 and in 2014. During the recent hurricane in Houston because of marauding police had to impose a curfew. Are there many cases of looting, we can remember when the city center, with its many shops and expensive boutiques, stood up to 200 thousand people?

– In the mid-1970s, in the Perm region, a young Jew Gluzman made friends with Ukrainian nationalists – 25 annuals. But then you have joined a common enemy and not the overall vision of the future.

– Yes, I spent several years in the camp side by side with those who were called “Bandera”. They were simple people, the names of Bandera or Shukhevych of their mouth, I had never heard. They just defended their land from “outsiders”. I once asked Uncle Vasya Basil Malozhinskogo, whom he regarded as the UPA soldier, and he was from the SS division Galicia-evil so asked reproachfully, saying how could you ?! And he did his best to explain: “Spershu boule sovєti Potіm priyshli nіmtsі OAO All – A Stranger’s one I never pobachiv i pochuv svoїh, yshli hloptsі that spіvali of Ukrainian pіsen What I first bailiff to them That Well svoї boule ……. . “That’s right, simply and without ideological pathos.

– Jewish support of the Maidan has not surprised?

– Not in the least surprised. One of the most striking childhood memories  I was 10-11 years old, I was returning to his home on the bus, with rises on Artema October Revolution Square (Maidan current). At one of the stops came an elderly lady, very polite, a good Ukrainian language, asked the passengers where it’s okay to leave. Trolley bus exploded with anger – I was scared, not knowing what was happening. Started the persecution of some lumpen, perhaps a T-shirt, he was supported by his aunt vociferous – it was a stream of insults that hit a woman, just to speak in Ukrainian. Then I realized that with me live one more Jews – Ukrainians.

Frankly, when Ukraine got its independence in 1991, I was tense, remembering how aggressively treated here to the Jews in the Soviet era. I remember how the Jewish boys and girls, which were practically closed local universities, leaving to other republics, where there were quiet and well attended. In addition-and this is for me as a dissident is very important – in Ukraine was the most ferocious in the KGB Union. I tensed and because he saw who vote for independence in Parliament : a group of 239, which is officially called “For a sovereign Radyans’ka up Ukraine”, in other words, the communist majority, sensing the winds of change. And along with them – thousands of opportunists, rinuvshihsya from the Komsomol straight into Roc. Professional killers of Ukrainian culture, instantly became the accusers “hand of Moscow”.

Then, when it became an annual index to measure the tolerance, it appears that anti-Semitism and xenophobia are retreating, although the anti-Semites, of course, is and always will be. This was true of all the other areas  the country got a chance.

I remember one of the first American ambassadors told his friends in Ukraine, saying that you frequent to Moscow, come here, there is a very different people. And it’s true, that’s not the idealization or romanticizing, and the herald of the European mentality.

Of course, at 2014 Independence were different people, and they stood for different things. But it was in the area  some seven years I have not filed a hand.

– Today, three and a half years later, do not be disappointed?

– I am not so naive as to fail to understand: the revolution does not end as the dream of its members. Therefore anticipated that possibly will be disappointed, but … did not expect so much.

You see, in his initial optimism, I relied on the camp experience. With me sat a lot of people of different nationalities, but the Ukrainians have always been the most – about 30-40% of prisoners. Very different – not very smart – and wise, educated – and almost illiterate, sincere – and on your mind. I do not quite understand what the ethnic psychology, but in all the years in the political area, I have not met one Belarusian, Kyrgyz or Uzbek dissident. But the KGB was everywhere. Therefore, unlike many former Soviet republics, Ukraine was able to gradually come to some kind of European values. There is a resistance to the enzyme, but the people are not trained in democracy and have no control over their politicians.

This, incidentally, turned out rather quickly, so, in my opinion, the only way out – a long way to majority elections.

– Where buckwheat is everything?  

– It is everything because of her hand nobody put. Of course, the new laws, withdrawal Institute, etc. needed – need to teach people to control the power, primarily local. Do many Ukrainians need a report from its regional deputies? That’s it. And who offended us?

As for buckwheat, remember the scene in Bishkek Tulip Revolution, when revolutionaries dragged on his back stolen refrigerators and television sets? In Kiev, as it was not … Here, both the Maidan demanding from the authorities not buckwheat, and quite another.

Just people accept defeat very quickly, sitting in the kitchen or in the FB and wailing: again m … Duck elected. And also choose not the best, but they are controlled -and this should be taught in Europe. I know many who are helping with the support of Western partners to build democratic institutions in Ukraine. The vast majority of them work just for money. Some of them are rascals. Unfortunately…

– In 2014, many thought that the Ukrainians are the European political nation. How far along the process, or, conversely, stopped, given the historical memory of the policy, with its cult of new heroes?

– For me, the new heroes – a Heavenly hundreds, not the leaders of the OUN and UPA. And the fact that the memory of the heroes of the new vulgarized, obviously. She vulgarized when stopper criminal cases, which should be called the perpetrators of the massacre. She vulgarized, as the country’s leadership does not want to admit that on the other side, too, were Ukrainians. I know one family in which the boy grew up, the only son, who was “bad” brought – he wanted to be a Ukrainian officer. He was burned at the Maidan. Perhaps one of my daughter’s friends, occasionally throwing Molotov cocktails.

There are many things that we uncouple. But in a situation where the people in the mass hates and despises the power, what kind of love for each other can be said?

– What do you think about decommunisation receiving more and more sophisticated form?

– As a former political prisoner and anti-Soviet, I can not but welcome this process. But in its present form it gives me a feeling of disgust. As lustration, which was clearly organized and controlled from the top and stopped as suddenly as it had begun.

Lustration was illegal and generally meaningless, and it was followed by the same kind of pointless and illegal Decommunization. Autos of the dead will not work, especially when it conducts a marginal rot.

We voted in favor at the time of Kravchuk, and after the KGB has arrested dissidents only after the approval of the Central Committee department of ideology, which he headed. Why not to prosecute? And at the same time and all the deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the group 239, by which the independence was proclaimed.

It is very convenient to demolish monuments, taking responsibility for the past. We are the eternal victim, with a demand for us? “We endlessly criticize Comrade Stalin, and, of course, to work and yet I want to ask. Who wrote denunciations of four million?” – once said Sergei Dovlatov. The question hung in the air. We’ve no sense of responsibility for the acts of their fathers and grandfathers, as in Germany, where the children and grandchildren remember well what difference their loved ones. Where they are – children of the NKVD, the party nomenklatura, which, after all, millions of ordinary people obediently raises his hands at the next party meeting, the stigma of renegades, traitors to the socialist motherland, etc.?

So it is not an ideology we have to sew in the XXI century, and the way of the future.

I am not an enemy of perpetuating the memory of Stepan Bandera, but when acting Health Minister Suprun declares that, taking important decisions, mentally consults with the leader of the OUN, this is in any gate … And apparently, it is something to her counsels, as the results of this tandem we see.

– Donbass, which has become a springboard for the “Russian world”, lost to Ukraine? Or not very much, and we need it?

– Russian is impoverished, it has fewer features include these territories, and Putin, in the end, death. Deliberately or not, but he pulled the plug by their actions many influential people in Russia who stole billions, access to which is every day more and more difficult, given the sanctions. They are used to a different level of personal freedom, where they are, after all, now the rest? On Baikal?

So I believe that sooner or later Ukraine will return to the region. But not the kind of young people who went to the Donbas and already settled in Kiev and other cities. They have made their choice.

Sometimes it occurs to me seditious thought … my camp friends were fighting for the independence of Ukraine, and once the day has come – not because we were sitting at it in the camps. If Donbass really wants to live differently, if it is him and not someone external choice, from a moral point of view, why not think about the idea of ​​independence for these people? This is only one possible solution, but it must be spoken. Apart so apart, we do so and are doing everything to isolate these areas – with the help of the blockade, for example.

– It is clear that the war promotes the division of society into friends and foes, and the formation of a black and white picture of the world. All this of course, but … if we do not turn into “Russia on the contrary”, with its contempt for the private view, the search for their fifth column, and so on?

– I am fully aware that the current president is also seeking to usurp power, but I understand that he is also not released, because, even Kuchma, Ukraine wrote – not Russia. Our man in the street is different from the Russian. There genuinely respected Putin. Here the power is changing, and every new government we do not like, and often despised or hated. And it gives grounds for optimism.

Regarding the split in society, we are thrown into the past and because they do not offer a vision of the future. This also applies to the heroes of the UPA – stranger to a large part of the country, and to the language problem, which is the vast majority of Ukrainians do not consider the problem, but that again raised the shield on …

After the trial, I spent twenty days in a cell with Vasilem Stusom – and it was a luxurious 20 days. From time to time I even forget where I was, plunging into the Ukrainian culture. But we were talking in their own language, and Stus took this quite calmly. With 25 annuals UPA camp communicated in the same way – no one ever said nothing.

I was once again transferred to the new barracks, and that same day I was admitted to the “family” Eugene Prishlyak and Vasil Pidgorodetskim. The first was to arrest referent Security Lviv OUN, the second – a simple fighter in the UPA. Collected in the bedside table meal, we shared equally and ate together. After some time went to Vasil old policeman – a bastard – and said, “Vasil you train a respected man, an old convict, are not you ashamed to Zhydenko eat?” “I have it on s … sent”, – he told me later Vasil.

I am absolutely convinced that the state language is necessary to know, but since independence can not remember a single attempt to create appropriate courses for civil servants. Told me how hard they taught language after work – reading aloud Shevchenko, etc. Ethnic Ukrainians, but completely Russified Soviet reality. Such mockery, with complete indifference of the state, caused the rejection, rather than patriotic feelings.

So let’s publish good books, cooking class teachers – the key to successful language policy. I sometimes have to deal with some of the upper class of pedagogical universities – it’s awful. They academics some of their academies, wealthy people, but are engaged in playing the Soviet zhlobstva.

Ukraine has ruined a lot. When NaUKMA took its first steps, I tried to explain to the rector that it is necessary to keep the schools of mathematicians, theoretical physicists have developed in “mailboxes”, with excellent professionals. It was just necessary to allow these professionals to teach at first in Russian, but … we got rid of high intelligence.

– Who is able to pull the country out of the vicious circle? As long as people do not totally trust the government, naively hopes on the most rabid populists – and we have already passed … Civil society is defeated – or simply lost the battle?

– Civil society must help, rather than push. I am following with great concern for the future of the country in which I live and which I am a part of. I’m afraid that if this continues, the Ukrainian state will be defeated not by external forces, it simply dissolved, as a solid in a liquid. And will Vodicka, sweet or salty – are not so important.

– And what about the resistance enzyme?

– The enzyme resistance – an important condition for independence, but not sufficient.

Build the country – it does not sit in the cooler. We need other skills. When the Soviet Union ended, many former dissidents in Moscow continued to engage in human rights activities. In Ukraine, a number of my colleagues on the Gulag have gone into politics – and what?

It is clear that the government is constantly tosses a bone of contention that we at loggerheads in the past, instead of building the future. And less remembered about the reforms that are needed, as the air, and at the same time painful, so hold on to your seats, the tops are in no hurry to carry them out. A bottoms – bottoms grow, and this is our chance.

Interview by Michael Gold

Sourse, 13/10/2017

72 NGO already have signed the Declaration of Human Rights Agenda platform with the requirement to the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to stop the attack on civil society organizations

September 25, 2017

HUMAN RIGHTS AGENDA

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform demanding the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine stop crack-down on non-governmental organizations

 In early July 2017, the presidential draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 were registered in the Parliament of Ukraine. The draft laws were elaborated allegedly to replace the scandalous amendments to the anti-corruption legislation obliging the anti-corruption activists to annually file personal asset and property electronic declarations (Law of Ukraine No. 1975-VIII of 23 March 2017). The presidential draft laws actually propose to abolish the e-declarations for public anti-corruption activists but to require instead the non-governmental organizations and individual entrepreneurs as well as enterprises, institutions and organizations providing them with services, to file additional reports to tax authorities.

The draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 burden all non-governmental organizations and individual entrepreneurs, enterprises, institutions and organizations that provide them with services with an unjustified obligation to file additional tax reports.

It is revealing that the number of tax reports required from the non-governmental organizations, which these draft laws provide for, significantly exceeds the number of reports required from the business. Moreover, even the recipients of budget funds are not required to file such a number of tax reports.

We believe that these legislative initiatives appeared not by chance, though against the background of statements about the need to reduce excessive state regulation. The punishment in form of the abolition of a non-profit status of non-governmental organization is pronouncedly punitive in nature and is nothing more than the introduction of a tool for selective pressure on the non-governmental organizations indisposed towards the authorities.

We regard the initiative of the President of Ukraine as the disproportionate interference in the activities of the non-governmental organizations. Such steps liken Ukraine to the repressive regimes of the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and others similar. Despite the ostentatious care for transparency and accountability, the regulations introduced in the abovementioned countries led to almost absolute annihilation of the non-governmental organizations which are independent from authorities and total crack-down on civil society.

No international treaties require similar state control over the activities of non-governmental organizations as the international standards endow the non-governmental organizations with the right to be free from state interference in their activities.

The Guidelines on Freedom of Association drafted by the Council of Europe and the OSCE stipulate that “the state shall not require but shall encourage and facilitate associations to be accountable and transparent.” Special reporting is permissible, however, if it is required in exchange for certain benefits, provided it is “within the discretion of the association to decide whether to comply with such reporting requirements or forgo them and forsake any related special benefits, where applicable.”

In consideration of the foregoing, we demand that the Parliament of Ukraine immediately reject the draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 of 10 July 2017 and the President of Ukraine fulfill his promise to cancel the amendments to the anti-corruption legislation dated March 2017.

For reference: the Human Rights Agenda platform is the informal coalition of human rights organizations working in the field of monitoring, analyzing and elaborating the legislation in accordance with the basic principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The platform participants are the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, the Center for Civil Liberties, the Amnesty International Ukraine, the Human Rights Information Center, the Center for Law Enforcement Studies, the Without Borders Project of the NGO “Social Action Center” and the Euromaidan SOS. The Center for Civil Liberties coordinates the platform activities. Contacts: human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

  1. Center for Civil Liberties
  2. Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
  3. Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches
  4. Eastern-Ukrainian Center for Civic Initiatives
  5. Charitable Foundation “Vostok SOS”
  6. Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”
  7. Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law Enforcement
  8. NGO “KyivPride”
  9. Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
  10. Open Dialog Foundation
  11. Human Rights Information Center
  12. Crimean Human Rights Group
  13. NGO “Helsinki Initiative XXI”
  14. NGO “Peaceful Coast”
  15. Expert Human Rights Center
  16. NGO “La Strada Ukraine”
  17. Liberation Movement Research Center
  18. Charitable Organisation “Fund of Mercy and Health”
  19. NGO “South”
  20. NGO “Ray of Changes”
  21. Kharkiv Regional Foundation “Public Alternative”
  22. Project “Without Borders”
  23. NGO “Political Studies Association”
  24. NGO “People’s Control of Kirovohrad Region”
  25. Eksampei Center for Ukrainian Policy
  26. NGO “Volunteer Association of Participants of Maidan and Fighting Action”
  27. Charitable Foundation “Dyvosvit Club”
  28. NGO “School of Public Projects”
  29. NGO “Faith. Hope. Action”
  30. NGO “JCI Kyiv”
  31. Educational Human Rights House Chernihiv
  32. NGO “Women’s Prospects Center”
  33. NGO “Zakarpattia Community”
  34. Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Organization “Young Prosvita”
  35. Ternopil Human Rights Group
  36. Human Rights Center “All rights”
  37. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Convictus Ukraine”
  38. Autonomous Bar Association
  39. NGO “MART” (Chernihiv)
  40. Ukrainian Legal Aid Foundation
  41. Information and Awareness Raising Center “Axis” (Vinnytsia)
  42. NGO “Center for Civic Education “Almenda””
  43. Center for Humanistic Technologies “AHALAR”
  44. NGO “Ukrainian Association of Assessment”
  45. NGO “Territory of Success”
  46. T-Woman of Ukraine
  47. NGO “AutoMaidan Kyiv”
  48. NGO “Human Rights Vector”
  49. Bilozerka Center for Regional Development
  50. Center for Law Enforcement Activity Research
  51. Chernihiv Public Committee for Human Rights Protection
  52. NGO “Kyiv Educational Center “Tolerspace””
  53. Human Rights Center “Postup”
  54. NGO “Liberal Democratic League of Ukraine”
  55. Bureau of Social and Political Developments
  56. Center for Legal and Political Studies “DUMA”
  57. Institute of Mass Information
  58. SOVA Group
  59. Media Initiative for Human Rights
  60. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Legalife Ukraine”
  61. NGO “Insight”
  62. Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research
  63. NGO “Informer”
  64. Information and Analytical Center “Public Space”
  65. LGBT Human Rights Center “Our World”
  66. NGO “Bakhmat”
  67. NGO “Development Foundation”
  68. NGO “All-Ukrainian League of Lawyers Against Corruption”
  69. NGO “Kharkiv Women’s Association “Sphere””
  70. NGO “Gender Center of Volyn Region”
  71. NGO “Theatre for Dialogue”
  72. NGO ‘Free Territory’

The statement is open for signature. Please contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Результаты поиска:

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform on deprivation of attorneys of the ability to cooperate with human rights organisations

March 7, 2019

In the agenda of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the consideration of the first
reading of a draft law ‘On Legal Practice and Advocacy’ No. 9055 is scheduled for 28
February.
The authors and supporters of the law are striving to prove its progressive nature,
strengthening of guarantees of advocacy and empowerment.
However, should the law be adopted, all attorneys who cooperate with human rights
organisations will be deprived of the opportunity to engage in advocacy activities
within the framework of cooperation with these organisations. Hundreds of cases
which have been filed by lawyers of these organisations with the European Court of
Human Rights, and thousands of court cases in national courts will become only a
reminder of past activities. There will be no one competent to file new applications
with the European Court and national courts on behalf of human rights organisations.
In his expert opinion which contains the analysis of the draft law No. 9055, the
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights Diego Garcia-Sayan stated that the restriction, set
forth in Article 28 of the draft law 9055, could adversely affect the lawyers who would
have to choose between full employment and the work of a human rights defender
which, obviously, would adversely affect an access to justice in the country, in
particular, for individuals with limited financial means. Also, the report provides a
whole number of risks and threats to independent advocacy, such as the procedure
of bringing attorneys to disciplinary responsibility, unfounded types of disciplinary
sanctions that affect the independence of advocacy and, consequently, affect
appropriate defence in court.
Separately, the completely opaque process of work on the draft law is to be
mentioned, and this fact has also been noted in the report by Mr. Diego Garcia-
Sayan. He wrote that consultations with representatives of the legal profession were
very limited in nature, and the final draft law was made public by the office of the
President without the opportunity to comment on its content.
A lack of transparency, marginalisation of the drafting process and introduction of the
draft law, a lack of a high-quality expert examination, for example, by the Venice
Commission, and haste with the attempts to implement this law as soon as possible

in a parliament’s session confirm the poor quality of the preparation process and the
same low-quality content of the draft law itself, which, in its present form, poses a
real threat to the protection of human rights in the human rights protection
environment of Ukraine and can be regarded as a way of attack and exertion of
pressure on the environment.
We hereby urge Members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to prevent the
consideration and adoption of the draft law 9055, as requested in the report by Diego
Garcia-Sayan, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The text of the draft law No.
9055 must be redrafted, discussed publicly and amended, taking into account the
comments made by representatives of the bar community, human rights
organisations, and international experts. We demand transparency, honesty and
high quality. Today, we cannot see these features in the draft law No. 9055.
The Human Rights Agenda platform is an informal coalition of human right organisations focused on systemic
problems of legislation and practices for defending fundamental human rights. The participants of the platform
are as follows: Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, Center for Civil Liberties, Amnesty International
Ukraine, Human Rights Information Center, Centre of Law Enforcement Activities Research (CLEAR), Project
"Without Borders", Euromaidan SOS. The platform is coordinated by the Center for Civil Liberties. You can
contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
Center for Civil Liberties
Regional Centre for Human Rights
Open Dialogue Foundation
Humanitarian Studio "Wave
Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”

NGOs call on the HQCJ to refrain from creating artificial obstacles to the establishment of the Public Integrity Council

November 22, 2018

On November 21, 2018, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) announced the results of the consideration of documents of public associations (NGOs) for the establishment of the Public Integrity Council (PIC).

 

The Commission approved a positive decision on the admission of only 2 out of 14 organizations that submitted the documents. The Commission allowed the rest of the organizations to eliminate the shortcomings which, in its opinion, were identified in the relevant documents of the NGOs.

 

Having considered the decisions of the Commission, NGOs have to state that among these alleged shortcomings there are many that are not based on the requirements of the law, do not pursue a legitimate aim and can create artificial obstacles for NGOs’ participation in the PIC establishment.

 

In particular:

 

  • In some cases (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the Commission does not accept the results of a financial audit conducted not within the past two years, whereas the law only requires the availability of an audit report and does not set any time frames for its conduct;
  • In some other cases (Center for Civil Liberties, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the HQCJ groundlessly believes that it is only the first persons of international organizations in Ukraine (the OSCE Coordinator in Ukraine, UNDP, etc.) that can make recommendations to NGOs, while the law does not contain such a requirement, and the signatures of officials of international organizations were affixed within their authorities;
  • Position of the HQCJ regarding the recognition of reports based on the financial audit results or audit findings as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements only because these reports were prepared for confidential use and submission to grantors (CRIMEASOS, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform) is unreasonable (the law does not set any requirements for the addressees of the reports and the purpose of their preparation);
  • The HQCJ did not recognize a copy of the report on the project implementation results due to the lack of signature of the person authorized to sign it (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform). However, such a requirement is unfounded since the law requires the provision of a copy rather than the original of the report, and the submitted copy of the report has been duly certified by an authorized person;  
  • The law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” does not require the publication of a declaration of a candidate to the PIC on the NACP’s website, and the HQCJ’s competencies do not cover anti-corruption verification of declarations (including the presence or absence of these declarations on the NACP’s website), while some organizations (Institute of Applied Humanitarian Research) received a reply that the absence of such declarations on the NACP’s website serves as grounds for non-admission.

 

As for documents of other NGOs (Civic Lustration Committee, E+, Nova Krayina, ТОМ14, Centre for Economic Strategy, Centre UA), only the originals of certain documents are required, whereas all the necessary information can be obtained from the duly authenticated photocopies. In some other cases (DEJURE, Nova Krayina), technical errors (incorrect indication of the candidate’s patronymic only in one of the documents or use of the phrase “annual declaration” after “declaration of a candidate for the position of the PIC member”) are considered by the Commission as “grounds for the determination of the submitted documents as not complying with … the law”.

 

We want to emphasize that the requirements of the law on the submission of documents have been established to confirm the experience, real activity and capacity of NGOs to form the PIC. The Commission’s review of these documents should pursue this legitimate aim and should not go beyond its limits.

 

The Commission’s decisions are even more surprising given the fact that 2 years ago the Commission allowed a number of organizations with similar packages of documents to participate in the NGO Meeting on the PIC establishment without any comments. The Commission did not consider the failure to submit proper declarations by the candidates for judicial office at the Anti-Corruption Court and Intellectual Property Court to be a violation and allowed them to take part in the competition to the IP-court.

 

We are concerned that at the beginning of our cooperation with the HQCJ regarding the formation of the second composition of the PIC, we faced this approach. At the same time, the NGOs will make every effort to take into account the wishes of the Commission regarding the execution of documents within a specified period as far as possible.

 

However, if the HQCJ retains this approach to the assessment of documents, there will be a high risk of groundless rejection of experienced and capable NGOs from participation in the Meeting and, as a result, the formation of an incomplete composition, delay, or even the impossibility of establishing the PIC as a form of public participation in the selection and evaluation of judges.

 

Therefore, we call on the HQCJ:

 

  • To carefully reconsider all the packages of documents submitted by the NGOs, including those that will be submitted additionally;
  • To assess the documents submitted by organizations solely on the basis of the requirements of the law, impartially and without groundless formalism;
  • To allow all NGOs whose experience and capability are confirmed by the documents submitted by them to participate in the Meeting;
  • To review the decisions on a number of NGOs (indicated in this statement or otherwise) regarding the recognition of documents as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements of the law, particularly where the law contained no such requirements.

 

Civic Lustration Committee

Initiative E+

Crimea SOS

Nova Kraina

ТОМ 14

DEJURE Foundation

Center for Civil Liberties

Centre for Economic Strategy

Centre of Policy and Legal Reform

Centre UA

Nations in Transit 2018: Confronting Illiberalism

April 11, 2018

Washington, April 12, 2018 — Attacks on opposition parties, the press, and civil society organizations are becoming the norm in Central and Eastern Europe as the spread of illiberal politics undermines the foundations of and prospects for democracy, according to Nations in Transit 2018, the 23rd edition of Freedom House’s annual report on democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Eurasia.

Ukraine’s Democracy Score declined for the first time since the 2014 revolution. With the Russian-led conflict in the east grinding on, Ukraine’s politicians are taking advantage of patriotic sentiment to attack NGOs and journalists, accusing them of undermining the war effort.

“Attacks on civil society and political opponents have sapped the momentum from the institutional reform process in Ukraine,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “Although decentralization reforms are continuing, other key priorities, including anticorruption efforts, have stalled. The window of opportunity has not closed in Ukraine, but it has shrunk. By accusing NGOs and journalists of antinational sentiment, politicians are attempting to exclude legitimate voices from public debate simply because they criticize the government.”

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON UKRAINE

 

  • Two important milestones were reached in relations between Ukraine and the European Union in 2017: the visa-free regime with the EU came into force in June, allowing millions of Ukrainians to travel freely to the neighboring Schengen zone for short-term stays, and the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement — the main trigger for the Euromaidan protests which provides a framework for major transformations in Ukrainian democracy, human rights, rule of law, good governance, trade, and sustainable development — finally came completely into force.
  • One of the main achievements in Ukraine’s national governance in 2017 was healthcare reform, which, following the passage by the Verkhovna Rada of a law on healthcare financing in October, will align the system based on the principle of “money following patients.”
  • Decentralization reform continued, with administrative territorial reform resulting in the creation of approximately 700 amalgamated communities, and fiscal decentralization resulting in increased revenues and local infrastructure investments for the first time in 23 years.
  • The conflict in the east remained largely frozen throughout the year. The socioeconomic conditions in the occupied territories, and in those areas close to the line of contact, continued to be poor. The armed separatist groups developed their own institutions, which, in turn, enacted regulations that routinely violated basic human rights, while journalists and bloggers covering the conflict continued to be arrested and detained.
  • Pressure on civil society intensified. In March, the government obliged citizens working against corruption to publicly declare their income and assets, while a legislative initiative to replace the controversial requirement with other restrictive measures against NGOs under threat of onerous restrictions for not complying with the proposed regulations was unsuccessful. The Civil Society score declined due to smear campaigns against NGOs and activists.
  • Prominent civil society organizations were targeted with criminal investigations against them and their members, and there were physical attacks on well-known activists.
  • The Independent Media score declined due to the blocking of major social media sites, as well as physical attacks on journalists and a lack of progress in investigating the murder of journalist Pavel Sheremet.
  • Progress on judicial and anti-corruption reforms was mixed. While the National Anticorruption Bureau actively investigated high-level corruption results of its work were few. The President had yet to create the High Anticorruption Court as promised. Vetting of judicial appointments to the Supreme Court stumbled as 25 candidates that had not passed public integrity checks were approved as official candidates.

“Illiberal politics are becoming the new normal in Europe,” said Michael J. Abramowitz, president of Freedom House. “Government-led smear campaigns against civil society groups, journalists, and the political opposition were pioneered in Russia and Central Asia, but they are increasingly common across the region.”

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES

  • Poland recorded the second-largest Democracy Score decline in the history of the report. The ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party’s revolutionary takeover of the judicial system, politicization of public media, smear campaigns against nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and violations of ordinary parliamentary procedure also produced the two largest single-category score declines in Nations in Transit’s history, for National Democratic Governance and Judicial Framework and Independence.

 

“The radical changes to the Polish judiciary remove any effective check on the actions of the majority party in parliament,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “What has happened in Poland in the last two years should serve as an alarm bell for anyone who believes that one-party rule could never return to Europe.”

“The EU should stand up for its commitments to the rule of law by implementing Article 7 sanctions against Poland and Hungary,” Schenkkan said, referring to the EU’s power to suspend a member’s voting rights. “It should condition access to European funds on clear rule-of-law criteria. This is the only way to convince these countries, and EU candidate states, that the union is firmly rooted in democratic principles.”

  • Hungary has registered the largest cumulative decline in Nations in Transit The country’s Democracy Score has been falling for 10 consecutive years, moving it from the status of a democratic leader at the time of EU accession in 2004 to the threshold of a “Transitional/Hybrid Regime” in 2018.

 

“The Fidesz government of Viktor Orbán led the way for illiberal forces in Central Europe, showing that it was possible to capture a state within the EU through gerrymandering, procurement manipulation, and control of the media,” said Schenkkan. “The fact that Fidesz remains a member in good standing in the European People’s Party of the European Parliament shows how effective Orbán’s approach has been.”

  • Estonia earned the biggest improvement in this edition of the report, even though it was already the best performer. A surprisingly smooth first year in government for a longtime opposition party demonstrated the resilience and independence of national institutions. Estonia’s anticorruption mechanisms appear to be addressing the municipal corruption that has long affected its major cities.

“At a time when most of the news for democracy seems bad, Estonia reminds us that liberal democracy can and does succeed,” Schenkkan said. “Even in a country with a history of foreign occupation and sensitive ethnic and regional differences, democratic national institutions can produce better governance for everyone.”

View the full report here: https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/nations-transit-2018

###

 

Freedom House is an independent watchdog organization that supports democratic change, monitors the status of freedom around the world, and advocates for democracy and human rights.

Join us on Facebook and Twitter (@FreedomHouseDC) and stay up to date with Freedom House’s latest news and events by signing up for our newsletter.

Special event to discuss Ukraine’s future at the Atlantic Council Headquarters (on Thursday, March 29, 2018)

April 4, 2018

In the four years since the end of the Revolution of Dignity, Ukraine has not answered its most important question: how will the country ensure democratic values in its future development? Much of Ukraine’s hope lies in its young leaders who will drive the country forward in the coming years. CDDRL has been fortunate to provide a year-long residency to some of these future leaders as part of the inaugural year of the Center’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program.

This event will feature three Ukrainian leaders who are in residency with CDDRL’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program this year. They will each discuss their own perspectives on opportunities and challenges to democracy and development in their home country, as well as objectives for strengthening public administration, civil society, and economic reforms upon their return to Ukraine.

We hope you can join us for this timely discussion.

Sourse, 29/03/2018

Vitaliy Tytych: Rigging of anti-corruption court competition must be prevented

March 19, 2018

The High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice cannot be trusted to conduct an objective and fair competition for the anti-corruption court without severe foreign and civil society oversight and without a drastic change in the competition’s methodology. They cannot be trusted because they violated the law and demonstrated their political bias by rigging the competition for the Supreme Court.

The discredited High Qualification Commission must be deprived of its arbitrary powers to assign scores subjectively during competitions for anti-corruption and other judges, and such scores must be based on objective criteria.

This is even more important than foreign donors’ veto powers, and this is the only way to ensure that honest and professional candidates believe in the fairness of the competition and participate, and that the commission has no way of promoting political loyalists and incompetent candidates for subjective reasons.

During the Supreme Court competition, 90 scores were assigned for anonymous legal knowledge tests, 120 scores for anonymous practical tests, and the High Qualification Commission could arbitrarily assign 790 scores without giving any explicit reasons (formally based on interviews with candidates and examining their profiles).

According to the 2016 law on the judiciary and status of judges, legal knowledge and practical tests (i.e. objective criteria) are the main method of selecting judges. This law stipulates that at least 75 percent of the total score (i.e. 750 out of 1,000 scores) must be given for anonymous legal knowledge and practical tests.

The High Qualification Commission took advantage of the vague wording of the law to set regulations that contradict the law because only 210 out of the total of 1,000 scores were assigned for legal knowledge and practical tests.

As a result of the Supreme Court competition, candidates who were at the top of the list after the anonymous knowledge tests and practical tests ended up at the bottom in the final stage for unknown reasons, while candidates who initially got lower scores and had a corrupt background ended up at the top.

Both the law on the judiciary and the High Qualification Commission’s internal regulations must be amended and clarified to clearly assign 750 scores for anonymous legal knowledge tests and practical tests (for competitions for both the anti-corruption court and all other courts). If parliament refuses to amend the law, the High Qualification Commission can just change its regulations, which is even easier.

As an option, 330 scores should be given for anonymous legal knowledge tests, another 330 scores for practical tests, and 330 scores for interviews and professional ethics (preferably based on conclusions by the Public Integrity Council and foreign donors). The law on the judiciary and status of judges should also be amended to require the publication of practical works after practical tests.

That would leave no room for arbitrary decisions and political involvement.

President Petro Poroshenko claims that the participation of foreign donors in the competition for the anti-corruption court contradicts Ukraine’s sovereignty, which is false (for example, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine was created with the participation of foreign donors).

But anyway Ukraine’s foreign partners could delegate independent Ukrainian citizens with impeccable reputation and integrity. This would halt any talk about sovereignty.

Such representatives could include people from the December 1 Initiative Group civil-society organization, Soviet dissident and human rights lawyer Myroslav Marynovych or Vyacheslav Bryukhovetsky, honorary president of the Kyiv Mohyla Academy.

Moreover, Ukraine’s foreign donors must take part in the competition for anti-corruption judges but they will have neither time nor resources to vet all the candidates and their background on their own. The Public Integrity Council, which has shown its independence from the authorities and its ability to work hard to examine candidates’ background, must take part in the competition for the anti-graft court by collecting all the available information on candidates (and the council must participate in competitions for all courts under the 2016 law on the judiciary and status of judges).

This is the only way to ensure that anti-corruption judges are truly professional and independent.

The use of the same objective methodology for assigning scores both for the anti-corruption court and other courts and the participation of the Public Integrity Council in competitions for the anti-corruption court and other courts  will totally kill the false argument that the anti-corruption court is a “special” court banned by the Constitution (the Venice Commission has already refuted this argument).

Also, it will be impossible to select independent judges if foreign donors choose representatives loyal to the Ukrainian government.  Such representatives must be completely independent from pressure by Ukrainian authorities.

In the best-case scenario, foreign donors should themselves assess candidates’ professional integrity. But at least they should have a right to suspend the competition and initiate an audit if evidence emerges that the High Qualification Commission violated procedural rules.

The Public Integrity Council believes that the competition for the Supreme Court was rigged to promote politically loyal candidates.

First, during the practical test stage, some candidates were given tests that coincided with cases that they had considered during their career, which was deemed a tool of promoting political loyalists.

Second, in March 2017 the High Qualification Commission illegally allowed 43 candidates who had not gotten sufficient scores during practical tests to take part in the next stage, changing its rules amid the competition. Members of the Public Integrity Council believe that the rules were unlawfully changed to prevent political loyalists from dropping out of the competition.

Apart from the second score assigned anonymously for practical works, the commission gave them a third score after naming them, violating the law (because practical tests should be anonymous to prevent political interference). The commission must have just assigned the second score without knowing the candidates’ names.

Third, the High Qualification Commission illegally refused to publish the scores for candidates’ psychological tests, failed to set a minimum score for psychological tests and illegally assessed the tests on its own (although they must have been assessed by psychologists). Moreover, the commission used corporate loyalty tests, which stipulated loyalty as a major characteristic of a judge – as a result, independent candidates were prevented from getting a higher score, while political loyalists were encouraged.

Fourth, the High Qualification Commission removed the profiles of candidates other than the winners from its site.

Fifth, the High Qualification Commission and the High Council of Justice illegally refused to give specific reasons for assigning specific total scores to candidates and refused to explain why the High Qualification Commission has overridden vetoes by the Public Integrity Council on candidates who do not meet ethical integrity standards.

Sixth, the High Council of Justice has illegally rejected 48 out of its members’ 52 recusals from voting for specific Supreme Court candidates due to a conflict of interest. This triggered accusations that the council was planning to get the necessary 14 pro-government votes to appoint politically loyal candidates.

Some of these violations are currently being disputed at Ukrainian courts and will be disputed at the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, Public Integrity Council members have opened a criminal case into the violations and will open more cases.

Sourse, 12/03/2018.

FROM OBJECTIVES TO RESULTS: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EU-UKRAINE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT AS SEEN BY STAKEHOLDERS

December 22, 2017

A jury: experience and problems

October 24, 2017

A simulation system of justice in which convulses a vestige of the people’s representatives, as the jury. Says Russian political analyst and human rights activist Mikhail Savva, who left Russia and now living in Ukraine.

The jury is in the Constitution of Ukraine, but in fact, according to human rights activists, jury trials in the country do not. The main difference between a jury trial by an ordinary court (with the participation of one judge or three professional judges) is a separate co-existence in it “judges of law” (the legal profession) and “Judges of fact” (board of jurors , which usually consists of persons who are not are lawyers). If this division is not present and professional judges work together with the representatives of the people should not talk about a jury trial, but the court sheffenskom. Sheffenskie courts adopted, for example, at their home in Germany as well as in Ukraine. Experience and problems of modern Russian jury trials may be useful in case if Ukraine, too, decides to create a jury trial.

The Soviet system of people’s assessors is an option sheffenskogo court, where a judge has unlimited opportunities to influence the decision of the representatives of the people. Sheffenskaya system can be very effective, but only for companies with extremely high legal culture .

In the course of judicial reform 90-ies of the last century, it was created in the Russian jury trials . During the counter-reforms that have been going for fifteen years, created a simulation system of justice in which convulses a vestige of the people’s representatives, as the jury.

Jury trials are traditionally regarded as the “courts of justice”. This is confirmed by the statistics of court decisions in the Russian Federation. Professional judges give less than 1% of acquittals , while the juries – 13-25% in different years.

In 2016, according to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court, in the first instance are over 239 cases with a jury. From 361 to 60 the defendant was justified, that is 17% , another 85 cases returned to the prosecutor. The number of sentences handed down without a jury, more than three orders of magnitude. According to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court in 2016 for all formulations of the Criminal Code (CC) convicted 740,380 people (to imprisonment – 206 304 people), is justified by 1493 (0.2% if you count the persons on which the case was dismissed on rehabilitative grounds, – 1.5%).

Scale application of jury trials in Russia is low. In one year, jury trials in Russia in the second decade of this century the average render verdicts to 300 (the maximum number of verdicts in the post-Soviet period – about 600 in 2010). A jury selected only 12% of the accused, who have a right to it. In the US a year by the jury shall be made about 160 thousand. Verdicts. In the XX century in the Russian empire handed down each year about 40 thousand. Verdicts. The reasons for this will be disclosed below, here I call home. This lack of political will for the development of the institute of juries. In the context of the simulation of the justice system the current Russian regime of the jury can not be complete and widespread.

The jury in the Russian Federation has a constitutional basis: according to Art. 32 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Russian citizens have the right to participate in the administration of justice. One form of such participation – review certain categories of criminal cases in the court of jury. However direct reference to the institution of jury in the Constitution does not.

The introduction of jury trials took considerable time in Russia. Pilot introduction of jury trials in Russia began with the 1993-1994, in 9 subjects of the Federation. The new Criminal Procedure Code, adopted in 2001, did the jury widespread since 2003. In the Chechen Republic the introduction of jury trials actually took place in 2010. An expert on Russian court Sergei Pashin jury, namely the phased introduction of jury trials has led to the fact that he did have in Russia.

The accused has the right to file a petition for consideration of his criminal case by the court of first instance composed of professional judges and a panel of 12 jurors in case he is accused, in particular, murder, sabotage, banditry, genocide, public appeals to the outbreak of war, kidnapping , piracy mercenarism and t. d.

I counted as of July 2017 20 of the Criminal Code articles on which possible jury . At the beginning of the introduction of jury trials in Russia of such items was 47, according Sergeya Pashina calculations, the main initiator of the introduction of jury trials in Russia.

The criminal case, which involved several defendants, the court is considered by jury in respect of all the defendants , if at least one of them said a request for consideration of a criminal case by a court in the composition.

If the defendant has not filed a motion for the consideration of the criminal case by the court by jury, the case is considered by another composition of the court in the manner prescribed by law.

The judge’s decision to hear the case from the jury is final. The subsequent failure of the defendant from the criminal trial by jury is not accepted .

Criminal cases involving jurors of federal courts of general jurisdiction is held in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the supreme courts of republics, territorial, regional courts, courts of federal cities, autonomous region and autonomous districts, the district (naval) military courts.

jury selection jurors is actually a two-step.

According to Art. 3 of the federal law, jurors can not be: persons under 25 years of age; persons with outstanding or previously convicted; persons recognized as incapable or limited in capacity; are registered in the drug treatment or mental hospital.

Such persons are not included in the lists of jurors , drawn up every four years on the basis of the voter list by random sampling. Exclude these people from the list of jurors bodies of executive power of the municipality or the region. Then, after getting acquainted with the citizens of the jury lists, these lists are excluded from the statements of the citizens themselves several categories.

The weak point of this phase of jury selection is a voluntary procedure for submitting applications for exclusion from the jury list. That is, if, for example, the police considers that nothing prevents him to be sworn he did not submit an application for delisting.

During jury selection to participate in a particular criminal case to participate in the proceedings as jurors are not allowed to persons suspected or accused of committing crimes; I do not speak the language in which the hearing is conducted; with physical and / or mental disabilities that prevent full participation in the hearing.

During the trial, the jury task boils down to, to answer three main questions: whether the proven fact of the crime, if that proved his committed by the defendant, and whether he is guilty of the crime. In the case of the issue of the recognition of the defendant’s guilt is put whether he deserves leniency. In this case the judge to the jury formulate lists of issues, which are often a few dozen items.

Jurors “should strive to adopt a unanimous decision,” but if this is not achieved within three hours, the verdict made by voting.

A guilty verdict is adopted, if the majority of the jury votes for each of the three key issues. Acquittal verdict is considered, if not less than six judges gave a negative answer to at least one of the three questions. If the deciding votes are equally divided, the adopted most favorable to the defendant’s answer for each question.

The acquittal is mandatory for the presiding judge, in this case, the court justifies the defendant. Guilty as the jury’s verdict is not binding on the court. If the judge recognizes that a guilty verdict handed down against an innocent person, then adopted a decree on the dissolution of the jury and the criminal case is sent for a new trial by another composition of the court. This decision is not subject to appeal in cassation.

From the jurisdiction of jury trials for the duration of this institution such articles were excluded, such as terrorism, hostage-taking, riots, treason, espionage, violent seizure of power, rape and sexual offenses against children. Some compounds “fell out” of crime from the jurisdiction of jury trials due to the fact that the new Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 2001 softened for him the punishment and the death penalty or life imprisonment has not been provided (eg high treason). In some cases, exceptions motive was that the jury too often render acquittals. For example, in the discussion in the State Duma in 2013, the issue of the exclusion of such a composition as sexual crimes against children, the author of the bill deputy Spring said that the jury too often justify the accused.

In February 2016 the Russian Constitutional Court found that the criminal case against women in the murder with aggravating circumstances could be considered by a jury of 12 people in the supreme courts of republics, territorial or regional courts. Prior to that, women were deprived of the possibility to be tried before a jury, because the Russian legislation does not provide for life sentences for the women.

December 3, 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed to extend the role of juries in a possible reduction in their number in the court up to 5-7 people. This was an attempt to respond to society’s demands for justice. At a time when major political offenses removed from the jurisdiction of jury trials, the expansion of the institute of juries are no longer threatened by the authorities. In other words, cases of domestic murder and some other formulations could, according to the authorities, to consider jury trials at district and city levels.

Starting from June 1, 2018 Institute of jurorsIt will be operational in the district (city) and garrison military courts. Established number of jurors for the district and garrison military courts – 6 people, in the courts of the Russian Federation and the district military courts, the number of jurors will be reduced from 12 to 8. district-level court jury will consider the criminal case at the request of the accused, for which there may not be sentenced to life imprisonment, namely, with regard to women, persons who have committed crimes under the age of 18 years, men who have attained to time of the court’s 65-year-olds sentence. Criminal cases on these articles of the Criminal Code in relation to other persons, as before, will be considered by the court of the subject of the Russian Federation. In addition, the district court with the participation of jurors,

Judges of the Russian Federation, according to a discussion at the Congress in December 2016, the judges are extremely skeptical about the prospects for the mass introduction of jury trials . They talk about the organizational unpreparedness and lack of funding. We can assume that in the near future verdicts of the jury will not become a mass phenomenon in the municipal and district courts.

Practical functioning of juries problem is clearly illustrated by the case of the murder of Boris Nemtsov , who was considered by the Moscow District Military Court in 2016-2017. A panel of 12 jurors was in the conference room for three days. She had to answer 26 questions put to them by the judge. The jury could not come to a unanimous opinion, so after three hours of contentious issues have been put to the vote. 10 of the 12 jurors declared guilty of all five defendants.

Eight jurors were replaced during the process. The defendant’s lawyer Bakhaeva Zaurbek Sadahanov said: “There was a sweep of the jury, we have seen. The verdict is absolutely illegal, because no evidence of guilt Bakhaeva investigation did not present. This is only possible in a country where there is no justice. “

In discussing the questions that were to answer the jury, the objections of the accused lawyers were not taken into account, the judge approved the questions in its original version. This version of the problem was that the actions of each of the defendants, the judge invited the jury to assess the aggregate only to the actions of the other four defendants.

At the present time in Russia there was already a jury management practices. Its main elements are:

1. Selection loyal jury on board formation step. Washer courts evaluate the behavior of the jury, and depending on this jury are involved or are not involved in other processes.

2. Restrictions jury taps to participate in a particular meeting: no more than one non-motivated removal of restrictions on issues at the stage of taps (you can ask about criminal records of relatives, but you can not ask questions, the answers to which are characterized by human eyes).

3. Adjustment of the board structure by eliminating disloyal jury. For this purpose the taps on spurious grounds, creating grounds for removal from the board (the jury may hold on his way to a meeting of the traffic police, with the result that the jury is removed from the board).

4. Manipulative or control wording of the jury by the judge.

5. Prohibitions on the provision of the jury during the meeting on problems of the inquiry, such as torture . Random mention of torture, even the hint is the reason for the cancellation of the verdict.

6. Intimidation by jury, as was done during the process in the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic in the case of citizens of Ukraine and Karpyuk Klyha.

If the jury panel of the control mechanisms do not work, use the cancellation of the verdict by the Supreme Court of Russia. If needed, which is often politically motivated, the Supreme Court cancels the guilty verdict of the jury and send the case for retrial. So it was in the case of the murder Anny Politkovskoy. Grounds for cancellation of the verdict was that, according to the Armed Forces, the panel “go on about the lawyers who reported the identity of defendants in the case, and the jury presented negative information about the investigation.”

I am getting the result. A jury in Russia it is a jury trial, not sheffenskim court or some other form of participation of representatives of the people in judicial decisions. However, the jury as the “Court of Justice” in the Russian Federation operating in simulation mode. This is achieved due to two main factors: the limited scope of application of a jury and the widespread use of illegal jury management.

Summing up, it can not be said about the money. Often mention that Ukraine has no money for a jury trial. But the money in this case is irrelevant. We are talking about saving mode. See what makes the authoritarian Putin regime in Russia – is introducing jury trials at the district level. It costs a lot of money, because in Russia in 2184 the district court. is sorely lacking is the answer mode to request people to justice. Of course, the “political” as a judge in violation of all the rules, and will be judged, and to plant. But in cases of domestic murder people get this same justice in the form of trial by jury. Putin’s regime is trying to prolong its existence. If authoritarian regimes are saving yourself so why democracy in Ukraine should act differently?

Sourse, 23/10/2017

People need to learn how to control the power, local first of all

October 14, 2017

One of the most prominent dissidents of the Soviet Union, weighed after a four-month hunger strike in BC political zone 389/35 in the Perm region of 39 kg. The author of “Handbook of Psychiatry for dissidents,” a member of the American Society of Psychiatrists, UK Royal College of Psychiatrists, the rehabilitation of victims of the World Council of Torture, International PEN, the author of several books and hundreds of articles. All of this – on human rights defenders, public figures and the head of the Ukrainian Psychiatric Association Semen Gluzman.

Semen Gluzman  –  on the Maidan, and the syndrome crowd of friendship with the “Bandera” and enzyme resistance, control the power and responsibility for the past.

– Semen Fishelevich, you are one of those who supported the Maidan, but never torn his scene. Why, by the way?

– I never wanted to the scene – from the time of Rukh has never been on any shodnyak, I mean … on an important meeting decent people. Just realize that the psychology of a decent man and the psychology of thousands of decent people differ dramatically.

At the same time, I must admit, even during the Orange Revolution called me many foreign colleagues, the stars of the world of psychiatry, with one question: where’s syndrome aggressive influence of the crowd?

Ukrainian people have shown themselves quite surprisingly and in 2004 and in 2014. During the recent hurricane in Houston because of marauding police had to impose a curfew. Are there many cases of looting, we can remember when the city center, with its many shops and expensive boutiques, stood up to 200 thousand people?

– In the mid-1970s, in the Perm region, a young Jew Gluzman made friends with Ukrainian nationalists – 25 annuals. But then you have joined a common enemy and not the overall vision of the future.

– Yes, I spent several years in the camp side by side with those who were called “Bandera”. They were simple people, the names of Bandera or Shukhevych of their mouth, I had never heard. They just defended their land from “outsiders”. I once asked Uncle Vasya Basil Malozhinskogo, whom he regarded as the UPA soldier, and he was from the SS division Galicia-evil so asked reproachfully, saying how could you ?! And he did his best to explain: “Spershu boule sovєti Potіm priyshli nіmtsі OAO All – A Stranger’s one I never pobachiv i pochuv svoїh, yshli hloptsі that spіvali of Ukrainian pіsen What I first bailiff to them That Well svoї boule ……. . “That’s right, simply and without ideological pathos.

– Jewish support of the Maidan has not surprised?

– Not in the least surprised. One of the most striking childhood memories  I was 10-11 years old, I was returning to his home on the bus, with rises on Artema October Revolution Square (Maidan current). At one of the stops came an elderly lady, very polite, a good Ukrainian language, asked the passengers where it’s okay to leave. Trolley bus exploded with anger – I was scared, not knowing what was happening. Started the persecution of some lumpen, perhaps a T-shirt, he was supported by his aunt vociferous – it was a stream of insults that hit a woman, just to speak in Ukrainian. Then I realized that with me live one more Jews – Ukrainians.

Frankly, when Ukraine got its independence in 1991, I was tense, remembering how aggressively treated here to the Jews in the Soviet era. I remember how the Jewish boys and girls, which were practically closed local universities, leaving to other republics, where there were quiet and well attended. In addition-and this is for me as a dissident is very important – in Ukraine was the most ferocious in the KGB Union. I tensed and because he saw who vote for independence in Parliament : a group of 239, which is officially called “For a sovereign Radyans’ka up Ukraine”, in other words, the communist majority, sensing the winds of change. And along with them – thousands of opportunists, rinuvshihsya from the Komsomol straight into Roc. Professional killers of Ukrainian culture, instantly became the accusers “hand of Moscow”.

Then, when it became an annual index to measure the tolerance, it appears that anti-Semitism and xenophobia are retreating, although the anti-Semites, of course, is and always will be. This was true of all the other areas  the country got a chance.

I remember one of the first American ambassadors told his friends in Ukraine, saying that you frequent to Moscow, come here, there is a very different people. And it’s true, that’s not the idealization or romanticizing, and the herald of the European mentality.

Of course, at 2014 Independence were different people, and they stood for different things. But it was in the area  some seven years I have not filed a hand.

– Today, three and a half years later, do not be disappointed?

– I am not so naive as to fail to understand: the revolution does not end as the dream of its members. Therefore anticipated that possibly will be disappointed, but … did not expect so much.

You see, in his initial optimism, I relied on the camp experience. With me sat a lot of people of different nationalities, but the Ukrainians have always been the most – about 30-40% of prisoners. Very different – not very smart – and wise, educated – and almost illiterate, sincere – and on your mind. I do not quite understand what the ethnic psychology, but in all the years in the political area, I have not met one Belarusian, Kyrgyz or Uzbek dissident. But the KGB was everywhere. Therefore, unlike many former Soviet republics, Ukraine was able to gradually come to some kind of European values. There is a resistance to the enzyme, but the people are not trained in democracy and have no control over their politicians.

This, incidentally, turned out rather quickly, so, in my opinion, the only way out – a long way to majority elections.

– Where buckwheat is everything?  

– It is everything because of her hand nobody put. Of course, the new laws, withdrawal Institute, etc. needed – need to teach people to control the power, primarily local. Do many Ukrainians need a report from its regional deputies? That’s it. And who offended us?

As for buckwheat, remember the scene in Bishkek Tulip Revolution, when revolutionaries dragged on his back stolen refrigerators and television sets? In Kiev, as it was not … Here, both the Maidan demanding from the authorities not buckwheat, and quite another.

Just people accept defeat very quickly, sitting in the kitchen or in the FB and wailing: again m … Duck elected. And also choose not the best, but they are controlled -and this should be taught in Europe. I know many who are helping with the support of Western partners to build democratic institutions in Ukraine. The vast majority of them work just for money. Some of them are rascals. Unfortunately…

– In 2014, many thought that the Ukrainians are the European political nation. How far along the process, or, conversely, stopped, given the historical memory of the policy, with its cult of new heroes?

– For me, the new heroes – a Heavenly hundreds, not the leaders of the OUN and UPA. And the fact that the memory of the heroes of the new vulgarized, obviously. She vulgarized when stopper criminal cases, which should be called the perpetrators of the massacre. She vulgarized, as the country’s leadership does not want to admit that on the other side, too, were Ukrainians. I know one family in which the boy grew up, the only son, who was “bad” brought – he wanted to be a Ukrainian officer. He was burned at the Maidan. Perhaps one of my daughter’s friends, occasionally throwing Molotov cocktails.

There are many things that we uncouple. But in a situation where the people in the mass hates and despises the power, what kind of love for each other can be said?

– What do you think about decommunisation receiving more and more sophisticated form?

– As a former political prisoner and anti-Soviet, I can not but welcome this process. But in its present form it gives me a feeling of disgust. As lustration, which was clearly organized and controlled from the top and stopped as suddenly as it had begun.

Lustration was illegal and generally meaningless, and it was followed by the same kind of pointless and illegal Decommunization. Autos of the dead will not work, especially when it conducts a marginal rot.

We voted in favor at the time of Kravchuk, and after the KGB has arrested dissidents only after the approval of the Central Committee department of ideology, which he headed. Why not to prosecute? And at the same time and all the deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the group 239, by which the independence was proclaimed.

It is very convenient to demolish monuments, taking responsibility for the past. We are the eternal victim, with a demand for us? “We endlessly criticize Comrade Stalin, and, of course, to work and yet I want to ask. Who wrote denunciations of four million?” – once said Sergei Dovlatov. The question hung in the air. We’ve no sense of responsibility for the acts of their fathers and grandfathers, as in Germany, where the children and grandchildren remember well what difference their loved ones. Where they are – children of the NKVD, the party nomenklatura, which, after all, millions of ordinary people obediently raises his hands at the next party meeting, the stigma of renegades, traitors to the socialist motherland, etc.?

So it is not an ideology we have to sew in the XXI century, and the way of the future.

I am not an enemy of perpetuating the memory of Stepan Bandera, but when acting Health Minister Suprun declares that, taking important decisions, mentally consults with the leader of the OUN, this is in any gate … And apparently, it is something to her counsels, as the results of this tandem we see.

– Donbass, which has become a springboard for the “Russian world”, lost to Ukraine? Or not very much, and we need it?

– Russian is impoverished, it has fewer features include these territories, and Putin, in the end, death. Deliberately or not, but he pulled the plug by their actions many influential people in Russia who stole billions, access to which is every day more and more difficult, given the sanctions. They are used to a different level of personal freedom, where they are, after all, now the rest? On Baikal?

So I believe that sooner or later Ukraine will return to the region. But not the kind of young people who went to the Donbas and already settled in Kiev and other cities. They have made their choice.

Sometimes it occurs to me seditious thought … my camp friends were fighting for the independence of Ukraine, and once the day has come – not because we were sitting at it in the camps. If Donbass really wants to live differently, if it is him and not someone external choice, from a moral point of view, why not think about the idea of ​​independence for these people? This is only one possible solution, but it must be spoken. Apart so apart, we do so and are doing everything to isolate these areas – with the help of the blockade, for example.

– It is clear that the war promotes the division of society into friends and foes, and the formation of a black and white picture of the world. All this of course, but … if we do not turn into “Russia on the contrary”, with its contempt for the private view, the search for their fifth column, and so on?

– I am fully aware that the current president is also seeking to usurp power, but I understand that he is also not released, because, even Kuchma, Ukraine wrote – not Russia. Our man in the street is different from the Russian. There genuinely respected Putin. Here the power is changing, and every new government we do not like, and often despised or hated. And it gives grounds for optimism.

Regarding the split in society, we are thrown into the past and because they do not offer a vision of the future. This also applies to the heroes of the UPA – stranger to a large part of the country, and to the language problem, which is the vast majority of Ukrainians do not consider the problem, but that again raised the shield on …

After the trial, I spent twenty days in a cell with Vasilem Stusom – and it was a luxurious 20 days. From time to time I even forget where I was, plunging into the Ukrainian culture. But we were talking in their own language, and Stus took this quite calmly. With 25 annuals UPA camp communicated in the same way – no one ever said nothing.

I was once again transferred to the new barracks, and that same day I was admitted to the “family” Eugene Prishlyak and Vasil Pidgorodetskim. The first was to arrest referent Security Lviv OUN, the second – a simple fighter in the UPA. Collected in the bedside table meal, we shared equally and ate together. After some time went to Vasil old policeman – a bastard – and said, “Vasil you train a respected man, an old convict, are not you ashamed to Zhydenko eat?” “I have it on s … sent”, – he told me later Vasil.

I am absolutely convinced that the state language is necessary to know, but since independence can not remember a single attempt to create appropriate courses for civil servants. Told me how hard they taught language after work – reading aloud Shevchenko, etc. Ethnic Ukrainians, but completely Russified Soviet reality. Such mockery, with complete indifference of the state, caused the rejection, rather than patriotic feelings.

So let’s publish good books, cooking class teachers – the key to successful language policy. I sometimes have to deal with some of the upper class of pedagogical universities – it’s awful. They academics some of their academies, wealthy people, but are engaged in playing the Soviet zhlobstva.

Ukraine has ruined a lot. When NaUKMA took its first steps, I tried to explain to the rector that it is necessary to keep the schools of mathematicians, theoretical physicists have developed in “mailboxes”, with excellent professionals. It was just necessary to allow these professionals to teach at first in Russian, but … we got rid of high intelligence.

– Who is able to pull the country out of the vicious circle? As long as people do not totally trust the government, naively hopes on the most rabid populists – and we have already passed … Civil society is defeated – or simply lost the battle?

– Civil society must help, rather than push. I am following with great concern for the future of the country in which I live and which I am a part of. I’m afraid that if this continues, the Ukrainian state will be defeated not by external forces, it simply dissolved, as a solid in a liquid. And will Vodicka, sweet or salty – are not so important.

– And what about the resistance enzyme?

– The enzyme resistance – an important condition for independence, but not sufficient.

Build the country – it does not sit in the cooler. We need other skills. When the Soviet Union ended, many former dissidents in Moscow continued to engage in human rights activities. In Ukraine, a number of my colleagues on the Gulag have gone into politics – and what?

It is clear that the government is constantly tosses a bone of contention that we at loggerheads in the past, instead of building the future. And less remembered about the reforms that are needed, as the air, and at the same time painful, so hold on to your seats, the tops are in no hurry to carry them out. A bottoms – bottoms grow, and this is our chance.

Interview by Michael Gold

Sourse, 13/10/2017

72 NGO already have signed the Declaration of Human Rights Agenda platform with the requirement to the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to stop the attack on civil society organizations

September 25, 2017

HUMAN RIGHTS AGENDA

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform demanding the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine stop crack-down on non-governmental organizations

 In early July 2017, the presidential draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 were registered in the Parliament of Ukraine. The draft laws were elaborated allegedly to replace the scandalous amendments to the anti-corruption legislation obliging the anti-corruption activists to annually file personal asset and property electronic declarations (Law of Ukraine No. 1975-VIII of 23 March 2017). The presidential draft laws actually propose to abolish the e-declarations for public anti-corruption activists but to require instead the non-governmental organizations and individual entrepreneurs as well as enterprises, institutions and organizations providing them with services, to file additional reports to tax authorities.

The draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 burden all non-governmental organizations and individual entrepreneurs, enterprises, institutions and organizations that provide them with services with an unjustified obligation to file additional tax reports.

It is revealing that the number of tax reports required from the non-governmental organizations, which these draft laws provide for, significantly exceeds the number of reports required from the business. Moreover, even the recipients of budget funds are not required to file such a number of tax reports.

We believe that these legislative initiatives appeared not by chance, though against the background of statements about the need to reduce excessive state regulation. The punishment in form of the abolition of a non-profit status of non-governmental organization is pronouncedly punitive in nature and is nothing more than the introduction of a tool for selective pressure on the non-governmental organizations indisposed towards the authorities.

We regard the initiative of the President of Ukraine as the disproportionate interference in the activities of the non-governmental organizations. Such steps liken Ukraine to the repressive regimes of the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and others similar. Despite the ostentatious care for transparency and accountability, the regulations introduced in the abovementioned countries led to almost absolute annihilation of the non-governmental organizations which are independent from authorities and total crack-down on civil society.

No international treaties require similar state control over the activities of non-governmental organizations as the international standards endow the non-governmental organizations with the right to be free from state interference in their activities.

The Guidelines on Freedom of Association drafted by the Council of Europe and the OSCE stipulate that “the state shall not require but shall encourage and facilitate associations to be accountable and transparent.” Special reporting is permissible, however, if it is required in exchange for certain benefits, provided it is “within the discretion of the association to decide whether to comply with such reporting requirements or forgo them and forsake any related special benefits, where applicable.”

In consideration of the foregoing, we demand that the Parliament of Ukraine immediately reject the draft laws No. 6674 and No. 6675 of 10 July 2017 and the President of Ukraine fulfill his promise to cancel the amendments to the anti-corruption legislation dated March 2017.

For reference: the Human Rights Agenda platform is the informal coalition of human rights organizations working in the field of monitoring, analyzing and elaborating the legislation in accordance with the basic principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The platform participants are the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, the Center for Civil Liberties, the Amnesty International Ukraine, the Human Rights Information Center, the Center for Law Enforcement Studies, the Without Borders Project of the NGO “Social Action Center” and the Euromaidan SOS. The Center for Civil Liberties coordinates the platform activities. Contacts: human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

  1. Center for Civil Liberties
  2. Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
  3. Kharkiv Institute for Social Researches
  4. Eastern-Ukrainian Center for Civic Initiatives
  5. Charitable Foundation “Vostok SOS”
  6. Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”
  7. Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law Enforcement
  8. NGO “KyivPride”
  9. Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
  10. Open Dialog Foundation
  11. Human Rights Information Center
  12. Crimean Human Rights Group
  13. NGO “Helsinki Initiative XXI”
  14. NGO “Peaceful Coast”
  15. Expert Human Rights Center
  16. NGO “La Strada Ukraine”
  17. Liberation Movement Research Center
  18. Charitable Organisation “Fund of Mercy and Health”
  19. NGO “South”
  20. NGO “Ray of Changes”
  21. Kharkiv Regional Foundation “Public Alternative”
  22. Project “Without Borders”
  23. NGO “Political Studies Association”
  24. NGO “People’s Control of Kirovohrad Region”
  25. Eksampei Center for Ukrainian Policy
  26. NGO “Volunteer Association of Participants of Maidan and Fighting Action”
  27. Charitable Foundation “Dyvosvit Club”
  28. NGO “School of Public Projects”
  29. NGO “Faith. Hope. Action”
  30. NGO “JCI Kyiv”
  31. Educational Human Rights House Chernihiv
  32. NGO “Women’s Prospects Center”
  33. NGO “Zakarpattia Community”
  34. Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Organization “Young Prosvita”
  35. Ternopil Human Rights Group
  36. Human Rights Center “All rights”
  37. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Convictus Ukraine”
  38. Autonomous Bar Association
  39. NGO “MART” (Chernihiv)
  40. Ukrainian Legal Aid Foundation
  41. Information and Awareness Raising Center “Axis” (Vinnytsia)
  42. NGO “Center for Civic Education “Almenda””
  43. Center for Humanistic Technologies “AHALAR”
  44. NGO “Ukrainian Association of Assessment”
  45. NGO “Territory of Success”
  46. T-Woman of Ukraine
  47. NGO “AutoMaidan Kyiv”
  48. NGO “Human Rights Vector”
  49. Bilozerka Center for Regional Development
  50. Center for Law Enforcement Activity Research
  51. Chernihiv Public Committee for Human Rights Protection
  52. NGO “Kyiv Educational Center “Tolerspace””
  53. Human Rights Center “Postup”
  54. NGO “Liberal Democratic League of Ukraine”
  55. Bureau of Social and Political Developments
  56. Center for Legal and Political Studies “DUMA”
  57. Institute of Mass Information
  58. SOVA Group
  59. Media Initiative for Human Rights
  60. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Legalife Ukraine”
  61. NGO “Insight”
  62. Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research
  63. NGO “Informer”
  64. Information and Analytical Center “Public Space”
  65. LGBT Human Rights Center “Our World”
  66. NGO “Bakhmat”
  67. NGO “Development Foundation”
  68. NGO “All-Ukrainian League of Lawyers Against Corruption”
  69. NGO “Kharkiv Women’s Association “Sphere””
  70. NGO “Gender Center of Volyn Region”
  71. NGO “Theatre for Dialogue”
  72. NGO ‘Free Territory’

The statement is open for signature. Please contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Результаты поиска:

Statement of the Human Rights Agenda platform on deprivation of attorneys of the ability to cooperate with human rights organisations

March 7, 2019

In the agenda of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the consideration of the first
reading of a draft law ‘On Legal Practice and Advocacy’ No. 9055 is scheduled for 28
February.
The authors and supporters of the law are striving to prove its progressive nature,
strengthening of guarantees of advocacy and empowerment.
However, should the law be adopted, all attorneys who cooperate with human rights
organisations will be deprived of the opportunity to engage in advocacy activities
within the framework of cooperation with these organisations. Hundreds of cases
which have been filed by lawyers of these organisations with the European Court of
Human Rights, and thousands of court cases in national courts will become only a
reminder of past activities. There will be no one competent to file new applications
with the European Court and national courts on behalf of human rights organisations.
In his expert opinion which contains the analysis of the draft law No. 9055, the
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights Diego Garcia-Sayan stated that the restriction, set
forth in Article 28 of the draft law 9055, could adversely affect the lawyers who would
have to choose between full employment and the work of a human rights defender
which, obviously, would adversely affect an access to justice in the country, in
particular, for individuals with limited financial means. Also, the report provides a
whole number of risks and threats to independent advocacy, such as the procedure
of bringing attorneys to disciplinary responsibility, unfounded types of disciplinary
sanctions that affect the independence of advocacy and, consequently, affect
appropriate defence in court.
Separately, the completely opaque process of work on the draft law is to be
mentioned, and this fact has also been noted in the report by Mr. Diego Garcia-
Sayan. He wrote that consultations with representatives of the legal profession were
very limited in nature, and the final draft law was made public by the office of the
President without the opportunity to comment on its content.
A lack of transparency, marginalisation of the drafting process and introduction of the
draft law, a lack of a high-quality expert examination, for example, by the Venice
Commission, and haste with the attempts to implement this law as soon as possible

in a parliament’s session confirm the poor quality of the preparation process and the
same low-quality content of the draft law itself, which, in its present form, poses a
real threat to the protection of human rights in the human rights protection
environment of Ukraine and can be regarded as a way of attack and exertion of
pressure on the environment.
We hereby urge Members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to prevent the
consideration and adoption of the draft law 9055, as requested in the report by Diego
Garcia-Sayan, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The text of the draft law No.
9055 must be redrafted, discussed publicly and amended, taking into account the
comments made by representatives of the bar community, human rights
organisations, and international experts. We demand transparency, honesty and
high quality. Today, we cannot see these features in the draft law No. 9055.
The Human Rights Agenda platform is an informal coalition of human right organisations focused on systemic
problems of legislation and practices for defending fundamental human rights. The participants of the platform
are as follows: Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, Center for Civil Liberties, Amnesty International
Ukraine, Human Rights Information Center, Centre of Law Enforcement Activities Research (CLEAR), Project
"Without Borders", Euromaidan SOS. The platform is coordinated by the Center for Civil Liberties. You can
contact us at human.rights.agenda.ua@gmail.com

Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union
Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
Center for Civil Liberties
Regional Centre for Human Rights
Open Dialogue Foundation
Humanitarian Studio "Wave
Luhansk Regional Human Rights Center “Alternative”

NGOs call on the HQCJ to refrain from creating artificial obstacles to the establishment of the Public Integrity Council

November 22, 2018

On November 21, 2018, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) announced the results of the consideration of documents of public associations (NGOs) for the establishment of the Public Integrity Council (PIC).

 

The Commission approved a positive decision on the admission of only 2 out of 14 organizations that submitted the documents. The Commission allowed the rest of the organizations to eliminate the shortcomings which, in its opinion, were identified in the relevant documents of the NGOs.

 

Having considered the decisions of the Commission, NGOs have to state that among these alleged shortcomings there are many that are not based on the requirements of the law, do not pursue a legitimate aim and can create artificial obstacles for NGOs’ participation in the PIC establishment.

 

In particular:

 

  • In some cases (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the Commission does not accept the results of a financial audit conducted not within the past two years, whereas the law only requires the availability of an audit report and does not set any time frames for its conduct;
  • In some other cases (Center for Civil Liberties, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform), the HQCJ groundlessly believes that it is only the first persons of international organizations in Ukraine (the OSCE Coordinator in Ukraine, UNDP, etc.) that can make recommendations to NGOs, while the law does not contain such a requirement, and the signatures of officials of international organizations were affixed within their authorities;
  • Position of the HQCJ regarding the recognition of reports based on the financial audit results or audit findings as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements only because these reports were prepared for confidential use and submission to grantors (CRIMEASOS, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform) is unreasonable (the law does not set any requirements for the addressees of the reports and the purpose of their preparation);
  • The HQCJ did not recognize a copy of the report on the project implementation results due to the lack of signature of the person authorized to sign it (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform). However, such a requirement is unfounded since the law requires the provision of a copy rather than the original of the report, and the submitted copy of the report has been duly certified by an authorized person;  
  • The law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” does not require the publication of a declaration of a candidate to the PIC on the NACP’s website, and the HQCJ’s competencies do not cover anti-corruption verification of declarations (including the presence or absence of these declarations on the NACP’s website), while some organizations (Institute of Applied Humanitarian Research) received a reply that the absence of such declarations on the NACP’s website serves as grounds for non-admission.

 

As for documents of other NGOs (Civic Lustration Committee, E+, Nova Krayina, ТОМ14, Centre for Economic Strategy, Centre UA), only the originals of certain documents are required, whereas all the necessary information can be obtained from the duly authenticated photocopies. In some other cases (DEJURE, Nova Krayina), technical errors (incorrect indication of the candidate’s patronymic only in one of the documents or use of the phrase “annual declaration” after “declaration of a candidate for the position of the PIC member”) are considered by the Commission as “grounds for the determination of the submitted documents as not complying with … the law”.

 

We want to emphasize that the requirements of the law on the submission of documents have been established to confirm the experience, real activity and capacity of NGOs to form the PIC. The Commission’s review of these documents should pursue this legitimate aim and should not go beyond its limits.

 

The Commission’s decisions are even more surprising given the fact that 2 years ago the Commission allowed a number of organizations with similar packages of documents to participate in the NGO Meeting on the PIC establishment without any comments. The Commission did not consider the failure to submit proper declarations by the candidates for judicial office at the Anti-Corruption Court and Intellectual Property Court to be a violation and allowed them to take part in the competition to the IP-court.

 

We are concerned that at the beginning of our cooperation with the HQCJ regarding the formation of the second composition of the PIC, we faced this approach. At the same time, the NGOs will make every effort to take into account the wishes of the Commission regarding the execution of documents within a specified period as far as possible.

 

However, if the HQCJ retains this approach to the assessment of documents, there will be a high risk of groundless rejection of experienced and capable NGOs from participation in the Meeting and, as a result, the formation of an incomplete composition, delay, or even the impossibility of establishing the PIC as a form of public participation in the selection and evaluation of judges.

 

Therefore, we call on the HQCJ:

 

  • To carefully reconsider all the packages of documents submitted by the NGOs, including those that will be submitted additionally;
  • To assess the documents submitted by organizations solely on the basis of the requirements of the law, impartially and without groundless formalism;
  • To allow all NGOs whose experience and capability are confirmed by the documents submitted by them to participate in the Meeting;
  • To review the decisions on a number of NGOs (indicated in this statement or otherwise) regarding the recognition of documents as having been submitted in disregard of the requirements of the law, particularly where the law contained no such requirements.

 

Civic Lustration Committee

Initiative E+

Crimea SOS

Nova Kraina

ТОМ 14

DEJURE Foundation

Center for Civil Liberties

Centre for Economic Strategy

Centre of Policy and Legal Reform

Centre UA

Nations in Transit 2018: Confronting Illiberalism

April 11, 2018

Washington, April 12, 2018 — Attacks on opposition parties, the press, and civil society organizations are becoming the norm in Central and Eastern Europe as the spread of illiberal politics undermines the foundations of and prospects for democracy, according to Nations in Transit 2018, the 23rd edition of Freedom House’s annual report on democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Eurasia.

Ukraine’s Democracy Score declined for the first time since the 2014 revolution. With the Russian-led conflict in the east grinding on, Ukraine’s politicians are taking advantage of patriotic sentiment to attack NGOs and journalists, accusing them of undermining the war effort.

“Attacks on civil society and political opponents have sapped the momentum from the institutional reform process in Ukraine,” said Nate Schenkkan, project director of Nations in Transit. “Although decentralization reforms are continuing, other key priorities, including anticorruption efforts, have stalled. The window of opportunity has not closed in Ukraine, but it has shrunk. By accus