Compilation of recommendations based on stakeholder reports by human rights organizations by DHRP

Compilation of recommendations

BASED ON STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORTS BY HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS

UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW OF UKRAINE

This issue is prepared within the framework of the UNDP Civil Society Development Programme and funded by the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs of Denmark. Compilation of recommendations | Based on Stakeholders’ Reports by Human Rights Organizations | Universal Periodic Review. Kyiv. UNDP, 2012. pp. 25 All materials of this brochure maybe reproduced in part or as a whole. Reproduction materials should contain a reference to the UNDP Office in Ukraine. UNDP Office in Ukraine welcomes a broad usage of its information materials by media, national and local authorities, civic organizations, education institutions, etc. The Civil Society Development Programme (CSDP) aims at a strengthened civil society promoting democratic governance. The Programme promotes an open and democratic society founded on the rule of law and based on human rights and governance transparency and accountability both nationally and regionally. The CSDP will ensure that civil society organizations (CSOs) can become stronger, diminish their dependency on the donor community, and enhance citizen participation in policy processes by developing the capacity of CSOs at the regional and local level to effectively address citizens’ needs. CSDP is funded by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and implemented by the UNDP Ukraine during 2009 – 2012. More information on Project’s activities may be viewed at http://csdp. org.ua. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) UNDP partners with people at all levels of society to help build nations that can withstand crisis, and drive and sustain the kind of growth that improves the quality of life for everyone. On the ground in 177 countries and territories, we offer global perspective and local insight to help empower lives and build resilient nations. In Ukraine, three development focus areas define the structure of UNDP’s assistance activities. These include democratic governance and local development; prosperity, poverty reduction and MDGs and energy and environment. In each of these thematic areas, UNDP ensures balance between policy and advocacy work, capacity building activities and pilot projects. UNDP established its presence in Ukraine in 1993 /www.undp.org.ua/.

Address: UNDP in Ukraine 1 Klovsky Uzviz Kyiv 01021 Tel.: +38 (044) 253-93-63 Fax: +38(044) 253-26-07 www.undp.org.ua

Title

TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 Introduction to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process WHAT IS UPR?

HOW DOES THE UPR PROCESS WORK? HOW TO ENGAGE WITH THE UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW? UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW OF UKRAINE

4 4 4 6 7

PART 2 Recommendations of the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations “General Mechanisms for Protection of Human Rights”

Recommendations of the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations “Civil and Political Rights”

Recommendations of the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations “Rights of Women”

Recommendations of the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations “On the State of Rights of the Child”

Recommendations of the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations “Social and Economic Rights”

Recommendations of the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations “Rights of Persons with Disabilities”

Recommendations of the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations “Anti-Discrimination Coalition”

Recommendations of the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations “Right to Peaceful Possession of Property”

Recommendations of the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations “Prevention and Treatment of HIV/AIDS in Ukraine”

Recommendations of an individual submission “Rights of Persons in Custody”

Recommendations of an individual submission “Right to Education”

Recommendations of an individual submission “Environmental Rights”

Recommendations of an individual submission “Rights of Terminally Ill Patients”

PART 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW (UPR) PROCESS WHAT IS UPR? The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is The review should be a cooperative a new and unique human rights mechamechanism, based on an interactive nism of the United Nations which started dialogue, with the full involvement of the in April 2008 and aims at improving the State concerned and with consideration human rights situation on the ground of given its capacity-building needs; such a each of the 193 UN Member States. Unmechanism shall complement and not der this mechanism, the fulfilment by duplicate the work of treaty bodies. each of the UN Member States of their human rights obligations and commitGeneral Assembly Resolution 60/251, ments is reviewed every four and a half 15 March 2006 years. The result of each review is reflected in an “outcome report” listing the recommendations made to the State under review (SuR). SuR can accept or reject the received recommendations and bears responsibility to implement the accepted recommendations within the next four-and-a-half-year period.

HOW DOES THE UPR PROCESS WORK? The UPR evolves around three main stages: 1. Reviewing the country’s human rights situation (A, B and C at the fig. 1) 2. Implementing the recommendations accepted and commitments made by the country during the review (D at the fig. 1) 3. Reporting at the next review on the progress made since the previous review (A,B,C at the fig. 1) A review of a State (stage 1) is based on three documents: √ a national report prepared by the State under review (SuR) in consultation with the civil society stakeholders; √ a compilation of United Nations information on the State under review prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR); √ summary of information submitted by other stakeholder (including civil society actors).

Stakeholders’ Reports-based Recommendation. UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW (UPR)

FIGURE 1. THE UPR PROCESS

A. Preparation of information towards review Includes: • State information, including through broad national consultations (national reports). • Compilation of United Nations Information (prepared by OHCHR). • Summary of Stakeholders’ submission (prepared by OHCHR).

D. Implementation of outcomes: • Responsibility of the State concerned, which is encouraged to conduct broad consultations with all relevant stakeholders. • National or regional United Nations representations to assist States upon their request. • Financial and technical assistance should support national needs and priorities. • Monitoring the progress made since last review by relevant stakeholders • Mid-Term Report by the State half way through the UPR cycle to outline progress.

B. Working Group on the UPR: • Meets in Geneva for three twoweek sessions each year; examines 14 States/session (42 States/year). • Interactive dialogue held with State under review. • Adopts a report containing recommendations, conclusions and voluntary pledges. • Reviewed State indicates at this stage or later.

C. Human Rights Council regular session: • Council considers each outcome document for one hour. • Reviewed States, Council Member and Observer States and other stakeholders are given opportunity to express views before adoption of outcome documents. • Outcome documents adopted by the Council.

The review itself takes place in Geneva at the Human Rights Council session. The review takes the form of a three-and-a-half-hour interactive dialogue between the State under review and other UN member States. Compilation of recommendations

HOW TO ENGAGE WITH THE UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW? The UPR is based on the participation of States. A full and active participation of the highest number of States is crucial to the effectiveness of the mechanism as States are both judges and judged in this process. States therefore have an important role to play, either when under review or when reviewing others. When reviewing the others States can: • Advance written questions 10 days before the review States can submit questions to the State under Review through first the troika and then the Secretariat of the Human Rights Council (HRC) ten working days before the review date. • Participate actively in the interactive dialogue and make concrete recommendations to the SuR Out of the three-and-a-half-hour interactive dialogue between the SuR and United Nations member States two hours are allocated to the latter. Members of the HRC have 3 minutes each and non-members 2 minutes, thus allowing generally for 45 States to take the floor. If there is a higher number of States interested in participating, HRC members might see their time reduced to 2 minutes. To enroll on the list of speakers for a given review, States must register at the HRC Secretariat the day before the review.

18 January 2012

February 2012

March 2012

Kick-off seminar for relevant stakeholders on preparation for the Universal Periodic Review

Training Seminar for CSOs on UPR advocacy practices

National Consultations on the first draft of the National Report for UPR between the Government and civil society organizations

September 2011

February 2012

March 2012

Study tour of human rights CSOs and Ministry of Justice representative to UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights / Geneva, Switzerland/

Interagency Working Group on the Preparation of National Report for UPR established (chaired by the Ministry of Justice)

Ministry of Justice of Ukraine presents Internet page on the Ministry’s web site dedicated to UPR

Stakeholders’ Reports-based Recommendation. UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW (UPR)

States are free to praise the SuR human rights policies, ask questions, raise concerns and make recommendations. However, in order to assess, at the next review four and a half years later, to which extent the SuR has implemented human rights, States are encouraged to make recommendations to the SuR.

UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW OF UKRAINE Ukraine was one of the first countries which underwent its Universal Periodic Review back in 2008. As a result of the 2008 UPR the Government of Ukraine accepted 32 and rejected 3 recommendations. 2012 marks the second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) for Ukraine to be reviewed at the 13th session of the Human Rights Council on 1 November 2012. Unlike the first cycle of UPR review when the mechanism was still novice to the Government and civil society alike, the second review has already enjoyed a significant advancement in preparation dynamics and the quality of prepared materials. Below is a timeframe of major developments in 2012 UPR Ukraine preparation activities:

23 April submission of Stakeholdersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Reports

1 November 2012 UPR of Ukraine

May 2012

June 2012

Presentation of CSOs recommendations to Ukraineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Diplomatic Corps

National Consultations on the second draft of the National Report for UPR between the Government and civil society organizations

March-April 2012

May 2012

Thematic working meetings between respective governmental agencies and representatives of human rights organizations

Study tour for government and CSO representatives to Geneva to observe the UPR of Poland and the Netherlands (13th session of the HRC)

23 July submission of the National Report

Compilation of recommendations

PART 2

The views and recommendations expressed in this brochure are those of the respective civil society organizations and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Development Programme or other UN agencies. Recommendations, compiled in this issue, emanate from the Stakeholders’ Reports, prepared for Universal Periodic Review of Ukraine in November 2012 and devised by both coalitions of human rights organization and individual civil society actors.

Recommendations of the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations

“General Mechanisms for Protection of Human Rights”

Issue 1. Pursuant to the Conclusion by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of 11 July 2001, certain provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court were ruled contradicting the Constitution. Recommendation 1. Duly amend the Constitution of Ukraine and legislation, and ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Issue 2. Non-recorded apprehension and detention of persons without any communication with the outside world for hours or days is widespread in Ukraine. Recommendation 2. Ratify the UN Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Issue 3. In 2010-2012, the practice of selective persecution of political opponents and civil and human rights activists became widespread. Recommendation 3. Stop the practice of selective persecution and ensure fair trial for persons being persecuted conforming to the standards as under Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Enable appealing court sentences by those convicted as a result of selective persecution. Issue 4. There is no national legal mechanism for implementation of recommendations by UN bodies, including decisions produced following examination of individual appeals to UN human rights bodies. Recommendation 4. Design a relevant national mechanism for implementation of recommendations by the UN and other international organisations’ bodies, inter alia, enforcement of UN bodies’ decisions produced in regard to individual appeals which leads to the revision of national court decisions. Contact Information of the Coalition Coordinator: Mr. Volodymyr Yavorskyy Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, 36 Olehivska St., Office 309, Kyiv 04071 Tel./Fax: +38 (044) 417-41-18, E-mail: yavorskyy@helsinki.org.ua 8

Stakeholders’ Reports-based Recommendation. UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW (UPR)

Recommendations of the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations

“Civil and Political Rights”

Issue 1. In most cases of investigation into death of persons in detention facilities, including cases which result from the use of lethal force by law enforcement, initial inquiry is conducted by the body involved (administration of the detention facility where death occurred, or an investigating body of the Ministry of the Interior, State Security Service, etc., whose officers allegedly used lethal force), which collects evidence of their officers’ guilt or innocence. It is only afterwards that the mentioned evidence is handed over to the Prosecutor’s Office. Hence, the Prosecutor’s Office decides on whether to initiate criminal proceedings or dismiss the case which is based exclusively on evidence gathered by the authority involved, which is not an independent one. Recommendation 1. Establish an independent body for investigation of deaths in custody, as well as of deaths caused by use of lethal force by law enforcement. Issue 2. As of present, Ukraine has no independent mechanism for investigation of instances of torture. The only body empowered under Ukrainian laws to investigate claims of ill-treatment by officers of law enforcement agencies is the Prosecutor’s Office. However, the Prosecutor’s Office is incapable of conducting investigation of ill-treatment complaints in the efficient manner due to its double responsibility: on the one hand, it is responsible for review of legitimacy police actions, while on the other hand, it represents the prosecution in courts, and, therefore, has close association with police officers. Recommendation 2. Establish a body for conducting efficient investigations of alleged cases of torture by officers of law enforcement agencies independent from the Ministry of the Interior and the Prosecutor’s Office. Issue 3. A court practice of pleading guilty in the absence of a lawyer as a result of violence or under coercion favours the use of torture by law enforcement officers as a means of inquiry and investigation. The legislation does not provide for a procedure of dismissal of such evidence. Recommendation 3. Introduce into the legislation of Ukraine provision which disable pleading guilty under pressure/coercion and in the absence of a lawyer, as well as for a procedure of dismissal of such evidence. Contact Information of the Coalition Coordinator: Ms. Yana Zayikina Kharkiv Human Rights Group, 27 Ivanova St., Apt. 6-8, Kharkiv 61002 Tel./Fax: +38 (057) 700-67-72, E-mail: yana.zaikina@gmail.com Compilation of recommendations

Recommendations of the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations

“Rights of Women”

Issue 1. The scale and the urgent nature of the issue of violence against women in Ukraine, including domestic violence, requires that the national legislation be amended and practices be changed in accordance with international standards. This will contribute to establishing a coherent system for providing assistance to the persons affected and dealing with offenders. Recommendation 1. Ratify the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, having preliminarily introduced comprehensive amendments to the national legislation. Issue 2. Assistance to victims of human trafficking is provided mostly by civic and international organisations. Approval of standards in this domain will guarantee that each person affected will be able to receive a minimum package of necessary services. Such services may be also delivered by civic organisations at the commission of the government, in accordance with the set standards. Compliance with the standards may be one of requirements to be met by civic organisations under the public procurement process. Recommendation 2. Adopt state standards in respect of providing services and organising preventive activities in the field of combating trafficking in persons and family violence drafted in cooperation with civic and international organisations. Issue 3. Gender discrimination is a pressing issue in Ukraine. It is manifested through discriminatory statements by high-profile officials, display of naked female body in advertisement, bylaws issued by ministries and public agencies, etc. At the same time, there are no workable mechanisms for addressing such facts. Recommendation 3. Design and implement effective mechanisms (judicial and extrajudicial) for lodging complaints against gender discrimination Contact Information of the Coalition Coordinator: Ms. Liudmyla Kovalchuk International Women’s Rights Centre «La Strada Ukraine» P.O. Box 26, Kyiv 03113 Tel.: +38 (044) 205-36-95 E-mail: L.Kovalchuk@la-strada.org.ua

Stakeholders’ Reports-based Recommendation. UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW (UPR)

Recommendations of the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations

â&#x20AC;&#x153;On the State of Rights of the Childâ&#x20AC;?

Issue 1. In Ukraine, residential schooling is still a prevailing response to the problem of parenting orphans and children deprived of parental care. Children with disabilities in most cases are also offered to be placed to boarding schools to obtain education or due to impossibility of obtaining social and rehabilitation assistance at residence. Recently, rising numbers of children from low-income families were being sent to boarding schools, which contributes to the increase in social orphanhood. Removal of a child from his or her family is, in fact, the only way of helping such child in a crisis situation. Activities that target families and are aimed at their preservation and support are conducted at a very limited scale. Within past 2 years the number of adoptions decreased almost twofold, the main reason for this being the liquidation of the State Department for Adoption and Protection of Rights of the Child, protraction of court cases, adjourning trials, and obstruction of justice. There are accounts of complaints lodged by adoptive parents in respect of instances of corruption in the process of adoption. Recommendation 2. Draft and approve a strategy for action in the field of provision of comprehensive support to families raising children and prevention of institutionalisation of children. Contribute to decreasing the number of children sent to boarding schools. Issue 2. A procedure for estimation of age of a child seeking asylum in Ukraine has not been developed and adopted yet. According to non-governmental organisations, currently, 21 children separated from their families are being held at temporary holding facilities for illegal aliens and stateless persons. They are held at the mentioned facilities by virtue of the unlawful court decision and the estimation of age approving that all those persons were adults. Recommendation 2. Draft a procedure for estimation of age of unaccompanied children staying in Ukraine, and provide for exercise of their right to education. Issue 3. Due to the absence of a specialised juvenile justice system providing for availability of juvenile judges, attorneys, and judicial mentors, children are being held for months in pre-trial detention facilities awaiting trial of their cases, losing social contacts, interrupting education, and gaining criminal experience. When contacting law enforcement authorities, children are subjected to ill-treatment, which is especially true for children in at-risk groups. Dependent status of children, pressure over children by officers of law enforcement bodies complicate the attempts to restore rights of the child, and make it impossible for children to file complaints regarding violations committed by the police.

Compilation of recommendations

Recommendation 3. Establish a child-friendly judicial system. Provide for comprehensive protection of rights and interests of children in contact with the law. Contact Information of the Coalition Coordinator: Ms.Mariya Yasenovska Kharkiv Regional Foundation «Public Alternative» 72/48 Lenin prospect, Kharkiv 61103 Tel.: +38 (044) 402-34-56 Е-mail: public.alternative@gmail.com

Stakeholders’ Reports-based Recommendation. UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW (UPR)

Recommendations of the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Social and Economic Rightsâ&#x20AC;?

Issue 1. While the living standards in Ukraine continue to degrade, poverty remains a pressing issue for many people. In fact, each fourth Ukrainian is unable to earn his/her own living, to say nothing about his/her family members, as almost every second family with three and more children lives below the poverty threshold. Between 2010 and late August 2011, Ukraine had no strategy or programme for combating poverty at all. Such National Target-Oriented Programme for Combating and Prevention of Poverty was approved only on 31 August 2011. Recommendation 1. Ensure implementation of the National Target-Oriented Programme for Combating and Prevention of Poverty. Inter alia, reduce high unemployment rate, in particular amongst the most vulnerable groups, especially the young, people of pre-retirement age, and handicapped persons; increase the share of wages in the GDP and the production costs; take steps aiming to increase wages, especially those of persons employed by government-funded institutions; take measures to provide for affordability of housing, prevent arbitrary eviction, etc. Issue 2. In Ukraine, there is no efficient social security system serving the lowest-income categories of people. Overall, the right to benefits is subject to more than 50 regulations that are constantly being amended and increased in number. The number of individuals entitled to benefits on social grounds amounted to 13 million, and to about 3.2 million on professional grounds. In fact, the system of benefits is not being effectively reformed on the basis of social justice. Instead, there is no well-thought-out state policy in the field of social security. The amount of funds allocated by the government to meet its social security commitments is insufficient, thus, benefit-related expenditures remain underfunded quite often. Recommendation 2. Reform the system of social benefits, by differentiating between the regulations which envisage social and economic rights and those providing for some benefits by occupying certain posts or being entitled to certain merits. Discontinue the practice of defiance of regulations that guarantee the exercise of social and economic rights, and offer funding to ensure compliance with social and economic rights as enshrined by law. Issue 3. Numerous amendments introduced to Ukrainian legislation with a view to harmonising it with the ratified UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities do not, however, succeed in fostering profound change in attitude to citizens with disabilities as to members of

Compilation of recommendations

the public in their own right, providing for their priority engagement to public life, prevention of segregation and removal of limitations on full exercise of legal capacity. Having no sufficient resources for meeting all commitments to persons with disabilities under the UN Convention at present, the government has not yet produced a vision for prospects of implementation of basic safeguards such as engagement of persons with disabilities to community life, prevention of discrimination in economic, social and political spheres and others. Recommendation 3. Adopt and ensure implementation (including in respect of appropriate funding) of the National Action Plan for Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Clearly define government’s priorities with regard to gradual fulfilment of obligations to persons with disabilities under the ratified UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and introduce mechanisms for prevention of segregation of persons with disabilities in all domains and their discrimination in economic, social and political spheres, including those aimed at deinstitutionalisation and involvement into social life. Contact Information of the Coalition Coordinator: Mr. Maksym Shcherbatyuk Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union 36 Olehivska St., Room 309 Kyiv 04071 Tel./Fax: +38 (044) 417-41-18 Е-mail: shcherbatuc@helsinki.org.ua

Stakeholders’ Reports-based Recommendation. UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW (UPR)

Recommendations of the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Rights of People with Disabilitiesâ&#x20AC;?

Issue 1. Rights of Children with Disabilities. After the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities a number of legislative acts were adopted which provide for implementation of inclusive education, while children with disabilities still remain isolated. The existing system of education ignores individual needs, and fails to ensure reasonable accommodation and architectural accessibility. Educational materials for children with hearing and eyesight impairments are scarce, with no educational programs for children with developmental needs; training of teachers for work in an inclusive environment is still very basic. Services for children with disabilities do not comply with international quality standards which results in placement of these children into boarding schools for children with disabilities. This aggravates the institutionalization policy. Recommendation 1. Ensure effective planning and budgeting in the area of education of people with disabilities to guarantee implementation of inclusive education; include in the instructorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; curricular courses on disability issues;; ensure architectural accessibility of the educational institutions; develop and implement a system of policy monitoring and evaluation in the area of education of people with disabilities; ensure development and provision of services for children with disabilities according to international standards. Issue 2. Rights of Women with Disabilities Women with disabilities are denied the full exercise of their rights if compared with men and other women, especially in the area of healthcare. Recommendation 2. Ensure equal rights of women with disabilities to healthcare. To ensure accessibility of pre-natal clinics, including family planning services. Improve the system of training of healthcare specialists to develop their capacity to work with issues of reproductive health among women with disabilities. Issue 3. The Right to Housing and Access to Social Infrastructure Realization of the right to housing and access to social infrastructure facilities by people with disabilities has discriminatory features. The state system of ensuring architectural accessibility is gravely ineffective. According to the public monitoring conducted by CSOs, the prevailing majority of newly built facilities are architecturally inaccessible, violating the state construction norms and current legislation. Implementation of the State Program on Ensuring the Right of People with Disabilities to use public transport system in Ukraine faces serious challenges.

Compilation of recommendations

Recommendation 3. Adopt the “Universal Design” principles as an underlying strategy to ensure full-fledged civic rights and independent living of people with disabilities, as stipulated by the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities and the Council of Europe Action Plan to promote the rights and full participation of people with disabilities in society: improving the quality of life of people with disabilities in Europe 2006-2015 (Recommendation CM/ Rec (2006)5; Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)8 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on achieving full participation through Universal Design). Establish a system of effective state level control over observance of the governmental standards in the area of architectural, transport, and informational accessibility by people with disabilities. Organisation’s Contact Information Ms. Larysa Bayda National Assembly of People with Disabilities of Ukraine 8/5 Reitarska St., Office 110, Kyiv, Ukraine Tel./Fax: +38 (044) 279-61-82 Е-mail: office@naiu.org.ua

Stakeholders’ Reports-based Recommendation. UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW (UPR)

Recommendations of the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations

“Anti-Discrimination Coalition”

Issue 1 Despite many previous recommendations from treaty bodies, including recommendations received and accepted by Ukraine within first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review, no changes were introduced into Ukrainian legal system to effectively ban discrimination and create protection mechanisms for victims of discriminatory acts and practices. Instead Ukrainian authorities continue to refuse to acknowledge existing problems and in some case even implore discriminatory practices themselves. Recommendation 1. Reform relevant parts of the Ukrainian legislation to ensure access to redress for victims of all kinds of discrimination. In particular in consultations with civil society organizations and relevant experts: • develop a comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation that would contain precise definition of discrimination, it’s clear interpretation and standards of identification; • define basic concepts needed, such as: «discrimination», «direct discrimination», «indirect discrimination», «positive anti-discrimination measures», «victimization», «persecution», etc.; • include comprehensive list of protected characteristics into the law, including sexual orientation and gender identity as explicitly defined protected grounds; • stipulate basic standards and principles for proving discrimination. Recommendation 2. Adopt the anti-discrimination Law that fulfil the state’s duty to undertake positive measures on prevention of discrimination, compensation for damages linked with discrimination, as well as impose proportionate sanctions for infringements of antidiscrimination norms. These sanctions should allow for compensation to victims of discrimination. The State must ensure access to the courts for all victims of discrimination, including legal assistance. Recommendation 3. Establish institutional framework necessary for effective implementation of anti-discrimination legislation and policy with the functions to: state policy implementation; monitoring and public reporting; coordination of the work of other state actors; investigation participation; victims’ assistance and redress; education on discrimination prevention for state actors (police, prosecutors, judges, etc.) Contact Information of the Coalition Coordinator: Irene Fedorovych, “No Borders” Project, Social Action Centre Tel./Fax: +38 (044) 254 58 88, Cell: +38 097 509 40 62 E-mail: fedorovych@noborders.org.ua Compilation of recommendations

Recommendations of the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations

“Right to Peaceful Possession of Property”

Issue 1. There are lasting systemic issues in the field of establishment of a unified system of state registration of immovable property rights. Until present, the system for registration of immovable property rights does not guarantee the ownership rights per se, it just suggests that interested persons check copies of documents and make their own conclusions as to validity of relevant rights in property. The variety of agencies responsible for keeping different registers where data on such rights are recorded only aggravates the problem of the ownership right being de facto unprotected. Recommendation 1. Establish a transparent and efficient system for state registration of ownership rights in immovable property. Inter alia, improve protection of land title owners’ rights, establish mechanisms for prevention of forced seizure of land, adopt laws regulating key aspects of the functioning of the land market. Issue 2. Failure to enforce rulings adopted by national courts aiming at protecting the ownership right is a problem. Failure to efficiently enforce such decisions entails incapability of the state to ensure protection of the right to property and the ability of any owner to protect his/her right to own, use and dispose of his/her property. Despite the fact that a broad regulatory framework is in place, the issue of finalising the process of protection of violated rights has not yet been properly addressed and currently retains its urgency, as, according to statistics, about 60-70% of decisions by national courts in civil and administrative matters have not been enforced. The existence of such issue is acknowledged by the European Court of Human Rights, which recognised the issue as a systemic one and introduced the procedure for a pilot decision in the case «Yuriy Mykolayovych Ivanov against Ukraine» with specific regard to non-enforcement of national court decisions. The issue of failure to enforce court decisions is especially relevant to the cases where defendant is the government. Recommendation 2. Take steps to address the issue of failure to enforce national court decisions protecting property, including by improving judicial control over enforcement of court decisions, and discontinue moratoriums on forced sale of state companies’ property. In addition, take other steps to enforce the pilot decision adopted by the European Court of Human Rights in the case «Yuriy Mykolayovych Ivanov against Ukraine». Contact Information of the Coalition Coordinator: Mr. Maksym Shcherbatyuk Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union 36 Olehivska St., Office 309, Kyiv 04071 Tel./Fax: +38 (044) 417-41-18, Е-mail: shcherbatuc@helsinki.org.ua 18

Stakeholders’ Reports-based Recommendation. UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW (UPR)

Recommendations of the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations

“Prevention and Treatment of HIV/AIDS in Ukraine”

Issue 1. The provision on criminal responsibility for wilful exposing of another person to risk of contracting and/or infection with HIV, when HIV positive person is «obliged to testify in writing the fact of receipt of the said information». Signing such form is highly stigmatising and may demotivate people from taking HIV tests. Recommendation 1. Remove from the Penal Code of Ukraine the provision on criminal responsibility for wilful exposing of another person to risk of contracting and/or infection with HIV. Focus the law on the right to obtain post-test consultancy and other support in order to prevent further transmission of the virus, and protection from discrimination and other negative consequences entailed by disclosure of the HIV status. Issue 2. In pre-trial detention facilities, re-examination by the medical and social expert commission (MSEC) is performed extremely rarely, while the procedure for assessment of degree of disability is not applied at all. Pensions are not paid to persons who were assigned a disability category in healthcare facilities of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine (SPS); pensions are allocated upon their release and coming in touch with the social security bodies (joint order by the Ministry of Public Health of Ukraine and the State Department of Ukraine for Corrections no. 79/91 «On approval of instructions on procedure for examination by MSEC of disabled persons serving their sentences in correctional facilities») Recommendation 2. Amend the regulations applicable to social guarantees, inducing those providing for the right to obtain pensions or social assistance of persons who were assigned a disability category at pre-trial detention facilities or in prisons. Include the fourth clinical stage of HIV to the list of diseases entitling the individual affected to a disability category. Issue 3. In case of decreasing criminalisation of drug addicts, funds spent on investigation, trial, and holding of addicts in custody may be used for addressing urgent social issues, including treatment and prevention of addiction to drugs, which, in turn, will contribute to preventing the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Ukraine. Irrespective of the relevant provisions of the Nationwide Programme for Prevention of HIV/ AIDS, currently the number of patients undergoing substitution maintenance therapy is twice less than prescribed by law. Numerous injecting drug users, being deprived of the opportunity to receive this efficient treatment, are forced to stay in the criminal environment, while the efficiency of steps targeting prevention of HIV/AIDS and treatment of drug addiction is still low.

Compilation of recommendations

Recommendation 3. Revise the «drug amount tables» with regard to adequacy of social danger of acts relating to possession of drugs for personal use. Ensure an effectively continuity of substitution maintenance therapy in cases where a patient cannot attend a hospital (in cases of disease, admission to unrelated medical institutions, detention or imprisonment etc.) Ensure patient’s access of to substitution maintenance therapy medicine on prescription. Contact Information of the Coalition Coordinator: Ms. Olha Belyaeva The Association of Substitution Treatment Advocates of Ukraine 3 Furmanova St., Office 44, Dnipropetrovsk 49005 Cell: +38-067-636-93-08 Tel./Fax: +38-0562-47-05-11 E-mail: zpt.ukraine@gmail.com

Stakeholders’ Reports-based Recommendation. UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW (UPR)

Recommendations of an individual submission

“Rights of Persons in Custody”

Issue 1. In Ukraine, more than 150,000 people are held in custody, which makes 338 persons per one hundred thousand. This is 3-4 times more than in Western European countries. Numerous issues related to human rights in custody, including inappropriate conditions of detention, result from the high number of inmates. A decrease in their numbers in 2001-2008 was followed by a growth reported in next three years. There is no state programme targeting a considerable decrease in the size of the prison population. Recommendation 1. Adopt a state programme targeting a considerable decrease in the size of the prison population providing for clear performance indicators, take steps to holding accountable officials responsible for holding persons in custody for excessively long time periods. Issue 2. Various situations of conflict in custody, including instances of ill-treatment, do not decrease in number, while those who violate human rights avoid responsibility. The key factor for this is the absence of a mechanism for filing complaints by inmates and their processing, as well as de facto censoring the outgoing correspondence. Within a year, the central agency receives 2-4 complaints of inmates that prove true. The confidentiality of appeals addressed by convicts to court does not exist. Impossibility to appeal against acts by the administration aggravates tensions in detention facilities between inmates, multiplies eventual conflicts and human rights violations, and hampers their resolution. Recommendation 2. Establish and effectively implement an efficient mechanism for submission of and processing complaints. Provide for a reliable procedure of sending mail by convicts. Introduce regulations for ensuring confidentiality of appeals filed by inmates with courts. Issue 3. There is no public control over compliance with human rights of inmates in Ukraine. In fact, the public has not at its disposal any procedures prescribed by law for monitoring compliance with human rights in prison. The State penitentiary service recognises the existence of the problem; however, the government did nothing to introduce independent inspections for detention facilities. Recommendation 3. Establish independent inspection mechanisms of control over compliance with human rights of the activities by police and penitentiary institutions; prescribe, under respective laws, their establishment, scope of competencies, and operation procedures. Contact Information of the Coalition Coordinator: Mr. Oleksandr Bukalov, Donetsk Memorial P.O. Box 4836, Donetsk 83092, Tel./Fax: + 38 (062) 304-1471б; Cell: + 38-099-709-5679 Е-mail: bukalov@pisem.net Compilation of recommendations

Recommendations of an individual submission

“Right to Education”

Issue 1. Equal access to secondary education in Ukraine is a considerable problem. The government does not conduct proper analysis of causes of this problem and does not address it appropriately. To date, official statistical data on the number of school age children who did not attend secondary schools in 2011/2012, and reasons for that are not available. The data on coverage by high schools of children of Roma origin, refugees and asylum seekers, children from distressed families or families below poverty threshold etc. are not being gathered, and the issue is not being addressed. Recommendation 1. Collect disaggregated data (including on children with disabilities, of Roma origin, refugees and asylum seekers and other children from particularly disadvantaged groups) as regards secondary school coverage of children of school age; provide for a clear and efficient system for addressing the situation of school age children who are not covered by the secondary education system. Issue 2. So-called «optimisation» of general secondary education schools raises concern. In fact, a large number of schools are being shut down. This especially complicates the access to education of children who live in rural areas. Recommendation 2. Stop the process of reducing the number of general secondary education schools;, develop a plan for increasing operation efficiency of schools attended by small numbers of students, and ensure that such schools are staffed with relevant specialists and teachers. Issue 3. There is no continuous system of human rights education. Having joined the World Programme for Human Rights Education, the government, at the same time, failed to produce a National Action Plan for Human Rights Education being one of key requirements of the World Programme’s Action Plan. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child also urges to adopt such a plan. Recommendation 3. Draft a National Action Plan for Human Rights Education as per requirements by the World Programme for Human Rights Education, having provided for a broad public discussion of this process. Contact Information of the Coalition Coordinator: Mr. Serhiy Burov Chernihiv City Youth Public Organization «Youth alternative» (M`ART) 6 Myru Prospect, Office 15, Chernihiv 14000 Tel.: +38 (0462) 77 41 10, Е-mail: mart.ngo@googlemail.com 22

Stakeholders’ Reports-based Recommendation. UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW (UPR)

Recommendations of an individual submission

“Environmental Rights”

Issue 1. Meetings of the Parties under the Aarhus Convention repeatedly took note of non-compliance of Ukraine with its provisions as follows: a strategy for implementing the Convention was not drafted, the legislation and judicial practice were not harmonised with its provisions, and clear procedures for participation of the public in decision-making, as well as the Convention implementation mechanisms were not provided for. Recommendation 1. Meet the recommendations made by the Meetings of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention: Draft a Strategy for implementation thereof, having provided for a clear procedure for participation of the public in decision-making, and practice-focused mechanisms of application of the Convention. Harmonise the legislation with the Aarhus Convention provisions. Issue 2. Ukraine, having ratified the Espoo Convention in 1999, has not yet ratified its Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Hence, the very concept of SEA has not yet been formulated in the national legislation, while the procedures for conducting it are yet to be defined. On this account, the Meetings of the Parties to the Espoo Convention expressed criticism over these acts by the Government of Ukraine in the process of implementation of projects that affect the environment in the trans-border context and require conducting SEA, such as: construction of the Danube-Black Sea canal, and completing construction of the units 3-4 of the Khmelnytska nuclear power plant. Recommendation 2. Ratify the Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment to the Espoo Convention; introduce its provisions to the national legislation. Issue 3. In recent years, Ukrainian legislation have been amended the way to undermine the institute of the state environmental assessment, as well as to limit the opportunities for exercise of the citizens’ right to participation in environment-related decision-making. For instance, the Law «On Regulation of Bridge Building», adopted in 2011, drastically limited the number of grounds for performing environmental assessment of bridge construction documents and building projects, thus having devalued the provisions of the Laws «On Protection of the Environment» and «On Environmental Assessment». The mentioned law has also curtailed rights of citizens to take part in discussion of decisions [made] in the course of building planning and development.

Compilation of recommendations

Recommendation 3. Amend the laws «On Environmental Assessment», «On Regulation of Urban Planning», the Land, the Forest and the Water Codes of Ukraine so as to harmonise them with the international environmental conventions; restore the concept of environmental assessment, evaluation of impact on the environment; introduce safeguards for the rights of citizens to access information and contribute to decision-making relating to the environment, planning and building development. Organisation’s Contact Information: Mr. Oleksandr Stepanenko «Zelenyy Svit» Environmental and Humanitarian Association P.O.Box 12, Chortkiv 48500, Ternopil oblast, Ukraine E-mail: stepanenko.olexandr@gmail.com Tel.: +38-067-35-48-186; +38-050-83-29-599

Stakeholders’ Reports-based Recommendation. UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW (UPR)

Recommendations of an individual submission

“Rights of Terminally Ill Patients”

Issue 1. Violation of rights of terminally ill patients: 1. Absence of a defined governmental policy for development of palliative care. 2. Lack of access to or non-availability of efficient, safe, and affordable medication for palliative patients. 3. A burdensome system for prescription of opioid analgesics to patients in need of pain relief. Recommendation 1. Provide for availability of morphine in oral (tablet) form in the pharmaceutical market of Ukraine. Amend the current Ukraine’s regulations so as to facilitate the procedure for prescription of opioid analgesics to patients with chronic pain syndrome and enable prescription thereof in a sufficient amount to provide for continued pain relief (two-week stock). Simplify the system for issuance of licenses for trade in narcotic pharmaceuticals to medical institutions. Consider introducing dual (concurrent) medical licenses enabling practicing medicine along with operation in the field of trade in narcotic drugs (purchasing, storage, prescription) to be issued to both legal entities and individual entrepreneurs. Issue 2. Violation of the right to access to substitution maintenance therapy (SMT) programmes: 1. Limiting the number of SMT clients on the regional basis, which does not comply with the goal of minimizing the harm from abuse of injection drugs and preventing the spread of HIV. 2. Barriers to SMT clients such as: restriction of mobility, and restriction of opportunity to be treated at medical establishments of a patient’s choice. Recommendation 2. Increase the quota for clients of substitution maintenance therapy programmes with regard to eventual number of injection drug users in Ukraine’s regions and the recommendations by WHO/UNAIDS/United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Provide for continuity of substitution maintenance therapy administered to patients in case of hospitalization (planned or urgent) in medical institutions in all regions of Ukraine. Provide for the availability to clients of SMT programmes of SMT-related medical supplies on prescription throughout Ukraine. Organisation’s Contact Information Mr. Andriy Rokhanskyy Legal Analytics and Strategies Institute 27 Ivanova St., Apt. 6, Kharkiv 61002 Tel.: +38 (057) 700-6772 E-mail: andrewrakhan@gmail.com Compilation of recommendations

Stakeholdersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Reports-based Recommendation. UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW (UPR)

Reference materials: 1. A Practical Guide for Civil Society. UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2011 2. Your Rights. Right Now. A Plain English Guide to the Universal Periodic Review, Irish Council for Civil Liberties; 3. The Universal Periodic Review â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Handbook, FIDH Delegation to the UN, 2009; 4. Working with the United Nations Human Rights Programme. A Handbook for Civil Society, New York Geneva, 2008.

UNDP in Ukraine 1 Klovsky Uzviz Kyiv, 01021, Ukraine Tel.: +38 (044) 253-93-63 Fax: +38 (044) 253-26-07 www.undp.org.ua