Report Summary INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW (UPR) MECHANISM (THIRD CYCLE – MID-TERM) 2015 prepared by THE COALITION OF UKRAINIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS ON PREPARATION TO THE UPR (“UPR COALITION”)
This publication is the result of a joint work of the Coalition of human rights organizations on preparation to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), as well as individual experts. This publication is prepared within the framework of UNDP’s “Democratization, Human Rights and Civil Society Development in Ukraine” project with financial support from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs o Denmark. Views, expressed in this publication are those of the author/s of this publication and do not reflect the official position of the Government of Denmark, United Nations Development Programme or other UN agencies. UPR Interim Reporting.Stakeholder’s report of human rights organizations. Summary overview Contributors: The Coalition of Ukrainian Human Rights Organizations on Preparation to the UPR: Alekseyenko Maria, “The Right to Protection” All-Ukrainian Organization Anoshkina Olha, Dvoretska Oleksandra – “Vostok-S.O.S.” Charitable Foundation BaidaLarysa, “National Assembly of People with Disabilities” All-Ukrainian Civic Association BorozdinaKateryna, “La Strada Ukraine” International Women’s Human Rights Center BukalovOleksandr, “Donetsk Memorial” civic association Dudnik Inga, “Territory of Success” civic association FedorovychIryna, Coalition on Anti-Discrimination in Ukraine KovalchukLiudmyla, “La Strada Ukraine” International Women’s Human Rights Center Kravchenko Raisa, “The Coalition on Rights Protection of People with Mental Disabilities” All-Ukrainian civic association Kuybida Roman, Center of Political and Legal Reforms LehenkaMaryna, “La Strada Ukraine” International Women’s Human Rights Center LevchenkoKateryna, “La Strada Ukraine” International Women’s Human Rights Center Mamutov Suleiman, “The Right to Protection” All-Ukrainian Organization Martynenko Oleg, Center of Law Enforcement Activities Research MatviychukOleksandra, Center for Civil Liberties MisiatsVitaliy, “All-Ukrainian Coalition on Legal Aid Provision” Charitable Organization SavchukVictoria, “CrimeaS.O.S” civilinitiative SayenkoAnna, “LaStradaUkraine” InternationalWomen’sHumanRightsCenter SvirydovaDaria, “Almenda” CivicEducationCenter ShcherbatiukMaksym, Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union VasinMaksym, “Institute of Religious Freedon” civic association VynohradovaOlena, “The Right to Protection” All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization Yasenovska Maria, “The Right of a Child in Ukraine” coalition ZakharovYevhen, Kharkiv Human Rights Group Editors: Kolyshko Svitlana, Romanyuk Vasyl, Shcherbinina Yuliya
2
Title
Table of Contents І. Introduction
ІІ. Evaluation of human rights protection status in Ukraine 1. Evaluation of human rights protection status in the spheres receiving recommendations within 2012 UPR 1.1. Rule of Law 1.2. Human Rights in Penitentiary System 1.3. Combating Discrimination 1.4. Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion 1.5. Rights of People with Disabilities 1.6. Combating Trafficking in People, Domestic Violence. Women’s Rights 1.7. Rights of a Child 1.8. Social, Economic and other Related Rights 1.9. Personal Data Protection in Ukraine
2. New Challenges 2.1. Euromaidan and Human Rights 2.2. Human Rights During Armed Conflict 2.3. Human Rights in Annexed Crimea 2.4. The Rights of Internally Displaced Persons
ІІІ. Conclusions
І. Introduction The National Report of Ukraine was considered during the 14th session of Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review Working Groupin October 2012. As a result of the review, Ukraine received 145 recommendations from 47 UN Human Rights Council Members on problematic issues that needed to be addressed. Nearly 80% of these recommendations have been accepted and 20% - rejected.
Recommendations - 145 Most recommendations to Ukraine concerned such areas as combating discrimination and ensuring tolerance (40 recommendations), promotion of the rule of law (30), penitentiary system (16), implementation of international conventions (15), advocating and promoting the rights of the child (14)1. Accepted − 114 Accepted partially − 4 Rejected − 27 1
19% 3% 78%
3%3% 2% 4% 5%
A number of recommendations contain activities on different issues or spheres, other recommendations relate to the same matter, hence, the total number of recommendations and sphere/topic-specific recommendations do not correspond.
4
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
24%
19% 3% 78% Thematic Recommendation
3%3% 2% 4% 5% 7% 7% 8%
24% 18%
9% 10%
anti-discrimination and tolerance - 40 rule of law - 30 penitentiary system - 16 ratification of conventions - 15 the rights of the child - 14
37%
combatting domestic violence and trafficking in people - 11
60%
social and economic rights - 11 rights of migrants, refugees and asylumn seekers - 8
3%
gender issues - 6 rights of people with disabilities - 5 freedom of the media - 5
6% 0%
other - 4
10%
To ensure recommendations implementation follow-up, the UPR CSO Coalition has been established during second cycle review (“UPR Coalition”), which prepared an Interim Shadow Stakeholders’Report within the third UPR cycle. Over 80 CSOs took part in report preparation evaluating not only the implementation status of UPR recommendations, but focusing also on new human rights challenges. The report is prepared as the result of assessment of the activities of public authorities, analysis of legislation, some expert studies, and annual reviews “Human Rights in Ukraine”, including thematic human rights monitoring reports. The publication presents to a reader a concise report summary, encompassing an implementation status analysis of UPR recommendations received by Ukraine in 2012, while at the same time focuses on new issues “New Challenges” faced by Ukraine as a result of “Revolution of Dignity” protest movement as well as occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea by the Russian Federation, armed conflict in the east of Ukraine and mass human rights violations associated with the latter.
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
5
3%3% 2% 4% ІІ. Evaluation of human rights 5% 24% protection status in Ukraine 7% 37% 7% 1. Evaluation of human rights protection status in the 60% 2012 UPR 18% recommendations within spheres receiving 8% 9% 10% 3%
1.1. Rule of Law Recommendations - 30
37%
6% 0%
Accepted - 18
60% 3%
Implementation evaluation
Accepted partially - 1
42%
10%
Action satisfactory Partially satisfactory
42%
Action not satisfactory Not implemented
Rejected - 11
Key reasons for distrust to 2 : judiciary 6% 0% 10%
Implemented
– introduce property liability of judges for unlawful rulings(31%),
– proliferation of corruption among judges (94%),
– deprive judges ofi mmunity and privileges (30%).
– dependence of judges on politicians (81%) 42% and oligarchs (80%). 42%
The Government does:
The society considers essential to3 – conduct fundamental changesin judiciary (46%) – dismiss a number of judges after investigations (40,2%),
• judicial reform–no • use the judiciary for one’s own purposes yes • conservatism and reluctance to change by a large part of judiciary – yes • political will and steps undertaken to change, eliminate the influence on the judicial system – no
2 Opinion poll conducted by the “IlkoKucheriv Democratic Initiatives” Foundation in partnership with Razumkov Center’s Sociological Service during 19-24 December 2014 polling 2008 respondents aged over 18 y.o. in all regions of Ukraine excluding Autonomous Republic of Crimea.Thesampleerror – 2,3%, details under: http://pravo.org.ua/2010-03-07-18-06-07/lawreforms/1873-dliauspishnoi-sudovoi-reformy-treba-shchob-prezydent-i-parlament-vidmovylysia-vid-vplyvu-na-suddiv-opytuvannia.html 3
6
ibid SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
• reform of the prosecution to ensure an independent and impartial review of complaints of human rights violations by law enforcement – no • execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights -no
Legislative changes:
• p rogressive provisions on transparency of selection of judges; • n ew rules for bringing judges to disciplinary liability; The Law «On Prosecutor’s Office» - stipuates a competitive procedure therein prosecutor’s office.
Law of Ukraine “On Ensuring the Right to Fair Justice” of 12 February 2015:
Public suggestions, among other things:
• f ully takes into account the 27 recommendations on the judiciary by the Council of Europe;
To speed up the reform process in the area of enforcement of judgments;
• 2 1 recommendations are taken into account partially; • i gnores key recommendations on limiting the political influence on judiciary on behalf of the President and Parliament. The new version of the Law of Ukraine «On the Judicial System and Status of Judges», February 2015, includes:
To introduce non-state form of execution of court decisions in order to unload the system of state executive service; To solve the issue of increasing the financial motivation of bailiffs due to salary increases and bonuses for timely and effective enforcement of court judgements.
1.2. Human Rights in Penitentiary System Recommendations - 16
Implementation evaluation Implemented
31% Accepted - 18
100%
100%
44%
Accepted partially - 0
Rejected - 0
31%
44% 25%
25%
Action satisfactory Partially satisfactory Action not satisfactory Not implemented
6%
6%
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
7
Legislative changes: In April 2014, the majority of positive changes to the Penal Code were adopted, totaling over 100 amendments. These changes - perhaps the most ambitious since the adoption of the Code in 2003, generally significantly contributing to making conditions of serving the sentence in prison more humane.
The real picture: • The issue of overpopulation of prisons is not treated systemically; • Poor living conditions of prisoners; • High level of unfriendly staff attitude to prisoners; • Low level of medical services; • Unpaid (free) labor or inadequate low wages; • Lack of positive changes in the implementation of an effective investigating mechanism for allegations of cruel treatment and prosecution of law enforcement officials responsible for torture and ill-treatment.
Public suggestions among other things: Establish rapid and effective response mechanism against cruel treatment, as well as bringing to justice of law enforcement officials accused in applying torture and cruel treatment of prisoners. Pay attention to bringing the prisoners’ living conditions to European standards. Apply efforts to expedite the transition to detention in the premises for no more than a few people. Study the possibility of closing down old and opening new facilities; Make significant improvements in the level of medical services provision, revisit the working conditions of medical personnel in penitentiary system and resolve the issue of subordination of medical units housed in the premises of correctional facilities to the Ministry of Health. Ensure significant reduction in prisoners’ suicide and mortality rates; Refrain from using free prisoners labor at correctional institutions, severely punish administration of institutions for violating labor/employment relationship, while ensuring adequate level of prisoners’ salaries and transparent procedures for calculating prisoners’ wages; Establish an effective mechanism of reviewing prisoners’ complaints and bringing to justice employees violating the requirements of the law on citizens’ appeals.
8
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
31% 44%
31%
44%
100% 1.3. Combating in Ukraine 100% Discrimination 25% 25%
Recommendations - 40, containing 48 activities
25%
Implementation evaluation
6%
25%
31%
Accepted - 30
75%
75%
Accepted partially - 0 Rejected - 0
• The law of Ukraine “On Prevention and 100%Discrimination” 100% Combating of 2012 along with other legal acts lays foundation to the system of prevention and combating discrimination. • Legislation gaps – not eliminated:
12%
12%
Implemented Action satisfactory
21% 31%
21% 4% 38%
38%
Legislative regulation:
20% • Legal basis for combating discrimination - established.
6%
Partially satisfactory
4%
Action not satisfactory Not implemented
gaps in a criminal process, making it impossible to prove discrimination.
20% 20%
20%
then
60%
60%
Ukrainian legislation on a systematic level fails to meet international human rights standards and cannot provide adequate protection and compensation for all victims.
• Lack of harmonization with the basic 35% Law: different legal acts contain different lists of grounds of discrimination: while different laws contain different notions88% of discrimination; 88%
Ukraine’s 24% Realia 35% 24% are:
• Such notions as “sexual orientation”, “gender identity”, “health condition” are not included to the list of protected grounds;
• impunity for the growing number of crimes committed with homophobic motives;
• Not articulated procedures for appeal7% 7% ing discrimination, particularly in civil and administrative proceedings 22% and
• 7% non-acknowledgement of the majority 7% of racism-motivated violent crimes, for 22%race-motivated; being
7% 93%
93%
• inability to protect minorities from racial violence and bring the perpetrators to justice;
41%
41%
0%
7% 64%
0%
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
64%
9
• lack of open and objective statistics on hate crimes and discrimination; • ineffectiveness of institutional offices, responsible for combating racial discrimination in Ukraine; • low awareness level among public officials and local self-governing bodies representatives of the issue of discrimination and its certain manifestations toward a certain groups; public officials continue failing to understand the necessity of local initiatives, staying incapable of implementing local and regional programmes in any given sphere without prior “approval/order” from the related ministry.
10
Civil society issued 16 recommendations with most urgent being: improve the review procedure of draft anti-discrimination regulations by executive bodies; introduce amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine with the purpose of the criminalization of discrimination, envisioning punishment for crimes committed on the grounds of homophobia and other;
• lack of comprehensive regulation for the issue of peaceful assembly in Ukraine;
revise internal regulations of penal institutions to provide reasonable accommodation for members of religious communities, people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups that require such adaptation.
• lack of the overall, be it national strategy or policy, in the mentioned area.
revise sex change / correction conditions for a less invasive way;
• The only systemic document in this area – it’s developed and adopted in December 2013 by the Office of the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights “2014-2017 Strategy on Prevention and Combatting Discrimination in Ukraine” and 2015 Action Plan developed in close partnership with civil society institutions.
add such notions as «sexual orientation» and «gender identity» to the list of attributes in Article 2 of the Labor Code of Ukraine; develop a national strategy on prevention of discrimination that would encompass all aspects of life, clearly establish the responsibilities of a state and local government, to have realistic and measurable goals, including the mechanism for evaluating the implementation effectiveness while providing a step by step plan for it.
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
1.4. Freedom of conscience and religion4 Since its independence, Ukraine’s multiconfession asserted itself as a sign of diversity of religion, cultures, nationalities, and languages in Ukrainian society.
all regions of Ukraine, while requiring further improvements to ensure better ensure clarity, the uniqueness of interpretation and practical application.
National legislation provides for a conducive environment for development, activities and annual increase of the number of religious organizations in
State policy: lack of national policy in the area of freedom of conscience and effective system of state bodies on religion causes complications in practicing religion.
Currently, both “old” and “new” challenges need to be addressed: Old issues emerge as a result of:
New challemges:
• exercising the right to freedom of assembly of a religious nature;
• Events related to the occupation and subsequent annexation of Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea by the Russian Federation, leading to religiously motivated persecution of the clergy, individual believers and entire religious communities;
• establishing of private educational institutions with a possibility of obtaining state license to provide education to children under their parents’ religious beliefs; • non-agreed procedures for acquiring a legal entity status by religious communities and inconsistency under different legislation; • approval of preaching and other religious activities of foreign nationals in Ukraine; • return of church property intended for religious purposes expropriated by the Soviet regime.
4 During UPR 2012, Ukraine did not receive recommendations, specifically aimed at this issue. It is, therefore, encompassed recommendations on preventing of discrimination and ensuring tolerance.
• Continuation of Russian aggression through the political, military and information support to separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk regions in eastern Ukraine resulting in religious persecution in cities in eastern Ukraine controlled by the Russian separatists; • Almost all Christian communities and religious leaders, with the exception of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) and some others have faced a threat to their lives and health; • The need to ensure citizens’ constitutional right to replace military conscription during mobilization with alternative (non-military) service on grounds of religious belief.
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
11
Civil society issued 16 recommendations with most urgent being: 31% Ensure to ensure the constitutional right Eliminate of clergy and other citizens to choose 44% alternative (non-military) service during 100% 100% outside the conscripting/mobilization framework of any military formation due to religious convictions of such persons and without any discrimination, including on the basis of belonging to registered or non-registered religious communities or beliefs recognized by the government; 25% 25%
31%
31%
discrimination on religious grounds in practicing a constitutional 44% right to free assembly by spelling out the procedure of peaceful assembly without 25% 25% religious restrictions on the timing of submission of the notification in Article 21, part 5 of the Law of Ukraine “On 6% Freedom of6%Conscience and Religious Organizations”.
21% 31%
21%
1.5. Rights 4% 4% 75% of 75%People with Disabilities 38% 38% in Ukraine Implementation evaluation
Recommendations - 5
Implemented
20%
20% 20%
20%
Partially satisfactory
Accepted - 5
100%
100%
Accepted partially - 0 Rejected - 0
On the legislative level: 12% 12%
• In 2009 Ukraine ratified UN Conven35% tion on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD); • In 2010 a88% State Target Programme “Na88% tional Action Plan on the Implementation of the Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities” (hereinafter
12
60%
7%
Action not satisfactory
60%
Not implemented
– National Plan) until 2010. Its implementation, among other things, envisaged alignment of national legislation 24%the CRPD with standards. 35% 24%
Implementation: 41% • 41% The issue of “disability” are not included to all aspects of state policy, they are considered separately while the state
0%
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
7%
Action satisfactory
7%
7%
0%
continues to apply the medical model when forming a policy and uses formalistic approach towards National Plan implementation; • The policy on collecting data/statistics on people with disabilities is inefficient and is not compliant with a social model for disability; • The right to education is not realized properly. Specifically, an inclusive education on all levels of education is not ensured due to various barriers: -- inadequate legislation and regulatory framework and lack of holistic education policy; -- architectural inaccessibility of educational institutions; -- improper use of ICT and inaccessibility of information; -- non-application of the principles of reasonable accommodation and universal design in the field of education;
far as enjoying the right to education is concerned; • The right to access to quality services in health care system remains declarative. This is also confirmed by: -- total inaccessibility of health care facilities; -- inability to pass through a qualitative examination over the unadjusted equipment; -- failure to obtain free essential medicines; -- lack of appropriate knowledge and training to health care providers; -- lack of respect (for human dignity); -- lack of information and education programs for users, etc. • Non realized guarantees of access to information, specifically when accessing information on official web-sites by user with sensory and mental disorders;
-- inadequate educational and awareness activity public education to change attitudes on the part of parents, teachers, community, et al;
• The principles of anthropogenic accessibility are not enforced. Standards and guiding principled adopted by the state leads to disabling and inaccessible environment, transportation and transport infrastructure for people with disabilities;
-- inadequate system of training of specialists on the level of decision-making on disability and implementing inclusive education; inadequate cross-sector and engagement of persons with disabilities, or people representing their interests as
• The question of safety is not properly accounted for people with disabilities when planning emergency evacuations, which became especially relevant during the hostilities in the east of Ukraine;
-- imperfect system of training and professional development of teachers;
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
13
• Effective influence and control means over enforcement of adopted legal and regulatory documents are lacking including those related to ensuring an enabling environment for people with disabilities and people with limited mobility.
Civil society issued 8 recommendations with most urgent being: Elaborate and adopt legislation amendments to align it with the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities with participation and engagement of CSOs for people with disabilities; Introduce effective departmental control and monitor adherence to current legislation on enforcing the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. Introduce Parliamentary control over implementation of CRPD and fulfillment of the National Action Plan;
Develop and adopt a National Programme on prevention of instutioanalization of people with disabilities, who require a fair amount of external assistance; Develop and adopt action plan to introduce rights protection mechanisms for people with disabilities, who do not understand the significance of their actions and cannot control them, as well as mechanisms of alternative care system for incapacitated persons and entities whose capacity is limited; Foster the development of systemic state programme for medical services to internally displaced persons, accounting for people with disabilities and people with chronic diseases; With participation of CSOs working for PWD, elaborate amendment to the National Action Plan in line with recommendations of the UN Committee for Persons with disabilities and ensure their implementation.
Make teaching session on issues of disability, developing an inclusive policy, accessibility and universal design a mandatory part of the curricular for the inservice training for civil servants; Conduct and analysis of international financial assistance allocated to the medical sphere, creation of work places, education, rehabilitation, to disable spending fund on establishment of architectural and other barriers in institutions and establishments;
14
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
100%
100% 60% in60% 1.6. Combating Trafficking People, Domestic Violence. Women’s Rights Recommendations - 17
12%
Implementation evaluation Implemented
12% 35% Accepted - 15
88%
88%
Accepted partially - 0
24% 35%
24%
Action satisfactory Partially satisfactory
41%
41%
Rejected - 2
Action not satisfactory Not implemented
Gender Equality 7% and legal 7% • Regulatory
Preventing trafficking in persons 0% 0% 7% issues: 7% acts which im- Major prove legal regulation of gender equal22% 22% ity issues have not been prepared and adopted;
7%
• Representation 93% of women 93% in societal and political life is very low. As a result, women enjoy limited opportunities to influence decision-making that concern their lives, lives of their communities and country as a whole;
12%
12%
• None of numerous draft laws, aimed at ensuring equal rights and opportunities 27% of women and men in political life, have not been supported by the parliament.
• Insufficient financing for effective implementation of the Law “On Combat7%ing Human Trafficking”;
64%
64%
• Scarce number of shelters to offer assistance to trafficked people; • Problem in prosecuting the perpetrators of human trafficking crimes, as evidenced by an increase in the difference between the registered cases and passed 27% judgments (in 2013 - 64 sentences in 2014 - only 19)
0% • Location identification of trafficked 88% 73% and 73% 88% 0% persons; Preventing domestic violence • Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence has not been ratified as of June6% 2015. • Lack of refuge and shelters for persons 21% violence. 21% who suffered from domestic
19%
21%
• High denial rate in obtaining a trafficked person status;
6% • Lack on the national and regional level of
effective state contracting mechanism for services by civic organizations that work with combatting trafficking in persons;
19%
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
21%
15
6% • Lack of coordination activities on preventing 25%trafficking 25%in persons;
31%
• Lack of periodic independent evaluation of state policy on preventing hu75% as in75% man trafficking instrument to assess and plan future activities; • Difficulty overcoming the consequences of the military conflict in eastern Ukraine ;
6%
• Adopt the draft law “On Introduction of Amendments to the Criminal Code of 31% 21% on Protection 21% of Children from Ukraine Sexual Abuse and Sexual Exploitation”, registered in the Parliament in February 4% 4% 2015 under the registry number # 2016.
38%
38%
• Increase resource allocation for effective implementation of the Law “On Combatting Human Trafficking”;
• 20% • Emergence of the new recruitment methods (offer to assist with obtaining refugee status) and new vulnerable groups (in particular, internally dis100% 100% placed persons). •
Increase coordination of activities on 20% 20% 20% trafficking, by espreventing human tablishing, among other things, interdepartmental council;
action to reduce denial in obtain60%Take 60% ing a trafficked person status;
Civil society recommends: • Develop and adopt regulatory and legal acts, aimed at improvement of law implementation “On Ensuring Equal 12% 12% Rights and Opportunities of Women and Men”; 35%
88%
88%
• Establish additional shelters for rehabilitation and social integration of trafficked persons, and person suffering from domestic violence; • Expedite of CoE Conven35% 24% the ratification 24% tion on preventing and combatting domestic violence against women.
41%
41%
1.7. The Rights of the Child in Ukraine Recommendations - 14
7%
Implementation monitoring
0%
7% 22% Accepted - 13
93%
93%
7% Accepted
partially - 0 Rejected - 1
7% 22%
7%
Implemented Action satisfactory Partially satisfactory
7% 64%
0%
64%
Action not satisfactory Not implemented
16
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
12%
12%
Current regulatory and legal framework in the area of protecting the rights of the child is inadequate for the following reasons:
• identification of the need for and provision of assistance to children – victims of sexual violation and abuse;
• Lack of common attitude and approach to the question of child protection;
• insufficient level of vaccination of children due to low level of trust as well as lack of vaccines guaranteed by the state;
• Lack of common system of child protection bodies and agreed interaction algorithm among them; • Outdated forms of work, which proved to be ineffective and did not yield results; • Declarative nature of regulatory acts, which regulate child protection issues as well as lack implementation mechanisms for certain provision; • Approach to a child as a subject of influence, ignoring the fact that a child should be a subject of relationship foremost; • Insufficient financing of child protection institutions.
Ukraine’s realia are as follows: Some of the systemic issues, not addressed • violence against a child which is documented both in closed institutions and families and schools; • questions of access to medical services by children in rural areas remain no addressed; • introduction of an inclusive education system for children with disabilities;
• current state support programmes lack necessary implementation mechanisms and budgetary allocations; • lack of integrated educational system, trained accordingly to work within the premises of recently adopted Conventions in the area of protecting the right of the child, etc. New challenges • some 1.7 million of children have suffered from the armed conflict on Ukraine; • no comprehensive strategy for crossing the conflict by a child and the family is lacking; • gaps in legislation risk having children fail registering as IDP and realize their rights; • discrepancy in the current legislation with international standards leads to the involvement of children in conflict in various capacities, including with arms in their hands; • starting from March 2014, the minimum of 109 have been severely wounded, 42 killed and by encountering personnel mines and explosive materials which remained in Donetsk and Luhansk oblast let after the armed conflict;
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
17
20%
20% 20%
• difficulties with solving issues on accessing qualitative medical assistance due to lack of m medicines are in place;
20%
Develop a National Action Plan to implement the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child for the new period in partnership with civic 100% 100% 60% envisaging its adequate • not all children in the ATO zone have ac- 60% associations, cess to education. financing;
Civil society has issued the following 12% recommendation: 12% Bring legislation in accordance with in35% ternational standards on the rights of the child, including prohibition for children to participate in armed conflicts;
88%
88%
Develop a comprehensive programme aimed at addressing burning issues in the area of rights protection of the child who suffered from the military conflict and children of IDPs’, which will embrace 7% 7% and be incluall categories of children sive. Increase guarantees for the right to 22% life, safety, right to education, psychological and medical support to the children;
Ratify the Third Optional Protocol on appealing children’s rights violations mechanism to the Convention on the Rights of the Child;
24% 35%
0%
7% 22%
7%
93%
93%
24%
Under current situation the rights and interests of the child have to become pivotal foundation for all state policies. 41% Hence, they41% have to become subject to state reform strategies in all spheres and on all levels.
7%
0%
7% 64%
64%
1.8. Social and Economic Rights Recommendations - 11
12%
Implementation monitoring Implemented
12% 27%
Action satisfactory
27%
Partially satisfactory
Accepted - 9
88%
Accepted 0% 88% 0% partially - 0
73%
Rejected - 2
6% 18
73%
Action not satisfactory Not implemented
6%
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
war in the east
outdated social protection system
lack of significant legislative changes safeguards, capable of changing the system
Ukraine’s Realia economic crisis
unemployment increase
Poverty For the past 5 year, the perception of poverty among the population has increased from 53% to 65%. For 10 months of 2013, 47% of the poor stayed in extreme poverty. In 2014, subsistence level was set below the actual size of the subsistence minimum in December 2013. The minimum wage did not include family and tax components and 1 January 2014, allowing an average spending of almost $ 4.9 per day per person
Housing affordability Housing affordability rating in Ukraine constituted 16,72 to compare 2.41 in the US, 9,62 – in Sweden, , 6,54 – in the Netherlands, and 11,05 – in Poland according to UN-Habitat methodology. Average one-room apartment costs USD 35 345.6 = 11 years of savings of the whole salary amount by a Ukranian.
new population groups requiring special protection (IDPs, servicemen in anti-terrorist operation ATO zone) A number of production stoppings due both to military activities and economic crisis
Social protection system suffers from: • rapid increase in the service price under inadequate quality thereof: • lack of funding with ineffective budget management of financial resources; • “hand” management of social guarantees amounts subject to financial feasibility on behalf of the state.
Pension system is characterized by: • low pensions level, not allowing to sustain event the minimum living level; • unbalanced Pension Fund ; • complicated demographic situation with negative prospects for its development; • complex macroeconomic status of the state (inflation, unemployment, economic crisis, etc.);
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
19
• significant «shadow» payments to employees, while maintaining extremely high size of pension contributions for employers (33.2 % - for employers and 2.5 % - for employees).
• Improve the calculation of the subsistence minimum, adopt a new set of food and nutrition products and services, while adopting a new method for calculating this indicator;
Civil society has issued the following recommendations:
• Implement measures to ensure the affordability of housing, prevent ungrounded eviction violations in housing affordability rights for vulnerable groups;
• Reform the social benefits system by separating legal norms into those guaranteeing social and economic rights and those granting certain privileges in connection with an occupied position or specific merits; • Envisage funding of statutory guarantees of social and economic rights in full and discontinue the practice of “manual control” in determining the social assistance amount;
• Continue reforming a pension system by introducing the provisions in the law to provide for the accumulation pension system and creating conducive environment for it; • Avoid discretionary raise of the minimum pension, introduce indexation rule, where pension raise will be tied to a Consumer Price Index, calculated for population groups with different income rates.
1.9. Personal Data Protection in Ukraine5 • Right to privacy in Ukraine enjoys the level of Constitutional protection. In 2010 the Parliament of Ukraine passed a Law of Ukraine “On Personal Data Protection”, introduced relevant amendments to the Law “On Information” and the Law “On Public Information Access”. The oversight function over the legislation on personal data protection within its mandate and spelled out by the law, was vested with the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights as well as courts;
• At the same time, regulatory and legal acts regulating relations in the education and medical spheres, falling under the responsibility of law enforcement, have not been aligned with the Law «On Personal Data Protection»; • Subjects of personal data have virtually no ability to control the collection, storage and processing of information about them;
5 Personal data protection topic was not raised during 2012 UPR by being new to Ukraine. However, currently the pertinent legislation has been instituted and responsible bodies identified giving ground to make evaluation of the existing personal data protection system in Ukraine
20
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
• Obtaining information about a person from public registers involves payment, and varies in different registers, despite the fact that their support is provided through the state budget leaving with the state an obligation to ensure that a persons may have full access to the information gathered about him/her;
Therefore, civil society has issued the following recommendation (13 in total):
• The composition and content of personal data collected in the law enforcement agencies usually are excessive and not compatible with its processing aim;
• Review the practice of administrative service provision. According to the requirement of the Law of Ukraine “On Access to Public Information” and “On Personal Data Protection” all information about a person, including different abstracts (‘to whom it may concerns’), and certificates from the state registries have to be issued free of charge;
• The electoral legislation of Ukraine does not meet the principles of maintaining personal data confidentiality of and. Election lists contain the following information: last name, first name, date of birth, and indication of person’s limited mobility status;
• Discontinue administrative practice of illegal use of tax payer’s personal identification number (code) for other purposes, not envisaged by the law, as well as discontinue using the notion “personal number”, the use of which is not envisaged by any of the laws;
• Today the main electronic classifier used for gathering and processing of personal data of Ukrainian citizens by public authorities is the identification number issued by the State Tax Administration. However, the scope of its use goes far beyond the purpose for which it was introduced. In the absence of identification code it is impossible to realize the right to work, education, social protection, get a scholarship or unemployment benefits, to sign up for a subsidy, to open a bank account, register a subject of business activities, or to process/legalize any documents at a notary.
• Bring the Laws of Ukraine which regulate law enforcement activities, educational institutions and medical facilities, departmental regulatory and legal acts in accordance with the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Peronal Data Protection”; • Discontinue an unmotivated collection of sensitive personal information about individuals (information about political views, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, participation in a substitution therapy program, etc.); • Unify a system of obtaining information by a person form stet registries, while refusing to pay the fees for obtaining information about oneself.
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
21
2. New Challenges
2.1. Violations of Human rights during the Protest Euromaidan Movement Refusal of the European vector of development and failure to sign Ukraine’s Association Agreement with the European Union, planned during the Vilnius Summit on 28-29 November 2013. Open peaceful protest of Ukrainians to demonstrate disagreement with the President Yanukovych’s policy and Government’s resort to use violent force and killings of peaceful demonstrators. Crimes committed by the Government during the Euromaidan: killing the minimum of 115 individuals, 95 of who have been Euromaidan activists, various terms of imprisonment of at least several hun-
dred persons, injuries to over a thousand activists. To date, the fate of 27 missing activists is unknown. Numerous instances of unlawful detention and arrests have been documented, as well as abduction of protest activists, torture and cruel treatment on behalf of law enforcement and criminal gangs affiliated with the latter. Government’s criminal actions resulted in a large-scale protest movement against the political regime – “Revolution of Dignity”. THE PUBLIC DEMANDS AN EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION OF CRIMES COMMITED DURING THE EUROMAINDAN AND FAIR PUNISHMENT OF PERPETRATORS
2.2.Violation of human rights in the course of armed conflict Actively supported by the Russian Federation, the illegal armed groups were formed during March-April 2014 in the east of Ukraine. As a result, artificial separatist movement in Donbas evolved into the military conflict with the Russian Federation in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts.
On territories, controlled by the illegal armed groups the following activities take place: • persecution of real or imaginary propo22
nents of Ukraine’s state sovereignty, attributed to people on different grounds - political views, religious beliefs, language, affiliation to public service or, on the ground of refusal to conversion on their side; • organized system of mass abductions and torture of civilians; • Soviet type-resembling special units are formed to abduct civic activists and members of their families, often followed by torture and/or execution;
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
• lack of any human rights legal protection means; • lack of any human rights protection institutions; • “peoples’ courts” rule death penalties; • Systemic violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which guarantee the right to life, freedom from torture, liberty and personal security, freedom of movement, etc..
Violations on behalf of Ukrainian party: • instances of human rights violations by representatives of Ukrainian formations account for illegal detentions, abuse, theft, extortion with investigation of such cases hard to be recognized as effective; • in the spring and summer of 2014, governed by the need to effectively fulfill the tasks of the executive authorities “on eliminating the terrorists in the course of anti-terrorist operation (ATO)”, a number of laws, contradicting national legislation and international human rights standards have been passed. Specifically, they grant the right to the law enforcement to apply physical force without prior informing, special means and weapon in the ATO zone; detain persons involved in terrorist activities for 30 days without any court decision; granting a prosecutor the right to authorize individual arrests (up to 3 days, searches, access to private belongings) without prior court decision.
Civil society has issued 22 recommendation, in particular: • Introduce amendments in Section 20 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine “Crimes Against Peace, Human Security, and International Legal Order” to ensure alignment of its provisions with international criminal law; • Pass a resolution to determine the legal status of the territorycurrently under the control of organized armed groups of the so-called ‘Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic’ (DPR/ LPR) and adjacent territories situated under constant shelling or attacks or under a real threat of shelling or such attacks; • Establish a temporary commission for parliamentary control over the process of gathering and recording evidence of crimes against humanity and war crimes as well as investigation process of such crimes by relevant state authorities; • Establish a coordination group, the competency of which will embrace control over adherence of legality in the ATO zone and responding to reports of illegal actions on behalf of the state; • Ensure effective activity of the Department for Investigation of Crimes Against Peace, Human Security, and International Violations established at the Chief Military Prosecutor (CMP) regarding the collection and documentation of evidence of such crimes (in particular, polling of IDPs) to prepare the materials for International Criminal Court.
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
23
2.3. Human rights under occupation of Crimea Since February 2014, the Russian Federation bares responsibility for human rights violations on the occupied territories of Crimea6. This review concerns violations, committed by Ukraine regarding persons who reallocated to mainland Ukraine or stayed on the occupied territory of the Crimean peninsula. These issue affect some 20 thousand individuals who are internally displaced from the territory of Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as well as over 2mln of citizens of Ukraine, who stayed on the temporarily occupied territory of Crimean peninsula.
Overal, the violations are: Violation of prohibition of discrimination: indirect discrimination emanates from the systemic issue, pertinent to the Ukrainian legislation and associated with a possibility of obtaining administrative and other services at the place of registered residence;
on the territory of Crimean peninsula, have been considered as non-residents7 for a fair amount of time. As a result, this category of citizens was denied a number or banking services;8 • moratorium for mortgage loan payments for IDPs from Crimea introduced; this, however, does not allow the persons, who have lived in Sevastopol city;9 • foreigners, stateless persons, as well as residents of Ukraine who had temporarily left the Crimean peninsula before the occupation and are not able to return there now, have been deprived of benefits and guarantees other IDPs enjoy; • IDPs have been put on additional burden when compared to other residents of Ukraine. For instance, they have to report to the respective department of State Migration Policy every half year;10
direct discrimination:
• unemployed persons resigning from a job in Crimea and reallocating from the occupied territory to continental Ukraine, are automatically deprived of the right to receive unemployment benefits.11
• persons who had actually lived or whose place of registered residence had been
Violation of the norms of International Humanitarian Law on freedom of move-
6 Instances of human rights violations may be consulted in publication “The Fear Peninsular: chronicles of occupation of and human rights violations in Crimea” http://goo.gl/7Yt9dX 7 The National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) Resolution #699 as of 3 November 2014 “On Application of Separate Provisions of Currency Legislation during the Temporary Occupation Regime on the “Crimea” Free Economic Zone See text: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/ laws/show/v0810500-14 8 Item 1 of the NBU Resolution # 699 is not affective by the court decision. However, the court denied the fact of discrimination and therefore cancel other provisions of this Resolution http://humanrights.org.ua/material/krimchan_znovu_viznali_rezidentami 9 Article 12 of the Law of Ukraine “On Establishment of the “Crimea” Free Economic Zone and on the Specifics of Economic Activities on the Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine”
24
10
Item 5, part 2, article 9 of the Law of Ukraine “On Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of Internally Displaced Persons”
11
Stipulated in the Law “On Compulsory State Social Unemployment Insurance” SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
ment, owe to the establishment of checkpoints on the occupied territories (still not properly equipped for the admission of people and transport12) controlled by State Border Service of Ukraine (SBS) and the actual border, controlled by the RF government; Violation of the right to fair trial: the courthouses, located on the continental part of Ukraine, refuse to continue to try cases due to a lack of case material in their disposal, which have not been transferred by courts, locatedon the territory of Crimea; Violation of the Freedom of Association: freedom of association for persons who currently live or have been forced out the occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea or the city of Sevastopol has not been ensured. They have been deprived of the possibility to realize their right to membership in all-Ukrainian member-based civic organizations; Non-Recognition of Documents, Testifying Legal Facts, etc. According to the law13, any act (decision, document) issued by the bodies and or authorities of illegally occupied ARC or the city of Sevastopol are void and does not create legal consequences. As well as due to the fact that there are no legitimate authorities representing the Ukrainian Government depriving the citizens of Ukraine residing in Crimea a possibility to register marriages, birth of children, death facts and obtain other proper Ukrainian sample documents. The documents issued by the occupant state are not 12
legitimate for Ukraine and international community. This issue is only beginning to take scale while, in fact, concerning some 2mln Crimean residents14. Violation of the right to education. Ukraine actually stop recognizing students residing on the territory of occupied Crimea as Ukrainian students. Besides, unlike the case with the ATO territory, there was not a single attempt to re-allocate Crimean educational institutions to safe regions of the country. There are no educational institutions in Crimea controlled by Ukraine.
Civil society has issued 18 recommendation, in particular: • Develop and implement a systematic national action strategy to protect and restore the rights and freedoms of citizens of Ukraine who constantly reside on the temporarily occupied territory or have been temporarily ousted from it. Ensure the development, publication and systematic information on official state position on the occupied territories and citizens of Ukraine who remain in the occupied territories or left them; • Simplify the education receiving process and obtaining documents certifying completed education for graduates of secondary education institution from the temporarily occupied territory of the Crimean peninsula;
See: http://ua.krymr.com/content/article/26911574.html
Article 9 of the Law of Ukraine “On Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens and Legal Regime on the Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine”
13
14
See the data of State Statistics Service of Ukraine: http://ukrstat.org/uk/druk/publicat/Arhiv_u/13/Arch_nnas_zb.htm SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
25
• Amend the legislation which would eliminate the restriction on the receipt of services by the registered place of residence. In particular, ensure a free receipt of pertinent services for the Crimean residents by the factual residence place of residence; • Amend the legislation and legal and regulatory acts of Ukraine on the procedure and settlement recognition of facts, taking place on the occupied territory (marriages, births, deaths, etc.) and are certified by the documents, issued by authorities from the occupied territories of Crimean peninsula;
• Align the Procedure for entering/exiting the territory temporarily occupied Ukraine with the Ukrainian legislation, as well as the content and grounds of the decision to refuse the crossing of the administrative border of the Crimean peninsula; • Introduce a mechanism, to ensure the possibility of completing the cases tried in the beginning of the occupation within courts proceedings of institution located in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, which are pending consideration.
2.4. Respect for the Rights of Internally Displaced Persons As a result of occupation of Crimea and armed conflict in Donbas, Ukraine has, for the first time, faced the phenomenon of internally displaced persons. The Law of Ukraine “On Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of Internally Displaced Persons” has become the first legal and regulatory act, adopted by the Parliament to regulate the rights and freedoms of internally displaced persons (IDPs) coming into effect on 22.11.2014 only or in 8 months since the beginning of internal displacement when official data constituted almost half a million people. As of 10 July 2015, the amount of IDPs reached 1 382 000 persons. However, up until now no document has been adopted to determine state policy on internal displacement (including long-term decisions).
Existence of the Law does not solve issues of IDPs • Issue of discrimination. None of the legal acts envisage responsibility over discrimination of IDPs. Hence, manifestations of discrimination of IDPs are becoming common, when, for instance, getting employed, renting an apartment, etc. A vivid example of discrimination of the state level – National Bank of Ukraine Resolution # 699 as of 03.11.2014 which recognized Ukrainian citizens registered on the territory of Crimea as non-residents, which, literary, made access to financial services impossible15; • Institutional uncertainty: a state body to address issues of IDPs, while docu-
Point 15 of the NBU Resolution is not in effect, however the court refused to recognize the fact of discrimination and cancel other provisions of this resolution http://humanrights.org.ua/material/krimchan_znovu_viznali_rezidentami
15
26
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
menting and preventing instances of their discrimination not established; • Violation of the principle of minimizing movement and its effects. Regulations that directly contradict this principle, urging certain categories of persons to displacement, are passed. Hence, a number of Resolutions16 have been adopted that caused pensioners, receivers of various types of state social assistance residing on Ukrainian territories not controlled by the Ukrainian Government, to registering as IDPs to be eligible to pensions and other types of payments becoming the major reason for their eventual displacement. • Violation of the freedom of movement and choice of a place of residence. Ukraine’s Constitution and international obligations stipulate this right, while in reality, the ‘Provisional regulations on controlling the movement of persons, vehicles and freights along the contact/combat line within Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts’17, limits this right, resulting in long queues at crossing points, breeding corruption activities to bypass the permit issuing procedure, while failing to resolve the evacuation issue to save the lives, etc. • Medical care issues. “Chuguev Human Rights Group” deriving from a spotcheck polling of IDPs on the territory of Kharkiv oblast concluded that hos-
pitalization of IDPs, development of individual rehabilitation programmes, informing of medical facilities location, and supply of needful medicines,18 is not ensured in the majority of cases. • Ensuring the right to personal identification documents remain the one of the most pressing issues. As a result of occupation of Crimea and beginning of armed conflict in the east of Ukraine, the state Migration Service (SMS) has lost all data about the persons on this territory since it only existed in paper copy in ARC. Especially difficult the issues persevered in instances, when a person had not previously obtained an international passport and his/her information was not stored in SMS electronic database of international passports. In the majority of cases, these persons have to go to court to restore their identity, which requires witnesses (usually, relatives).19
The Government has demonstrated the following positive activities: • Education. According to NGO reports on pre-school and secondary education: beginning from the spring of 2014, all necessary and effective measures have been taken to respond to an emergency situation with the rights to education of children of IDPs20;
16
Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine #595 as of 07.11.2014 and Resolution # 637 of the CMU as of 05.11.2014
17
http://www.ssu.gov.ua/sbu/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=136472
18
http://pereselenci-med.kh.ua/?p=93
19
http://podpricelom.com.ua/read/krymchani-otrymaly-ponad-20-tysyach-zakordonnyh-pasportiv-v-ukrayini.html
20
http://www.irf.ua/knowledgebase/news/prezentats_dostupu_vpo_osvit_monitor/
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
27
• International cooperation. Ukraine cooperates with other states, international organizations to counter internal displacement, adherence to the rights and freedoms of IDPs, facilitating the return of such persons to their previous places of residence in Ukraine and their reintegration.
Civil society has issued 15 recommendations, with the following being most urgent: • Renew social payments to residents of occupied and non-controlled territories, cancel the requirement to register as an IDP to be eligible to social payments; • Introduce a simple mechanism of disbursing social payments within
Ukraine, regardless of the registered residence; • Provide the settlements immediately bordering the combat line with transportation, regular supply of goods and humanitarian assistance, and opportunity to receive medical assistance; • Simplify the procedure to receive humanitarian, charitable, technical, and other type of assistance to IDPs, while enhancing cooperation with non-governmental and international organizations in this matter; • Legally regulate the exchange of prisoners; • Create necessary conditions for evacuation of orphans and children devoid of parental care from the combat zone.
ІІІ. Conclusions Based on the results of Coalitions’ review of Ukraine’s human rights record during the reporting period, the following conclusions may be drawn.
Overall assessment of the situation in Ukraine New issues. Ukraine faced issued to which it had not been ready either institutionally or economically or emotionally. These are illegal annexation of Crimea by Russian troops, military conflict in Donbas resulting in emergence of a category of residence, which required special protection – internally displaced persons. 28
Global issues. Глобальні проблеми. The above-mentioned is exacerbated by the political misbalance, lack of public trust in all levels and branches of power, and deep economic crisis. As a result: HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES ARE MADE SECONDARY PRIORITY: • None of the needful reforms in human rights sphere – judicial, criminal justice, educational, etc. - have demonstrated significant results or are merely ineffective: like reforms in pension and medical spheres;
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
7% 93%
64%
• Adoption of the new laws “On Public Prosecutor’s Office”, “On National Police”, “On Education” has only laid out a legal foundation for necessary reforms but has not triggered positive changes;
aratists’ activities. This concerns involvement in evacuation of orphanages from anti-terrorist operation zone, liberation of prisoners of war, transfer of convicts to state-controlled territory.
12%
Hence, as of August 2015, we need to state that out of the total of 145 recommendations, issued to Ukraine, only 6% have been fully implemented21. Almost 52% of recommendations have been implemented satisfactory or partially satisfactory, while at the same time, some 42% of recommendations remained on the level of not satisfactory or not implemented (Diagram 1).
• Lack of effective government control mechanisms to ensure fundamental rights and freedoms, results in negligence of the rule of law principle on the Government’s behalf, violation of Constitution, attributing it to the «political expediency», «lustration need», «armed conflict», etc.
27%
0%
88%
The positive changes are • countering a geographical conflict expansion in Donbas;
Implementation monitoring
6%
• successful pre-term Presidential Elections on 25 May 2014 and pre-term Parliamentary Elections on 26 October 2014;
21%
• more effective cooperation of Governmental and Municipal authorities with civil society; • positive demonstrated activity of the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights. Secretariat of the Commissioner continued implementation of national preventive mechanisms in line with the Optional Protocol of the UN Convention against Torture with an evolving effect of this mechanism over personnel in places of freedom deprivation. The Secretariat made significant steps to protect the population form sep21
73%
19%
21% 33% However, as proved by our analysis, recommendation status has little to no effect over its ‘performance’ status. So, with out of 114 accepted recommendations, only 3% have been fully implemented, 16% expert-rated as “satisfactory”, while almost half recom-
3%
8%
21% 16% 25% 18% A number of recommendations already contains a few issues altogether which concern different issues or spheres. While other
recommendations are related to same repetitive issue, breeding disconnect in qualitative and quantitative indicators. For the sake of comparison, in order to be most precise in reflecting the tendencies, the activities implementation indicators, reflected in recommendations, have been used.
24% 21% 35% SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM 29 29%
33% 33% Implementation monitoring of accepted recommendations
3%3% 25% 25% 21% 21%
Implementation monitoring of not/partially accepted recommendations
16% 16% 35% 35%
mendations (46%) are rated as “not satisfactory” or “not implemented” at all (see Diagram 2). At the same time, out of ‘rejected’ or ‘partially accepted’ recommendations by Ukraine, almost half (47%) are ‘fully implemented’ or ‘satisfactory’. Whereas, only 8% of recommendations are ‘not implemented’ (see Diagram 3). This foremost concerns the recommendations on ratifying international instruments and recommendations on preventing discrimination. This situation finds partial explanation in the European integration policy of Ukraine
30
21% 21%
8%8% 18% 18%
Implemented Action satisfactory Partially satisfactory
24% 24% 29% 29%
Action not satisfactory Not implemented
in recent years, contributing to the review and implementation of the recommendations of the UN Committee, which were not duly considered in 2012. Given such level of recommendations implementation and based on the evaluation results vis-à-vis newly emerged issues faced by the state, the Coalition has issued 154 recommendations, with almost two-thirds (96) of them concerning issues brought up during previous review of Ukraine’s human rights record, with slightly more than a third (60) occasioned by the new challenges, having emerged after the “Revolution of Dignity”.
SUMMARY OF INTERIM STAKEHOLDERS’ REPORT WITHIN UPR MECHANISM
31
United Nations Development Programme in Ukraine 1 Klovsky Uzviz Kyiv, Ukraine Tel.: +38 (044) 253-93-63 Fax: +38 (044) 253-26-07 www.ua.undp.org