Nina KARPACHOVA: There are Regions in Ukraine where the Media Never Mention Human Rights
The Ombudsman has been with the Verkhovna Rada for four years. During this period over 250,000 individuals: pensioners, disabled persons, prison inmates, convicts, office employees, even people’s deputies have voiced their grievances, sending 950,000 petitions. The people’s deputies have mostly complained of transgressions of civil (50%) and individual rights (26%). Only 3% petitioners have pointed to political infractions. December 10 marked the Human Rights Day: the 54th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN General Assembly, to be precise. This time Ombudsman Nina Karpachova met with ambassadors to discuss options of cooperation and other topical problems. Prior to the meeting, Ms. Karpachova kindly agreed to a short interview with The Day.
The Day: Where are the human rights most often infringed?
Karpachova: We have 55% percent of human rights violations, mostly in terms of protection by a court of law. I must stress that the process shows frightening dynamics. Whereas last year the right to judicial protection was transgressed in 40% of all human rights transgressions, this year it is 60%. In 23% of the cases these rights are violated by law enforcement authorities. People complain of drawn-out investigation, unlawful detention, and negligence. For the ombudsman every morning starts with receiving another batch of reports on tortures applied by law enforcement authorities [i.e., police brutality]. The latest was simply horrible. An 18-year-old youth suspected of having stolen a PC, was arrested in Ternopil oblast. Now his innocence is proved beyond doubt, but the kid is crippled. He is undergoing the third surgery and no one is sure about the outcome. I am not mentioning torture by hunger. Before I became ombudsman I’d never suspected that all this is happening in Ukraine and on such scope. We have twice approached parliament, also ex- Premier Anatoly Kinakh, asking to increase the subsidization of the detention cells and penitentiaries. Fortunately, they finally allocated another 250 million hryvnias.
How do you think underfunding influences the court’s unbiased approach?
There is a great deal of influence. Underfunding the courts is a violation of human rights in the first place, because it deprives man of judicial protection. Of course, looking at some of our judges, one feels sure that they aren’t bothered by the problem. Regrettably, the inner judicial corporate spirit is widespread in Ukraine. At the same time, you can’t treat them all alike, there are quite a few decent and incorruptible judges. By the way, we’re planning shortly to take a closer look at our judicial system from within, see how professional these people are, what methods they use and what moral criteria they adhere to. The moral aspect is especially important, for it shows whether they actually understand the supremacy of the law and the principles of human rights. In all civilized countries the best protection is provided by a court of law, so the current task is to support our courts and secure professional and morally sound judicial personnel.
The new criminal code has been in effect for a year and a half. Do you think it is effective and up-to-date?
They did decriminalize its articles, making the Ukrainian criminal law policy more humane. But only at the level of the law. I think the new code proved really effective only after it was enacted. Now we can see a lot of shortcomings. Using tortures is one vivid example. The pertinent article doesn’t define the subject, meaning that this article is actually nonexistent, for it can’t be applied. More work ought to have been done on the draft. In the West working out a criminal code takes 20-30 years. We were pressed for making one as quick as possible. So we promised we would and we did a slapdash job of it. A criminal code means human destinies. All codes of laws must be treated with utmost tolerance and respect.
There has been a lot of talk about human trafficking and unprotected refugees in Ukraine of late. How does the ombudsman cope with these problems?
Combating human trafficking is a priority. Most importantly, we have broken through the blockade of silence. Once they said we had no censorship, no sex, no human trafficking. Now we hear from the Interior Ministry that there is no torturing. At least they admitted that there is trafficking in Ukrainian girls abroad. We already have a law on the subject and our Coordinating Council has worked out the second national program to prevent human traffic (valid till 2005). And we have made some headway. Yet I think it’s a mistake to have only the militia cope with the problem. The prosecutor’s office must also be involved, then we’ll see better results.
The refugees. Ukraine is quite hospitable in this sense. We have granted three thousand individuals the refugee status. It’s more than in Poland, Belarus, and Russia. Of course, we have problems there. For example, a group of illegal migrants revolted in Subcarpathia recently; they wanted the refugee status. I visited them and asked the border guard authorities to provide them with analytical materials. By the way, the border guard troops provide them with food using their own budget, because no budget appropriations have been planned. There is money only for deportation. Too bad we don’t have a migration service that would handle problems relating not only to foreigners in Ukraine, but also Ukrainians abroad. The migration process is gaining momentum with each passing year. It is only natural, for man has a right to choose better living conditions.
Recently they discussed the possibility of regional ombudsmen. What do you think?
There are regions in Ukraine where the media never even use the expression “human rights.” So we have that regional problem, of course. But look at Russia. There is an ombudsman in every federal unit, but it’s a figurehead, acting as told by the governor and protecting human rights in precisely that beck-and-call manner. The regional Russian ombudsmen are not even admitted to penitentiaries and detention cells. They are told it’s the sole prerogative of the Ombudsman of Russia. It happens in every case, because the regional ombudsmen don’t have the right kind of authority and institutional framework. At best they can do some educational work. Poland is also a Unitarian state and they decided they wouldn’t need regional ombudsmen because it would mean duplication of petitions and people would complain to the chief ombudsman of local ones. I spoke during the parliamentary hearings and said that we would set up our representations in certain regions, using a rotation approach: a year or year and a half in one region, then they move to a different region, and so on. Such advance missions will certainly include people specializing in the protection of journalist rights, freedom of speech and information. They must be appointed by the head office, meaning that they will have the right kind of authority.
How does the ombudsman’s office cooperate with informal human rights watch committees and organizations?
It’s on the principle of mutual assistance, but only with organizations that have proved effective. We receive a lot of proposals from them, especially this year: not a day without visits by human rights champions. Not so long ago, the presidential administration sought our recommendations on their professionalism. Leonid Kuchma is expected to meet with representatives of such organizations soon.
Every country has its own human rights experience. What kind of human rights know-how do you think Ukraine could use in developing its own human rights model?
There are ombudsmen in more than a hundred countries. Everywhere it is a special unique model. There is the constitutional court in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Germany. In the Netherlands, human rights are effectively protected without this court. We must proceed from our own history and mentality. By the way, history refutes the allegation that Ukrainians are unable to have a democracy, that they don’t have their own visage as a body politic, and that they are inherently provincial. Remember Kyiv Rus’ and its Ruska Pravda code of laws prohibiting the capital punishment and tortures during interrogation. Also, Pylyp Orlyk’s Constitution establishing the inviolable right of protection of women: Cossack widows, wives and children of fallen Cossacks, and orphans. A lot other such examples could be cited. And so Ukraine must seek its own pathway, allowing for the problems we are faced with.
