Rights Are Not Granted;

The official pomp somehow obscured the fact that Ukraine, unlike 48 member states, did not vote for the Declaration, refraining together with Poland, Czechoslovakia, the USSR, Belarus, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and Yugoslavia; as well as the fact that the Declaration was kept secret from the Soviet public until the late 1980s, that its samizdat copies were confiscated by the authorities and those in possession arrested on charges of anti-Soviet agitation, that Soviet lawyers condemned human rights as a "bourgeois contrivance," and that the document is in many respects a compromise between the liberal concept of human rights with its underlying idea of freedom (human rights: areas free from government regulation) and the paternalistic model whereby the state secures its subjects' well-being, based on collective rights. The Declaration includes certain social guarantees (e.g., paid leaves, etc., that are related to human rights rather vaguely).

After adopting the Declaration and ratifying the 1966 pacts on civil, political, social, economic, and cultural rights, now legally binding on the signatories, the governments undertook to observe these rights, but turned out unable to honor their commitments, primarily because the government is the source of human rights violations. When the state meets no resistance from civil society meant to defend these rights such violations gain in scope and momentum.

Even a superficial analysis of changes in the status of human rights in Ukraine seems to corroborate the above statement. The young national state, at first quite pliable, gradually began to ossify, emerging in a form most unsavory to the masses, getting increasingly to supply the needs of the authorities, while showing growing indifference to the destinies of everyone else and growing aggressiveness toward all those voicing their dissatisfaction with the existing system. Ukrainian society is becoming increasingly cruel. Ukraine ranks with the world's capital punishment and prison population record-holders. Physical torture during preliminary inquiry is commonplace. The independence of the Ukrainian court and fair trial is highly questionable; foreign experts believe that one half of verdicts are unjustified. And no one will discuss seriously the social and economic rights proclaimed by the Declaration and set forth in the Ukrainian Constitution. The constitutionally proclaimed rights to adequate livelihood and social protection sounds ridiculous.

By and large, the status of human rights in Ukraine has shown a dramatic decline over the past two years. Trends extremely damaging to human rights are noticeably gaining momentum. In the first place, there is growing administrative pressure from the state and its agents. Over-regulation extends to all spheres, thus enforcing tangible restrictions on individual freedom. In response to efforts to eliminate these endless "established procedures" even more refined ones are invented, along with progressive punitive technologies. Secondly, political struggle has sharpened, with rival forces using what could be very mildly described as uncivilized methods, using law enforcement agencies to get the better of opponents. This cannot but encourage these agencies' arbitrary rule, for they know there is no one to stamp his foot, and on the other hand makes ordinary people feel increasingly vulnerable. Thirdly, access to official information is getting increasingly difficult. A recently enacted element of law authorizing ranking government executives to stamp "For Official Use Only" on their documents is an outrageous violation of the freedom of information. It is actually legalizes a situation which is gradually taking shape and in which government agencies act as sole owners of official information with their "Strictly Classified" and "Top Secret" access barriers applied to information that cannot be kept secret, not under any democratic standards. This is another grave danger to human rights, because only a fully informed society can discharge its major function: control over state authorities. Unfortunately, Ukrainian civil society is too weak, passive, and does not discharge its functions properly. Fourthly, there is an obvious desire on high to put the screws on the media and get them to act as told, not as they see fit. This is especially true of the press, as evidenced by the scandalous, albeit abortive, case vs. Serhiy Rakhmanin of the Zerkalo nedeli. In other words, the freedom of the press, one of the major attainments of the past decade, is now under threat.

There are other examples testifying to the formidable possibility of Ukraine turning into a police state. Ex-Minister of Justice Serhiy Holovaty said in an interview with Radio Liberty last summer that there are government-kept killers in Ukraine. Several weeks later an attempt was made on Serhiy Odarych, a well-known politician and journalist working in opposition to the current regime. The man later stated that he had no big business connections and that he had only one opponent who would benefit from his death. President Kuchma. From what we know, his statement caused no response from either power structures or society. No commentaries or refutations. What is one to make of it?

Another example. The newspaper Politika (No. 19 of April 20, 1998) carried a letter marked "Top Secret" addressed by the General Prosecutor's Office to certain district prosecutor's offices in Kyiv, instructing them to press criminal charges against the newspapers Pravda Ukrainy; Vseukrainskie Vedomosti; Kievskie Vedomosti; Politika; Silski Visti; Tovarysh; Komunist, and My (We) for carrying information defaming the character and injurious to the reputation of the President of Ukraine as Chief Executive, man, and citizen, on the strength of referrals submitted from the Presidential Administration. Even though a number of articles carried by opposition periodicals do not hold water, such actions on the part of Administration and General Prosecutor can only be regarded as a blatant encroachment on the freedom of expression.

One cannot remain oblivious of the fact that there is double standard practice in the human rights domain in Ukraine, meaning that there are human rights in the international community and human rights in Ukraine. Evidence of this is the capital punishment issue. The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly wanted to strip the Ukrainian delegation of its status not because death sentences were pronounced and executed in Ukraine, but because this was a breach of commitment of the Ukrainian government. The political leadership had promised to impose a moratorium on the capital punishment and had gone back on its word. A document recently issued by the Council's Legal and Human Rights Committee, summing up Ukraine's commitments undertaken when being admitted to the Council and the way they are implemented, has it in black and white that only one has been fulfilled to date: the new Constitution. Double standards are also corroborated by the fact that the international treaties on human rights signed by Ukraine have not been carried by official legal publications (e.g., Vidomosti Verkhovnoyi Rady). This is one of the reasons Ukrainian courts have no precedents of using these instruments in cases involving human rights. Previously we argued with colleagues maintaining that this was being done deliberately. We believed that there was no money or that the texts had not been made public knowledge due to other technical reasons. Now we see we were wrong.

Honestly, one has the impression that the "good old times" of the state turning a hostile face to its own people are back, that once again we will see the state on the other side of the barricade. I would hate to have to go back to dissident status, but the feeling is there.

So what is to be done? We think that there is no alternative to a dialogue between volunteer organizations and authorities. Anyway not now. Under the Constitution, the state sees its major responsibility in implementing human rights. The latter are proclaimed one of the greatest values. This can be used as the foundations on which to combine the efforts of government and nongovernmental organizations. The more so that the previous monolith of power no longer exists. One can find people sincerely wishing to do their jobs well in any government agency. Nor can one assert that human rights have perished in Ukraine. Ukraine remains one of Europe's most tolerant polities in its attitude toward ethnic minorities and refugees. There are certain positive signs in the judicial system, just as there is evidence that the Interior Ministry is seriously concerned about police brutality and torture, and is making serious efforts to correct the situation. Other positive examples could be cited. But again, the overall human rights situation has worsened significantly.

Human rights are the immune system of the public organism. Neglecting it means exposing this organism to a variety of diseases that will eventually kill it. A political regime increasingly violating human rights will sooner or later be defeated. We must all realize: either Ukraine gradually becomes a democracy, with human rights being actually implemented, or it will cease to exist, because discrepancies and differences will continue to pile up, in the end tearing this country apart the way it happened to the USSR.

As before, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a powerful beacon in this struggle for democracy, a task all peoples and nations must strive to fulfill.