Cooperation with MPs is an important area of the Commissioner’s activity. According to Item 2, Article 16 of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, an appeal of an MP on violations of human rights and freedoms is among the reasons for the Commissioner to institute an inquiry into and conduct an examination of such a case. Personal meetings with MPs are of great help in the Commissioner’s decision making on the subsequent course of action.

In the period from April 1998 to December 1999 the Commissioner received 266 written appeals from MPs: In particular, 79 appeals were received from 53 MPs in the period from April 14 to December 31, 1998. In 1999 there were 187 appeals from 99 MPs. Apart from official appeals in writing, the MPs appealed to the Commissioner during personal appointments and by telephone.

Representatives of all groups and factions in Parliament addressed the appeals. The largest number of appeals came from MPs elected in majority districts: 29 MPs or 54.7% of all those in Parliament in 1998 and 64 MPs (64.5%) in 1999.

The overwhelming number of appeals was addressed on behalf of the MPs’ voters. Table 3.12 presents information about definite violations reported by the MPs to the Commissioner in their appeals and in the applications, complaints and appeals of citizens.

Table 3.12. Violations of definite rights reported in the appeals of Members of Parliament 
and in their forwarded applications, complaints and appeals by citizens

Of the appeals violations on civic rights accounted for more than a half – complaints against the judgments, verdicts, rulings and decisions of courts; over one-third – against the unlawful actions of officials and employees of MIA bodies, investigators, public prosecutors, courts, and the executive. In particular, complaints against the actions of officials and employees of MIA bodies – 19; the actions of courts – 15; of the public prosecutor’s offices – 9; of local bodies of authority – 4; and of the Security Service of Ukraine – 1.

Of the appeals on violations of economic rights every second reported about the failure of employers to disburse wages on time. Suffice it one example to illustrate the point. MP F.Abramov filed an appeal of 97 citizens whose wages and similar payments were not disbursed; MP V.Onopenko filed an identical appeal signed by 50 citizens.

As mentioned earlier, the failure to execute court judgments on recovery of wages and other social payments has gained extensive proportions. This problem could not but be brought to the attention of the MPs. For example, MP K.Okhrimenko reported on non-compliance with the lawful ruling of a court on disbursing wages to Mrs.A.Dvorichenko, Mrs.Y.Orlovska and others from the town of Druzhkivka in Donetsk oblast. Only after the intervention of the Commission for Human Rights the problem was settled in favor of the appellants: the property of the debtors was put up for sale to enforce the court ruling. Non-compliance with the lawful rulings of courts, as already commented on, breeds the citizens’ distrust in the possibility of exercising their right to judicial protection.

MPs addressed 18 appeals in 1998 and 31 appeals in 1999 on violations of social rights – to housing, education, medical care at no charge, and reviews of the size of pensions.

When compared with the citizens’ appeals, the appeals of the MPs report on identical violations of rights.

A preliminary analysis of the MPs’ letters and the citizens’ complaints they sent showed that 23 and 40 of the MPs’ appeals in 1998 and 1999 respectively were recognized acceptable for consideration. They were all thoroughly studied, after which decisions were adopted on what subsequent measures to take in conformity with the requirements of Article 17 of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights.

In cases of extensive and gross violations of citizens’ rights the Commissioner applied the practice of instituting public inquiries. Twenty-four such inquiries were opened in response to appeals that were recognized as acceptable for consideration (9 in 1998 and 15 in 1999).

In 1998 and 1999 the Commissioner received a number of appeals on violations of rights of persons who suffered from the accident at Chornobyl. An inquiry was opened into the case of Mr.O.Fedorchenko, born 1926, a Second World War veteran residing in the town of Sumy. In a letter to MP V.Tropin, he asked to have his status of cleanup operator of the Chornobyl accident restored. The MP appealed in writing to the Commissioner to look into this matter and assist his voter in resolving it positively. After studying and checking on the presented information, the material of the case was forwarded to the Ministry for Emergencies and Protection of the Population Against the Consequences of the Chornobyl Accident. As its First Deputy Minister V.Loginov informed, Mr.O.Fedorchenko’s status was confirmed on September 16, 1999.

Inquiries with a positive outcome of partially allowed requests were set in motion in response to the appeals of MP A.Khmeliovy interceding on behalf Mr.M. who was against the closure of a criminal case on the death of his son; MP V.Lantukh representing the interests of Mr.M.Hvozdievsky concerning procrastination of a civil case in court; and MP Y.Stetsko who petitioned on behalf of Mr.A.Voitko to have him reinstated in his previous job.

The appeals of MPs K.Vashchuk, N.Markovska and S.Holovaty on behalf of their voters concerning the recovery of their savings were brought together into one inquiry. The appeals were taken into consideration when the Commissioner was preparing a constitutional appeal to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on recognizing as unconstitutional some of the provisions of the Law On State Guarantees of Restoring the Savings of Ukrainian Citizens and other standard acts on this issue (treated in greater detail in Chapter VI of the Report).

After the Commissioner took appropriate measures in response to the appeal of MP V.Vlasov interceding on behalf of Mr.Volkov who, despite a court ruling, could not receive his back pay because the debtor had no money on his bank accounts, recovery was effected against the debtor’s property.

MP Y.Kozak interceded on behalf of Mr.M. who was against the closure of a criminal case on the death of his under-age daughter in a hospital. The Commissioner took measures to have the closure of the case revoked, and the investigation into it was reopened.

At the same time the Commissioner’s inquiries into cases of human rights violations are still going on in response to the request of MP F.Abramov who sent the collective appeal of the Snizhneantratsyt Co. workers demanding disbursement of back pay; the appeal of MP V.Semeniuk protesting the detention and torture of his assistant during a preliminary investigation; and the appeal of MP V.Sinko on behalf of Mr.O.Dobrovolsky to have his status of cleanup operator of the Chornobyl accident restored.

As a result of the Commissioner’s inquiries (with allowance for the inquiries opened despite the lack of their formal attributes for consideration), the citizens’ rights were completely or partially restored in 13 cases, facts of violations were not confirmed in 11 cases, and inquiries are still going on in 11 cases.

As concerns six appeals (two in 1998 and four in 1999), the applicants were offered explanations on the measures they should take.

Of the appeals accepted for consideration 12 in 1998 and 21 in 1999 were referred to competent bodies. In response to MP N.Shurych interceding on behalf of Mrs.H.Haponenko, who appealed against a court decision on a housing dispute, the Commissioner addressed the Supreme Court, because the court did not take into consideration the interests of the plaintiff’s son, an invalid since birth. The Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court studied the case, the court judgment was revoked, and the case was referred for a new examination.

MP V.Alexeyev, on behalf of Mrs.L.Veretinna, protested against the unlawful actions of the investigation unit under the public prosecutor’s office in Ordzhonikidze district of Kharkiv. On the initiative of the Commissioner the General Attorney conducted an administrative investigation. The facts cited in the complaint were partially confirmed and the employees involved in the violation of the applicant’s rights were disciplined.

After a preliminary analysis of all the previous appeals of the MPs, the Commissioner arrived at the conclusion that the overwhelming number of them included questions that were not within the competence of the Commissioner and therefore were unacceptable for consideration. In 1998 such appeals numbered 56 (74.6%) and in 1999 there were 149 (79.6%).

In disregard of the provisions of Item 2, Article 17 of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights and in excess of the statutory period of one (two) years, MPs addressed the Commissioner on behalf of their voters on several occasions: concerning a housing dispute with a district state administration that was going on since 1995; a protest against the dismissal of a voter from his job in 1992; a demand to appeal against the decision of a district court of February 15, 1995; and some others.

Although some appeals addressed by the MPs did not meet the requirements of paragraph 4, Item 3, Article 17 of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights and, therefore, were not subject to consideration, the Commissioner nonetheless did not reject them when they raised publicly important questions. After thorough examination of the MPs’ appeals, the Commissioner usually took definite measures in response.

Special attention was paid to the straitened circumstances of the citizen on whose behalf the MP appealed and the importance of the issues they raised. On a number of occasions the Commissioner even opened inquiries in response to appeals that formally could not be subject to consideration. A case in point was the appeal of MPs Y.Stetsko and M.Kosiv who interceded on behalf of Mrs.Skrypko. Her daughter, while residing in The Netherlands, was killed in 1993 by her husband, a Dutch national. Although the substance of the appeal was not within the purview of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, the Commissioner instituted an inquiry to protect the interests of the under-age son. Through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the UFLC (Ukrainian Foreign Legal College) the Commissioner learned that the mother’s claim could not be redressed under the laws of The Netherlands. Nonetheless, the Commissioner had a meeting with the Ambassador of The Netherlands to Ukraine Onno Hatinga van’t Sant to seek additional possibilities of coming to the assistance of the appellant, in particular through non-governmental Dutch foundations. The inquiry into this case is still going on.

In most cases the appeals of the MPs were forwarded to competent bodies authorized to settle the addressed problems. Of the 205 appeals that were unacceptable for consideration 176 were forwarded to relevant bodies (49 and 127 in 1998 and 1999 respectively).

Under the personal control of the Commissioner were the following: the appeal of Mr.V.Kukurudza (filed through MP I.Chyzh) forwarded to the Ukraina Commercial Agri-Industrial Bank; the appeal of MP R.Zvarych (on behalf of Mr.V.Pryshchyk) forwarded for consideration to the Attorney General; and the appeal of Mr.V.Nekosakov (filed through MP B.Kozhyn) was examined by the public prosecutor of Kharkiv oblast. Whenever possible the Commissioner tried to come to the assistance of the MPs and their voters.

Apart from the consideration of the MPs’ appeals, the Commissioner focused particular attention on cooperation with the parliamentary committees. It became an important component of the Commissioner’s activity, providing a wonderful opportunity for addressing issues of national importance. Throughout 1998 the Commissioner and the Parliamentary Committee on Issues of Health Care, Motherhood and Childhood received a number of appeals by employees of medical establishments and the Central Committee of Trade Unions of Medical Workers, who complained against extensive reductions in medical personnel and in the network of medical establishments. After scrutinizing the issues raised in the appeals, the Commissioner and the parliamentary committee arrived at the conclusion that such reductions would destroy the sector and violate the rights of a substantial number of citizens who were employed in the health care system.

As a result, an open letter was addressed to the President, Chairman of Parliament and the Prime Minister of Ukraine. Jointly with the committee chairman MP S.Shevchuk, the Commissioner took part in the work of the plenary session of the Central Committee of Trade Unions of Medical Workers. In the end, the Ministry of Health Care effected respective measures to take the edge off this problem.

When checking on compliance with human rights and freedoms in Chernihiv oblast, the Commissioner learned that at a military unit in Pryluky servicemen were being discharged, without settling their social problems: they were denied housing and their back pay was delayed. The Commissioner forwarded an appeal to the Chairman of Parliament and jointly with the parliamentary Committee on National Security and Defense raised the question of restoring the servicemen’s rights. The appeal produced its desired effect. The problems of social welfare of the servicemen and their families were gradually settled.

Taking into account the substance of the appeals, the Commissioner also actively cooperated with the following parliamentary committees in definite areas of law drafting: Committee for Human Rights, Ethnic Minorities and Inter-Ethnic Relations - when drafting the Principles of State Policy of Ukraine on Human Rights adopted by Parliament on June 17, 1999; Committee for Foreign Affairs – coordination of the issue on the ratification of the UN Convention On the Law of the Sea 1982; Committee on National Security and Defense – introducing amendments to the draft of the Criminal Code of Ukraine concerning criminal liability for trafficking in people.

In summing up the results of work with the MPs’ appeals, the Commissioner for Human Rights deems it necessary to point out the following: