National Preventive Mechanisms Against Torture in Ukraine:

1. National Preventive Mechanisms Against Torture in Ukraine: What was it? What is it? What should it be?

2. “Soviet” legacy: • Systematic torture (ill-treatment at institutions of detention - /ID/) • Departmental control as a system to conceal violation of human rights • “Prosecutor’s oversight”as profanation of human rights protection • Non-transparent and closed ID • Inefficient legal assistance and artificial restrictions (monopoly of legal assistance providers) • No efficient mechanisms of parliamentary control • Passive civil society and limited mechanisms of civil monitoring (control)

3. First steps: • Ukraine’s accession to the Council of Europe (1995) • Adoption of the Constitution of Ukraine (1996) • ECtHR jurisdictioncovers Ukraine (1997) • Institution of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights (1997) • Adoption of the Law “On Democratic Civil Control of the National Military and Law Enforcement” (2003) • OPCAT ratification (2006)

4. Challenges for NPM in Ukraine • Overwhelming number of prison population (>1 million) • No “inventory” of detention institutions (insufficient fulfillment of Clause 4 of Presidential Decree №950/2011) • Widespread corruption and economic factors promoting Ill-Treatment (forced labor, lack of budget transparency, monopolies etc) • No regulation of NPM functions on legislative level (e.g. conformity problems between CPT authority, Clause 4 of Presidential Decree №950/2011, and Article 24 of Criminal Executive Code of Ukraine as well as Article12,13 of the Law of Ukraine “On Preliminary Detention”) • No reporting of public authorities to NPM • Problems of NPM integration and interaction with the existent mechanisms of public and departmental control of human rights • Drawbacks of the Law of Ukraine “On Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights” (role of Ombudsman vis-a-vis NPM is unclear, problems with delegating monitoring competencies, limited possibilities of the Ombudsman to represent violated human rights of ill- treatment victims) • Absence of funding and well-trained personnel to provide effective monitoring • Insufficient number or prepared civic activists interested in cooperation with NPM

5. NPM forerunnerssuccessful and failed ones : • “Mobile teams” (MIA 2006-2010) • Civic Councils at MIA and State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine members with competences and without • Ad hoc initiatives of Prosecutor General on joint visits to institutions of detention with civil society organizations • Provisions of Clause 9.2 of PGU Decree №7 of 06/4/2011 • Ad hoc initiatives of the Ombudsman on joint visits to places of detention with civil society representatives • Commission on Prevention of Torture (Presidential Decree №950/2011)

6. Features of effective NPM in Ukraine (part 1) • Authority (mandate), mechanisms of establishment, procedures for cooperation with public authorities and civil society shall be determined by LAW = guaranty of the NPM functional independence • Financial independence, enhanced by absence of private financial interests of NPM members in their work • Personal independence of NPM members • Combination of research monitoring with individual reaction to violation of human rights • Rights to hold officials administratively liable for non-cooperation with NPM • Full access to detainees and all the files

7. Features of efficient NPM in Ukraine (part 2) • Cooperation with external experts (local and foreign ones) • “Mandatory expert duties” of NPM (e.g. obligatory NPM comments of every legal initiative related to ill-treatment) • Permanent contacts between NPM and SPT (Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture) • Secure right to direct and confidential access to NPM for every detainee • Obligation to react to all NPM comments and recommendations, and liability for non-reaction to NPM actions

8. Ombudsman at the epicenter of NPM activity • Drastic reform of the Ombudsman’s institution in Ukraine • Authority to cooperate, interact and – if needed – coordinate NPM • Public budget allocations to fund regional and sectoral representatives of the Ombudsman (children’s rights, rights of minorities, patients’ rights etc.) • Legislative enhancement of Ombudsman’s procedural capabilities (representation of citizens’ interests at national Courts of Justice)

9. Thank You for your attention! Dmytro Groysman Vinnytsia Human Rights Group Coordinatorwww.vpg.org.ua 0672846450 0632208055