Does the Department offer cooperation?
The head of the human rights organisation “Donetsk Memorial,” O. Bukalov, appealed to the Head of the Department, V.V. Koshchynets, on 22 October 2007 with a letter containing a number of proposals regarding the development of constructive cooperation between public human rights organisations and the system’s institutions. Having received no response, O. Bukalov appealed to the head of the agency again on 11 January and only received a response in February. In a letter dated 11 April 2008, the head of the public organisation communicated his view of the proposals and the agency’s approaches to cooperation.
“DONETSK MEMORIAL”
No. 153 of 22 October 2007
To the Head of the State Department of
Ukraine for the Execution of
Sentences KOSHCHYNETS V. V.
Melnykova St., 81, 04050, Kyiv
Dear Vasyl Vasylovych!
In accordance with the instruction of the Cabinet of Ministers of 11.09.2007 No. 38745/4/1-07, an inspection of the activities of the State Department of Ukraine for the Execution of Sentences was conducted in September 2007. At the invitation of the Acting Minister of Justice, Mr V. Bondyk, I was included in the interdepartmental commission.
During the visit to the Department, I had the opportunity to communicate with the leading specialists of the agency. I am pleased to note that communication with the First Deputy Head of the State Department of Ukraine for the Execution of Sentences, M.P. Iltyai, with the heads of departments and subdivisions of the Department, O.G. Dvoinos, M.V. Mendel, O.I. Kyslov, E.V. Sevryuk, P.I. Fedorchenko, O.V. Svyetlak, Yu.M. Syplyvyi, and also with the Chairman of the Public Council under the Department, I.V. Shtanko, took place in a spirit of mutual understanding, which, however, did not exclude the noting of differences in views and assessments of certain issues.
Unfortunately, the tradition was maintained this time as well, in which you, Vasyl Vasylovych, avoid personal meetings with me; however, this did not prevent the inspection from taking place or from verifying the readiness of your colleagues to facilitate my mission.
I am forced to note with regret that Mr Dvoinos refused to provide materials regarding the transfer of prisoners from the Izyaslav colony after the events of January 2007; however, I do not exclude the possibility that this was not his personal decision, but the execution of an order given to him.
The results of the inspection and the conclusions were sent by me to the Ministry of Justice as appropriate. Instead, I consider it necessary to express some wishes regarding possible measures, the implementation of which, in my opinion, would contribute to the improvement of the Department’s activities and would be aimed at increasing its efficiency.
1. I see an urgent need to hold a seminar (“round table,” meeting) with the participation of heads of Department subdivisions and human rights defenders to discuss the paths and procedures of interaction, and an open discussion of the specifics of normative acts regulating such interaction, in particular, the draft Instruction on the procedure for access to penal institutions and pre-trial detention centres; its preparation is currently taking place secretly from the public.
2. The issue of resuming the publication of the Department’s annual Report, in which the activities of the subdivisions and relevant problems would be reflected in a concentrated form, remains relevant.
3. Facilitation of the inclusion in the agenda of the Public Council under the Department of the issue regarding overcoming obstacles in the cooperation between leading human rights organisations and the institutions and bodies of the Department.
4. The Department management’s approach to public initiatives to conduct research on various aspects of the institutions’ activities requires fundamental changes; there should be a rejection of attempts to ban such research by public organisations, masking the refusal under numerous optional approvals that last for years.
5. It is also important to significantly improve the standards for providing responses to requests and appeals from public organisations; in particular, to avoid the established practice where compliance with the requirements of legislation on citizens’ appeals by agency employees is assessed formally, while at the same time it is claimed that “comprehensive answers” are being provided when they are not. In particular, many answers are provided not on the merits of the appeals and are formal in nature, specifically by Mr Skokov.
6. I am sure that it would be useful if the employees of the institutions and bodies of the Department, starting from the highest-ranking managers, reacted effectively to the research and Reports of human rights organisations, and took the necessary measures to respond to the problems highlighted in such studies. So far, such a reaction is absent.
7. It is extremely urgent to introduce an algorithm, jointly developed by Department specialists and representatives of influential human rights organisations, for operational response to reports of human rights violations in institutions.
8. I have no doubt that the unfortunate fate of the draft of the recently approved Concept for the Development of the Penal Service is closely linked to the unwillingness of the Department’s management to involve the general public in its preparation and discussion, in particular, specialists from the Penitentiary Society of Ukraine, other leading scientists, and the clandestine nature of its preparation and approval. On this issue, the Department’s existing priorities should also be reviewed.
9. And finally. Communication with the leading specialists of the Department during the inspection gave the impression that in their current activities, they undoubtedly give preference to issues of regime and security, often neglecting issues of human rights and international standards in this area; sometimes brutally, they do not even try to seek a balance between these two approaches. Such an attitude towards the problem of human rights compliance is unacceptable in a democratic society. It seems to me extremely urgent to discuss these issues in a circle of leading specialists of the agency and human rights organisations. Mutual consideration of approaches and positions on these issues can largely relieve tension in relations and contribute to achieving the most optimal ways for society to overcome existing problems.
I very much hope that this letter of mine will not become an appeal into the void, as has happened with some of my other letters to you, and that I will be able to receive a substantive and constructive response within a reasonable time, which I request be sent to the address known to you:
Bukalov O., P.O. Box 4836, Donetsk, 83092
Respectfully,
Oleksandr Bukalov
Chairman of the Penitentiary Society of Ukraine
Chairman of the Council of the human rights
organisation “Donetsk Memorial”
“DONETSK MEMORIAL”
No. 10 of 11 January 2008
To the Head of the State Department of Ukraine
for the Execution of Sentences KOSHCHYNETS V. V.
Copies: To the President of Ukraine V.A. Yushchenko
To the Prime Minister of Ukraine Yu. Tymoshenko
To the Secretary of the Council of National
Security and Defence R.V. Bohatyrova
To the Minister of Justice of Ukraine Onishchuk M.V.
To the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Human Rights
To the Committee on Legislative Support of
Law Enforcement Activities
To the Commissioner for Human Rights Karpachova N.I.
Highly Esteemed Vasyl Vasylovych!
After my participation in the work of the interdepartmental commission, which was created in accordance with the instruction of the Cabinet of Ministers of 11.09.2007 No. 38745/4/1-07 in September 2007 to inspect the activities of the State Department of Ukraine for the Execution of Sentences, I approached you with a letter dated 22 October. In this letter, I expressed some wishes regarding possible measures, the implementation of which, in my opinion, would contribute to the improvement of the Department’s activities and would be aimed at increasing its efficiency.
At the end of that letter, I expressed hope that it would not become an appeal into the void, as has happened with some of my other letters to you. Unfortunately, over the course of two and a half months, I have not received any response from you. Once again, with sadness, I am forced to state that your declarations about cooperation with public organisations are insincere, and your persistent unwillingness to respond to appeals to you testifies not only to disrespect for me personally but also to actual indifference to the problems for which you are responsible while holding such an important position.
Sending my letter with proposals to you for the second time, I no longer hope for a substantive or even any response. But I am convinced that the named issues are relevant, human fates depend on their consideration and resolution, and sometimes even lives. That is exactly why I consider it necessary to send a copy of this letter both to the Committees of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and to other state structures, because I believe these proposals are worthy of at least attention and consideration.
Perhaps in Ukraine, there are structures or bodies where such a peculiar attitude of yours towards official duties and towards the cause for which you are responsible will be acceptable. I have great doubt that it is useful for the country’s penal system.
Appendix: Copy of letter No. 153 of 22 October 2007.
Oleksandr Bukalov
Chairman of the Penitentiary Society of Ukraine
Chairman of the Council of the human rights
organisation “Donetsk Memorial”
STATE DEPARTMENT OF UKRAINE
FOR THE EXECUTION OF SENTENCES
To the Chairman of the Donetsk Public Historical-Educational and Human Rights Charitable Organisation “Donetsk Memorial,”
Chairman of the Penitentiary Society of Ukraine
Bukalov O.P.
16 February 2008 No. 5-836/Kn
Dear Oleksandr Pavlovych!
Your appeal has been considered in the State Department of Ukraine for the Execution of Sentences.
The conducted inspection established that during October–December 2007, your appeals No. 150, 159, 170, 174, 176, 177, 184 were received by the Department and were considered in the established order.
Letter No. 153 of 22.10.2007 was not received by the Department. Regarding the issues set out in the copy of the letter sent by you, we inform you of the following.
The report on the implementation of the work plan of the State Department of Ukraine for the Execution of Sentences has been published quarterly on the Department’s website since 2006 and is published in the weekly newspaper “Zakon i Oboviazok” (“Law and Duty”).
The Department does not share your opinion about the formality of the responses and the lack of reaction to appeals from public organisations.
We also do not agree with your opinion regarding the prohibition of conducting research at the initiative of public organisations.
Yes, for example, in 2007, the human rights organisation “International Society for Human Rights – Ukrainian Section” conducted monitoring of the 2007 early election process in the institutions of the country’s penitentiary system.
In the current year, at the initiative of the public organisation “Analytical Centre ‘Socioconsulting’,” a sociological study “Socio-psychological portrait of juvenile convicts” will be conducted. The Department has also supported the appeal of the Centre for Social Expertise of the Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine regarding conducting the study “Analysis of existing practices and legislation in the field of juvenile delinquency,” as well as their compliance with international norms and standards, commissioned by the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) representative office in Ukraine.
In case you define specific problems of cooperation between institutions and bodies of the execution of sentences with human rights organisations and measures for their resolution, as well as proposals for an algorithm of operational response to reports of human rights violations in penal institutions, the Department is ready to consider them in the established order.
We call upon you, dear Oleksandr Pavlovych, for a constructive dialogue, which would provide for the definition of more specific proposals from your side instead of overly emotional generalised statements.
Chairman V.V. Koshchynets
“DONETSK MEMORIAL”
No. 58 of 11 April 2007
To the Head of the State Department of
Ukraine for the Execution of
Sentences KOSHCHYNETS V. V.
Melnykova St., 81, 04050, Kyiv
Dear Vasyl Vasylovych!
Thank you for the response sent in letter No. 5-836/Kn of 16 February 2008.
As I understand from the content, this is a response to my letter of 22 October, re-sent on 11 January, which contains nine proposals regarding the interaction between public organisations and the penal service.
I must immediately point out that your letter contains a reaction to only four of these nine proposals.
I will start with those you noticed in my letter.
First.
You note that “the Department does not share your opinion about the formality of the responses and the lack of reaction to appeals from public organisations.”
That is, you believe that the Department always and timely reacts to public appeals, and the responses of its officials are not formal, but substantive and on the merits. And “lack of reaction” does not happen at all.
My experience does not coincide with your opinion at all. For example, in a letter of 10 June 2007, I expressed hope that the Report on prisoners’ rights prepared by “Donetsk Memorial” “would be seriously processed, and the Department would provide a qualified and professional assessment of the included materials. It is also important for us to know the Department’s position regarding each of the recommendations included in the Report.”
In the same letter, I urged you to change approaches to cooperation with “Donetsk Memorial” and the Penitentiary Society of Ukraine.
You did not provide any response to this letter, not even a formal one.
Instead, I regularly do not receive proper responses to almost every second appeal of mine. Therefore, I am sometimes forced to appeal a second, third time... And here you are responding to me, and even then only to half of my questions, only after my repeated letter. Perhaps only because I sent its copy also to the President of Ukraine, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of the NSDC, the Ministry of Justice, the Commissioner for Human Rights, and the parliamentary Committee on Legislative Support of Law Enforcement Activities? I have noticed that often only by sending a letter with such copying can I achieve at least some kind of response.
I will note that my impression of the Department’s persistent unwillingness to provide me with responses is not subjective. The improper nature of a number of the Department’s responses is also confirmed by an inspection by the Prosecutor General’s Office. Letter No. 16-31573-07 of 06 March 2008 states that “based on the results of the inspection in connection with the non-compliance with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Information’ regarding an official of the Department, the Prosecutor General’s Office has initiated disciplinary proceedings.”
I am not even talking about those five court decisions regarding the heads of territorial departments, which were adopted based on my lawsuits, in which (decisions) the actions of high-ranking officials were recognised as unlawful. So your disagreement with my “opinion about the formality of the responses” somehow does not coincide with the facts.
Second.
You do not agree with my opinion “regarding the prohibition of conducting research at the initiative of public organisations” and provide examples of research being conducted by some public organisations. As if permission to one organisation automatically excludes a prohibition to others. This is not so.
I can remind you that in 2005 I corresponded for a year with Ms Kalashnyk, who eventually refused “Donetsk Memorial’s” request to conduct a pilot study of medical problems in institutions of the Donetsk region (letter No. 12/4992/Kl of 27.12.2005) and wrote:
“We consider it inappropriate to conduct pilot studies among medical staff and sick prisoners.”
By the way, we were planning to test the Toolkit (questionnaires) developed within the framework of an international project initiated by our organisation. Representatives of public organisations and prison agencies of Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia, and Azerbaijan participated in it. The only prison agency that ignored participation in the project was our Ukrainian Department for the Execution of Sentences.
The following year, 2006, we again had the opportunity to test the mentioned Toolkit developed by the international community. And what? I corresponded with you and your deputies for six months regarding the conduct of a study of pre-trial detention centre problems, and several times sent a detailed description of the project. Even Member of Parliament K. Levchenko asked you why permission to conduct the study was not being granted. You then informed her (letter No. 16-4569/Kn of 20 October 2006): “after analysing the description of the project and the toolkit provided by ‘Donetsk Memorial’ for the study of the conditions of detention of persons taken into custody in pre-trial detention centres of the Department, for a number of objective reasons, a decision was made to refuse to implement the specified project.” This letter was signed by you personally.
It is very unfortunate that such a practice continues. In 2007, at the request of the Penitentiary Society of Ukraine to allow research at the initiative of Mr V. Badyra, there was also no positive response, but rather an offer of a circle of endless and unjustified approvals.
So, you may disagree with my opinion about refusals, but then one must also disagree with the facts, and even with your own signature on the refusal letter.
In your letter, you assure that the Department will consider my proposals in the established order in case of “defining specific problems of cooperation between institutions and bodies of the execution of sentences with human rights organisations,” as well as “proposals for an algorithm of operational response to reports of human rights violations in penal institutions”....
First, about the “operational response algorithm.”
I provided this proposal back in September 2007. It is nice to receive at least something regarding it in March. Excuse me, Vasyl Vasylovych, but unfortunately, I cannot agree to your proposal to develop and provide an algorithm.
I am convinced that in the first place, the Department itself is interested in such an algorithm. Therefore, it would be more logical for the agency itself to develop it, taking into account the whole complex of specifics of the institutions’ activities, which are better known to the Department. And only then provide the draft to public organisations for familiarisation and consideration. Undoubtedly, taking measures to find effective ways to ensure security in the agency’s institutions is the Department’s official duty. And shifting it onto others is highly unprofessional.
Secondly, my experience shows that the approach you proposed is a common “excuse” that the Department has used repeatedly, as the current leadership categorically does not perceive cooperation with the public as a need and necessity. Why? Here is an example. Your deputy promised in his letter No. 1/1-3794/Ol of 31 August 2006 that “in order to ensure effective cooperation between the bodies and institutions of the penal service and public organisations, it was decided to develop a relevant regulation, in which the procedure for providing information will also be defined.” I spent a year of correspondence trying to get such a regulation, and finally found out that no such regulation had ever been developed.
The second example of “cooperation” in the development of documents. I developed and proposed a Regulation on the interaction of public organisations and agency institutions to the Department in 2000. It was considered for two years and eventually buried.
Back in 2003, I proposed a number of suggestions to the then-being-created Regulation on Supervisory Commissions. Most of them were not taken into account.
In 2004, I proposed a number of amendments to the “Concept of Social Partnership of Public Organisations and Bodies and Institutions for the Execution of Sentences,” adopted in December 2003. Almost everything related to human rights compliance was removed by Mr S. Skokov, who prepared the text, and did not make it into the final version of the concept.
About the Department’s reaction to my two attempts to propose conducting research, I already wrote above — they were rejected. Obviously, the Department rejects any of my proposals or studies them for a very long time and subsequently forgets about them.
So, you are offering me to walk the familiar path again and develop something myself, only to then spend several years coordinating it with you? I cannot perceive your proposal to “develop an algorithm” as anything other than an attempt to send me once again around an endless circle of submitting proposals, their discussion with the loss of letters, the change of responsible employees, etc. Excuse me.
It seems appropriate and justified to me that the algorithm be developed by the Department, and my and other public organisations will consider the efforts of your specialists “in the established order.” If, of course, you are not against constructive cooperation and if your intentions to do something joint are sincere, and not another imitation of consent to “cooperate.” I am convinced that soon we will have the opportunity to return to this issue.
Now regarding the “definition of specific problems of cooperation between institutions and bodies of the execution of sentences with human rights organisations,” which you are ready to consider “in the established order.”
My letter contains a number of such “specific problems,” but for some reason, you did not start to consider them or even mention them. In particular, I proposed:
- holding a “round table” (meeting) with the participation of heads of Department subdivisions and human rights defenders to discuss the paths and procedures of interaction, an open discussion of the specifics of normative acts regulating such interaction.
You did not respond with a single word. Is this to be understood as meaning that such a meeting is not needed by you? You are ready to cooperate, but without meetings and discussion of pressing issues. Right?
- facilitation of the inclusion in the agenda of the Public Council under the Department of the issue regarding overcoming obstacles in the cooperation between leading human rights organisations and the institutions and bodies of the Department.
The meeting of the Public Council took place in February, but the proposed issues did not make it onto the agenda, and neither I nor representatives of the Penitentiary Society of Ukraine, nor the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group (KhPG) or “La Strada” were invited to participate in the work of the council. An excellent example of “readiness for cooperation” and consideration of proposals.
- it would be useful if the employees of the institutions and bodies of the Department reacted effectively to the research and Reports of human rights organisations, and took the necessary measures to respond to the problems highlighted in such studies.
My above-cited letter of 10 June with the assurance that it is “important for us to know the Department’s position regarding each of the recommendations included in the Report” on prisoners’ rights remains unanswered. As is a number of other similar letters.
- involving the general public in the preparation and discussion of the Concept for the Development of the Penal Service, in particular, specialists from the Penitentiary Society of Ukraine, other leading scientists.
Any reaction to this proposal did not come from you. While theoretically calling for cooperation, practically you ignore any possible grounds for such cooperation. The silence on this proposal, unfortunately, confirms such a conclusion.
- it is extremely urgent to discuss in a circle of leading specialists of the agency and human rights organisations the problem of the balance in the agency’s activities between the preference for issues of regime and security and the observance of human rights and international standards in this area.
You also did not start to react to this proposal. And I cannot interpret this as anything other than complete indifference to the problems of human rights in the system’s institutions. And even more so — a persistent failure to perceive the “discussion in a circle of leading specialists of the agency and human rights organisations” of any problems. Or maybe the reason is that there are no specialists left in the agency?
Thus, it is obvious that your response, Vasyl Vasylovych, which left more than half of the issues I raised without any reaction at all, is an eloquent confirmation of how you actually see our cooperation. Your declarations about commitment to cooperation are too far from reality, your assurances are refuted by your own actions. Such a style of communication with representatives of the public (not only with me, unfortunately) demonstrates your real level of trust in the public, the real sincerity of your words, and, ultimately, the real level of professionalism. And this cannot but cause concern.
And finally.
I inform you that on the recently created website “PRISON PORTAL,” a section “Correspondence” has been started. It will contain, in particular, letters of public organisations to government bodies and the responses of state institutions to them. Visitors to the site will be able to directly familiarise themselves with the positions of the public and representatives of the state, with their thoughts, arguments. They will be able to evaluate the persuasiveness of the arguments and the clarity of the positions of the authors of the letters themselves, to verify the sincerity of the intentions declared by them. This letter of mine, as well as yours, will also be posted on the site in this section.
I hope you will welcome such an initiative of ours. I invite you to visit this site, it may be interesting for you.
Wishing you success,
Oleksandr Bukalov
Chairman of the Penitentiary Society of Ukraine
Chairman of the Council of the human rights
organisation “Donetsk Memorial”