Monitoring Commissions and Public Councils: Practical Activities in Ukraine

An important mechanism for verifying human rights compliance in places of detention is public control over the activities of penal institutions. According to Part 2, Article 25 of the Criminal Executive Code, this function is assigned to monitoring commissions, which operate in accordance with the Regulations approved by the Cabinet of Ministers.
Such commissions have existed since the mid-1960s, but in recent times, they have functioned largely in a formal capacity. Significant changes in legislation and in the priorities of the state’s criminal policy necessitated further adjustments. A new version of the Regulations on Monitoring Commissions was prepared by the Department for the Execution of Criminal Sentences and approved by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 429 of 1 April 2004. The Regulations provide that the composition of monitoring commissions shall include representatives of public organisations. Therefore, the issues of the procedure for forming the composition of these commissions and their effective operation as structures carrying out public control over the activities of penal institutions are extremely relevant. The commissions have almost no experience of working with this prioritisation.
During visits by international structures, such as the Council of Europe, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, the UN Human Rights Commission, and others, Ukrainian high-ranking officials—especially representatives of the Department—emphasise the existence of public control in the country. They cite legislative norms and state the number of monitoring commissions across the country, claiming that they are active and ensure public control.
At the same time, apart from general assertions, no specific details are provided. For example, there is no indication of the number of cases where the intervention of monitoring commissions as agents of public control led to the restoration of the violated rights of convicts. It would not be an error to state that no state body in Ukraine currently possesses a true picture of the actual activities of the monitoring commissions, and therefore, it is impossible to judge their effectiveness objectively.
In reality, this situation is linked to the fact that no independent studies of the monitoring commissions' activities are being conducted. The department's leadership, as a rule, generally hinders the conduct of monitoring within the system, and the results of the studies for which permission is granted remain ‘on paper’ and do not become factors that even slightly influence changes in the practice of executing sentences or improve the level of human rights observance.
The public human rights organisation ‘Donetsk Memorial’ has been investigating the situation regarding the activities of the monitoring commissions (MCs) for several years. It has been working for many years in the field of promoting the reform of the penitentiary system and has been making efforts to introduce elements of public control over penal institutions. At the end of 2003, ‘Donetsk Memorial’ conducted a survey of more than a dozen monitoring commissions in various regions of Ukraine. The survey results indicate that, as a rule, the commissions currently consist of representatives of authorities and government structures, while public organisations are almost entirely excluded from the work of these commissions.
In 2006, ‘Donetsk Memorial’ implemented a project supported by the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Based on the experience gained during its implementation, amendments were developed for regulatory acts that govern the exercise of public control over penal institutions, primarily the Regulations on Monitoring Commissions.
During 2008, with the support of the International Renaissance Foundation, the project ‘Promoting the Improvement of the Regulatory Framework for the Execution of Criminal Sentences in Ukraine’ was implemented. An important element of this was the research into issues of public control over human rights observance in penal institutions, the collection of information regarding the practical activities of monitoring commissions and Public Councils under the territorial administrations of the Department for the Execution of Criminal Sentences, and an analysis of the regulatory framework for exercising public control.
The study of the actual state of the monitoring commissions was carried out through surveys. For this purpose, within the framework of the project, requests were prepared and sent regarding the activities of the monitoring commissions:
- to regional monitoring commissions (25 addresses, 11 responded)
- to local monitoring commissions where there are penal institutions (54 addresses, 16 responded);
- to local monitoring commissions where there are no penal institutions (41 addresses, 10 responded);
The responses received (a total of 37 monitoring commissions) allow us to believe that, on their basis, one can form an objective idea about the state of the monitoring commissions' activities.
The first group studied consisted of local monitoring commissions where there are no penal institutions (10 responses out of 41—24%).
It is worth noting the very low percentage of responses sent by these commissions. It is likely that this may be partly related to the actual absence of monitoring commissions in those administrative units to which the request was addressed. Another likely reason may be an insufficiently attentive attitude on the part of the authorities that created these commissions towards their activities, and the absence of any real work by such commissions in certain administrative units.
Questions posed to the local monitoring commissions:
1. The composition of the monitoring commission and the date of its approval.
2. The number of meetings of the commission in 2006 and separately in 2007, and the number of commission members present at them.
3. What important issues were considered at the monitoring commission meetings?
4. The number of persons who applied to your monitoring commission during 2006 and separately in 2007.
5. The problems with which released persons apply, and the results of their resolution.
6. Please provide examples of positive experience in the activities of your monitoring commission.
7. What difficulties arise during the activities of your monitoring commission?
8. Where, when, and how was the annual report on the activities of your monitoring commission for 2006 published?
9. What proposals do you have for improving the effectiveness of the monitoring commission’s work?
Below is brief information provided regarding the activities of such commissions.
Monitoring commission under the Reni District State Administration, Odesa Oblast.
The commission consists of 12 people. For the period from 01.01.2006 to 30.11.2007, 12 meetings of the commission were held, including 10 meetings in 2007.
At the commission meetings, issues of determining the method of social-educational work with citizens conditionally and prematurely released from serving their sentences were considered. During 2006 and 11 months of 2007, 11 persons applied to the monitoring commission under the Reni District State Administration, including 6 persons in 2007, regarding the provision of assistance in obtaining civil passports and employment.
To improve the effectiveness of the monitoring commission’s work, it is necessary to provide funds in the state budget for carrying out measures regarding the social adaptation of persons released from places of detention.
Monitoring commission of the executive committee of the Zhovtnevyi District City Council in Kryvyi Rih.
Consists of 8 people. In 2007, 5 meetings of the commission took place.
In 2006, 92 notifications from places of detention were received for the commission’s consideration, of which 68 were examined; social patronage was provided for 92 persons; in 2007, 82 notifications from places of detention were received, of which 30 were examined; social patronage was provided for 82 persons.
At the meetings, the main problems of this category of persons are considered, in particular regarding pardons, conditional and premature release from places of detention, the possibility of residence after conditional and premature release, obtaining housing, renewing documents, obtaining a residence permit, employment, obtaining disability status, and placement in a boarding house.
Persons released from places of detention who are ill with AIDS, tuberculosis, or oncological diseases are registered in the medical and preventive institutions of the district; the above-mentioned category of citizens is provided with medical assistance in the district’s healthcare facilities.
During 2007, 5 persons released from places of detention stayed in the ‘Night Stay House’; all of them underwent medical examinations and fluorography. Other types of assistance were received by 97 persons, namely:
- in restoring documents—32 persons;
- in temporary residence permits—34 persons;
- in employment—19 persons:
- in the provision of housing—7 persons;
- placed for treatment—5 persons.
Persons released from places of detention were provided with financial assistance by the executive committee of the Zhovtnevyi District City Council: in 2006, 31 persons received 1,600 UAH, and in 2007, 12 persons received 1,000 UAH. In the district’s enterprises, 34 job positions were reserved in 2006–2007 for the employment of persons released after serving their sentences. The report on the work of the monitoring commission for 2006 was published in the newspaper ‘Shakhtar Kryvbasu’ in May 2007.
Monitoring commission under the Bohuslav District State Administration, Kyiv Oblast.
In 2007, the monitoring commission held 6 meetings, at which 60% of its members were present. Throughout the entire period of work, 4 persons released from places of detention applied to the monitoring commission with the following problems: obtaining a passport of a citizen of Ukraine, connecting electricity to a house, employment, and residence registration.
Leaders of public organisations were included in the commission at the request of the district council, not on their own initiative. They have no desire to work actively, yet for the effective work of the commission, it is necessary that they themselves be the initiators.
The secretary of the monitoring commission is a chief specialist of the district state administration, who is assigned other duties, so there is not enough time to engage in the work of the monitoring commission (the secretary should be a representative of a public organisation).
Monitoring commission under the Boryspil City Council, Kyiv Oblast.
The commission consists of 7 people. Meetings are held four times a year. The main problem with which released persons apply is the provision of housing, but at the city level, it is almost impossible to solve this due to the lack of social housing.
The commission prepares and approves motions for conditional and premature release from sentences for persons who are characterised positively at their place of work and residence and have proven their correction through exemplary behaviour and honest attitudes towards labour. We provide clothing to persons released from places of serving sentences who are in need of it.
Monitoring commission under the Leninskyi District Council in the city of Donetsk.
The commission consists of 11 people. 31 commission meetings were held in 2006, and 24 in the 11 months of 2007.
At the meetings, issues of financial assistance to those released from places of detention (financial assistance was provided), conditional and premature release, the work of human resources departments of district enterprises with persons released from places of detention or those with suspended sentences, and the joint work of police authorities and community self-organisation bodies on the social adaptation of persons released from places of detention were considered.
In 2006, 23 persons applied to the commission, and 19 in 2007. Released persons apply for financial assistance, and it is provided. The annual report of the commission was reviewed at a meeting of the executive committee of the Leninskyi District Council in the city of Donetsk on 24.01.2007 and published in the newspapers ‘Leninskyi Prospekt’ and ‘Metalurh’.
Monitoring commission under the Kyivskyi District Council in the city of Donetsk.
In 2006, one person applied to the monitoring commission, and 10 persons in 2007. In 2006, 7 petitions for conditional and premature release from sentences in the form of correctional labour were considered, and 8 in 2007.
The main problems with which released persons apply are: lack of housing, the need for medical assistance (1); processing of financial assistance (6); employment (4); lack of photographs (6). They usually apply with a whole range of problems. When medical assistance is needed, patients are referred to hospitals (by prior arrangement with doctors). Homeless persons are referred to a shelter located in the Proletarskyi district (by arrangement with the shelter’s director). Information about the commission’s activities is constantly published in the media (no less than once a quarter).
Problems in the commission’s work: lack of shelters and municipal housing for released persons, unwillingness of employers to hire them; imperfection of current legislation (for example, a person does not have a permanent place of residence and therefore cannot receive a pension).
Monitoring commission under the Mariinskyi District Council, Donetsk Oblast.
The monitoring commission, consisting of 17 people, under the Mariinskyi District State Administration, held 12 meetings in 2006 and 10 in 2007.
The main issues considered were the establishment of public control over conditionally and prematurely released persons and the conduct of educational work with them during the unserved portion of the sentence. In 2007, one application was received from a conditionally and prematurely released citizen regarding the protection of his property rights and the restoration of documents.
Certain difficulties arise for the commission when applying specific legal norms due to their numerous changes. The annual report on the activities of the monitoring commission was published at a seminar held with representatives of local councils in February 2007.
In order to increase the effectiveness of the monitoring commission’s work, particularly in matters of facilitating the employment of conditionally and prematurely released persons, it is advisable to legislatively regulate the issue of the liability of enterprise managers of various forms of ownership when they groundlessly refuse to employ these persons.
Monitoring commission of the Yevpatoria City Executive Committee, AR Crimea.
The commission consists of 13 people. In 2006, 6 meetings were held, and 4 in 2007. During these meetings, issues were considered regarding the provision of financial assistance for the purchase of medicines and document renewal for a conditionally and prematurely released person (open form of tuberculosis); work with conditionally and prematurely released persons at their place of residence (work of district police inspectors); and the advisability of satisfying a pardon motion for a convict.
During 2006, two persons applied to the monitoring commission, and five during 2007. The main problems are financial assistance, housing, and document renewal. The main difficulties in the commission’s work are the employment of persons released from serving their sentences (they do not want to be employed in reserved positions, and the personal indiscipline of these individuals); and a lack of experience in working with this category of citizens.
Development of methodological materials on the issues of the work of monitoring commissions and their dissemination to the regions is needed; as well as the conduct of educational seminars for heads and secretaries of monitoring commissions.
Monitoring commission of the Shevchenkivskyi District Administration of the Zaporizhzhia City Council.
The commission consists of 7 people.
During the 11 months of 2007, 31 notifications of conditional and premature release from serving sentences were received by the commission. With the aim of organising public control and conducting educational work with those released, the commission sends letters to the Shevchenkivskyi District Department of the police with a request to register the indicated persons, and to the Shevchenkivskyi District Employment Centre regarding employment.
As a problem, it is noted that there are no special dormitories and social adaptation centres for persons who have returned from places of detention in the district.
Monitoring commission of the Dobropillia City Council, Donetsk Oblast.
The commission held 6 meetings in 2007. The main issues considered were:
- regarding the activities of district police inspectors in preventive and educational work with persons released from places of detention;
- regarding the coordination of the motion of the criminal-executive inspection of the city of Dobropillia for the conditional and premature release of convicts;
- regarding the conduct of preventive work with those sentenced to punishments not associated with deprivation of liberty, or those released from places of detention conditionally and prematurely, by the criminal-executive inspection;
- regarding the work of the service for juvenile affairs with teenagers who are registered with the service for juvenile affairs for committing a crime and are sentenced to punishments not associated with deprivation of liberty;
In 2006, 9 persons applied to the monitoring commission, and 7 persons in 2007, who were released from places of detention and conditionally and prematurely released. Citizens released from places of detention and conditionally and prematurely released applied to the commission with questions about the coordination of the motion of the criminal-executive inspection for conditional and premature release, assistance in registration at the place of residence of parents or relatives, the provision of financial assistance, and assistance in restoring documents. Basically, all issues were resolved positively. The monitoring commission, through the city’s organisations and institutions, tracks the fate of those released from places of detention, but persons released from places of detention often avoid contact with the monitoring commission.
The report on the work of the monitoring commission is submitted annually to the Dobropillia Inter-district Prosecutor's Office; the annual report on the activities of the monitoring commission for 2006 was not published, and the report for 2007 is planned to be published in the local press.
It is obvious that the activities of the monitoring commissions that managed to provide information about their work are important and socially significant. In the absence of a real mechanism for post-penitentiary support for persons released from places of detention in the country, they turn out to be almost the only structure within the sphere of government bodies that actually cares for released persons. It is worth noting that, despite performing such important functions, these commissions never once mentioned ‘public control’ in the context of their activities. This means that the actual range of issues and problems they care for does not cover the issues of public control over the observance of convicts' rights, as defined in Part 2, Article 25 of the Criminal Executive Code of Ukraine.
For local monitoring commissions where there are no penal institutions, the absence of activity regarding public control of penal institutions is more or less understandable. The observance of the rights of other convicted persons—those serving sentences not associated with isolation from society—is not even mentioned. At the same time, the authors of the responses emphasise the existence of problems in their activities that are characteristic of all monitoring commissions.
The second category of monitoring commissions that were studied were local commissions where there are penal institutions (16 responses out of 54—30%).
For such local monitoring commissions, the topic of public control should have been more inherent, as in administrative units where there are penal institutions, commissions are mandatorily created.
In the requests to these commissions, ‘Donetsk Memorial’, in addition to the questions mentioned above, asked the following:
- with what problems do convicts apply, and what are the results of their resolution.
- what main shortcomings were discovered by your monitoring commission in the activities of the penal institution in the field of human rights observance in 2007.
38 commissions (70%) to which requests were sent did not provide answers. It is worth noting that possible reasons are either the absence of real commissions and their existence only ‘on paper’, or a conviction characteristic of many government officials that providing any information about their work to anyone, including a public organisation, is not at all mandatory if the law does not directly require it. Relevant norms of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Information’ are, as a rule, unknown to such officials. Such an attitude towards providing information about the activities of a body that is supposed to ensure public control over human rights observance in penal institutions clearly testifies to the actual state of ensuring such control by monitoring commissions. These assumptions are confirmed by some received responses. In particular, here is how some of the surveyed commissions that sent their responses reported about their work:
Monitoring commission under the Sambir District State Administration.
The composition of the commission is provided. It participated in the conduct of the annual festival of amateur art among the pupils of the Sambir Educational Colony ‘Chervona Kalyna’, and provided all possible assistance in its organisation. The report on the commission’s work is being prepared for publication in the local newspaper ‘Holos Sambirshchyny’. Proposals: recommend including members of the monitoring commission among the people’s assessors in local courts. When forming the State Budget, provide funds for state social programmes for social support and patronage. Funds for these programmes should be under the control of the respective monitoring commission and be used upon its motion (or approval).
Monitoring commission under the Mykytivka Administration of the Horlivka City Council, Donetsk Oblast.
The commission includes nine people. In 2007, 11 meetings of the commission were held.
The monitoring commission considered issues regarding the conduct of social-educational work with convicts and persons conditionally and prematurely released from serving sentences, the state of medical-sanitary support for convicts, the organisation of general education and vocational training, the involvement of convicts in socially useful labour, and others.
In 2006, 16 persons released from places of detention and 8 convicts applied to the commission. In 2007, 16 persons and 19 convicts, respectively. Convicts apply with questions regarding conditional and premature release, pension provision, housing issues, and employment after release and others. Those released from places of detention apply with questions regarding obtaining passports, registration at the place of residence, the provision of financial assistance, employment, determination of the place of residence, pension processing, and treatment. In 2007, five persons were provided with referrals for employment, four persons were referred for treatment to a tuberculosis dispensary; eight persons were provided with assistance in obtaining passports; one person was provided with assistance in pension processing. Twelve persons were provided with financial assistance by the executive committee of the city council.
No shortcomings in the field of human rights observance in the activities of penal institutions located in the territory of the Mykytivka district were discovered by the monitoring commission in 2007.
Difficulties during the activity arise regarding the organisation of educational work with persons conditionally and prematurely released from serving sentences, as well as problems in providing shelter and registration to persons released from serving sentences who do not have housing. The annual report on the activity of the monitoring commission for 2006 and the semi-annual report for 2007 were published in the city newspaper ‘Vechernyaya Horlivka’. To increase the effectiveness of the monitoring commission’s work, it is necessary to review the ‘Regulations on Monitoring Commissions’ and relieve them of functions they are unable to perform, as they work on a voluntary basis.
Monitoring commission in the city of Zhdanivka, Donetsk Oblast.
In 2006, 10 commission meetings were held, and in 2007, 11 meetings were held.
City services constantly carry out targeted work aimed at the resocialisation of convicts; measures for social protection for 2007–2008 are being developed.
In 2007, 13 persons applied to the commission with questions regarding the provision of financial assistance and employment. Special attention was paid to the organisation of educational work with persons conditionally and prematurely released from serving sentences, public control over their behaviour, and employment; financial assistance was provided when needed. In 2006, assistance in the amount of 137 UAH was provided, and in 2007, 120 UAH.
In 2006, jointly with Penal Colony No. 3, 24 commission meetings were held, and over 250 cases of convicts were considered; in 2007, 21 meetings were held, and 326 cases were considered.
The commission cooperates with district inspectors regarding preventive work with persons who have returned from places of detention. Persons who are released from places of detention are provided with assistance in the issuance of passports and other necessary documents required for employment. 17 persons have been employed. Lists of those released from places of detention are sent monthly to the city hospital with the goal of ensuring that preventive examinations for tuberculosis are conducted for these persons.
The work of the monitoring commission is reported at meetings of the executive committee with the adoption of relevant decisions.
Monitoring commission under the Berdiansk City Council, Zaporizhzhia Oblast.
Composition of the commission—5 people. During the 11 months of 2007, 25 meetings were held.
According to the commission’s work plan, registration of persons in the register of those conditionally and prematurely released from serving sentences is maintained; meetings are held no less than once a month; receptions of persons conditionally and prematurely released from serving sentences are held with the goal of facilitating the resolution of the most important social problems (needs): registration at the place of residence, employment, education, and treatment.
The Berdiansk City Employment Centre conducts free courses for persons conditionally and prematurely released from serving sentences who wish to undergo professional training and retraining. Applications of the indicated persons regarding the improvement of housing and living conditions are considered by the city public commission on housing issues under the executive committee of the Berdiansk City Council, and in the case of available vacant residential premises, the issue of providing housing is resolved.
The commission also conducts work on involving public organisations to participate in its work.
When resolving all issues with which convicts and released persons apply, the commission does not have the possibility of making positive decisions in favour of the applicants due to a lack of funding and the absence of vacant social housing.
We consider it necessary, for the improvement of the monitoring commission’s work, to adopt a number of regulatory-legal acts at the state level regarding the improvement of conditions for the adaptation of persons conditionally and prematurely released from serving sentences.
Monitoring commission of the Kirovskyi District Council in the city of Donetsk.
In 2007, 76 meetings were held.
In 2007, 6 persons applied to the commission with a request for assistance in obtaining a passport, and 1 person who did not have a permanent place of residence. All these persons were provided with practical and consultative assistance.
No shortcomings in the activity of the penal institution in the field of human rights observance were discovered in 2007.
Due to the fact that all members of the commission and the head work at their primary place of employment, difficulties arise in inspections and attendance at commission meetings in the correctional colony. The report on the activity of the monitoring commission for 2006 was printed in the ‘Kirovka’ newspaper.
To increase effectiveness in work, it is necessary to conduct more conversations with convicts at the place of serving sentences, delve into their needs, and bring these issues to the consideration of the correctional colony management.

The activities of the monitoring commission of the Makiivka City Council (Donetsk Oblast) cover two correctional colonies.
Convicts apply for consultations on civil law, and persons released from places of detention apply with questions regarding obtaining passports (54 persons) and the provision of financial assistance (62 persons in the amount of 4,650 thousand UAH).
With the assistance of the monitoring commission, documents were processed for receiving state social assistance for persons who do not have the right to a pension and for 11 disabled persons.
7 persons released from places of detention were employed through the employment centre at city enterprises. An action for collecting food products, warm footwear, and clothing was organised, which were passed on to 16 persons released from places of detention.
No shortcomings in the activities of penal institutions in the field of human rights observance were discovered by the monitoring commission in 2007. No significant difficulties arise during the activities of the monitoring commission.
The annual report on the activity of the monitoring commission for 2006 was published in the ‘Visnyk Makiivky’ newspaper and on the official website of the Makiivka City Council.
To increase the effectiveness of the monitoring commission’s work, legislative regulation of the interaction of internal affairs bodies, criminal-executive inspections, and monitoring commissions regarding the control over those conditionally and prematurely released from places of detention is necessary.

Monitoring commission under the Perevalskyi District State Administration, Luhansk Oblast.
Composition of the commission—11 people, of whom 5 are representatives of district public organisations and 6 are representatives of local self-government bodies and executive power.
The monitoring commission in its activities interacts with three correctional and one educational colony located on the territory of the Perevalskyi district. Meetings are held monthly 2–3 times.
At 35 meetings last year, 1,048 materials were considered concerning the conditional and premature release of persons from serving sentences or the replacement of the unserved part of the sentence with a milder one; the consideration of cases on transferring convicts for regime violations to a section of enhanced control; as well as the application of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Amnesty’. Issues of providing assistance to released citizens in obtaining documents, registration, employment, and obtaining pensions and social assistance were also considered. Reports on the activities of the head of the division of district police inspectors regarding work on ensuring interaction with penal institutions in resolving issues of labour and living provision for persons released from places of detention were also heard, as well as the report of the district employment centre regarding the provision of services to persons released from places of detention, and the head of the inter-district department of the criminal-executive inspection regarding work with persons serving sentences without deprivation of liberty. The district department of education informed commission members about the attainment of secondary education by persons deprived of liberty.
The measures planned by the commission were generally fulfilled, however, it is necessary to pay more attention to such issues as conducting inspections of correctional institutions in such areas as material and living provision for convicts. Work on these issues was conducted, but information on the results was not always presented at commission meetings.
With the assistance of monitoring commission members, a legal consultation and a school of legal knowledge work constantly at the Perevalskyi Correctional Colony No. 15. An information corner with materials about the monitoring commission was created at the Komisarivska Correctional Colony, and a ‘Trust’ box was fixed for the requests, appeals, and wishes of convicted persons. It is planned to create a public reception office at the Chornukhinska Correctional Colony, in the work of which commission members, lawyers and psychologists of the department, specialists of the department of labour and social protection of the population, and the district centre of social services for family, children, and youth will participate.
Commission members need to pay more attention to the organisation of educational work with persons conditionally and prematurely released from serving sentences, and to public control over their behaviour during the unserved part of the sentence, as well as providing assistance in the social adaptation of persons released from serving sentences.
The activity of the monitoring commission is quite multifaceted, therefore it requires knowledge of a large number of both legislative and departmental regulatory-legal acts, decisions, and resolutions of relevant bodies.

Taking into account that it is precisely these local monitoring commissions that have the duty to exercise public control over human rights observance in the system’s institutions, the absence of any mentions of such a function in almost all responses is perhaps the most eloquent confirmation of the thesis that, in reality, public control in Ukraine is absent.
This does not diminish the importance of other functions performed by the monitoring commissions. Of course, where they are actually created and working.
The effectiveness of these structures is most clearly manifested during emergency events, when public intervention must reveal whether the rights of prisoners were violated. ‘Donetsk Memorial’ addressed the monitoring commission of the Solonyanskyi district of the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast regarding a likely violation of the rights of convict D. The address of ‘Donetsk Memorial’ from August 2007 remained unanswered, as did the follow-up in December 2007. Only after the third letter in April 2008, copies of which were sent to the district and regional prosecutor’s offices, as well as to the regional monitoring commission, did a response arrive stating that in January (!) 2008, an inspection was conducted which did not reveal any violations of convict D.
Second case. Upon a request to the monitoring commission of the Iziaslavskyi district regarding complaints of convicts, allegedly not sent by the administration of the Iziaslavska Colony No. 31, it was reported that on 30.08.2007, complaints of convicts to the prosecutor’s office were registered in a special journal under Nos. 6–13. Regarding events in January 2007, it was reported that commission members participated in an inspection, and violations were eliminated. But the question is not superfluous: why were 8 complaints registered on August 30, and for the entire previous period (from January to the end of August?), according to the numbering—only five?
One can assume that complaints are usually not sent, and in this case, thanks to the intervention of a public organisation, the complaints were registered and sent. But the monitoring commission, it seems, was not interested in such a course of events.
A very telling example of the attitude of the leadership of the Criminal-Executive System (CES) bodies towards the activity of the monitoring commission is the relationship between the leadership of the Volyn administration of the department and the monitoring commission of the regional state administration. The deputy head of the MC under the Regional State Administration is H.O. Kornievskyi, head of the charitable foundation ‘Rehabilitation’. This foundation provides regular humanitarian aid to convicts serving sentences in the region’s institutions. He also attempts to assist convicts in matters of observing their rights. It is the latter that significantly influences the actions of the leadership of the department’s territorial administration towards the initiatives of the foundation and the regional monitoring commission.
Even when the regional prosecutor’s office issues a motion regarding a violation of criminal-executive legislation, the administration’s leadership insists on the correctness of its actions. In his letter to the regional prosecutor’s office of Volyn Oblast dated 11.04.2007, No. 2/3 465, regarding such a motion, the head of the regional department of the department, V.A. Makohonchuk, writes:
‘One of the areas of charitable activity of citizen H.O. Kornievskyi is supplying convicts in correctional colonies with cigarettes and tea in large quantities, which constitute elements of the criminal subculture in places of detention. At the same time, H.O. Kornievskyi insists on holding meetings with individual convicts.... Taking into account the stated, the management of the administration informed citizen H.O. Kornievskyi about the inexpediency of holding the above-mentioned charitable actions in the determined format, however, the latter tries in every possible way to conduct the measures determined by him, hiding behind his membership in the monitoring commission.’
The circumstance that the provision of ‘cigarettes and tea in large quantities’ to convicts is not illegal or harmful, just like the attempt of the deputy head of the regional monitoring commission to conduct ‘meetings with individual convicts’, does not influence the position of the CES body’s leadership.
The biased attitude towards the representative of the monitoring commission is also manifested in arbitrary actions regarding the performance by him and his colleagues of their functions provided for by legislation. He is often not allowed into penal institutions on far-fetched pretexts. At the same time, the humanitarian aid whose provision he initiates is accepted. One of the examples is reflected in the memorandum of Kornievskyi to the head of the regional monitoring commission in August 2009. In it, he reported that he had an assignment from the regional commission dated July 30, 2007, to conduct a reception of convicts at the Lutsk Pre-trial Detention Centre; the management of the pre-trial detention centre did not object to his visit, but after a phone call from the deputy head of the regional department of the department, I.A. Stefanovskyi, he was not let into the pre-trial detention centre—in the opinion of the department head, it was he, and not the administration of the pre-trial detention centre, who had to grant permission for the visit. However, Part 2, Article 25 of the Criminal Executive Code determines that the management of the territorial body of the department, as well as the administration of the institution, has the right to grant permission for visiting an institution.
Another time, Stefanovskyi confiscated the ID card of a member of the regional monitoring commission and did not return it. The reason—legislation does not provide for ID cards for members of the monitoring commission. But there is no prohibition on such ID cards, and whether to grant them or not is not a prerogative of the head of the department’s administration, nor does he have the right to confiscate such ID cards.
At the same time, the legality of Stefanovskyi’s own actions is often dubious.
He issued an instruction by which he demanded that ‘permission to visit penal institutions by members of regional monitoring commissions be granted by the head of the administration of the Department of the Oblast ... exclusively on Saturday from 14:00 to 18:00, and on weekends and holidays—from 10:00 to 18:00.’
The issuance of the instruction testifies to the confidence of the department’s administration leadership that it can do whatever it wants at its own discretion with monitoring commissions, the only body of public control established by law. It is worth noting that the instruction was issued on the basis of a similar instruction of the Department No. 3/4-2329 dated 30.05.2007. This instruction, at the insistence of the public human rights organisation ‘Donetsk Memorial’, was recognised by the General Prosecutor’s Office as illegal in August 2007 and was cancelled by the Department on 10.09.2007.
However, even a month and a half later, the head of the Kovel Educational Colony, O.V. Herasymchuk, reported in a letter dated 19.10.2007 to the head of the monitoring commission under the Kovel City Council about the same conditions for visiting the colony by the commission—two days a week on weekends—and also demanded that a schedule of visits to the colony by members of the monitoring commission be provided.
In another of his letters, No. 2/3-1309 dated 03.10.2007, to the charitable foundation ‘Rehabilitation’, the head of the regional department of the department, V.A. Makohonchuk, claimed with reference to Part 1, Article 25 of the Criminal Executive Code, that the Department requires the involvement of public organisations in the correction of convicts to be carried out ‘through appropriate cooperation agreements with a clear definition of the order of cooperation, forms and methods of work, etc.’ At the same time, he demanded that a copy of the foundation’s statute and a copy of the registration certificate, ‘certified in the established order’, be provided as a prerequisite for cooperation.
In reality, such an official requirement—concluding agreements for cooperation—does not exist.
Regarding such actions, the senior assistant to the prosecutor of Volyn Oblast, O. Postolovskyi, in letter No. 16-2157-07 dated 01.11.07 to the ‘Rehabilitation’ foundation, reported on the illegality of the instruction of the deputy head of the regional department of the department, Stefanovskyi, regarding the limitation of the time for visiting colonies by members of monitoring commissions, and pointed out that ‘requirements for the establishment of schedules for visits to correctional institutions by members of monitoring commissions, and the conclusion of agreements with public organisations on cooperation are not provided for by current legislation, about which the department’s administration in the oblast has been indicated.’
The level of compliance with legality by the administration’s leadership is also evidenced by the fact that it refused the request of the ‘Rehabilitation’ foundation to provide access to acquaint itself with the department administration’s instruction—although this request is legal and should have been mandatorily satisfied. Upon appeal to the prosecutor’s office, Mr. O. Postolovskyi, in his letter No. 16-2157-07 dated 19.11.2007, informed the ‘Rehabilitation’ foundation that, according to the results of the inspection of their complaint about the refusal to grant access to the department administration’s instruction, it was established that ‘the administration, in violation of the requirements of Article 32 of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Information’, illegally refused to provide information on 10.10.2007’ and a relevant order was issued by the regional prosecutor’s office to the head of the administration.
Another initiative of the Volyn regional monitoring commission—the recommendation to the ‘Rehabilitation’ foundation to facilitate the conduct of educational work with convicts—also encountered resistance from the administration’s leadership. The head of the regional department of the department, V.A. Makohonchuk, in his letter No. 2/3-1295 dated 03.10.2007 to the charitable foundation ‘Rehabilitation’ regarding the refusal to allow its members to visit the region’s colonies, claimed that ‘paragraph 6 of the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution of April 1, 2004, No. 429 does not provide for the possibility of giving assignments to representatives of public organisations and individual persons regarding the conduct of educational work with convicts.’
In reality, the CM resolution does not have a paragraph 6 (which once again testifies to the level of familiarity in the department’s administration with the content of regulatory documents), and paragraph 6.6 of the Regulations on Monitoring Commissions contains a clear formulation: ‘to assign to representatives of public organisations the conducting of educational work.’
Such arbitrariness regarding the activity of the monitoring commission and impunity for violations of legislative norms can only happen under the condition of the favour and indulgence of the Department’s leadership. Such a position of the higher leadership is also confirmed by responses to complaints that were sent to Kyiv.
The deputy head of the department’s administration, V.Z. Blyzniuk, in his letter No. 3/4-945 dated 24 October 2007 to the ‘Rehabilitation’ foundation, reported that the assertion about the violation of the requirements of Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 429 by officials of the department’s administration in Volyn Oblast does not correspond to reality, and further there is a reference to the sixth paragraph of the resolution, which does not exist in the resolution, and it is repeated again that monitoring commissions ‘do not have the right to give assignments to charitable and other public organisations to conduct any measures on the territory of penal institutions.’
From this, a conclusion is drawn that ‘violations of current legislation on the part of officials of the administration... have not been established.’
In letter No. 5-5448-Il dated 26 November 2007, the first deputy head of the department, M.P. Iltyai, also reported to the request of ‘Donetsk Memorial’ that ‘the actions of the leadership of the department’s administration in Volyn Oblast... corresponded to the requirements of criminal-executive legislation.’
The administration of penal institutions in Volyn Oblast and the monitoring commissions are in a rather complicated situation regarding interaction. On the one hand, the administration of the institutions must fulfil the requirements of their administration’s leadership and maximally limit the activity of monitoring commissions. On the other hand, the prosecutor’s office sometimes reacts quite strictly to the inaction of monitoring commissions. Thus, in the Motion on the violation of criminal-executive legislation, made by the prosecutor’s office of Kivertsivskyi district of Volyn Oblast to the head of the Kivertsivskyi District State Administration regarding the monitoring commission created by it, it is stated:
‘The monitoring commission is accused of the absence of field meetings at the Tsumanska IC-84; the validity of the issues raised by the colony administration regarding the transfer of convicts to the DIZO (disciplinary isolation ward) and PKT (chamber type premises) was not checked. When considering issues of conditional and premature release, the head and members of the commission are not interested in the behaviour of convicts and do not personally carry out their reception. They do not visit the colony, do not consider the appeals of convicts, and did not make decisions on them.’
‘Facts of convicts receiving injuries at work were not processed at the monitoring commission meeting. In the colony, 9 non-industrial accidents with non-working convicts were registered, and they were not considered at the meetings of the monitoring commission.’
These facts clearly illustrate the situation, how the leadership of the department’s territorial body and the higher leadership of the agency treat the activities of monitoring commissions when they show activity and begin to perform their functions according to the requirements of the law.
Another example of the activity of regional monitoring commissions is the example of the regional commission of Donetsk Oblast. In 2004, it was formed exclusively of representatives of authorities, it did not provide information to requests of public organisations, and its activity had to be learned through filing lawsuits to the court. The court recognised the non-provision of information about the commission’s activity as illegal. After a period of increased activity of the commission, it again effectively ceased to work. Representatives of public organisations included in its composition spend months striving to hold its next assembly. One or two meetings take place per year. However, even with such an approach, it was possible to conduct two seminars for members of all the oblast’s monitoring commissions, collect information about their activities, and analyse it.
At the end of 2008, a request was sent to all regional monitoring commissions of the country, in which it was proposed, in particular, to report how many cases of human rights violations were registered by the regional commission during the year. At the time of writing the article, responses had been received from almost half of the regions of Ukraine. And in all responses, it is noted that not a single case of human rights violations in the penal institutions of the region was registered by the regional monitoring commissions. With the exception of only one oblast—Chernihiv Oblast—where during the year the regional commission registered 26 cases of human rights violations regarding convicts or institution personnel. It is hardly because the institutions of this oblast are the worst in the country. It is clear that if a commission works—then there are also results of its work. And vice versa.
An analysis of the monitoring commissions' activities indicates that public control of institutions is not the main or, at least, not a noticeable issue that the monitoring commission cares for. Only individual commissions cover their activities in the media; some other commissions consider it sufficient reporting on their work to provide information to the authority by whose decision they were created.
To a large extent, this is a consequence of the fact that the commissions consist primarily of employees of government bodies, officials who, by their status, do not have to care about public control. They do not have experience in such activities, do not understand its tasks, and the methods of exercising such control are unknown to them.

Despite the fact that public control, according to legislation, is assigned only to monitoring commissions, there are other institutions in Ukraine in the sphere of oversight over human rights observance in the penitentiary sphere. These are the Public Councils under the territorial administrations of the department and the Public Council under the department.
The list of Public Councils under the territorial administrations of the department is on the agency’s website. It is telling that the information provided on the website has not been updated for more than two years. This is a kind of indicator of the agency’s true attention to the activities of these structures. And what is very interesting: the composition of the Public Council directly under the agency is absent from the website. As is information about its work.
For assessing the effectiveness of these institutions, it is, nevertheless, important to know, what exactly do the public councils report about their work on exercising public control?
It is worth emphasising that some of them work fruitfully and effectively. Here are some examples of the active work of Public Councils under the territorial administrations of the department.

Public Council under the administration of the department in Vinnytsia Oblast.
During 2006, 4 meetings of the Council were held, and during 2007, 3.
Besides this, members of the Public Council, jointly with representatives of the Administration and with the participation of media representatives, held field meetings with the goal of inspecting the conditions of detention of convicts in the correctional colonies of the oblast.
At the meetings of the Public Council, issues were mainly considered related to the creation and provision of proper conditions of detention for convicts serving sentences in the form of deprivation of liberty and ensuring legality in the activities of the administration of criminal-executive bodies and institutions. In particular, the heads of the branch services of the Administration were repeatedly heard on the following issues: on the state of communal-living provision for convicts; on the state of medical service for convicts; on the state of social-psychological work with convicts and the practice of applying incentives and disciplinary penalties; on the state of work on the prevention of HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis in the oblast’s institutions, and a whole range of others.
Repeatedly during 2006–2007, the issue was considered regarding the negative practice of the monitoring commission of Vinnytsia district regarding violations of legal requirements during the resolution of the issue of applying conditional and premature release to convicts of the Stryzhavska IC (No. 81) (groundless refusals to approve motions regarding the application of Article 81 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Based on the results of the conducted meetings, relevant decisions were adopted by the Public Council. In particular, regarding the violation of the rights of convicts of the Stryzhavska IC (No. 81) when applying Article 81 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, relevant letters were prepared and sent to the head of the monitoring commission of Vinnytsia district, the head of the Vinnytsia District State Administration, as well as the Vinnytsia prosecutor for supervision over the observance of laws during the execution of court decisions in criminal cases. Besides that, the head of the Public Council, on behalf of its members, personally held conversations on the indicated issue with the head of the monitoring commission of Vinnytsia district. Relevant materials were published in the local press and voiced on local radio (‘Misto nad Buhom’). As a rule, all results of visits by the Public Council to the oblast’s institutions were covered in local media.
Representatives of the Public Council visited penal institutions, during which they had the opportunity to acquaint themselves with the conditions of serving sentences by convicts, the conditions of detention of minors taken into custody, with the organisation of social-educational work with them, and the work of libraries and clubs of the institutions.
In particular, it was precisely through the assistance of the Public Council that the issue with the monitoring commission under the Vinnytsia District State Administration regarding bringing the practice of applying conditional and premature release to convicts (category of convicts for especially grave crimes) who served sentences in the Stryzhavska IC (No. 81) into compliance with current legislation was settled. Based on the results of this work, proposals were prepared on introducing amendments and additions to the ‘Regulations on Monitoring Commissions’, approved by Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated 01 April 2004, No. 429.
As a positive experience, the work of the Council with the population of the oblast regarding the replenishment of book funds of the oblast’s institutional libraries should also be noted. In particular, the action ‘Gift a Book to a Convict’ was organised and conducted among the population, during which about 500 books were handed over for the convicts.
Representatives of the Public Council participated in conducting training and schooling for heads of divisions of the social-psychological service and psychologists of the oblast’s institutions.
Members of the Public Council prepared and published a whole range of articles in professional legal publications on problematic issues of criminal, criminal-procedural, and criminal-executive law, related to current issues of serving sentences by those convicted to deprivation of liberty.
The main difficulty in the work of the Public Council is its status as only an advisory body under the Administration and the absence in the council’s composition of entrepreneurs (patrons) who would have the opportunity to provide real material charitable assistance for improving the conditions of detention of convicts. The issue of organising visits by members of the Public Council to correctional colonies located at a significant distance from the regional centre is also problematic (due to the absence of any funds).
It is necessary to endow the Public Council with such a volume of powers that would give the possibility to more effectively influence the activities of criminal-executive bodies and institutions. Besides that, more attention needs to be paid to convicts who are serving sentences not associated with deprivation of liberty (restriction of liberty, correctional labour, etc.), as well as to the observance of the rights and legal interests of the personnel of the criminal-executive system.

Public Council under the administration of the department in Sumy Oblast.
In 2006, 4 meetings were held, in 2007—3 meetings on the topics:
1) On measures to increase interaction with monitoring commissions in exercising public control over the observance of convicts' rights during the execution of criminal sentences.
2) On the conditions of detention of convicts in the oblast’s institutions and measures to activate the participation of the public in their social adaptation after release.
3) On the state of observance of the rights of juvenile prisoners and convicts who are held in the pre-trial detention centre and measures to improve their detention, and the improvement of leisure and the educational-upbringing process.
In December 2007, a meeting is planned:
4) Summing up the results of the work of the Public Council under the administration of the DDU PVP (State Department of Ukraine for the Execution of Sentences) in Sumy Oblast and the approval of the action plan for organising the work of the Public Council for 2008.
Thanks to the effective cooperation of the leadership of the Department’s administration in Sumy Oblast with members of the Public Council, their lack of indifference to the urgent issues of society, enthusiasm, and active public position, the following was done:
To resolve many complex issues in the organisation of general education and vocational-technical training in penal institutions of the oblast, a coordination meeting of the leadership of the Department’s administration in Sumy Oblast, penal institutions of the oblast, the leadership of territorial and local education departments, representatives of executive power bodies and local self-government, the leadership of higher educational institutions of the oblast, and employees of the regional library was held.
Thanks to the active position of the member of the Public Council, head of the education administration of the Sumy Regional State Administration, Liubov Vasylivna Pshenychna, it was possible to involve a maximum (at the moment) number of convicts in general education training. The library fund of the institutions was increased. With the goal of providing convicts with the possibility of receiving higher education via the distance learning form, a relevant agreement was reached with higher educational institutions of Sumy Oblast for seven specialities; at the present time, six convicts are receiving higher education via the distance learning form.
The department’s administration in Sumy Oblast has established cooperation with the Sumy Regional Centre for Family, Children, and Youth; information is provided monthly about the families of convicts who have found themselves in difficult life circumstances. With the goal of a positive influence on the material situation of convicts whose families are in difficult life circumstances, they are employed in the first place (if they have the relevant qualifications) in those areas of production where the wage is higher.
Thanks to the member of the Public Council, Father Serhii (Serhii Shulha), active pastoral work is being conducted in all penal institutions of the oblast; in two institutions of the oblast (Sumy IC No. 116 and Shostka IC No. 116) there are churches, in the Konotop EC No. 130—a chapel, and in the Sumy Pre-trial Detention Centre and Romny IC No. 56—prayer rooms.
Thanks to the Head of the Public Council, Maryna Oleksandrivna Kolesnyk, since 2006, the institutions of the criminal-executive service of Sumy Oblast have been fruitfully cooperating with the public organisation ‘Legal Aid’, whose employees provide legal assistance to convicts in all areas of Ukrainian legislation (criminal, criminal-executive, civil, housing, etc.). One-day mobile consultative points are organised for providing the necessary legal assistance to convicts on the spot.

Public Council under the administration of the department in Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast.
In 2006, 4 meetings were held by the Public Council, during 2007—5 meetings.
At the meetings of the Public Council, issues were considered:
- organisation of an exhibition of artistic works made by convicts dedicated to Easter holidays;
- implementation of the programme ‘Prevention of HIV/AIDS in penal institutions’;
- organisation of a spartakiad in volleyball and the resolution of the issue of purchasing sports uniforms and equipment for convicts as charitable assistance;
- on the construction of a chapel in the Ivano-Frankivsk pre-trial detention centre;
- on conducting training sessions with the personnel of the social-psychological service of penal institutions.
All discussed issues were realised in practice.
The exhibition of artistic works performed by convicts, organised by the Public Council, had great success among the residents of Ivano-Frankivsk region and guests of the area. Thanks to the exhibition, the public significantly changed its opinion regarding places of detention and people who are serving sentences in particular.

Public Council under the administration of the department in Khmelnytskyi Oblast.
In 2006, meetings of the Public Council were held quarterly. In 2007, five meetings were held.
At the meetings of the Public Council, issues were discussed regarding the involvement of public, religious, and charitable organisations in the process of resocialisation and correction of convicts, the improvement and perfection of the material-technical base of general educational institutions and training centres that operate in the correctional colonies of the oblast, the improvement of professional skill of employees of penal institutions, the provision of legal and psychological assistance to convicts, the organisation of spiritual-enlightenment, legal-explanatory, cultural-educational, and sports-mass work, and the improvement of mechanisms for providing social assistance to persons released from places of detention.
With the assistance of the Public Council, projects are being realised in penal institutions: ‘Way to Freedom’, ‘Human Rights Observance in the Sphere of Law Enforcement Activities’, ‘Promoting the Realisation of Rights, Interests of Convicts and Their Reintegration into Society’, ‘Public Control over the Activities of Penitentiary Institutions to a New Level’, and others. Members of the Public Council took part in inspecting the preparation of colonies for the autumn-winter period, and submitted their proposals regarding the improvement of the conditions of detention of convicts. Recommendations were provided to the management of the institutions regarding the improvement of the organisation and conduct of spiritual-enlightenment, legal-explanatory, cultural-educational, and sports-mass work, and the preparation of convicts for release.
There are no difficulties in the work of the Public Council under the administration of Khmelnytskyi Oblast.
The activity of the Public Council is sufficiently effective for ensuring public control over the observance of rights and the conditions of detention of convicts in penal institutions of Khmelnytskyi Oblast.

Public Council under the administration of the department in Volyn Oblast.
In 2006, 4 meetings were held by the Public Council, in 2007—3.
At the meetings of the Public Council under the administration of the oblast, the following issues were recently considered:
- on the formation of positive public opinion about the activities of criminal-executive bodies and institutions of Volyn Oblast and measures in this area of work;
- on assisting the penal institutions of the oblast in conducting measures on the occasion of celebrating the Year of the Ukrainian Book in Ukraine in 2007;
- on increasing the effectiveness of assisting the activities of penal institutions of the oblast and the Lutsk pre-trial detention centre on the part of executive power bodies and local self-government;
- on the discussion of the draft Law of Ukraine ‘On Amending Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding the Management of the System of Bodies and Institutions for the Execution of Sentences’;
- on improving the level of interaction of bodies and institutions for the execution of sentences of the oblast with higher educational institutions of the region;
- on the state of general educational and vocational-technical training of convicts in places of detention of Volyn Oblast;
- on conducting cultural-mass events with convicts with the involvement of the public in the 2nd half of 2007.
There are no obstacles or difficulties in the work of the Public Council under the administration of the Department in Volyn Oblast.
For the improvement of the activities of Public Councils, it is necessary to pay more attention to the generalisation, development, and dissemination at the local level of documents and materials that would concern the practice of work of these consultative-advisory bodies.
The effectiveness of the work of public councils in the future will depend on qualitative changes regarding the building of civil society in Ukraine, the increase in the number of public organisations, the expansion of the areas of their work, etc.

Public Council under the administration of the department in Zaporizhzhia Oblast.
Each member of the council made his own contribution to the implementation of state policy in the sphere of criminal-executive legal relations. For example:
Father Andrii—personally conducts pastoral work with persons sentenced to life imprisonment who are held in IC No. 55.
O.T. Viezubov—actively advocates the idea of developing a general educational network in the institutions of the oblast as a fundamental means of correction and resocialisation.
S.M. Mishok—cares for the introduction of rehabilitation programmes for juvenile offenders on the basis of pre-trial detention centres.
S.A. Bykov—conducts legal-explanatory work among convicts of the institutions of the oblast, in particular, through the dissemination of relevant bulletins.
Members of the Public Council carried out working visits to pre-trial detention centres and institutions of the oblast with the goal of inspecting the conditions of detention of prisoners and convicts for compliance with domestic and international legislation on the protection of human rights. Legal assistance is provided to convicts: so, as of 05.07.2007, four legal-explanatory bulletins had already been disseminated among the convicts.
Besides this, with the participation of council members, a number of meetings, ‘round tables’, and scientific-practical conferences were held on the most problematic issues in the activities of the criminal-executive system of the Zaporizhzhia region. All issues that arise in the activity of the Public Council are effectively resolved in a working order.

Public Council under the administration of the department in Luhansk Oblast.
Measures are being taken by the Public Council regarding the resolution of social issues of persons who are preparing to be released from places of detention. In the first place, this concerns persons who have lost social and family ties. Work is being conducted on social support, registration at a permanent or temporary place of residence, resolution of issues regarding the restoration or obtaining of state-standard passports, restoration and obtaining of education in vocational-technical educational institutions.
Along with this, the members of the public council resolved the issue regarding the provision of consultations to convicts and persons who have been released from places of detention on legal, juridical, social, medical, and other issues.
Members of the public council involve creative collectives in conducting concerts in the penal institutions of Luhansk Oblast. Besides that, the performance of three interactive theatres on the prevention of AIDS and drug addiction and the prevention of human trafficking was organised in the educational colony for juveniles, the participants of which were the juvenile convicts themselves. In 2004, 2006, exhibitions of decorative art of convicts were organised in Luhansk.
The issue of admission of persons serving sentences in the institutions of Luhansk Oblast for studies in higher educational institutions on a distance basis was resolved by the Public Council.
A computer classroom with an Internet connection was installed in the Perevalskyi Educational Colony.
With the support of the Public Council, humanitarian aid in the form of clothing, hygiene products, books, stationery, etc., constantly arrives at the institutions of Luhansk Oblast. During the current year, according to the work plan of the Public Council, a number of important issues were considered regarding:
- exercising control over the implementation of developed measures aimed at improving the situation of convicts, formation of a healthy lifestyle;
- providing assistance to the administrations of penal institutions in conducting social-educational work with convicts, organisation of vocational-technical training;
- fulfilment of the programme on ensuring job positions, domestic arrangement, and social adaptation of persons released from institutions of the criminal-executive system;
- conducting consultations for convicts regarding studies in higher educational institutions;
- interaction with public organisations, executive power bodies, local self-government bodies, enterprises, institutions, and organisations on issues of assisting the activities of criminal-executive system institutions;
- fulfilment of social support for released persons, predominantly of youth age;
- exercising health-improvement-preventive measures. Conducting medical consultations on issues of drug and alcohol dependence, tuberculosis disease, HIV/AIDS prevention;
- ensuring legal and social protection of the personnel of criminal-executive system institutions;
- providing psychological assistance in resolving conflicts, participation in conducting sessions with psychologists of the oblast’s institutions;
- conducting religious rituals and spiritual-upbringing measures;
- covering the activities of penal institutions of Luhansk Oblast, as well as centres of social services for family, children, and youth.
At the oblast level, issues were considered at meetings but not resolved regarding the social protection of homeless persons who are being released from penal institutions.
The activity of the Public Council and the organisations that are part of the Public Council is constantly covered in local and regional mass media. During 2007, about 60 reports on television, radio, in printed and Internet publications were published through mass media.

Public Council under the administration of the department in Kherson Oblast (in the original language)
*Кроме постоянных приемов по личным вопросам, которые проводят члены организаций, входящих в состав совета, есть еще выезды по необходимости: либо осужденные ‘требуют общественность’, либо это небольшие микроисследования сегодняшней ситуации и потребностей для написания проектов нашими общественными организациями (причем, это могут быть как члены ГР, так и нет).
Бывают выезды с целью проверить соблюдение прав человека в отношении конкретного осужденного. В таких случаях в состав группы входят те специалисты и тех организаций, которые максимально либо заинтересованы, либо компетентны. Многие вопросы решаются в телефонном режиме.
Решен важный вопрос – выдачи медицинских справок освобождающимся из колонии: осужденные могут их получить, если обратятся сами к руководству колонии или фельдшерам заранее, чтобы им сделали выписку. Справка - установленного образца, ничем не отличается от тех, что выдаются медучреждениями на свободе, и на печати тоже нет указания, что выдана именно в колонии. Особенно важно это для тех, кто хочет сразу устраиваться официально на работу. Это упрощает и удешевляет процесс прохождения медкомиссии, потому что далеко не все предприятия оплачивают ее, да и лишний раз проходить флюорографию нет необходимости.
Сложнее всего нам было ‘побороть’ органы районного образования: две колонии в области относятся к одному району, который сам по себе один из отсталых, на 90% находится на дотации. И вначале даже шел разговор о том, чтобы вообще закрыть. С трудом, но удалось отстоять учебно-консультативные пункты в двух колониях, где их хотели закрыть. В школе Дарьевской ИК № 10 заработал компьютерный класс и теперь осужденные имеют возможность и получают дистанционно высшее образование.
Если освободившийся человек никак не может получить паспорт, то через Центры социальных служб семьи и молодежи этот вопрос решается проще и быстрее. А ЦССМ в свою очередь входит в состав ГР.
Что касается трудностей: сложно с выездами, исследованиями, контролем. Для участия в визитах фактически необходимо или бросить свою работу, или использовать выходные дни. Но, как показывает опыт, выходные практически у всех, в том числе и у большинства сотрудников тоже совпадают - суббота и воскресенье. И хотя многие готовы потратить время, например, на получение ‘обратной связи’ от осужденных и вести прием по личным вопросам, но могут это делать только в выходной день. Тем более, что в будние дни на прием не приходят те осужденные, которые работают. Но в выходные в колониях отсутствует руководство, которое как раз решает пропустить членов ГР в колонию, ‘отдыхает’ канцелярия и не подпишется пропуск, некому организовать прием. Этот вопрос планируется ‘поднять’ на очередном заседании ГР, пригласим замов учреждений по режиму.
Очень много проблем и вопросов возникает у осужденных, работающих на производстве из-за ‘странного’ законодательства. В УИК, например, есть оговорки по поводу начисления зарплаты: если нарушал режим, если не выполнил норму, то зарплату можешь не получить. И даже если не выполнил по объективным причинам: нет заказа, сломался инструмент, то, получается, работал все равно задаром. И это только маленький пример. Было бы неплохо, используя наш ресурс, лоббировать эти изменения.*

Along with quite meaningful responses to requests about the activities of the Public Councils under the department’s administrations, some somewhat specific responses were also received.
Thus, the head of the Public Council under the department’s administration in Crimea did not answer the first request, and responded to the follow-up quite irritatedly, calling it a ‘stencil circular’ and agreed to answer only when he was informed what this request had in mind. After clarifications, no response was received from the head of this Public Council.
And the head of the Public Council under the department’s administration in Odesa Oblast asks with surprise why the ‘Coalition of HIV-service organisations did not report on conducting research on the activities of Public Councils at the national level’. As if only after such ‘registration’ does the research have the right to life.
In a certain sense, the situation with the Public Council under the department’s administration in Donetsk Oblast is telling. At first, it included a number of ‘representatives of the public’—former employees of the system. The council was headed by a former head of the administration, who represented a public organisation of law enforcement veterans. And for two years, he did not convene the council. On paper, it existed; its creation was duly reported. But no work was conducted. After the re-election of the council head, its activity became livelier, but it is limited, as a rule, to discussions among its members. Public organisations themselves, whose representatives are part of the council, work well and perform a great deal of work. But as an entity, the Public Council remains almost inactive. The administration’s leadership seemingly supports the initiatives of the public, but not enough for the council to actively get to work.
Public councils in a number of other regions were also headed by former employees of the system. Almost nothing is known about the achievements of the councils in these regions.
It is obvious that the Public Councils under the administrations conduct, as they say, some work. Most often, we are talking about the provision of assistance on the part of the public to penal institutions—conducting cultural and sports events, resolving issues of training, organising meetings with representatives of the church, artists, athletes, etc. However, this entire set does not constitute the exercise of public control. Only in the activities of some Public Councils can one observe elements of public control. But such activity has not yet become noticeable in Ukraine. Thus, for example, nothing is known about the consideration of emergency events at the meetings of the Public Councils under the territorial administrations.
In this context, it is obvious that the true attitude towards the public in the department should be evidenced by how the Public Council under the department works with the public, how it reacts to the initiatives of the public, and which initiatives it supports.
The real level of attention to human rights issues on the part of the Public Council under the department is evidenced by the reaction of the head of this Public Council, Mr. I.V. Shtanko, in the past the head of the agency. Human rights activists addressed him with a letter regarding emergency events in penal institutions. The course of the human rights activists’ attempts to initiate the consideration of these issues at the Public Council under the Department is given below.
The head of ‘Donetsk Memorial’ and the Penitentiary Society of Ukraine, Oleksandr Bukalov, and the representative of the All-Ukrainian public organisation ‘Alliance Maidan’, Liudmyla Koval, addressed the Head of the Public Council under the Department for the Execution of Sentences with a letter dated 18 July 2007, in which concern was expressed regarding the facts of human rights violations in penal institutions. They noted, in particular, that ‘official information from the Department about mass disturbances, their causes, and also about forms and methods of resolving these conflict situations is extremely scarce. Moreover, the results of investigations are not officially published. Therefore, there is no confidence that the personnel and administration of the institutions always fully comply with the norms and standards of treatment of convicts, and that inspections of likely violations are conducted thoroughly, conscientiously, and impartially.’
Arguing for the necessity of an urgent consideration of these issues in the circle of leading human rights organisations, they noted:
‘The Department’s responses to requests regarding such events are too non-specific, and sometimes generate more questions than they allow to understand what and how it actually happened. The impression is formed that the leadership of the agency is very uninterested in an impartial investigation of reports about likely cruel treatment in its institutions.
We consider it extremely relevant to urgently consider these facts with the direct participation of representatives of the public, in order to clarify whether violations of the standards of treatment of convicts on the part of the personnel of the institutions of the DDU PVP (State Department of Ukraine for the Execution of Sentences) actually took place. Since in some cases, we are talking about human life, we consider the immediate convening of a meeting of the Public Council justified and expedient. Delay in responding to some of these facts is extremely dangerous, primarily for individual convicts, and to a certain degree—also for society.’
They concluded their address with an insistent request ‘to show civil responsibility and initiate an extraordinary meeting of the Public Council under the Department. We also ask to mandatorily invite to this meeting persons who are well informed about individual facts of likely cruel treatment—mothers of convicts S. Bazyk and O. Povidailyk, Liudmyla Koval, Kateryna Levchenko, Andrii Hiel, Oleksandr Bukalov, Yevhen Zakharov.’
This address remained without any response.
A month later, a meeting of the Public Council took place, but these issues remained outside the agenda of the assembly. None of the persons proposed by the authors of the address, as well as the authors themselves, were invited to this meeting.
With the lapse of three months, the head of ‘Donetsk Memorial’ addressed the head of the Public Council again with a letter dated 22 October, in which it was noted that ‘taking into account the cases where the leadership of the department ignored the initiatives of public organisations and avoided interaction without sufficient reasons for that, it seems important to me to consider the issue regarding the principles of their cooperation and interaction, and ways to overcome obstacles and misunderstandings in their relationships. In connection with this, I repeat my proposal for the quickest possible conduct of an open meeting of the Public Council with the invitation to it of human rights activists who are not part of its composition.
I would like the decisions adopted by the Public Council to provide meaningful and constructive answers to the urgent issues of interaction of institutions and bodies of the criminal-executive system with leading human rights organisations.’
The repeat address also remained without any response.
A month later, O. Bukalov and L. Koval again addressed a letter to Mr. Shtanko, in which it was stated:
‘Four months have passed. New facts of likely violations of the rights of prisoners have appeared, which cause concern. However, your position and attitude towards the urgency of considering these issues at the Public Council, unfortunately, is not announced. We can repeat again that “delay in responding to some of these facts is extremely dangerous, primarily for individual convicts, and to a certain degree—also for society.”’
The next call to initiate an extraordinary meeting of the Public Council under the Department again remained without reaction.
It is worth noting that in October 2007, the head of the administration of security, oversight, and safety of the department informed ‘Donetsk Memorial’ upon request that the draft Instruction on the procedure for visiting penal institutions and pre-trial detention centres was coordinated with the Public Council under the Department. But it was definitely known that there were no meetings of the council during this period. This may testify to the fact that such ‘coordinations’ are processed effectively formally, without consideration at the council’s meetings. To check such assumptions, requests were sent to Mr. Shtanko twice, but they also remained unanswered.
In another letter to the head of the Public Council dated 3 December 2007, it was already noted:
‘The absence of reaction to these proposals is alarming and forces us to seek answers, why the Public Council under the Department continues to remain silent when serious events connected with the observance or non-observance of human rights occur in institutions. The inaction of the council becomes more eloquent the longer it continues.’
In view of such neglect on the part of the head of the Public Council of addresses regarding human rights violations, a request was sent on 24 January 2008 to the coordinator of the activity of the Public Council under the department, O.V. Svitlak, in which it was noted, in particular:
‘the absence of reaction of the Head of the Public Council is surprising and alarming. It dissonates with the assurances of the head of the Public Council about active cooperation. In connection with the above-stated, I ask you as an employee of the Department who is the coordinator of the Public Council’s activity to facilitate obtaining answers to the questions contained in the letters of our organisation.’
However, even this address did not shift the situation. The proposed meeting of the Public Council for the consideration of issues of brutal violations of human rights in the institutions of the department did not take place as of the end of 2008.
The cited facts testify that, in the end, the Public Council under the Department remained deaf to the addresses of human rights activists concerned about cases of human rights violations in penal institutions. This looks especially strange, as during the leadership of the department, Mr. Shtanko facilitated many initiatives of the public. Undoubtedly, his position cannot help but be influenced by the true attitude of the current leadership of the agency towards cooperation with the public.
Thus, despite the interesting cases of some Public Councils under the territorial administrations of the agency, on the whole, one can state that the activity of these entities is to a great extent an imitation of the public’s participation in the work of the agency, and public control of human rights observance in penal institutions as a systemic activity is practically absent in Ukraine.