Not by word, but—by deed

The 'closed' 'prison' system, tired of waiting for the state to create a mechanism for regular visits to places where persons deprived of liberty are held, with the aim of preventing torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment, is itself introducing an element of a national preventive mechanism.
It was on 10 December, International Human Rights Day, at an event attended by parties who are usually not on very warm terms with each other—human rights activists and correctional colony workers from all over Ukraine—that an official announcement was made: by order of the Head of the State Department of Ukraine for the Execution of Sentences, the creation of a Centre for Preventive Monitoring and Human Rights Protection in the activities of bodies and institutions of the State Criminal-Executive Service of Ukraine (hereinafter—the Centre) was initiated.
It is a quite unique case, where a system that is supposed to be 'checked' has met the demands of public organisations, and understanding the necessity of introducing independent inspection of places of detention, has itself initiated the development of a mechanism and procedure for independent inspection.
At present, this does not seem very strange, as, if anyone, the 'prison' system is first in line to 'take the heat' for Ukraine's non-compliance with the norms of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ratified back in July 2006.
It is also telling that the discussion of the draft regulation on the Centre with employees of the state criminal-executive system from all regions of Ukraine was timed to coincide with 10 December. The draft regulation on the Centre was developed by a working group of the Public Council under the State Department and is being discussed both at meetings of the Public Council and with scientists and practical workers of the criminal-executive service.
The essence of the idea for creating the Centre, which is reflected in the regulation on the Centre, consists of supporting one of the elements of an independent preventive mechanism for the prevention of torture at the national level, in accordance with Articles 3 and 17 of the Optional Protocol. The Optional Protocol does not define a clear form for national preventive mechanisms. Thus, each state can itself choose a form or forms that are convenient for it, but the sole requirement is that these forms (preventive mechanisms, elements of mechanisms) must clearly and mandatorily correspond to the criteria of the Optional Protocol.
In accordance with Article 19 of the Optional Protocol, national preventive mechanisms are granted, at a minimum, the following powers:
a) to regularly review the treatment of persons deprived of liberty in places of detention, with the aim of strengthening their protection against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment; b) to make recommendations to the relevant authorities for the purposes of improving the treatment of persons deprived of liberty and the conditions of their detention and to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment, taking into account the relevant norms of the United Nations; c) to provide proposals and observations concerning existing legislation or draft laws.
Article 20 of the Optional Protocol obligates the granting to members of national preventive mechanisms, in particular, such powers as access to any information concerning the treatment of persons in places of detention as well as the conditions of their detention; access to any places of detention, their installations and objects; the opportunity to conduct private interviews with persons deprived of liberty without witnesses, personally, or, if necessary, through an interpreter, as well as with any other person who, in the opinion of the national preventive mechanism, can provide relevant information; the right to choose places they wish to visit and persons with whom they wish to communicate without hindrance...
The idea of creating the Centre is perceived ambiguously by various human rights activists and practical workers of the system. From thoughts such as 'a charade that the 'prison' system is trying to implement' to thoughts such as 'finally we have waited for some constructive movement, and not just chatter'. At the same time, the Public Council under the State Department of Ukraine for the Execution of Sentences has received a positive attitude towards the idea of creating such a Centre from representatives of international organisations, in particular from Penal Reform International. Members of PRI took direct part in the development of the actual Optional Protocol. In the opinion of PRI representatives (London), the Centre should function successfully; the idea is correct and extremely relevant; the only requirement is that the documents that will regulate the activities of the Centre (in this case—the regulation on the Centre) must be drafted in detail, and in these documents, the conceptual matters required by the Optional Protocol must necessarily be spelled out and observed. This refers to access to places of detention and the persons held there, information, guarantees of non-interference in the Centre’s activities, independence, professionalism, and the accountability of the Centre’s staff to the public, among other things.
Therefore, on 10 December, International Human Rights Day, the discussion of the draft regulation on the Centre with practical workers of the State Criminal-Executive Service of Ukraine began with the aim of developing an optimal model for the element of a preventive mechanism. The public hopes for constructive cooperation; the leadership of the State Department has shown its will—the rest is up to the practical workers in the regions. The time has come to start solving 'prison matters' together.
Time will tell, to be continued...

Public Council under the State Department of Ukraine for the Execution of Sentences