03/05/2002 | Rost

Має бути цікаво почути їхню офіційну точку зору - я щойно цю доповідь знайшов, ще й сам не читав.
..........................................................


Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2001
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
March 4, 2002
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/eur/8361.htm


Ukraine is governed by a directly elected President, a Prime Minister who heads a Cabinet of Ministers, and a unicameral parliament (Rada). The Prime Minister is nominated by the President and approved by the Rada. The cabinet is nominated by the Prime Minister and approved by the President, but generally is under the President's direction. The Parliament is elected partially according to proportional representation and partially by direct constituency mandate. Incumbent President Leonid Kuchma was reelected in 1999 in an election described by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) as having failed to meet a significant number of the OSCE election-related commitments. In June 2000, by-elections were held to fill 10 vacant parliament seats; opposition candidates complained of voting irregularities, a lack of access to the media, and government pressure on behalf of propresidential candidates. Despite irregularities most observers agreed that the results of the 1999 and 2000 elections generally reflected the will of the electorate. In an April 2000 referendum, which observers described as flawed in several respects, voters approved changes to the Constitution that would expand presidential powers and increase executive branch influence over Parliament. The Constitutional Court struck down two of the six proposed amendments before the referendum. The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, the courts are funded through the Ministry of Justice, are subject to political interference and corruption, and are inefficient.

There are two principal security agencies, which have equal responsibility for internal security: The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), which is responsible for intelligence gathering, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which controls the various police forces. The Minister of Internal Affairs is a member of the Cabinet of Ministers, while the SBU enjoys special status within the executive branch of Government and reports directly to the President. The State Tax Administration also has law enforcement powers, which itexercises through the tax police. The Office of the Prosecutor General prosecutes criminal cases and is responsible for enforcement of court decisions in criminal cases. The armed forces largely remained outside of politics. However, government agencies interfered indirectly in the political process through criminal and tax investigations of politicians, journalists, and influential businessmen. While civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces, there have been cases in which actions by the military have been inconsistent with stated government policy. Members of the security forces committed human rights abuses.

The country has a total population of approximately 48,860,000 (based on the preliminary results of an official census concluded during the year), and its economy incorporates both privately owned and state-owned enterprises. The private sector accounts for approximately 60 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). While the official GDP was only approximately 44 percent of its preindependence (1990) level; the economy grew by 5.8 percent in 2000 and 9 percent during the year. Inflation was 6.1 percent, less than half of the original forecast of 13.6 percent. The country's economic output includes agriculture and heavy industry as well as construction, coal, and other raw materials. The bulk of the workforce--23 percent--is engaged in agriculture and forestry (including production on individual plots). Industry employs 19 percent of the workforce; education, culture, science, and arts employ 6.3 percent. The economy is burdened by nonpayments and wage arrears, and a significant proportion of income is earned in the shadow economy (defined as activity deliberately unreported for purposes of tax evasion). Wage arrears began to decrease in 2000, and by November had decreased by approximately 58 percent. The economy has made significant progress in moving away from barter and non-cash payments. Investment remained at low levels, with many potential investors discouraged by rampant corruption, onerous taxation, arbitrary licensing practices, and an inefficient, politically influenced, judicial system that bends to political pressure. Wealth is concentrated in the political elite and among directors of the state-dominated sectors such as metals, oil, and gas.

The Government's human rights record was poor; however, there were improvements in a few areas. Police and prison officials tortured and beat detainees and prisoners, at times killing them. The beating of conscripts in the army by fellow soldiers was common and at times resulted in death. Police abuse and harassment of racial minorities was a continuing problem. The Government rarely punishes officials who commit abuses. The Rada adopted a progressive criminal code that entered into force on September 1, which includes several criminal offenses, including penalties for torture. Prison conditions remained harsh and life threatening, particularly because of exposure to disease. Arbitrary arrest and detention were problems, as was lengthy pretrial detention in very poor conditions. However, the number of defendants released from confinement pending trial increased during the year. Political interference and corruption affected the judicial process. The judiciary also was overburdened, inefficient, and lacked sufficient funding and staff. Long delays in trials were a problem. In July a series of amendments to the laws that regulate the system of courts and the administration of justice were implemented and included the transfer of the right to issue arrest warrants, residential search warrants, and wiretap orders from prosecutors to the courts. The amendments also provided for a unified system of courts, introduced an appellate process, and allowed appellate and commercial courts, as well as the Supreme Court, to nominate and elect their own chairmen. The Government continued to infringe on citizens' privacy rights.

The Government interfered with the news media by intimidating journalists and using libel laws. Nevertheless a wide range of opinion is available in newspapers and periodicals. There were some limits on freedom of assembly, and the authorities forcibly disrupted some demonstrations. Freedom of association was restricted. Some minority and nontraditional religions continued to encounter bureaucratic difficulties from local officials; however, the Government continued to return properties expropriated during the Soviet era to religious groups. There were some limits on freedom of movement; however, in November the Constitutional Court held that the "propyska" system was unconstitutional. Violence and discrimination against women, including sexual harassment in the workplace, were problems. Violence against children was a problem. Societal anti-Semitism and discrimination against religious, racial, and ethnic minorities also were problems. The Government discouraged some workers from organizing unions. Trafficking in women and girls for sexual exploitation was a serious problem, one which the Government, through the Ombudsman's office, took steps to combat.

RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From:

a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life

Unlike in past years, there were no confirmed reports of political killings; however, abuse of prisoners and detainees, and harsh prison conditions at times led to death (see Section 1.c.). During the first 6 months of the year, there were 865 deaths in prison and detention facilities, many due to harsh conditions.

Members of the armed forces have killed soldiers during violent hazing incidents in previous years (see Section 1.c.); for example, according to a government official, in 1998 (the latest year for which information was available) 10 to 12 military personnel were beaten to death, and a total of 20 to 30 died as an indirect result of injuries sustained from hazing. At times the authorities reportedly label these deaths as suicides. For example, the Kharkiv branch of the Association of the Soldiers' Mothers reported that a soldier in the Donetsk region who died during the year, apparently from two gunshot wounds to the head, was said to have committed suicide. Human rights groups stated that this practice continued to be widespread, although no official data was available.

In May a parliamentary committee urged the prosecutor's office to open a case against police who allegedly tortured Yevhen Kornuta, a resident of the Cherkasy region who was detained in 1999 on suspicion of theft. He later died from injuries sustained from the beating. Local authorities have exhumed his body and opened a criminal case, but no one had been charged with a criminal act by year's end.

The pervasiveness of corruption, connections between government officials and organized crime, and the political activities of organized crime figures often blurred the distinction between political and criminal acts. Politicians, politically connected businessmen, and journalists have been the victims of attacks that were sometimes fatal and possibly were politically motivated. No official statistics for contract killings during the year were available. According to the nongovernmental organization (NGO) Reporters Without Borders, physical attacks on journalists during the year resulted in at least four deaths (see Section 2.a). For example, on July 3, unknown assailants brutally beat a director of a Donetsk regional television station, Ihor Aleksandrov. On July 7, Alexandrov died from his injuries. Aleksandrov had aired a number of critical reports of Donetsk-based politicians and was a noted critic of alleged corruption among local law enforcement authorities. President Kuchma assigned high level members of his Government to investigate Aleksandrov's killing. In August the Prosecutor General announced that there was no high-level political motivation behind Aleksandrov's killing; Aleksandrov's son issued a public letter in the same month criticizing the conduct of the investigation. According to the police, a homeless man later confessed that he had been hired to kill the head of the television station's legal department and had mistaken Aleksandrov for this person; his trial was scheduled for 2002.

In September 2000, prominent journalist Heorhiy Gongadze disappeared; in November 2000, police found a decapitated body outside of Kiev, which Gongadze's friends and family believed was his. Gongadze was the editor of the on-line news journal Ukrayinska Pravda and was a frequent critic of both the Government and leading business figures. In a July 2000 open letter addressed to the Prosecutor General, Gongadze complained of government harassment, including being followed and questioned by security forces. The Government asserted that it was conducting a full-scale investigation into his disappearance, but the authorities did not request a DNA test until the end of 2000. The results of the test were released on January 10. Experts at the Russian Interior Ministry's forensics laboratory determined that the body was that of Gongadze. Another foreign forensics team also asked to administer tests on the body, later confirmed this judgement. In November 2000, the leader of the Socialist Party, Oleksandr Moroz, accused the President and other senior government officials of complicity in the disappearance of Gongadze, and Gongadze's widow also has asserted that the authorities most likely were involved. In May the Ministry of Internal Affairs claimed that Gongadze had been murdered by two thieves who themselves had been killed, but the Prosecutor General's Office did not uphold this charge. The investigation of the killing officially still was ongoing at year's end and remained a source of great concern to observers. Although the Government cooperated with international law enforcement agencies in the identification of Gongadze's body, the authorities did not conduct a prompt and transparent investigation into his killing. As a result, Gongadze's widow and mother, the OSCE representative on Freedom of the Media, and the NGO Reporters Without Borders, called for the creation of an international commission of inquiry into Gongadze's disappearance and killing.

The Government made no known progress in resolving a number of high profile and possibly politically motivated killings from 1999. For example, no progress was made in solving the 1999 killing of the security chief of the independent television station STB or the 1999 killings of the chairman of the regional arbitration court, Borys Vihrov, and the director of local television station, Ihor Bondar in Odesa.

b. Disappearance

There were no reports of politically motivated disappearances during the year. No charges have been filed in the 2000 disappearance and killing of journalist Heorhiy Gongadze (see Section 1.a.).

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The Constitution prohibits torture; however, police and prison officials regularly tortured and beat detainees and prisoners, and there were numerous reports of such abuse. Amnesty International and other human rights groups continued to receive regular reports that special militia detachments known as Berkut tortured and beat inmates as part of regular training exercises. The media and human rights groups reported that police subjected detainees to various methods of physical torture, including the "swallow," in which the detainee is placed on his stomach and his feet are tied to his hands behind him, forcing his back to arch. Another abuse is the "baby elephant," in which a gas mask is placed on the prisoner's head and the flow of oxygen slowly reduced. Detainees also were subjected to a method called the "monument," in which a prisoner is suspended by his hands on a rope and beaten. Human rights lawyers reported that requesting an attorney often leads to a worse beating, and detainees may be beaten until they waive their right to an attorney.

In January Volodomyr Ivanchenko, who was charged with plotting the killing of former presidential candidate Nataliya Vitrenko, claimed in his trial that police had suffocated, beaten, and used electroshock on him and his codefendants while they were in pretrial detention.

There is no effective mechanism for registering complaints about mistreatment or for obtaining redress for such actions, although in May the Supreme Court ruled that detainees may address complaints directly to the court instead of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Prisoners and detainees also address complaints to the Ombudsman for Human Rights, and that office received several hundred reports of torture in pretrial detention during the year; however, only 150 official cases have been identified since 1999. According to the Office of the Ombudsman, most of the complaints that it received centered on human rights violations by law enforcement personnel. The Ombudsman also maintained that detainees who were unable to pay a deposit for meals went hungry and that this qualifies as another form of torture. The Ombudsmen has publicized reports of such practices actively; however, the Ombudsman has no enforcement authority, and authorities made little documented effort to end such practices or to punish officials who committed or abetted abuse.

Disciplinary action against law enforcement authorities that commit abuses was rare. In its 2000 report, the Ombudsman noted that in 1998 and 1999, 285 members of the police were charged with torture and mistreatment of prisoners. In October the Kiev Appeals Court convicted three policeman for beating to death a man in custody in 1995. One policeman was sentenced to life imprisonment and two others received 5-year jail terms. A new Criminal Code that came into effect on September 1 mandates 3 to 10 years of imprisonment for torture; however, human rights groups reported that during the year there were no prosecutions for torture under the new Criminal Code.

Police also abused Roma, particularly in the Transcarpathian region, and harassed and abused dark-skinned persons. Representatives of these groups claimed that police officials routinely ignored, and sometimes abetted, violence against them (see Section 5). Police also harassed refugees (see Section 2.d.)

Police corruption remained a serious problem. There were reports that local officials abetted or aided organized crime groups involved in trafficking (see Section 6.f.).

In January the police forcibly dispersed antipresidential demonstrations in Kharkiv and Rivne. In March police were accused of the mistreatment of protesters and rioters in the aftermath of a wreath-laying by the President in honor of the national poet, Taras Shevchenko (see Section 2.b.). Police reportedly hit Socialist parliamentarian Valentyna Semenyuk on the head with a truncheon. There were reports that police beat some protesters while in custody. The press reported that police beat and fractured the skull of Andriy Shkil, the leader of the oppositionist UNA-UNSO party, who was arrested for allegedly attacking riot police (see Section 2.b.).

Police also harassed journalists (see Section 2.a.).

Despite extensive legislation on the protection of service member rights and official regulations concerning relations among military personnel, reports continued during the year of harsh conditions and violence against conscripts in the armed forces. Unlike in the previous year, there were no reports that enior officers required malnourished recruits to beg for food or money, or employed them in unsanctioned labor activities. Senior conscripts often beat recruits, sometimes to death (see Section 1.a.) and forced them to give them money and gifts that they received from home. According to human rights associations, garrison prosecutors often do not investigate complaints of physical harassment. Punishment administered for committing or condoning such activities did not serve as an effective deterrent to the further practice of such abuses. Between 1991 and 1998, 450 soldiers were convicted of violent harassment of their colleagues; approximately 200 military personnel were prosecuted in 1998 for violent hazing (10 to 12 conscripts were beaten to death, and 20 to 30 died from injuries related to hazing). Although official statistics on the incidence of hazing during the year are unavailable, human rights groups, including the Association of Soldiers' Mothers, reported that violent hazing continued to be widespread. In January according to media reports, a sergeant was sentenced to a 5-year prison term for hazing a conscript who subsequently committed suicide. In June the press reported that military prosecutors opened five new cases against servicemen accused of physical harassment.

In past years, some politically active individuals were wounded in violent attacks; however, there were no reports of such attacks during the year. In June the Dnipropetrovsk Regions Court sentenced several defendants to jail terms ranging from 4 to 15 years for the October 1999 bombing in which presidential candidate Nataliya Vitrenko was wounded slightly, and more than 30 others were injured. No progress was reported in resolving the April 1999 shooting of Kiev municipal government official Mykola Pidmohylny or the November 1999 shooting of Vinnytsia Mayor Dmytro Dvorkis. There were a number of violent attacks by unknown persons on journalists during the year (see Section 2.a.).

No progress was made in resolving the 1999 firebombing of the office of the Tatar Assembly Mejlis in Simferopol or the 1999 bombing of the office of the Communist Party leader Leonid Hrach in Simferopol. Accusations by former opposition presidential candidate and head of the National Security and Defense Committee, Yevhen Marchuk, linking the Presidential Administration to a false bomb threat that disrupted a 1999 meeting between Marchuk and local residents were never proven.

In 1998 the Government created a penal department to oversee reform of the penal system and to serve as the administrative center of the penal system. The new department originally was placed under the oversight of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, but it was given the status of an independent government agency by presidential decree in 1999; however, human rights groups reported that the reorganization did not affect the Department's practices and that there is little civilian oversight of its activities. Although the Government has implemented some programs for the retraining of prison and police officials, it has punished only a small minority of those who committed or condoned violence against detainees and prisoners. In March the leadership of the penal department changed; some human rights groups reported that the department has addressed human rights complaints more effectively as a result.

Prison conditions remained harsh and life threatening. According to official sources, information on the physical state of prison walls and fences, as well as pretrial detention blocks is considered to be a government secret. Nevertheless the press reported freely about harsh prison conditions. According to complaints received from the Office of the Ombudsman and human rights NGO's, prison officials intimidated and mistreated inmates. Due in part to severe economic conditions, prisons and detention centers were severely overcrowded and lacked adequate sanitation and medical facilities. According to official statistics of the Penal Department, the first 6 months of the year there were 865 deaths in the prisons. Poor sanitary conditions resulted in 300 deaths from diseases such as tuberculosis and 13 from dysentery during the first half of the year. There were frequent incidents of killings by fellow inmates and 13 individuals were reported officially to have committed suicide, although human rights groups believe the suicide figure to be higher. Because the country lacks a well-developed system of suspended sentences, and the law does not differentiate between misdemeanors and felonies, at least one-third of inmates in 2000 were imprisoned because of minor violations. Between July and August, 28,818 minor offenders were released from prison as a result of a general amnesty. This measure did relieve overcrowding to some extent; however, the prisons had begun to fill up again by year's end, and pretrial facilities remained overcrowded.

Unlike in the previous year, there were no reports during the year that prisoners were not being permitted to correspond or that family visits were limited to one per year. Prisoners may complain to the Ombudsman about the conditions of detention, but human rights groups reported that inmates were punished for initiating complaints. In January the Parliament passed amendments to the Penal Code, relaxing Soviet-era restrictions in high-security prisons and removing a requirement that all prisoners' letters should be read. In August, as a result of a petition by the Office of the Ombudsman, the State Penal Department discontinued the transfer of female detainees from a facility in Dnipropetrovsk to Kryvyy Rih. Beginning in 1998 approximately 15,000 female prisoners had traveled to and from the two eastern facilities in small train compartments, without water, toilet facilities, or ventilation.

Conditions in pretrial detention facilities also were harsh. Inmates sometimes were held in investigative isolation for extended periods and subjected to intimidation and mistreatment by jail guards and other inmates. Overcrowding is common in these centers. For example, the pretrial detention center in Kiev houses 4,000 persons, although it was constructed to hold 2,850. The SBU still maintained its own pretrial centers at year's end, although that it had announced it would close them by mid-year.

Conditions in the Corrective Labor and Treatment Centers for Alcoholics (LTP's), operated by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, where violent alcoholics are confined forcibly by court decision, differ little from those in prisons. Although some centers were transferred to the Health Ministry during 2000, the Government has not met its earlier commitment to transfer all of the LTP's to the ministry. Virtually no treatment for alcoholism is available in these centers. In August 1999, the Government issued a decree directing the closure of LTP's by the end of 2000; however, the press reported in June that 5 LTP's with over 2,000 inmates continued to operate during the year.

The Government continued to allow prison visits from human rights monitors; however, some monitors reported that at times it can be difficult to obtain access to prisons to visit specific prisoners. For example, reportedly human rights organizations initially were denied access to Serhiy Potomanov, a journalist detained and later imprisoned in Simferopol, who had complained of severe beatings by other inmates; however, after the prisoner went on a hunger strike, the visit was permitted. Potomanov maintained that the case against him was fabricated and stated that he was tortured after complaining of prison conditions. During the year, the Ombudsman continued to make the treatment of prisoners a priority and to investigate conditions in a number of prisons. In September the Rada ratified the first and second protocols of the European Convention on Prevention of Torture which mandates the inspection of prisons by international observers. Human rights groups hope these visits may lead to a reduction in the incidence of torture.

d. Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, or Exile

The Constitution prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention; however, arbitrary arrest and detention remained problems. The Constitution provides for compensation for unlawful conviction and the law allows compensation for illegal arrests; however, these provisions rarely were invoked.

The law provides that authorities may detain a suspect for 3 days without a warrant, after which an arrest order must be issued. Amendments to the law that took effect in July transferred the authority to extend detention without an arrest warrant for an additional 10 days from the prosecutor's office to the courts. Suspects who believe that further investigation may lead to their immediate exoneration also may petition the court for an additional 15-day detention. The law further provides that pretrial detentions may not last more than 2 months. In cases involving exceptionally grave offenses, the Prosecutor General may petition a judge of the Supreme Court to extend the period of detention to 18 months. The law does not limit the aggregate time of detention before and during a trial. The law permits citizens to contest an arrest in court or appeal to the prosecutor. The Constitution requires immediate notification of family members concerning an arrest, but this action often is not taken in practice.

By law a trial must begin no later than 3 weeks after criminal charges have been filed formally with the court, but this requirement rarely is met by the overburdened court system (see Section 1.e.). Months may pass before a defendant finally is brought to trial, and the situation did not improve during the year. Complicated cases may take years to go to trial. Although an amendment to the Criminal Procedures Code provides for the imposition of monetary bail, it has been used rarely; many of the defendants cannot pay the monetary bail amounts imposed by law. Instead courts increasingly have imposed restrictions on travel outside a given area as an alternative measure to pretrial confinement. Approximately 70 percent of defendants awaiting trial--approximately 150,000 individuals--were released from pretrial confinement during the year, many of them under restrictive travel conditions. The July amendments incorporated changes intended to streamline the bail reform law so that the imposition of monetary bail may be used by the courts as another option in determining whether to release a defendant from pretrial confinement.

According to official statistics published in June, the prison population was 223,000 persons, including 175,000 in prisons and 48,000 in pretrial custody. Many of the individuals in pretrial confinement have been charged with serious violent crimes. Since only the courts may authorize the continuation of pretrial detention pursuant to the July amendments, they began to take a closer look at cases in which defendants had been confined for extended periods in pretrial detention based on previous authorization by prosecutors.

The law stipulates that a defense attorney must be provided without charge to an indigent detainee from the moment of detention or the filing of charges, whichever comes first. There are insufficient numbers of defense attorneys to protect suspects from unlawful, lengthy imprisonment under extremely poor conditions. Although the concept of providing attorneys from the state system exists in principle, public attorneys often refuse to defend indigents for the low Government fee. While in custody, a suspect or a prisoner is allowed by law to talk with a lawyer in private; however, human rights groups reported that the client-attorney privilege occasionally was denied by prison or investigative officials. To protect the defendant, each investigative file must contain a document signed by the defendant attesting that the charges against him, his right to an attorney, and his right not to give evidence against himself or his relatives have been explained to him. An appeals court may dismiss a conviction or order a new trial if this document is missing. As defendants increasingly became aware of their rights, they insisted on observance of these procedures; however, many persons remained unaware of these safeguards.

A package of laws which entered into force on July 5 amended criminal and criminal procedure laws and laws on the judiciary (see Section 1.e.). These amendments and related legislation brought about a number of key reforms in the legal system, including the transfer of the right to issue arrest warrants from the prosecutor's office to the courts. With the exception of a number of serious offenses, the prosecutor's office may no longer initiate new criminal investigations (see Section 1.e.).

The Government occasionally detained persons (usually opposition politicians or editors and journalists from the opposition press) who were openly critical of the Government or challenged the interests of the oligarchs, on charges such as criminal libel or tax evasion (see Section 2.a.). In January the Prosecutor General announced the filing of criminal charges against Yulyia Tymoshenko, Deputy Prime Minister for Energy. The charges led to her dismissal and her arrest in February. Deputy Prime Minister's Tymoshenko's efforts to reform the energy sector had drawn strong opposition, most notably from powerful business persons closely tied to the Government, and Tymoshenko claimed that the charges were politically motivated. In March she was released from detention and in September some of the charges against her were dropped for lack of evidence. In August 2000, her husband, Oleksandr Tymoshenko, and a business associate were arrested on charges of embezzlement of state funds. Although the investigation of Oleksandr Tymoshenko and his associate reportedly had been underway for some time, some observers believed that timing of the arrests was intended to pressure Yuliya Tymoshenko. In August, after 12 months of detention, Oleksandr Tymoshenko was released from pretrial custody on the orders of a lower court, and the Supreme Court subsequently invalidated his arrest warrant. Borys Feldman, former vice president of Bank Slovyanskyy and manager of Yuliya Tymoshenko's business interests, continued to be held in pretrial detention; although one court ordered his release pending trial, another competing court ordered his continuing detention; he has been held since March 2000 on charges of financial mismanagement and tax evasion.

Opposition groups claimed that the detention of several hundred protesters and the criminal charges brought against 15 demonstrators involved in the March antipresidential protests were motivated politically (see Section 2.a.).

Human rights groups reported that they continue to receive complaints from Roma in the Transcarpathia region regarding arbitrary detention and physical harassment by the police.

Police arbitrarily detained persons for extensive document checks and vehicle inspections (see Section 1.f.).

Police have the right to take detain and transport forcibly any person appearing drunk in public to special sobering centers, which were transferred during the year from the Interior to the Health Care Ministry (see Section 1.c.). Police reportedly were more reluctant to transport persons appearing drunk to such centers. Unlike in the previous year, there were no reports of police mistreating, robbing, or beating detainees on the way to and at such centers, although there were reports of police harassing such persons on the street.

At times persons involved in property, inheritance, or divorce disputes were diagnosed wrongfully with schizophrenia and confined to psychiatric institutions.

The Constitution prohibits forced exile and the Government does not employ it.

e. Denial of a Fair Public Trial

The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, in practice the judiciary is subject to considerable political interference from the executive branch and also suffers from corruption and inefficiency. The courts are funded through the Ministry of Justice, which controls the organizational support of the courts, including staffing matters, training for judges, logistics and procurement, and statistical and information support. The Presidential Administration also reportedly continued the old Soviet tradition of telephoning justices directly to influence their decisions.

Although the Constitution requires that comprehensive implementing legislation to establish an independent judicial system be enacted by June 26, the Rada did not meet this deadline, nor had the legislation been passed by year's end. Pending the passage of the required enabling legislation, the court system remained organized along Soviet lines, with the exception of the Constitutional Court. However, in July the Government adopted a series of laws designed to bring existing legislation regulating the court system and the administration of justice more in line with constitutional requirements for an independent judiciary. These laws gave the courts the right to issue warrants, adjusted the framework of the court system, and introduced an appellate process. The prosecutor's office is no longer authorized to issue arrest or search and seizure warrants. These powers may be exercised only by the courts and by duty judges in the local courts that have been designated to decide on the issuance of warrants. The reforms also give commercial, appellate, and Supreme Court judges the right to nominate and elect their own chairmen. Although local court judges can also nominate their own chairmen, the Ministry of Justice appoints them.

The judiciary lacks sufficient staff and funds, which engenders inefficiency and corruption and increases its dependence on the executive, since the court receives all its funding from the Ministry of Justice. The court reorganization necessitated by the July amendment package requires more funds than were allotted in the budget and observers believe that significant additional funding is needed to modernize the court system in general and to provide the courts with adequate facilities and equipment.

The authority and independence of the judicial system also are undermined by a lack of compliance with court decisions in civil cases. Provisions calling for criminal punishment for noncompliance with court decisions rarely are used. Compliance is particularly poor if the decision clashes with government interests. The Chairman of the Supreme Court, the chairmen of regional courts, and the chairman of the Kiev municipal court (or the deputies of these officials) can suspend court decisions, which leads to interference, manipulation, and corruption.

In 1999 the State Executive Service was established as a special department in the Ministry of Justice to execute court decisions. The State Executive Service was authorized specifically to enforce judgments in civil cases; decisions in criminal and administrative courts involving monetary compensation; and judgements of foreign courts, the Constitutional Court, and other authorities. The number of court decisions involving monetary or material compensation referred to the Department has grown substantially. In the first half of the year, over 1 million court decisions were executed, representing approximately 48 percent of the judgements referred to the State Executive Service.

Critics of the Government also claimed credibly that the Government abused its authority over officers of the court by selectively charging and dismissing politically unsympathetic judges. In May the Prosecutor General opened a criminal case against the Chairman of a Kiev district court, Mykola Zamkovenko, on charges of negligence and abuse of office. In July President Kuchma dismissed Zamkovenko for intentionally withholding case files in order to delay citizens' appeals to the court. This decision followed his suspension by the Judiciary Qualification Commission and a High Judicial Council recommendation in favor of his dismissal. However, Zamkovenko's supporters charged that he had been targeted for his release of former Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko from pretrial custody and his recognition of Heorhiy Gongadze's mother and wife as victims of a crime (see Sections 1.a. and 1.d.).

The July amendments to a series of laws concerning the judiciary and the administration of justice introduced important reforms to the court system. The amendments provided for a unified system of courts consisting of a Constitutional Court, a system of courts of general jurisdiction that includes the Supreme Court and specialized commercial (formerly arbitration) courts, and military courts. General jurisdiction courts are organized on four levels: Local courts, regional appellate courts, specialized high courts (the High Commercial Court), and the Supreme Court. The arbitration courts were redesignated as commercial courts and are intended to operate as specialized courts within the single unified system of courts. As a result, the Supreme Court may review their judgments, including those rendered by the High Commercial Court. Military courts are specialized courts that hear cases only involving military personnel.

The July amendments also introduced a new appeals process to the court system. Regional courts, including the Supreme Court of Crimea, and the Kiev and Sevastopol City courts, became appellate courts for the lower-level courts. They may examine evidence independently in a case, call for additional witnesses or evidence, and render a decision that supercedes the judgment of a lower court.

The Constitutional Court consists of 18 members appointed for 9-year terms in equal numbers by the President, the Parliament, and the Congress of Judges. The Constitutional Court is the ultimate interpreter of legislation and the Constitution, and it determines the constitutionality of legislation, Presidential edicts, cabinet acts, and acts of the Crimean Autonomous Republic. The President, at least 45 Members of Parliament, the Supreme Court, the Ombudsman, and the Crimean legislature may request that the Constitutional Court hear a case. Citizens may apply to the Constitutional Court through the Ombudsman, who started to exercise this right in selected cases. In some limited cases, the Constitutional Court can interpret law for individual citizens, when the applying citizen provides compelling proof that a constitutional provision is violated, or that it is interpreted differently by different government bodies. During the year, the Constitutional Court considered two cases in response to petitions initiated by individuals but submitted by the Ombudsman for Human Rights and a joint stock company.

Many local observers regard the Constitutional Court as the country's most independent judicial body. Human rights groups state that, overall, the Constitutional Court has maintained a balance of fairness. However, in March 2000, the Court ruled that the President's proposed referendum on expanding presidential authority was constitutional, although it threw out two of the six original questions. Observers believed that this decision indicated a pro-presidential bias.

The Constitution includes procedural provisions to ensure a fair trial, including the right of a suspect or witness to refuse to testify against himself or his relatives; however, pending the passage of legislation to implement these constitutional provisions, a largely Soviet-era criminal justice system remained in place, which limits these rights. While the defendant is presumed innocent, conviction rates have changed little since the Soviet era, and nearly all completed cases result in convictions. According to official statistics, in the first half of 2000, there were 113,902 convictions and 375 acquittals. However, since judges frequently send back to the prosecutor for "additional investigation" cases that lack sufficient evidence to support the charges (which usually leads to the dropping of the case), these statistics are somewhat misleading. During the period of 1999-2000, the courts returned more than 10 percent of pending criminal cases to investigative agencies because of the lack of sufficient evidence. In addition, there were indications that suspects often bribe court officials to drop charges before cases go to trial, to lessen sentences, or to commute them.

Under the existing court system cases are decided by judges who sit singly, occasionally with two public assessors ("lay judges" or professional jurors with some legal training), or in groups of three for more serious cases. The Constitution provides for public, adversarial trials, including a judge, public assessors, state prosecutor, defense, and jury (when required by law). With some qualifications, these requirements are respected in practice. The July legislative amendments provide for a jury system, including procedures for the selection of jurors, but the amendments did not address the function and jurisdiction of jurors. Observers believe that the jury system not function until a comprehensive judicial reform is completed and additional funding is provided for the courts.

Complicated cases can take years to go to trial, and pretrial detention is a problem; however, in increasing numbers, defendants are released from confinement pending trial (see Section 1.d.). The condition normally imposed by the court is nonmonetary bail in the form of restrictions on travel. Many of the remaining defendants in pretrial confinement were awaiting trial for very serious criminal offenses. Judges report that there has been a significant increase in the number of defendants who have been charged with very serious crimes during the transitional period from a Soviet command-based economy, which partly accounts for the substantially high number of individuals in pretrial detention.

Prosecutors, like the courts, are organized into offices at the rayon (district), oblast (regional), and national levels. They are responsible ultimately to the Prosecutor General, who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the parliament for a 5-year term. Regional and district prosecutors are appointed by the Prosecutor General. Although by law prosecutors and defense attorneys have equal status, in practice prosecutors are more influential. Although the authority to issue search and arrest warrants has been transferred to the courts and prosecutors may no longer suspend court decisions, they still may file appeals (as may defense attorneys). Before July the procuracy at times used its judicial review powers to annul court decisions unfavorable to the administration's economic or political interests and ordered the case reexamined by a different court. The Office of the Prosecutor General practiced selective prosecution and initiated investigations against the political or economic opponents of the President and his allies. The Prosecutor General also ignored parliamentary and court requests for investigations into high-ranking persons if the accused were presidential allies.

The Constitution and the July amendments have curtailed prosecutors' authority greatly, limiting it to prosecution, representing the public interest in court, oversight of most investigations, and implementation of court decisions in criminal cases. However, prosecutors retain the right to conduct investigations in cases initiated before the amendments were implemented and in cases involving a range of serious offenses, including murder, corruption, and high economic crimes. The procuracy no longer may initiate new criminal cases; its powers are limited to supervising the observance of laws by law enforcement agencies only. In May the Constitutional Court ruled that citizens may challenge court actions by the prosecutors and investigative agencies, as well as government actions regarding national security, foreign policy, and state secrets.

During the year, the High Judicial Council dismissed 41 judges,--38 for breach of oath and 3 for criminal convictions.

Criminal groups routinely used intimidation to induce victims and witnesses to withdraw or change their testimony. The law requires that a special police unit protect judges, witnesses, defendants, and their relatives; however, the unit has not yet been formed, and trial participants were vulnerable to pressure. There is a witness protection law, but it is in abeyance because of lack of funding. Under a law adopted in March 2000, the names and addresses of victims and witnesses can be kept confidential if they request protection due to fear for their lives.

There were no reports of political prisoners.

f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence

The authorities infringed on citizens' privacy rights. July legislative amendments to the laws on the judiciary and administration of justice require that search warrants for residential properties and wiretaps--functions that were performed previously by prosecutors--be issued only by the courts (see Section 1.e.); however, prosecutors retain the right to issue warrants for searches of nonresidential properties.

In accordance with the July amendments, the SBU may not conduct intrusive surveillance and searches without a court-issued warrant. The Office of the Prosecutor General has the constitutional responsibility to oversee the observance of the law by law enforcement agencies, including the SBU; however, the extent to which the Prosecutor General uses his authority to monitor SBU activities and to curb excesses by security officials is unknown. The Constitution provides citizens with the right to examine any dossier on them in possession of the SBU and to sue for physical and emotional damages incurred by an investigation; however, necessary implementing legislation has not been passed and the authorities do not respect this right in practice.

Under the law, the police have the right to stop and search a person based on a suspicion that the person has committed a criminal offense. A person suspected of committing an especially grave crime may be arrested and searched without a warrant, but the court must be informed of the arrest within 72 hours. In 2000 the Rada enacted legislation prohibiting the police from stopping vehicles without a reason and levying an immediate fine; only the courts may impose such fines. The law has had an increasing deterrent effect on the police, who no longer can collect spot fines after stopping vehicles for alleged traffic violations, although abuses still occur. However, the police may detain a person arbitrarily for up to 3 hours to verify identity (see Sections 1.d. and 1.e.). There have been reports that police sometimes abused this right.

Journalists whose reports are critical of the Government or who covered opposition politicians and NGO's that engaged in nonpartisan political activity reported that they were frequently followed by SBU agents and that their telephones were wiretapped (see Section 2.a.).

Under the "propyska" mandatory registration system which was in effect throughout most of the year, internal passports contain a stamp indicating residence and matrimonial status (see Section 2.d.). In November the Constitutional Court ruled that the propyska system was unconstitutional; a new "informational" registration mechanism was envisioned but had not been implemented by year's end.

In the period prior to the 1998 parliamentary elections, mass--perhaps coerced--enrollment of public sector and government employees augmented the ranks of progovernment parties, particularly the People's Democratic Party (see Section 2.b). The press and political observers reported that the Donetsk-based Regions of Ukraine Party was recruiting state employees in a similar manner in preparation for the March 2002 parliamentary elections.

At times persons involved in property, inheritance, or divorce disputes were diagnosed wrongfully with schizophrenia and confined to psychiatric institutions. The disputes often entailed the corruption of psychiatric experts and court officials. In February 2000, Parliament adopted a new Law on Psychiatry which bans abuse of psychiatry for political and non-medical reasons and provides safeguards against such abuse; however, human rights monitors reported that procedures regarding the application of psychological treatment have not been determined, and the Soviet system of classifying mental illness was still in use. Persons diagnosed with mental illness may be confined and treated forcibly, declared not responsible for their actions, and stripped of their civil rights without being present at the hearings or notified of the ruling. There are approximately 1.2 million registered psychiatric patients in the country. Within 3 days after forcible confinement to a hospital, a patient must be examined by three doctors. Patients (including convicted prisoners) subsequently must be examined by the senior regional psychiatric commission within 6 months. According to the Ukrainian Psychiatric Association, the Health Care Ministry has not always cooperated with human rights groups attempting to monitor abuse of psychiatry.

In October the Parliament passed the Land Code, creating a legal basis for land ownership as defined in the Constitution and clarifying the property rights of former collective farm workers as well as urban dwellers. Although the Code needs amendment and further clarification, it represents a significant step toward strengthening the rights of landowners. At year's end, the Government was working to develop regulations and additional implementing legislation to reinforce land ownership and use rights.

Section 2 Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:

a. Freedom of Speech and Press

The Constitution and a 1991 law provide for freedom of speech and of the press; however, the Government did not always respect these rights. The Government continued to interfere with news media by intimidating journalists and the use of the libel laws, although the use of libel laws declined in comparison with the previous year. Unlike in the previous year, arbitrary and unannounced tax, fire, and building code inspections were not used during the year to interfere with the news media. A wide variety of privately owned newspapers and periodicals were available which espoused different political points of view and there was an active debate over sensitive questions in the mass media and Parliament. Throughout the year, journalists consistently reported that the principal limitations on their freedom to write came from private owners who were interested in advancing their political interests.

Government entities used criminal libel cases or civil suits based on alleged damage to a "person's honor and integrity" to influence or intimidate the press; however, the use of such cases decreased during the year. Article 7 of the Civil Code allows anyone, including public officials, to sue for damages if circulated information is untrue or insults a person's honor or dignity. Article 125 of the Criminal Code, in effect until September, prescribed imprisonment of up to 3 years for libel. The new Criminal Code that entered into effect on September 1 eliminated any criminal penalty for libel. In addition, a May Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court mandated that in order to prove libel, plaintiffs must demonstrate that journalists had prior knowledge of the falsity of information before publishing it. There is no limit to the amount of damages that may be awarded under a civil libel suit. Before the new Criminal Code came into effect, the Prosecutor General could file criminal libel charges, and libel fines were so large that accounts were frozen and equipment confiscated by the State Tax Administration to enforce payment. Even when the actions of the Tax Administration were overturned by subsequent court decisions, the damage to the newspapers' finances at times was irreparable because accounts remained frozen until all appeals were completed. Lower courts still may order that the of accounts of a newspaper be frozen pending an appeal of a civil libel case. Journalists complained that because the law did not limit damages, it was used to drive opposition newspapers out of business. While figures were unavailable, the number of libel cases during the year reportedly decreased.

In October the Kiev Regional Appeals Court annulled the conviction of Oleh Lyashko, editor-in-chief of an opposition newspaper, Svoboda, who had been convicted in June, sentenced him instead to 2 years on probation, and prohibited him from practicing journalism for 2 years; he had been convicted for libel for a series of articles on Vasily Durdinets, the former acting Prime Minister, and the former chief of the Odesa section of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The Kiev court's decision was based on the September decriminalization of libel. The Government had harassed Lyashko and his publications for some time. Government officials initiated more than 20 criminal and civil libel cases against Lyashko and his publication Polityka (which was forced to close in 1999), asking for more than $40 million in damages.

In July the Kirivohrad local court imposed a $8,500 fine on the newspaper Vidomosti for a critical report on parliamentary deputy Hanna Antonyeva; the newspaper subsequently ceased publication.

Two libel suits were filed against Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) during the year, one in February by Rada Deputy Oleksandr Volkov and the other in June by the Darnytsya pharmaceutical factory; however, no decision or settlement had been reached by year's end for either suit. Rada Deputy Viktor Pynzenyk, generally considered a strong supporter of market reforms, filed a libel suit against the Kievskie Vedomosti newspaper after the newspaper alleged his involvement in the embezzlement of compensation funds for individuals forced to work in Germany during World War II. In September a Kiev court upheld Pynzenyk's libel suit, ordering the newspaper to print a series of retractions. The newspaper appealed but the Supreme Court supported the lower court's judgement.

The print media, both independent and government-owned, sometimes demonstrated a tendency toward self-censorship on matters that the Government deemed sensitive. Private newspapers have been established and are free to function on a purely commercial basis, although very few are profitable. However, they are subject to various pressures such as, dependence on political patrons who may facilitate financial support from the State Press Support Fund; and close scrutiny from government officials, especially at the local level. The dependence of some of the press on government patronage has inhibited criticism, particularly at the local level.

Unlike in previous years, there were no reports that the State Committee for Information Policy warned periodicals against fomenting ethnic tensions and conducting antistate propaganda or that the Government targeted opposition newspapers with unannounced inspections or fire and building code inspections.

Many major newspapers are financed by wealthy businessmen with political interests that often favor the Government. This backing gives these newspapers an advantage over smaller, more independent newspapers. Unlike in the previous year, the owners of independent newspapers did not face the threat of litigation from political opponents to force them to sell their shares in the papers.

Despite government pressure and media self-censorship, the variety of newspapers and periodicals on the market, each espousing the view of its respective sponsor, provides a variety of opinions. Foreign newspapers and periodicals circulate freely.

Broadcast media, the primary source of news for most citizens, are either state-owned or owned by oligarchs and powerful business interests. There are six national television stations. State-run television has the widest geographic coverage but low viewership. Most other television stations are associated with political parties or powerful business interests; such interests may or may not coincide with the interests of government authorities, depending on the issue. The third and fourth most popular stations are seen as propresidential. Two of the more outspoken stations have considerable foreign ownership.

In April the National Council for Television and Radio Broadcasting decided against renewing the license of Radio Kontynent (RK), an independent radio station that rebroadcasts news reports of the British Broadcasting Corportation (BBC), Voice of America (VOA), and Deutsche Welle, and has been critical of the Government in its own broadcasts, and whose owner has been highly critical of President Kuchma's relationship with the media. After a successful challenge to its initial rationale that RK's rebroadcasts of foreign stations was illegal, the Council cited a debt owed by the station to the government as grounds for its decision. In October the Kiev Municipal Arbitration court denied RK's request to block the sale of the radio station's frequency. RK continued to operate at year's end pending further appeal.

In 2000 the authorities took steps to strengthen their control over the broadcasting sector. The President and the Parliament each appoint half of the members of the National Council for Television and Radio Broadcasting, which issues licenses and allocates broadcasting time. President Kuchma did not name his half of the eight-member board until June 2000, after the Parliament had replaced its original four members in May 2000. In the absence of a functioning council, the Government had virtually unchallenged control over media licensing in the period before the 1999 presidential election and in the period prior to the April 2000 referendum on amendments to the Constitution to increase Presidential powers. As a result, the 1999 presidential campaign saw a marked imbalance in the coverage of candidates on national television and radio channels, with opposition candidates receiving very limited and often negative coverage at the national level. Opposition candidates had more success in obtaining access to smaller local and regional television channels. Likewise in the period leading up to an April 2000 referendum, television coverage was overwhelmingly propresidential and proreferendum.

The press reported in July assertions by RFE/RL Ukrainian Service chief Roman Kupchinsky that SBU agents warned him against seeking to reenter the country, a charge the Government denied. He subsequently did enter the country and as of year's end there were no reports that any measures had been taken against him.

Intensive international scrutiny has led government authorities to begin addressing their relations with the media. In December 2000, President Kuchma issued a decree to protect the media; however, the decree is judged widely to be ineffectual. In 1999 the Parliament had adopted a resolution on the media, also seen as ineffectual, that called for investigations into complaints of harassment of nonstate media by the State Tax Administration, the Prosecutor General's Office, or the Presidential Administration. In December 2000, government authorities immediately responded to diplomatic protests about interference by the State Tax Administration in the operation of the Eastern Economist magazine; an unwarranted seizure of accounts was remedied quickly and the authorities apologized to the magazine's management. In February the State Tax Administration, in a gesture of transparency, began publishing a monthly list of media outlets scheduled for audits, rather than conducting audits arbitrarily. Since the publication of this list there have been no reported cases in which the State Tax Administration targeted media outlets for arbitrary inspection.

In 2000 the Cabinet of Ministers issued new regulations governing broadcast fees. State and independent channels are subject to the same rates for the majority of broadcasting fees as State channels; however, the Government rarely enforced fee payments for state channels. Private and foreign companies also must obtain licenses in order to establish and operate their own transmission facilities.

The SBU has broad powers over the media in regard to the publication of state secrets, which include information on executions, the physical state of prison infrastructure, pretrial detention blocks, and centers for the forcible treatment of alcoholics (see Section 1.c.). Journalists report that, in general, the SBU did not interfere with their activities and that they were able to report about harsh prison conditions without any inhibition(see Section 1.c.). However, in June independent reporter Oleh Yeltsov complained of harassment by the SBU after he published several articles critical of a former SBU chief in the Internet journal Ukraina Kriminalnaya. The SBU searched Yeltsov's home and questioned him for allegedly failing to hand over sensitive state documents.

During the year, journalists were subjected to some physical attacks that may have been related to their professional activities. The national affiliate of Reporters Without Borders reported that 28 similar incidents of physical and verbal harassment against journalists occurred during the year and that 4 had been killed, allegedly due to their trenchant reporting about local and national political authorities. The 2000 disappearance and killing of journalist Heorhiy Gongadze and the July 3 killing of Ihor Aleksandrov have raised serious concerns regarding whether the authorities are targeting journalists specifically for critical political reporting (see Sections 1.a. and 1.c.). On December 13, the Minister of Internal Affairs issued a ruling allowing journalists covering politics, corruption, and crime, to carry guns firing rubber bullets.

In January an unidentified man attacked Yanina Sokolovskaya, the Kiev correspondent for the Russian newspaper Izvestia, in her apartment building. She sustained knife cuts to her hands and face after attempting to resist the attacker. She blamed the attack on her newspaper's coverage of opposition protests against the Presidential Administration. As of year's end, no suspect had been identified in the June 24 killing of Oleh Breus, the publisher of the regional weekly XXI Vek in Luhansk. Breus was shot to death in front of his home; the motive for the killing was unclear. Breus was a businessman and held a senior position in the regional Communist Party of Workers and Peasants. He had experienced at leas