When instituting an inquiry into a case the Commissioner is vested with a set of rights that makes it possible to perform this function. The most important among them are as follows: free access to all documents that are relevant for the proper examination of the complaint; free on-site inspection when necessary, including the right to visit penal institutions, including prisons, mental hospitals, places of custody, pretrial detention wards, the right to hear and receive information from any person who, as the Commissioner believes, possesses information about possible human rights violations or in any other manner can assist in the investigation. Also important is the Commissioner’s right to engage experts who can give an unbiased and skilled opinion during the investigation.

If the violations have not been confirmed, the Commissioner for Human Rights gives objective explanations to the appellant, informing him, in particular, that the actions or omission to act by bodies of authority, their officials and officers in relation to the appellant cannot be recognized as violations of human rights and freedoms.

In case facts of violations are confirmed, the Commissioner takes respective measures provided for by law in order to restore the rights and freedoms and make their violations impossible in the future.

Operative legislation does not govern the issues concerning the mechanisms of instituting inquiries into cases of violations of human rights and freedoms. Article 16 of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights only determines the grounds for such a procedure, specifically the appeals by Ukrainian citizens, foreigners, stateless persons or their representatives, MPs, or on the personal initiative of the Commissioner for Human Rights.

Therefore, since the outset of operation of the Commissioner’s Office the Commissioner and employees of the Secretariat have paid particular attention to improve on the techniques of instituting inquiries. A regulation on instituting inquiries into cases of violation of human and civic rights and freedoms was designed and approved to define the grounds for starting inquiries, develop the mechanism of conducting inspections, and set out the procedure for engaging experts and for preparing respective instruments of response to restore the violated rights.

In 1998 the Commissioner for Human Rights stared the first inquiry into the case of violation of the rights of Ukrainian citizens who were on the crews of the MS Dubai Valor held hostage in Nigeria as well as on the Global Sky, Svistlogorsk and Svit that were detained in Egypt following armed assaults on the ships.

In response to the appeals of citizens, MPs, foreigners and stateless persons, 795 inquiries were instituted in 1998 (32.5% of those accepted for consideration) and 1,644 (34.6%) in 1999. The largest number of inquiries concerned violations of human and civic rights reported from Kyiv, Donetsk, Luhansk, Lviv, Dnipropetrovsk, Cherkassy and Chernihiv oblasts (see Table 3.8).

In some cases the employees of the Commissioner’s Secretariat engaged experts from ministries and agencies, in particular from the State Department for Law Enforcement, as well as journalists and NGOs, checked the facts cited in the appeals, and traveled to the regions to take measures on restoring human rights and freedoms.

The information on the opened inquiries into cases of violations of civic, personal, economic and other human rights in the regions is presented in tables 3.9 and 3.10. (A more thorough analysis of inquiries into violations of rights is presented in the respective chapters of the Report).

Table 3.8. Analysis of inquiries instituted by the Commissioner for Human Rights in 1998 (April 14-December 3)– 1999

For instance, Mr.K. complained to the Commissioner about the negligence of law enforcement bodies to react promptly when he reported about an attempt of rape of his juvenile daughter. The Commissioner forwarded an appeal to the office of the Attorney General. The latter informed that the public prosecutor of Krasnodon instituted criminal charges of malicious hooliganism and referred the case for examination by the Krasnodon MIA city department in Luhansk oblast. Owing to the red tape during the investigation, the prosecutor of Luhansk oblast appealed to the oblast MIA investigation department and took other measures within his competence. As the MIA of Ukraine informed, the guilty in this case were then disciplined.

Another justified complaint was filed by Mrs.F. from Dnipropetrovsk oblast who became an invalid after a traffic accident. Officials of law enforcement bodies were delaying the pretrial investigation of the criminal case. After the Commissioner set in motion an inquiry into the case of violation of human and civic rights, the public prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk oblast V.Shchur informed that the investigation was expedited and the pretrial investigators of the Apostolove district department, Directorate for Internal Affairs, Dnipropetrovsk oblast, were disciplined for the inordinate delay.

Table 3.9. Analysis of the types of infringed human rights* according to the inquiries of the Commissioner in 1998 (April 14-December 31)– 1999

Table 3.10. Analysis of the types of infringed human rights according to the inquiries 
of the Commissioner in 1998 (April 14-December 31) – 1999 by regions

The arrest and detention in an isolation ward of Mr.M. by the Baranivka district MIA department, Zhytomyr oblast, was recognized as illegal after the Commissioner instituted an inquiry into the case and it was investigated by oblast the public prosecutor.

Regrettably, the number of appeals against violations of this sort is constantly growing. The Commissioner is very much concerned about such failure of compliance with human rights and freedoms by the employees of the bodies under the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Minister Y.Kravchenko).

Also growing is the number of inquiries into cases of violations of human rights and freedoms by the Ministry of Justice (Minister S.Stanik) and its local bodies. In 1998 inquiries were opened into 127 such cases, while in 1999 their number was 275 (see Table 311). The most typical inquiries concerned the failure of the ministry’s law enforcement divisions to execute court decisions, specifically on disbursement of wage arrears.

For instance, Mr.L.Syvokin^* from the township of Kapitanivka, Kirovograd oblast, appealed to the Commissioner, complaining that he could not get all the wages due him upon dismissal from work, because the court judgment on this point could not be enforced. After the Commissioner instituted an inquiry into this case, the Ministry of Justice took a number of prompt measures. As the Deputy Minister of Justice informed the Commissioner, the appellant was given three cows (!) costing UAH 2,246.36 for account of the debt. In such a peculiar manner the appellant’s rights were partially restored (instead of money he got three cows).

Table 3.11. Inquiries of the Commissioner into cases of human rights violations by bodies 
of state authority and local self-government in 1998 (April 14-December 31) and 1999

In 1999 the Commissioner opened an inquiry into the case of Mr.V.Bokanov whose rights were violated by the officials of the law enforcement service of Putivl, Sumy oblast. By decision of the Putivl district court the local Agritechservice Co. was to pay him UAH 981.74 in claims. The state executor Mrs.Rozhnova was negligent in controlling the sale of distrained products and the disbursement to the applicant of his wage arrears for account of the agricultural produce (flour, sugar, formula feed) distrained by a state executor. Out of the sold produce the applicant received only UAH 201.20, while the rest of the proceeds was used not for their intended purpose. In the course of the inquiry into this case initiated by the Commissioner, the public prosecutor of Sumy oblast was engaged to take measures on restoring the applicant’s rights. In the end, he was paid a total of UAH 616.64. Since his claim was not allowed completely, the case is still in the works of the Commissioner.

A considerable number of appeals concerned non-execution of court rulings on payment of alimonies, regressive wages and social benefits.

By the inquiries of the Commissioner into violations of human rights and freedoms the courts of general jurisdiction examined 176 cases in 1998 and 244 cases in 1999 (see Table 3.11).

The most typical complaints reported about unjustified delays of consideration by courts of the citizens’ applications, a practice that is inconsistent not only with the Ukrainian Constitution but also with international legal instruments, such as the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 6: “… everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” For example, the Commissioner instituted inquiries into the following cases of red tape by courts of general jurisdiction: Mrs.K. from Poltava oblast filed an action to have her job and membership as shareholder in the Promin agricultural enterprise restored; Mr.H. from Transcarpathia oblast filed an action in court to recognize an agreement on donation invalid and to remove obstacles in his partial ownership of a building. These cases were under the consideration of courts for months. Due to the intervention of the Commissioner respective oblast courts and public prosecutors restored the applicants’ rights and allowed their claims.

The Commissioner instituted inquiries into cases of violations of human rights and freedoms by officials of local administrations – 84 inquiries in 1998 and 173 in 1999; and by bodies of local self-government – 65 and 112 respectively (see Table 3.11).

Notably, some local officials took necessary measures and even under unfavorable circumstances restored the violated rights of citizens in the regions. For example, war veteran Mr.R.Yurevych from Kharkiv oblast reported in an appeal to the Commissioner that a fire destroyed his house and he had nowhere to live. Wherever he appealed his request for housing fell on deaf ears. After the Commissioner wrote to the chairman of the Kharkiv oblast state administration O.Diomin, the appellant was allocated an apartment out of the city Rada’s housing reserve and thus his constitutional right to housing was restored.

Following from Item 3, Article 16 of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, 25 inquiries were instituted on the Commissioner’s initiative in 1998. They concerned the following issues: reduction of medical personnel that led to the violation of the constitutional right to accessible medical care; discontinued gas supply to kindergartens and penal institutions; assistance to orphans who suffered from a flood in Transcarpathia. In 1999, 58 inquiries were instituted on the Commissioner’s initiative, such as: restoration of the rights of children suffering from scoliosis in the city of Luhansk, following the closure of an orphanage; violation of citizens’ constitutional rights during the presidential election campaign (Kryvyi Rih); granting of the status of Chornobyl accident clean-up operator; (Kyiv oblast); issue of underfunded courts of general jurisdiction; return to Ukraine of victims of the slave trade.

After setting the inquiries in motion and taking corresponding measures, 128 cases (16.2%) were resolved positively and the rights of 171 persons were restored. In the same manner 335 cases (20.4%) were resolved positively and the rights of 1,303 persons were restored in 1999 (see Table 3.8). Due to the Commissioner’s joint efforts with respective state bodies 23 Ukrainian seamen held hostage in Nigeria and 27 seamen in Egypt were freed. On several occasions the Commissioner’s intervention made public prosecutors revoke decisions on unjustified closure of criminal cases which were then reopened.

Figure 3.1. Characteristics of inquiries by the Commissioner for Human Rights in 1998 (April 14-December 31) – 1999

As a result of 413 inquires in 1998 and 839 inquiries in 1999, all necessary measures were taken to restore violated rights, of which all the appellants were notified. But the facts of violations cited in 232 appeals in 1998 and in 405 appeals in 1999 were not confirmed. Inquiries into 86 cases instituted in 1998 and 1999 were prolonged (see Table 3.8). The inquiries of the Commissioner are presented in greater detail in the chapters of the Report devoted to compliance with definite human rights and freedoms.

Besides, the Commissioner for Human Rights, taking guidance from Item 2, Paragraph 3, Article 17 of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, explains what measures the appellant should take.

Appellants were provided legal counseling and explanations on the competence of specific bodies of state authority and administration, existing alternative methods of rights protection, in particular the procedure for appealing to courts of general jurisdiction, proper execution of lawsuits, jurisdiction of a definite matter of one or another court, qualification of the legal situation of a definite case, and explanations on the competence of international organizations, such as the UN Commission for Human Rights, the International Labor Organization, OSCE, the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

In some cases the Commissioner explained the provisions of current legislation in Ukraine as well as in Austria, China, The Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Russia and Sweden on the procedure for acquiring citizenship, receiving different cash benefits, adopting children, affiliation, the rights of convicts, the rules of exit of and entry into countries, and the like.

Apart from these explanations, the petitioners were provided with reference and information material. Explanations were also offered on the procedure of filing complaints with the European Court of Human Rights. Such explanations were forwarded to Mr.Tomak, Zaporizhia oblast; Mr.Danko, Ivano-Frankivsk oblast; Mrs.L.Zenkov, Odessa; Mrs.T.Liubentseva, Kharkiv oblast; and to many others.

In all, advise and explanations were given to 266 citizens (10.9%) in 1998 and 412 (8.7%) in 1999 (see Table 3.7).

In order to achieve a positive result when considering the majority of appeals, additional measures are required, such as investigation, examination by experts, acquisition of additional explanations and other information. Given the restricted resources of the Commissioner’s Office, appeals were referred to other bodies for consideration with the binding condition to keep under control the outcome. Such decisions were also adopted when appellants complained against criminal actions or administrative violations, the investigation of which is the exclusive prerogative of other bodies, specifically the public prosecutor’s and the militia’s.

The Commissioner’s Office forwarded to respective bodies 1,383 (56.6%) such appeals in 1998 and 2,692 (56.7%) in 1999 (see Table 3.7). The substance of the appeals was diverse and frequently required definite actions and efforts from officials.

Collective appeals were also considered, such as the one by 29 appellants from Melitopol who complained that their residential house in 65 50-ricchia Peremohy Avenue was not supplied with hot water. The appeal was forwarded to the Zaporizhia oblast state administration. As the first deputy chairman of the oblast state administration informed the Commissioner, the irregularity was recognized as a violation of the residents’ rights and prompt measures were taken to redress the wrong.

Among the other complaints referred to the competent authorities was the collective appeal of 53 persons from Shchors, Chernihiv oblast (irregular heating and hot water supply) and the appeal of Mrs.Shkurina from the village of Syniak, Kyiv oblast (irregular water supply). The officials of respective state administrations informed the Commissioner that the problems were settled positively.

Another example. Mrs.O.Rubtsova from Krasnoperekopsk, Autonomous Republic of Crimea, complained that her rights to social benefits were violated. She lacked the proper documents to receive low-income allowance and housing subsidy. The appeal was referred to the executive committee of the Krasnoperekopsk city rada and taken under the control of the Commissioner. A.Sautin, city rada chairman of Krasnoperekopsk, informed the Commissioner that the appellant was explained what she had to do and her right to social benefits was restored.

The Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights provides for the Commissioner’s instruments of response to violations of the requirements of the Constitution, laws and international treaties on civic and human rights. On the basis of the considerations of appeals, inquiries, and examinations of cases of violations the Commissioner widely applies such instruments of response as petitions. They are forwarded to bodies of state authority and local self-government, NGOs, enterprises, institutions and organizations irrespective of their forms of ownership as well as to their officials and officers.

The Commissioner’s petitions, as a form of influence on officials, are used primarily during inquiries into cases of gross violations of human rights and freedoms. In 1998 the Commissioner forwarded 44 such petitions. In particular, a petition was sent to the Prime Minister of Ukraine about the illegality of striking children’s homes, orphanages, boarding schools, and penal establishments off the list of facilities that could not be denied the supply of gas even when their gas bills were not paid.

In 1999 cases of extensive and flagrant violations of human rights and freedoms were reported in 84 petitions of the Commissioner. The most important of them were forwarded to the following: President of Ukraine – about the restoration of the status of Chornobyl cleanup operators to the men of the 731st Detached Battalion of Special Protection; Chairman of Parliament – on the introduction of an alternative procedure for registering taxpayers; Attorney General – the case of Mr.B.Khavarivsky, former manager of the Directorate for Education, Ternopil Oblast Executive Committee, who was found guilty by a court for illegally displacing from the country and not bringing back a group of orphans and children deprived of parental care on the pretext of sending them off to the US to have their health improved.

In the opinion of the Commissioner a revealing example of how petitions can be helpful is the inquiry into the case of violation of citizens’ rights during the liquidation of the obstetric, gynecologic and observation departments at Clinical Hospital No.2 in Kyiv.

A detailed analysis of this inquiry makes it possible to describe the techniques of work with petitions, when every possible legal remedy was used to restore violated human rights and freedoms, and to comment on the problems that arise in the exercise of the Commissioner’s powers.

In November 1999 the Commissioner received an appeal from Professor S.Leush, manager of the scientific department of obstetrics and gynecology of the Kyiv Medical Academy of Postgraduate Studies at Hospital No.2, and the personnel of this hospital, in which they complained about the unlawful actions of the Main Directorate for Health Care (MDHC) of Kyiv. The latter was intent on liquidating (reorganizing) the hospital’s pregnancy pathologies department and the scientific department, thereby infringing on the constitutional rights of more than 300 personnel of the hospital, 30 scientists of the unique scientific department, and over one million residents of Kyiv’s left-bank districts, primarily women and children, who were provided medical care by the hospital at no charge. In conformity with Article 16 of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights an inquiry was opened into this case and an investigation set in motion.

The analysis of the primary documents showed that the orders on liquidating these departments and establishing in its freed premises a Burn Center were issued by the MDHC of Kyiv in violation of Article 26 of the Law On Local Self-Government in Ukraine. According to this law, such issues are within the exclusive competence of the city rada. Besides, the orders were issued without agreement with the Ministry of Health Care and, most important of all, without taking into consideration the interests of the city’s left-bank residents.

In order to check any further violations, the Commissioner repeatedly visited the Burn Center, met with its personnel, thoroughly studied all the circumstances of this problem, talked with the then Minister of Health Care R.Bogatyriova who reiterated her position against reorganization, and met with several MPs and representatives of Kyiv’s trade unions.

On December 21, 1999 the Commissioner instituted a public inquiry to conduct an all-round and objective examination of the situation. Invited to take part in the inquiry were MPs, managers and chief specialists of the Ministry of Health Care, managers of the city state administration, the Central Committee of the Trade Unions of Medical Workers of Ukraine and Kyiv, scientists, managers and representatives of the personnel of the Burn Center and Hospital No.2, as well as members of a commission comprised of leading scientists and specialists of the Ministry of Health Care. The public hearing lasted over four hours and everyone who attended it had the opportunity to speak his mind.

Despite the obvious violation of the citizens’ constitutional right to accessible medical care, as stipulated in Article 49 of the Ukrainian Constitution, the MDHC of Kyiv (R.Makomela) with the backing of the city state administration (V.Bednyi) insisted on closing down the departments at Hospital No.2. On December 23 the City Rada, without so much as discussing the issue, adopted a decision that replicated the orders of the MDHC of Kyiv. On December 31, 1999 the hospital administration issued an order by which 94 medical personnel of the departments were dismissed. Attempts were made to install by force equipment at the Burn Center. A two-year child suffering from burns was brought to the center that was absolutely unprepared to deal with the case. During these events MP M.Hutsalo was manhandled, which made the Parliament set up a temporary investigation commission.

Given the obstructive stand of the MDHC of Kyiv, the Commissioner for Human Rights addressed an appeal to the Attorney General, describing the flagrant violations of the citizens’ rights. After considering the appeal, the Attorney general lodged two protests: against the decision of the City Rada and the MDHC of Kyiv orders on liquidating the departments, since they were inconsistent with operative legislation. The effect of the respective decisions was suspended, while the order on dismissal of the medical personnel was revoked.

At the present time the city state administration has created artificial conditions by which it received the formal right to decide on its own initiative and for its narrow-minded bureaucratic purposes the future of the employees and departments of Hospital No.2. The interests of the residents of left-bank Kyiv are not taken into account, although a committee for holding a referendum on this issue was set up and thousands of signatures were collected in its support. A commission of the city state administration formally reviewed the protests of the Attorney General and ignored the statements of MPs M.Haber, M.Hutsola and T.Zadorozhna as well as the opinions of the Commissioner’s representative. In the end, the City Rada rejected the protest of the General Attorney.

The newly appointed Minister of Health Care, V.Moskalenko, also rejected for formal reasons the General Attorney’s protest against the MDHC decisions. After that, the Commissioner met with the minister and in the presence of the MPs had an exhaustive discussion on this issue, insisting on the need to protect the interests of the left-bank’s residents. Without changing his mind, the minister assured that all the employees of the Hospital No.2 departments would be provided jobs to their satisfaction.

Having exhausted all available remedies in the consistent protection of the residents’ and medical employees’ constitutional rights, the Commissioner addressed the Ukrainian President, as the guarantor of the Constitution, to intervene on behalf of Kyiv’s residents whose right to health care, as provided for under Article 49 of the Constitution, was violated.

Besides, in pursuance of the inquiry, the Commissioner forwarded an appeal to the Minister of Health because the guarantee of employment of all of the medical personnel was not fulfilled.

Regrettably, the authorities, in disregard of common sense, nonetheless liquidated the departments, putting the left-bank’s residents in an extremely difficult situation. By existing standards there have to be 5 gynecologic and 4.5 obstetrical beds per every 10,000 of the population, while the resulting ratio came to 1.4 and 1.7 beds respectively.

This inquiry and all its accompanying developments is revealing in many respects, in particular with regard to the level of awareness of many officials of bodies of state authority and local self-government of the requirement to comply with human rights and freedoms. For all that, the Commissioner has not closed the inquiry into this matter and continues keeping it under personal control.

The practice of considering appeals and the facts of gross violations of human rights and freedoms induced the Commissioner to gradually begin drafting constitutional appeals to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine concerning the conformity of existing laws and other regulatory acts with the Ukrainian Constitution and the official interpretations of the Constitution and laws.

A special group of specialists and experts was set up who prepared several appeals that are currently under the consideration of the Constitutional Court. This area of work is discussed in greater detail in the respective chapters of the Report.

Apart from these instruments of the Commissioner’s response, other forms of influence on officials were applied as well as of shaping public opinion, such as making public the Commissioner’s statements and forwarding open letters to the highest officials of the state. An open letter was forwarded to the President, the Chairman of Parliament and the Prime Minister concerning Presidential Edict No.860 of August 8, 1998 and the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution On the Numerical Strength of State Budget-Supported Establishments. Their enforcement caused extensive violations of the citizens’ constitutional right to medical care. Open letters were addressed to the President of the Russian Federation asking assistance in freeing Ukrainian seamen who were held hostage and to the President of the People’s Republic of China concerning the protection of the rights of Ukrainian citizen O.Tuzhansky. Two of the Commissioner’s appeals were made public on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 50th anniversary of the UN Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons as well as a statement on the events in Yugoslavia.

Following from the analysis of appeals reaching the Commissioner from the regions, a decision was adopted to conduct comprehensive on-site examinations of compliance with human rights. Since most of the appeals against flagrant violations originated from Luhansk oblast and Chernihiv oblast, the examinations focused on these regions and involved the employees of the Commissioner’s Secretariat, well-known specialists, independent experts, as well as representatives of the mass media and NGOs. Compliance with human rights and freedoms was scrutinized at dozens of enterprises and institutions and meetings were held with representatives of sectoral trade unions, NGOs, deputies of local radas, and with the administrators of the oblasts. The Commissioner and the Secretariat employees also organized reception of citizens by personal appointments.

The results of the on-site examinations were summarized and commented on by the Commissioner during press conferences in the regions and in the mass media; appeals against the extensive violations in Chernihiv oblast and Luhansk oblast were addressed to the Prime Minister, the Chairman of Parliament and the chairman of the Chernihiv oblast state administration. Definite measures were proposed to eliminate the violations in the future.

In response to the Commissioner’s proposals, the officials of Chernihiv oblast took measures to restore the citizens’ rights, of which the Commissioner was informed in due time.

But a different situation developed in Luhansk oblast. The Cabinet of Ministers failed to respond to the Commissioner’s appeal as stipulated in Item 3, Article 15 of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights. The appeal was referred to O.Yefremov, chairman of the Luhansk oblast state administration, who limited himself to partial and predominantly formal measures. But this did not improve anything with regard to compliance with human rights and freedoms. In some areas compliance became even worse, especially in labor protection, freedom of speech and electoral rights, which, as before, causes serious concern with the Commissioner.

Relying on the analysis of appeals and direct trips to the regions, the Commissioner intends to continue the practice of on-site inspections in the most problematic regions where human rights and freedoms are flagrantly violated.

Judging from what really happens, the Commissioner’s instruments of response are not always considered thoroughly and in good time by bodies of state authority and law enforcement bodies in the regions. The Commissioner’s Secretariat recorded more than one hundred cases of delays of the periods prescribed for the consideration of appeals by the Law On Appeals of Citizens. For instance, replies with considerable delays arrived from the Rivne oblast court (5 months); and the public prosecutor’s offices of Cherkassy oblast (7 month) and Kyiv oblast (almost 8 months). In response to a personal letter of the Commissioner to the former Minister of the Coal Industry, S.Yanok, concerning disbursement of a lumpsum benefit under a miner’s action of recourse, the disabled miner received a reply only six months later, although the information contained in the letter did not require any additional checking. The Commissioner holds that it is inadmissible for officials of bodies of state authority and local self-government to assume a disrespectful attitude to the requirements of operative legislation as to the procedure and terms of considering the Commissioner’s instruments of response on violations of human and civic rights.

As mentioned earlier, most of the appeals addressed to the Commissioner in 1998 and 1999 could not be considered, because they did not conform with the requirements of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights (see Table 3.6). This proves, first of all, that the citizens are not adequately informed about the requirements of the law. In 1998, of all the written appeals 5.925 were rejected because of lack of required formal attributes, while next year 11,275 appeals were rejected, i.e. about 70% of all the addressed appeals. Of them 739 complaints (in 1999) were under the consideration of courts at the time they were filed with the Commissioner, and 546 appeals were filed in violation of the statutory period.

For example, Mrs.P. from Dnipropetrovsk oblast complained that her neighbor Mr.L. violated her rights as to the use of a residential house and plot of land that belonged to both of them by right of private ownership in equal stakes. Since the dispute was of a strictly civil law nature and its settlement was within the exclusive competence of a court, it could not be considered by the Commissioner, because it was not within the purview of Article 2 of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights.

However, considering the situation with a large number of appeals that were not subject to consideration, the Commissioner did not reject them simply because they did not comply with the formal requirements of the law. Invoking to her personal conscience in accordance with the oath of office and understanding that behind every appeal there was a definite human being with all his pains and problems for whom the appeal was the last hope and faith in the possibility to achieve justice, the Commissioner tried to come to every possible assistance. A simple advice or explanation in such a situation was of invaluable help, at times a new lease on life.

When rejecting an appeal for consideration, the Commissioner had to act with great thoughtfulness, arriving at the decision in the last resort. Even after rejection the appellant was offered competent explanation or assistance.

Therefore, the Commissioner for Human Rights nonetheless considered the majority of the unaccepted appeals and appropriate measures were taken as stipulated by law. For instance, in 1998 of the 5,925 appeals explanations were offered relative to 2,391 appeals and 1,659 were referred to competent bodies.

In 1999 of the 11,271 appeals recognized as unacceptable (see Table 3.6) explanations were offered relative to 3,705 appeals, while 4,317 appeals were referred to bodies authorized to consider them (see Table 3.3).

In compliance with the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights decisions on rejecting appeals for consideration in 1998 were adopted relative to 1,875 appeals and in 1999 to 3,249 appeals.

The substantial number of appeals that had to be rejected made the Commissioner for Human Rights take respective measures to raise the population’s awareness, specifically by explaining the provisions of operative legislation on the protection of human rights. For the explanation of the substance of the Law On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights the Commissioner extensively used the mass media and systematically appeared in programs on state TV and radio channels (this area of work is discussed in greater detail in Chapter V of the Report).