PACE session last week once again broached the Ukrainian issue. The new government received censorial remarks from European parliamentarians for the first time. What do they mean? When will the Council of Europe be through monitoring Ukraine? The posed these questions to Hanne SEVERINSEN, First Vice-Chairperson, co-rapporteur of the Committee on the Honoring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), member of Denmark’s Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, head of the Danish delegation to PACE since 1991.
Viktor Yushchenko, addressing PACE on Jan. 25, 2005, spoke on the commitment to democratic values. He described you and Mr. Wohlwend as “brave co-rapporteurs”. How come the monitoring hasn’t been lifted under President Yushchenko? Does it mean that the new leadership is upholding its predecessors’ political traditions?
I would not agree with your last implication. In the past ten months President Yushchenko and the new leadership on the whole have made an enormous step forward in transforming Ukraine into a genuinely democratic state. Naturally your country has inherited a lot of problems from the previous regimes, both the Soviet times and the more recent mismanagement of the country. The task undertaken by your new leadership in reforming the country is therefore far too complex to be carried out overnight. The expectations of the Orange Revolution have been from the beginning and continue to be largely beyond the capacities of any president or government — no matter how competent — to realistically deliver on in such a short period. I would therefore call upon the Ukrainian people to remain vigilant in keeping the reforms on the right course, yet to be more patient and comprehensive as to the time it would take for the first results to begin to be seen.
By a general misperception, the PACE monitoring procedure is often regarded as a sanction by the countries concerned. As a rapporteur, I can reassure you that we are not there to criticise and punish but to support and assist those who sincerely intend to create positive change. Of course ten years is a long time for a monitoring procedure to last, and I understand that it is a matter of pride for every Ukrainian to see this procedure end. But one has to understand that monitoring is also an effective control mechanism. By continuing to make specific recommendations we also continue to contribute to the reform process in Ukraine.
Usually it is a custom at the PACE Monitoring Committee to leave some time for the new leaders of a country to deliver on their election promises before we issue a new report. In this sense the report which was debated last Wednesday at the Assembly could have waited for some time. However, together with my co-rapporteur Mrs. Renate Wohlwend, and having discussed it with our committee members, we decided to present it now, however, not so much as an assessment of what was done but as a road map with our precise expectations for the future months. We have therefore recommended to return to the assessment of the honouring of obligations and commitments by Ukraine after the parliamentary and local elections in 2006.
PACE is paying serious attention to the coming [parliamentary] elections in Ukraine. Does it mean that, if the elections are free and fair, the monitoring will be stopped, even if other recommendations are not complied with? To be more specific: if the elections are free but the Gongadze case is not solved (or partly solved), will the monitoring be terminated?
Holding free and fair elections is a sine qua non for the lifting of any PACE monitoring procedure. However, this does not mean that if the forthcoming legislative and local elections in Ukraine will be free and fair — and we do hope this will be the case — the question of lifting the monitoring would automatically be raised. In order to start speaking about a post-monitoring dialogue (a stage which follows once monitoring is lifted), — apart from the free and fair elections, we will need the evidence of a proper functioning of democratic institution and the implementation of significant reforms. We will assess the situation in general using the benchmarks stipulated in the resolution.
Let me clarify that the PACE monitoring procedure includes two blocks of issues: the fulfilment of formal commitments which a State enters into upon accession to the Council of Europe and which are spelled out in an Opinion that the Assembly adopts upon a country’s application for accession. And the second bloc — the honouring of general obligations assumed by all member states by virtue of the CE Statute, namely pluralist democracy, the rule of law and the respect for human rights. The general obligations are much more important than the specific commitments which can become irrelevant with time. For example, Ukraine has only three formal commitments of legal nature to be fulfilled (a new Criminal Procedure Code, creation of a professional Bar association and the reform of the prosecutor’s office), which especially after the nomination of our own committee member as the Minister of Justice a few days ago, I am sure will be fulfilled in no time. However, it is a misconceived idea that monitoring should stop there. The situation in the country should be assessed in general. For example, it may be a commitment to adopt a certain law but a part of general obligations to implement it properly and to adhere to it. Hence the importance of our “road map”, the implementation of which will be a proof that Ukraine truly adheres to the principles of democracy, the rule of law and the respect of human rights.
As regards the Gongadze case, it has become a symbol of the Orange Revolution and a litmus test for the new authorities. Until this case is not solved and all those who ordered, organised and executed the murder brought to justice, we can not speak about the rule of law and justice in Ukraine. The current investigation of this case by the Prosecutor General’s Office is quite unsatisfactory; it appears that several steps were made to exclude from the responsibility those who ordered and organised this murder. We will never accept the prosecutor’s office allegation that the three policemen committed the murder on their own initiative under General Pukach supervision. The Assembly has also called for a public parliamentary hearing on the Gongadze case in the Verkhovna Rada to be held as soon as possible, to which Mr. Lytvyn has confirmed his agreement last Thursday.
Apart from the holding of free and fair elections, implementing relevant legislation and solving the Gongadze case, the Assembly is equally adamant about the constitutional amendments which need to be amended in a constitutional manner and in line with the European standards, as well as about bringing to justice those who organised and committed gross election frauds last year. In addition, a special attention will be given to the transformation of the state TV and radio companies into public service broadcasters.
The Verkhovna Rada recently passed a resolution setting up a parliamentary commission of inquiry to investigate into the eavesdropping in Leonid Kuchma’s office — precisely how it was arranged — and figure out the impact of the Melnychenko tape scandal on Ukrainian national security. Would you care to comment on this?
Because of the busy Parliamentary Assembly session in Strasbourg, I must admit that I have but briefly heard about the creation of such an ad hoc parliamentary inquiry committee and I may not be aware of all details of the resolution. However, my spontaneous reaction to this news is that, first and foremost, there clearly seems to be a conflict of interest in this affair with the commission being headed by a person from Mr. Pinchuk’s faction, which does not add credibility to the commission. Secondly, I consider the setting up of such commission a political manoeuvre within the wider context of election campaign. I would emphasise that this is not the right time for political investigations. It’s a long overdue investigation which should be dealt with by the appropriate legal investigative organs and not the legislators.
In this regard the Assembly has also stressed its dissatisfaction that a credible expert examination of the Melnychenko recordings was not conducted and his testimony was not obtained. We know that the US authorities are ready to carry out such an expert examination but they need an official request from the prosecutor’s office to be sent within the legal assistance procedure. However, so far the Prosecutor General’s Office failed to do this for reasons we are not aware of. Moreover, Mr. Piskun continues to refer to the expert examination which was conducted under Prosecutor General Vasyliev that was a priori irrelevant since it did not include the examination of the original recording devices and explanations by Mr. Melnychenko.
During the PACE debate, Wednesday, Oct. 5, Ukrainian and Russian delegates lashed out at each other concerning the alleged suppression of the Russian language in the Crimea. How do you assess the rights of the Russian-speaking residents of Ukraine?
The language question is a very complex issue in Ukraine on the whole, particularly as Ukrainian has for a long time been a minority language itself in the country and still continues to be as such in some parts, including the Crimea. Notably in this region, I have difficulties in understanding the essence of the “repressions” as often referred to by the Russian authorities and politicians and some NGOs that we’ve met during our visits to Ukraine. Rather, I find it regrettable that the only newspaper in Ukrainian in the Crimea was closed down last year.
There is a strong necessity to guarantee a step-by-step introduction of the Ukrainian language into all spheres of life. But with the concurrent protection of languages of national minorities, taking into account the historical and linguistic contexts. To this end I put much confidence into the implications of the recent conclusion of the ratification procedure and the future implementation of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
According to the opinion of the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities, the Ukrainian Law on Languages provides far-reaching guarantees for the use of Russian language in relations with administrative authorities. I also realise that there is a tacit acceptance of a certain discrepancy between the legislation and the implementation of language laws, the latter being carried out with a great deal of flexibility, especially in the broadcasting sphere. The Resolution adopted by the Assembly on October 5 called on the Ukrainian authorities to revise the 1992 law on national minorities taking into account the recommendations of the Venice Commission and the Advisory Committee.
