Consideration of reports, comments and information submitted by States parties under article 9 of the Convention (continued)
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS, COMMENTS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION (agenda item 4) (continued)
Eleventh and twelfth periodic reports of Ukraine (CERD/C/197/Add.5, CERD/C/226/Add.3) (continued)
1. Mrs. SADIQ ALI said that she agreed with Mr. Banton's suggestion that greater awareness of the Convention should be created to enable ordinary people to benefit from it and with his suggestion on the implementation of article 2, paragraph 1 (e). She also endorsed suggestions by other members on the continued implementation of article 3 as far as relations with South Africa were concerned and Mr. van Boven's suggestion on article 7.
2. No reference had been made in the twelfth periodic report (CERD/C/226/Add.3) to any special programmes on ways in which such programmes might affect the goal of achieving racial equality among all sectors of the population, as provided for in article 1, paragraph 4, and article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Protection for non-citizens, such as migrant workers and refugees, was provided for in the Convention and she wondered whether such categories of persons existed in large numbers in Ukraine and whether they were given protection.
3. The report did refer to arrangements for the training of teachers, cultural workers and other officials in regions densely populated by national minorities. She asked what arrangements existed for less densely populated regions.
4. In connection with article 4 of the Convention, the report stated that a new version of article 66 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code had been in force since 12 September 1991 and she noted that it neither prohibited racist organizations nor prevented official bodies from engaging in racial discrimination.
5. With regard to articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, the report indicated that the draft Constitution condemned racial discrimination and guaranteed that all State organs and institutions would act in accordance with the Constitution and international obligations. However, more than mere condemnation was required and she would welcome further details concerning the relevant provisions of the draft Constitution. More information would also be useful on the establishment of effective machinery for the prevention of racial discrimination and on the draft Act on National Minorities in Ukraine.
6. On page 26 of the report, it was stated that, at its first meeting on 21 February 1992, a Round Table had discussed matters relating to the constant attempt by imperial forces to interfere in the internal affairs of the Ukraine. She would like to know what that statement meant. The territorial issue raised by the Russian Parliament had, moreover, jeopardized Ukraine's right to the Crimean peninsula in the Black Sea, despite the fact that the Commonwealth Treaty called on the parties to respect each other's territorial integrity. Furthermore, under the bilateral Ukrainian-Russian Treaty signed in December 1990, the two countries had recognized the inviolability of the borders they shared. Moscow's departure from that agreement was surprising and could have negative implications. What were the prospects for a peaceful solution to that problem?
7. Mr. SHAHI congratulated the Ukrainian delegation on the quality of its twelfth report and on its candour and sincerity.
8. He welcomed Ukraine's recognition of the Committee's competence under article 14 of the Convention, as mentioned on page 3 of the report. On page 4, the report stated that, by conforming to international standards in the field of human rights and taking into account the experience of other countries in that field, Ukraine had avoided ethnic conflicts, but had no guarantee that the ethnic situation would not deteriorate. It also admitted that there was growing terrorism in Crimea and Pridnestrovye. The Committee was concerned that the human rights of the population of Pridnestrovye had been grossly violated and that the Crimean Tartar problem had not yet been solved. The practice of punishing entire communities by deportation for the crimes of individuals, even though such crimes might be treasonable, was a barbaric practice which could not be justified under any circumstances. It was nevertheless encouraging that the Ukrainian Parliament was giving top priority to questions of human rights, including the rights of national minorities.
9. Although the Convention had been incorporated into Ukraine's domestic law, legislation still had to be enacted to implement the punitive provisions of article 4. He hoped that the necessary legislation would be in place by the time Ukraine submitted its next report, since there was no indication of how those provisions were to be implemented or of how acts covered by article 4 were to be punished.
10. The demographic data supplied was welcome, but, as Mr. Rechetov had suggested, it might be more useful for it to be provided in table form in future.
11. In connection with article 2 of the Convention, the report stressed the importance of the healing of the psychological wounds sustained by society as a result of repression by the former totalitarian regime. The steps taken for that purpose were most welcome, as was the fact that 3,000 persons had already been rehabilitated. It would be most unfortunate if the many thousands of unexamined cases buried in the archives of the Committee on State Security (KGB) and the Ministry of the Interior were not opened up and their victims and their relatives rehabilitated and compensated.
12. Page 8 of the report referred to the radical changes which had taken place in State-Church relations and in the situation of religious organizations, as well as to the Act on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations, including freedom of religious belief and freedom to disseminate religious opinion. Such changes were to be commended and it was high time for religious repression to end.
13. With regard to the problems of national minorities, although Ukrainian nationals were in an overwhelming majority in Ukraine, they constituted a minority in other States of the former Soviet Union, as did national minorities of other countries. Such cross-border interests might help the members of the Commonwealth of Independent States reach agreement on what might be called a charter for the rights of nationals and other minorities, thereby reducing civil conflicts in their States, both between and within ethnic groups.
14. Mr. YUTZIS, referring to the fourth paragraph on page 10 of the report, expressed concern about the problem of religious freedom and religious issues in general and asked for clarification as to whether the "underlying problems" were religious, political or of some other nature. It was also not clear whether those problems were current or whether they had existed much earlier. He also requested further details on the possibility of new flare-ups.
15. The Committee had discussed the question of Jewish emigration at previous sessions and had realized that almost all Jewish emigrants had left their home countries without passports and had not been given passports when they had entered a new country. He therefore wished to know whether Jewish emigration from Ukraine was continuing and, if so, whether the persons concerned emigrated without passports and why?
16. He joined the other members of the Committee in wondering what the international community might do to alleviate conflicts between national minorities and in asking what specific measures the Ukrainian Government was taking to find a peaceful solution to that problem.
17. Mr. BURCHAK (Ukraine) said that the views of the members of the Committee would be an important factor in future efforts by Government institutions in Ukraine to establish conditions for the implementation of the provisions of the Convention. The way in which reports by States parties were considered by the Committee enabled those States to consider their domestic legislation from a more critical standpoint and to remedy any shortcomings.
18. Replying to the questions asked during the discussion of his country's eleventh and twelfth reports, he said that, as a result of Ukraine's ratification of international instruments, those instruments had been incorporated into Ukrainian law and could be invoked in courts of law. The rule was that, in the event of any discrepancy between international and domestic law, the international instrument prevailed, except in respect of criminal legislation and the Constitution. Under the various acts adopted by the Supreme Council, rules of international law which were in accordance with the Constitution were considered to take precedence over those of domestic law. Rules of principle could not be applied automatically or directly unless they were supported by the necessary practical machinery for their implementation and a great deal of domestic legislation still had to be adopted for that purpose.
19. Mr. Shahi's suggestion about the presentation of demographic data was a good one and, in future, such data would be provided in table form.
20. With regard to emigration to Israel and the information that the number of emigrants had dropped, he said that there were several reasons for that decline. In the past few years, Ukraine had been implementing the provisions of international instruments and democratizing political life. It had made efforts to ensure that cultural issues could be settled by the cultural groups concerned and such groups had actively been encouraged to revive their national cultures. Those efforts had been successful and many persons who might have emigrated had not done so. However, economic considerations were important and many persons who had left Ukraine on Israeli visas had, after a stay in Vienna or Rome, gone to the United States, where Government pensions had been made available. Some elderly persons had left for that reason. Following the changes in the former Soviet Union, however, the United States Government had stopped granting refugee status to Jews and that had also cut down on the number of emigrants. Emigration nevertheless continued because life was hard in Ukraine and the prospects of better living conditions always prompted departure.
21. In the past, according to law, individuals leaving the Soviet Union on an Israeli visa would lose their Soviet citizenship as soon as they had crossed the border. Under pressure from international public opinion and before the collapse of the Soviet Union, that legislation had been amended on the grounds that, in denying citizens the freedom to leave and return to their country of origin, the law had been in violation of the provisions of international human rights agreements. Currently, individuals emigrating from Ukraine maintained their right to Ukrainian citizenship and kept their Ukrainian passport.
22. A question had been raised with regard to the influx of German immigrants to Ukraine. In view of Ukraine's current economic situation, which included a budget deficit and a sharp rise in housing prices due to inflation, the Ukrainian Government was not always in a position to provide substantial financial assistance to those immigrants.
23. A number of questions had been asked about the Crimean problem. He was very familiar with the issue, having served as a member of the Human Rights Committee. He had even drafted a report on the Crimean problem in which he had suggested that there should be an organized and gradual return of the Tartars to Crimea. His suggestion had, unfortunately, not found widespread support. The return of the Tartars to their historical homeland was a complex situation. While he was not in a position to provide data on the demographic composition of the Crimean peninsula in the 1920s, data from later periods was available. At the end of the 1930s, there had been approximately 174,000 Tartars living in Crimea, out of a total population of 1.5 million. Approximately 194,000 Tartars had later been expelled from the Crimean peninsula. At the time, they had been forced to leave behind their homes and property, which had subsequently been taken over by other inhabitants of Crimea. It had recently been suggested that all property confiscated since 1918 should be returned to its original owners; however, such a solution could only lead to more conflict. To avoid that, the Ukrainian Government was preparing a programme for the organized return of the Tartars which would provide them with housing and property. It was the Government's view that some of the costs of such a programme should be borne by the most recent State of residence of the immigrant, who would, in returning to the Crimean peninsula, be leaving property behind.
24. The current situation in Moldova involved a great deal of extremism, both on the part of the left and of the right. Until 1939, Moldova had been an autonomous republic established in the territory of Ukraine; it had been inhabited, particularly in the Pridnestrovye region, by a mixed population of Russians and Ukrainians, which had enjoyed freedom of movement. That situation had been altered by subsequent events. At present, there were certain groups in Moldova which wished to see it united with Romania. Such a move would naturally affect the population of Pridnestrovye. In that connection, following a recent meeting between Russia and Ukraine, the Presidents of those States had said that they considered the question of unification with Romania to be an internal affair of Moldova. They had also stated that the question of possible self-determination for the people of Pridnestrovye was still open.
25. The problem in Crimea was fundamentally of a political nature. Some lawmakers were insisting that Crimea should be part of both Ukraine and Russia. Certain separatist forces in Crimea were distorting the policies of Ukraine and accusing it of trying to "ukrainize" Crimea. The issue of Crimean autonomy was different from that of the autonomy of other States in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Crimea was not and had never been a nation state; it had enjoyed territorial autonomy as part of Ukraine. In April 1992, the Ukrainian Supreme Council had passed an act on the status of the Crimean Autonomous Republic guaranteeing that republic a broad range of powers, including economic rights and the right to engage in foreign trade. There were only three main limitations to the powers granted to Crimea: it had not been granted external sovereignty; it had not been vested with the power to grant its own citizenship; and it functioned under the representation of the President of Ukraine. Meanwhile, the wave of declarations of sovereignty in the former Soviet States had affected Crimea, which had proclaimed its autonomy in May 1992.
26. He emphasized that the problem of Crimea was based not on issues of nationality or race, but, rather, on political conflicts. It therefore did not come within the scope of the Convention.
27. With regard to South Africa, he said that, in March 1992, agreement had been reached on the establishment of diplomatic relations between Ukraine and the Republic of South Africa. At the same time, Ukraine was fully committed to implementing the Security Council decisions which had been taken with regard to South Africa.
28. Article 66 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code dealt with disregard for equality of rights on the basis of race, nationality or attitude to religion; it also defined the penalties for such acts. Ukraine was striving to make the provisions of article 66 more humane by replacing the penalty of deprivation of liberty with a fine, where possible. It had also amended article 66 to bring the amount of the imposable fines into line with the increase in the minimum wage. There had been no convictions under article 66 since 1991. That did not mean, however, that acts described in the article were not being committed. In reality, such acts were less the result of racial hatred than of the political tensions created by the current situation in the former Soviet Union.
29. Article 1 of the Ukrainian law on nationality had maintained the rule set forth in the Constitution of the Soviet Union granting a single nationality to the inhabitants of Ukraine. However, dual citizenship could be granted on the basis of inter-governmental agreements and Russia and Ukraine were currently engaged in negotiations to that end.
30. One member of the Committee had understood that political parties in Ukraine had been violating the laws on non-discrimination. No party, either in its official programme or in its actions, had been guilty of such an infringement. It was true, however, that individual members of those parties often made statements which were incompatible with the provisions of international human rights instruments, including the Convention.
31. He fully agreed that there should be solidarity between the new States emerging from the former Soviet Union so that the various national minorities would be less vulnerable. Solidarity was much preferable to the current state of conflict. States should not limit themselves to acknowledging any failures to conform to human rights standards before the relevant treaty bodies; they should also take note of situations in other States that needed to be rectified. The Act on National Minorities in Ukraine provided such a mechanism. Under that Act, Ukraine had established a special ministry at the national level for dealing with the problems of national groups. In addition, it was also possible in Ukraine to form voluntary advisory bodies made up of representatives of national minorities. The procedures for setting up such advisory bodies were decided by local councils of people's deputies, acting independently.
32. The Procurator's Office would clearly not be able to operate as it had in the past, now that private property and the privatization of State industries had been introduced. One of its main tasks in future would be to guarantee the presumption of innocence in court cases and it would act as a coordinating body for the implementation of the new policies which were being introduced.
33. Mr. Banton had asked about discrimination in the awarding of student grants. All students who were accepted by institutes of higher education received a grant and there was little scope for discrimination. Unfortunately, the proposed Parliamentary Ombudsman for Human Rights had not yet been appointed, but there were many more remedies than there had been in the past, including the new Legal Foundation of Ukraine and a human rights commission under the Supreme Council. Citizens could appeal to their deputy if they felt their rights had been infringed; deputies often raised individual cases, since they were anxious to be seen to defend the rights of their constituents.
34. Mr. de Gouttes had asked about the Black Sea Fleet. Negotiations on the future of the fleet had been going on for some time and progress had been made. For instance, it had been agreed that, from 1994, Ukraine and Crimea would have joint command of the fleet. He was sure that the process of "civilized divorce" which was taking place would eventually solve the problem satisfactorily.
35. Mr. de Gouttes had also asked about the link between ethnic and religious conflicts. Such a link did exist, but the question was basically one of property rights. In the past, the State had allowed some religious denominations to use church buildings and property confiscated from other denominations. Now that denominations such as the Uniate Church had been legalized once more, disputes over the ownership of the buildings and property had arisen.
36. The State had tried to solve the problem in the Act on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations. Articles 16 and 17 of the Act stated that religious denominations had full rights over buildings and property lent or given to them by the State, public organizations or private citizens. However, so many disputes had arisen that, in April 1992, article 17 had been revoked and property disputes were now to be settled by the courts. Sadly, there were still situations where three different denominations were obliged to use the same church building, so tension was bound to arise.
37. Mr. van Boven had referred to problems of religion and freedom of expression. The problems which had arisen were often due to the dire economic situation and particularly the very high rate of inflation, rather than genuine religious discrimination. Mr. van Boven had also inquired about relations between Ukraine and Hungary. In fact, that very day, the leaders of the two countries had met and had reached an agreement on future friendly relations between the two countries.
38. Mr. Garvalov had asked about educational opportunities for children of Bulgarian mother tongue. As stated on page 30 of the report, 170 teachers had been trained to work in Bulgarian-language schools. Most of those schools were in Transcarpathia and Odessa.
39. Mr. Garvalov had also asked about political parties set up by particular ethnic groups. Cultural organizations specific to a certain ethnic group were permissible, but political parties were not because it would be illegal for them to prevent someone from joining on the grounds of race.
40. Replying to Mr. Garvalov's question about the definition of a national minority, he said that the Act on National Minorities defined a national minority as a group of Ukrainian citizens who were not Ukrainian by nationality and who shared a sense of national self-identification and community. According to that definition, members of a certain religious denomination, such as Catholics, or members of linquistic minorities were not considered national minorities.
41. Mr. Sherifis had asked whether there were quotas for deputies of different nationalities in the Ukrainian Parliament. Such quotas had existed in the past, but deputies were now freely elected and a wide range of nationalities was represented. For instance, one member of the Cabinet of Ministers, responsible for energy policy, was of Jewish nationality and the Procurator General of the Republic was a Russian who, in fact, spoke no Ukrainian at all.
42. Mr. Sherifis had requested information on the situation of Ukrainian citizens who had left the Ukraine, as many had done, for instance, because of the repression of the Stalin era. The Act on Citizenship of Ukraine laid down a limit of five years for applications for Ukrainian citizenship in most cases, but that rule had been waived for people living abroad who had come back to settle permanently in the Ukraine and could prove that they, a parent or a grandparent had been born in the Ukraine.
43. Mr. Sherifis had also asked about measures to inform the public about the provisions of the Convention. It had been promulgated in the Gazette of the Supreme Council and, along with the other human rights instruments, it had been translated into Ukrainian and lodged in libraries and other places freely accessible to the public.
44. Mrs Sadiq Ali had requested details of programmes to promote equality for national minority groups. The authorities already carried out some activities, but the real basis for such programmes was the Act on National Minorities, which laid down the rights and duties of national minorities and the guarantees afforded them by the State. Among those guarantees were the right to cultural autonomy, freedom of religion, the preservation of cultural traditions and the observance of national symbols and holidays. National minorities were guaranteed education in their national language, either in State schools or through their own organizations. National literature, art and other media were also protected. All those rights were guaranteed in so far as they did not come into conflict with the law of the country.
45. Mrs Sadiq Ali had asked about immigrants in Ukraine. As far as he was aware, there was no immigrant problem: the only immigrants he knew about were Chinese students studying in Ukraine, who had refused to return home after the Cultural Revolution: they had been stateless persons rather than immigrants within the meaning of the Convention, since they had not possessed passports. None of those students had been sent back to China against their will.
46. Mrs. Sadiq Ali had also asked about article 66 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code. That article stated that it was a criminal offence to commit deliberate acts aimed at inciting national, racial or religious enmity or hatred and thus applied to racial discrimination as well.
47. Mr. Shahi had referred to the rehabilitation of victims of political repression. The figure of 3,000 persons already rehabilitated given on page 7 of the report referred only to those cases which had been reviewed by the Supreme Court of Ukraine. The total number of persons rehabilitated was approximately 8,000 and the many thousands of persons who had been tried not by the courts, but by extrajudicial tribunals had been automatically rehabilitated by special decree.
48. The CHAIRMAN thanked the representative of Ukraine for his very comprehensive replies to the questions asked by the members of the Committee.
49. Mr. RECHETOV (Country Rapporteur) congratulated the Ukrainian representative on his excellent statement, which had given proof of a very high level of legal expertise.
50. Mr. van BOVEN joined in commending the high quality of the statement just made. He would welcome further information on the nature of the institutional provisions adopted under article 5 of the Act on National Minorities, as referred to on page 21 of the report. He was not entirely clear as to the implications of the words "State control": possibly a better rendering in English would be State "promotion" or "involvement". Once a policy on minorities had been adopted, it was crucial that some advisory body should be established to monitor its implementation and to act as mediator whenever conflicts arose. Secondly, he would be glad if the Ukrainian representative could give his views on the extent to which international involvement might be desirable to help solve ethnic or national conflicts within Ukraine and, in particular, on what role might be played by the Committee.
51. Mr. SHAHI associated himself with the tributes paid to the Ukrainian representative.
52. He had been pleased to hear that the number of victims of repression now rehabilitated by the courts of Ukraine was in fact 8,000 rather than 3,000. However, he was not sure about the fate of the victims of extrajudicial repression. Some confusion had arisen from the reference on page 7 of the report to hundreds of thousands of unexamined cases still in the archives of the Committee on State Security (KGB) and the Ministry of the Interior. Had those hundreds of thousands of persons also been rehabilitated?
53. Mr. GARVALOV said that, when he had stated earlier that no legal definition of "minority" existed, he had meant that no such definition was so far contained in any international legal instrument. However, the General Assembly, on the recommendation of the Commission on Human Rights, had adopted a Declaration on the Rights of National, Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities, and a definition did exist in the context of that Declaration.
54. Mr. de GOUTTES said that the Ukrainian representative's statement had provided an enormous amount of information not contained in the report and had helped the Committee to have a better understanding of the events currently taking place in Ukraine.
55. The Ukrainian representative had identified two causes of ethnic tension in Ukraine, both of which were economic in nature. The first was disputes over ownership of property claimed either by returning exiles or by members of religious faiths that had previously been banned. The second was the catastrophic rate of inflation, which had had the greatest impact on the most disadvantaged population groups. That information was of great interest, since ideological or religious factors were normally identified as the main causes of such tensions. The Committee should highlight that point in its concluding observations on the report of Ukraine.
56. He would be interested to learn the views of the representative of Ukraine on how the problem of ethnic tensions might be solved.
57. Mr. RECHETOV (Country Rapporteur) said the second point raised by Mr. van Boven involved a very delicate issue. It was stated on page 4 of the report that Ukraine had hitherto avoided ethnic conflict: it followed that it would not have appealed to the international community for any help in that regard. The Committee should be very cautious about taking any step which would internationalize any conflict that might exist in Ukraine. In his view, since the Ukrainian Government itself had not raised the question of international involvement, it was not proper for the Committee to do so.
58. Mr. BANTON said that the Ukrainian representative had perhaps not fully understood the question he had raised earlier. He had asked whether the action taken by Crimea in adopting its own Act on the State Independence of the Republic of Crimea would mean that, for example, a Crimean Tartar who considered that his rights had been infringed would not be able to appeal to the Procurator General of Ukraine for redress.
59. Mr. van BOVEN, replying to the point made by Mr. Rechetov, said that he had certainly not been pleading for international intervention in cases of national conflict; he was fully aware of the risks involved in such intervention. He had, rather, been advocating the type of preventive diplomacy proposed in the Secretary-General's report "An Agenda for Peace" (A/47/277), which could be of great assistance in preventing conflicts from deteriorating by helping to promote dialogue and to identify problems; the Committee or another United Nations body might have a useful role to play in that regard. The point was an important one, since, in the past, the Committee had not been very effective on that score.
60. He realized that the question was a delicate one and he did not expect the Ukrainian representative to be in a position to give an immediate reply: perhaps, however, he might wish to discuss it with his authorities.
61. Mr. BURCHAK (Ukraine) said he believed he had already replied to Mr. van Boven's first question by stating that his Government had set up a Ministry on Questions of Minorities, which would have the assistance of an advisory body consisting of representatives of minority organizations. Article 5 of the Act on National Minorities empowered local authorities to set up appropriate mechanisms for dealing with problems involving minorities. Of course, the difficulty was how to ensure that the provisions and standards contained in the Act were actually implemented and did not remain a dead letter.
62. On the second question, he pointed out that, apart from its economic difficulties, Ukraine had suffered from confrontations between the executive and the legislature which had led to the dissolution of Parliament. In his view, it was not mediation, but, rather, economic and political stability that his country needed if a solution to its problems was to be found. However, he would inform his Government of the Committee's suggestion that its intervention might prove helpful.
63. In reply to the question asked by Mr. Shahi, he said that the report was not entirely accurate on the matter of rehabilitation. The rehabilitation process had been begun in the former Soviet Union following the twentieth Party Congress, when a number of victims of repression, including the author Solzhenitsin, had been rehabilitated by a judicial decision of the Supreme Court and allowed to return home. However, such judicial decisions by necessity covered only a limited number of cases and many thousands had been released or allowed to return without formal rehabilitation. In addition, rehabilitation had automatically been granted to all those who had suffered from extrajudicial repression without having been convicted by a court: such persons did in fact number in the hundreds of thousands. Wherever possible, relatives of those whose names remained in the archives had been notified, but often no relatives survived. He pointed out that anyone was now entitled to apply for access to the archives if they wished to obtain information.
64. On a point raised by Mr. Garvalov, he said that, where linguistic minorities were concerned, Ukrainian law already provided that interpretation should be provided where necessary for persons appearing before the courts.
65. In reply to Mr. Banton, he said that, since the Republic of Crimea was an integral part of Ukraine, any appeals by its citizens on decisions affecting them, including appeals to the Procurator General of Ukraine, were admissible in court. The interests of Crimean citizens living in Ukraine were thus already protected under the law.
66. In conclusion, he thanked the Committee for the cooperation and understanding it had shown and assured it that his country's next report would take account of all the comments made.
67. Mr. Burchak (Ukraine) withdrew.
68. The CHAIRMAN drew the Committee's attention to a communication from the Government of the Sudan replying to his request for information, which was contained in document CERD/C/222/Add.1. He suggested that that communication should be considered on Tuesday, 9 March 1993.