Mr Stefanovsky maintains his standard

The “Rehabilitation” Charitable Foundation (hereinafter – the foundation) has been cooperating with the Kovel Educational Colony (hereinafter – EC) since 2001. From 2004 to 2006, the head of the Board of Trustees of the Kovel EC was the director of the foundation, Georgy Kornievsky.
He was suddenly removed from his position as head without notification and without an invitation to the relevant meetings. There are grounds to believe that this was done at the suggestion of the first deputy head of the administration of the State Department of Ukraine for the Execution of Punishments (hereinafter – SDUEP) in the Volyn region, I. A. Stefanovsky. After this, various events conducted by the foundation or by G. Kornievsky personally, as a member of the supervisory commission under the Volyn Regional State Administration, were repeatedly disrupted.
The foundation and G. Kornievsky attempted to challenge Stefanovsky’s actions as unlawful. However, no commission ever found any violations, even though there was sufficient documentary evidence. The inspectors took a position of defending Stefanovsky, and did not even meet with the complainant, reviewing the complaints in a one-sided manner. And when they did meet, it was only to write a dismissive reply stating that the facts presented in the complaint were allegedly not confirmed. The bias of the inspectors is also evidenced by the fact that they took into account dubious documents, such as, for example, a certificate from the supervisory commission under the Volyn Regional Administration stating that they had no misunderstandings with the SDUEP in the Volyn region. This document was signed not by the head of the supervisory commission, as it should have been, but by the deputy head of the commission, O. O. Radoshchuk. He provided a certificate on the work of the supervisory commission dated 18 March 2008, No. 103-7.6, as the head of the department for interaction with law enforcement agencies and defence work of the apparatus of the Volyn Regional State Administration. But this is not within his authority, and it contradicts the Regulations on Supervisory Commissions.
A significant number of complaints from relatives and convicts either do not reach the controlling bodies or “find no confirmation.” One gets the impression that in the Volyn region, a system of mutual protection has been created between the prosecutor’s office, the supervisory commission, and the staff of the SDUEP in the region, where human rights violations in the institutions for the execution of punishments (hereinafter – IEP) of the region are hushed up. After such complaints, pressure is placed on the complaining convicts, and various measures of influence are applied to them in order to “teach” the complainant a lesson, to kill the desire to defend their rights, and to ensure that every convict remembers forever and fears entering into conflicts with Stefanovsky and the administration.
G. Kornievsky tries to help convicts in defending their rights, but operational files are constantly being opened against him. Not without Stefanovsky’s influence, false information is spread about him so that the leadership of the SDUEP would form a negative opinion of him. This is combined with the issuance of instructions to hinder the foundation and G. Kornievsky from visiting IEPs in other regions with which the foundation fruitfully cooperates.
None of those checking the complaints showed any interest in the issue of the spread of false information about the foundation and G. Kornievsky, nor in confirming or refuting it. For example, regarding the legality of ordering checks on G. Kornievsky’s diplomas or initiating checks on the foundation’s work before other law enforcement structures.
Despite the large number of complaints against Stefanovsky, in 2008 he was awarded a distinction from the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
It is telling that since 2006, the foundation has not officially received any requests for help from the IEPs of the Volyn region or invitations to hold cultural events in them. Even when the foundation conducts events in the Kovel EC on its own initiative, G. Kornievsky is not allowed into the institution on Stefanovsky’s orders.
One of the most recent cases occurred on 30 December 2009, when a charity event dedicated to the New Year and Christmas holidays was planned to be held at the Kovel Educational Colony. New Year’s gifts and parcels for orphans, children without parental care, and children who had not received a single package or parcel during the year were submitted to the colony for inspection in advance.
Following the established tradition of relations between the foundation and the department administration, the event was disrupted by Stefanovsky. He suddenly ordered his subordinates at the Kovel EC to demand a licence from the foundation for engaging in charitable activities. G. Kornievsky, trying to save the situation, appealed for help in conducting the event to the head of the SDUEP in the Volyn region, V. A. Makogonchuk. At the same time, he suggested that the department administration stop twisting the foundation’s arms through the subordinate administration and instead officially send a written request regarding the foundation’s possession of a licence for charitable activities.
G. Kornievsky was repeatedly told during conversations with IEP staff in the Volyn region that I. A. Stefanovsky had forbidden his subordinates from asking the foundation for anything. Example: in 2008, G. Kornievsky provided 3,200 school exercise books to one of the institutions in the region, but this year he took back most of the exercise books and handed them over to an IEP in the Rivne region (IEP staff in the Volyn region were afraid to put their signature and seal on the transfer certificate). Now, the IEPs of Volyn are asking the foundation to provide them with help in such a way that the “Rehabilitation” foundation does not figure in it, for example, by processing the aid from some private individual.

Perhaps the IEPs in the Volyn region do not need any help at all? And who benefits from such “cooperation with the public”?