Reform of the Criminal Executive Code of Ukraine.

On Wednesday, 14 September, the public gathered in Kirovohrad to discuss the shortcomings of the Criminal Executive Code of Ukraine at a round table. Those present represented not only those associations of citizens that specialise in the activities of the criminal executive service and the rights of convicts and their protection, but also those whose activities are relevant to this topic. However, despite this, they all united quite closely around the discussion of issues primarily concerning the rights of convicts, especially the rights of prisoners.
It seemed that the number of proposed amendments to the Code was so large that it was hardly possible to consider and discuss them not only within one day, but perhaps even a week. This, most likely, clearly demonstrates the scale of legislative changes that modern criminal executive legislation requires.
That is precisely why, having oriented himself at the very beginning, the organiser of the event, Chairman of the public organisation ‘Donetsk Memorial’ O.P. Bukalov, focused the attention of its participants on the most common and painful problems of persons deprived of liberty. All these problems, as it turned out, are not so difficult to solve, as often it is sufficient only to make certain amendments to the regulatory framework, primarily the Criminal Executive Code.
During the discussion of the relevant problems, opposing points of view were often expressed. But, at the same time, the discussion mainly flared up around whether to humanise the law more or less. Practically, no one spoke in favour of changes towards worsening the situation of convicts. Furthermore, everyone was well aware of Article 22 of the Constitution of Ukraine: “Upon the adoption of new laws or the amendment of existing laws, the narrowing of the content and scope of existing rights and freedoms shall not be permitted.”
In general, during the round table, we touched upon and expressed our proposals for amendments to the regulatory regulation of the following issues that cannot be left unsolved today:
― the work of convicts;
― pension provision for convicts;
― public control over the observance of the rights of convicts;
― medical support;
― the right to judicial protection.
Understandably, in parallel with these, a whole range of other related and separate issues arose, which should by no means be considered insignificant. They were simply not on such a massive scale.
Summing up, one can say that the directions for changes were outlined. Moreover, many of the participants had already sent their specific written proposals with variants of drafts of future articles of the Code even before arriving in Kirovohrad. Although, there were cases when changes to the wording of norms were dictated immediately, so to speak, ‘on the fly’. And it is no wonder, as many quite serious and fair remarks regarding the legislation arose as we proceeded through the agenda.
Therefore, one can boldly state that we worked fruitfully. In the future, much more work will need to be done in remote internet mode in order to produce the final amendments to the most important document regulating the process of execution/serving of sentences.

Vadym Chovhan, member of the Public Council under the Department of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine in Kharkiv Region, volunteer of the Kharkiv Human Rights Group