Letter to Mr Shtanko regarding the Open Appeal from staff by the head of ‘Donetsk Memorial’

To the Chairman of the Council of the All-Ukrainian Public
Organisation ‘Association of Veterans of the State
Penitentiary Service of Ukraine’
Mr I. V. Shtanko

Dear Ivan Vasyliovych,
I have carefully reviewed the Open Appeal from the ‘staff and veterans of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine’, signed by yourself and Ms O. A. Andriienko. While I share some of your concerns regarding the excessive attention paid to the penitentiary service recently, I would like to remind you of a few things and ask you some questions in connection with your assertions.
You state in the Appeal: ‘The excessive concentration of attention around the activities of the bodies and institutions for the execution of sentences and certain individuals who take advantage of their social and financial status creates moral tension and leads to the distraction of staff from the performance of their direct duties and to constant justifications before society for groundless, and sometimes frankly false, accusations.’
You do not specify who you are addressing with this indignation regarding the ‘concentration of attention’, but it can be understood as directed at those ‘certain individuals’ in power who created this situation, which leads to ‘moral tension’. After all, it is clear to everyone that the undisputed initiative here lies with the authorities themselves.
You mention more than once in the appeal ‘certain individuals who take advantage of their social and financial status’, or ‘representatives of the media, individual People’s Deputies from the BYuT and public figures interested in them’, and speak of ‘groundless, sometimes frankly false, accusations’.
In reality, in the appeal, these are empty, naked words that you do not support with any specific facts. After all, Ivan Vasyliovych, you know perfectly well that if you were to receive a complaint from a ‘collective of convicts’ talking about the violation of their rights by ‘certain colony administrators, individual employees’ who spread ‘frankly false accusations’ about these convicts, you would not even consider it, because apart from general assertions, not a single specific fact is cited in it. And you would be right. So where has your experience and common sense suddenly gone? Your stated assertions are impossible to even refute because nothing concrete is said in them. Are you sure, speaking on behalf of the ‘collective’, that this nonsense is shared by the entire staff of the service?
You are outraged that ‘information is systematically published about the abuse of the ex-prime minister, the failure to provide her with medical assistance, and the unprofessionalism of our employees’, but in reality, the actual state of affairs is somewhat different.
As proof, you cite the number of medical examinations and the number of specialists involved. However, the number of examinations is not an indicator of a person’s health, and it is hardly the case that the more specialists involved, the healthier the person is. Professionalism in any field consists of doing everything possible to resolve a situation, and the effectiveness of efforts is measured by the result. If doctors whom Ms Tymoshenko agreed to see were not admitted to her for a long time, does this meet the criteria of ‘everything possible’? No. If her state of health is deteriorating, this is the result that reflects the level of professionalism. Only an ignoramus could believe that the number of examinations, rather than direct treatment, improves health. I do not consider most of the country’s citizens, or even most employees of the penitentiary service, to be ignoramuses. Do you?
In your interpretation, the call: ‘if you are sick, get treated; if you consider yourself innocent, defend yourself in court, prove your rightness and innocence, use legal leverage, and do not “raise waves of discontent” regarding the conditions of treatment in Ministry of Health medical facilities and the institution’ seems quite emotional, but also overly illogical and unconvincing.
And might you tell me, dear Ivan Vasyliovych, how one can be treated when the opportunities for this are not provided? And regarding the professionalism of prison medics... You are probably unaware that, for instance, in the ‘Kats v. Ukraine’ case, the sick Olha Biliak, who was held in the Lukianivske SIZO (pre-trial detention centre), was considered by the institution’s medics to be in ‘satisfactory condition’, but died less than a month later. The country paid over 20,000 Euros for the ‘professionalism’ of these medics. Now these same medics or their colleagues claim that Ms Tymoshenko’s condition is satisfactory. True, she struggles to move, but she is still conscious... And you believe that such a situation is not grounds for ‘waves of discontent’ regarding the conditions of treatment? Perhaps the convicts of the Zamkova colony were wrong to try to ‘raise a “wave of discontent”’ in 2001 when they were beaten by special forces, and then denied medical assistance because the ‘professional’ prison medics did not record the injuries from the beating? Or should they have just suffered and not written to the European Court of Human Rights? By the way, you were heading the country’s prison system at the time, and you and your subordinates claimed that everything was fine with the convicts, that there was no beating, that it was merely the ‘waves of discontent’ of criminals – and nothing more... And now you would like people to believe your assurances? Your experience, unfortunately, does not provide a basis for trusting you in this.
As for proving innocence in court, the whole country knows who the ‘professional’ judge Kireiev is. But Maryna Stavniichuk, not the least of figures in power, who understands the law no worse than you, dear Ivan Vasyliovych, believes that Ms Tymoshenko could win in the European Court. Just as the beaten prisoners of the Zamkova colony won (see the case of ‘Davydov and Others v. Ukraine’, Internet site ‘Prison Portal’ - http://ukrprison.org.ua/european_court/1282018089), and the state, due to your conviction in their alleged lies, paid between 15,000 and 20,000 Euros to each of the convicts. Thus, both our justice system and faith in you cost the state and its citizens dearly.
You note with indignation in your Appeal: ‘And although most thinking people understand the entire anatomy of political defence to avoid responsibility for a committed crime, I would like, on behalf of the 50,000-strong collective of employees, their relatives, and service veterans, to express the wish not to “heap all the blame on the penitentiary department”.’
I can only agree that to ‘heap all the blame on the penitentiary department’ is extremely unfair. And the situation with Ms Tymoshenko proves that the department is once again becoming a hostage to the actions of politicians and other agencies. However, your appeal only reinforces the dependence on the political situation and, as I see it, is aimed not so much at defending the honour of the service staff, whom you, by the way, did not even consult in their majority when signing this appeal, but is aimed at currying favour with the politicians who drove the department together with the staff into a very dubious deal – your appeal is clear evidence of this. So, your wish applies to you personally as well.
You emphasise in the appeal that ‘every action of an ordinary employee of the institution, a regional-level manager, or the management of the State Penitentiary Service apparatus is considered and complies with the norms of current legislation’?
You are a great optimist. By law (Art. 24 of the Penal Code), both the President and a People’s Deputy have an equal right to visit penal institutions without obstruction and without special permission. The numerous instances of preventing Deputy Vlasenko from seeing Ms Tymoshenko are a blatant violation of the law. Or do you believe that the administration of the institution can also, like the deputy, deny the President entry to the prison? I doubt it. But there is no difference in the legal sense here between a People’s Deputy and the President. Furthermore, denying representatives of the PACE access to Ms Tymoshenko is also not based on law, because if one reads the document referred to by the head of the department when motivating the refusal, it has no relation to the visit of the PACE delegates. And the light that was supposedly ‘legally’ not turned off in Ms Tymoshenko’s cell all night? There is no such regulatory act that requires this. There simply isn’t. And therefore, such actions are illegal. Many more violations could be cited. And yet you claim it ‘complies with the norms of legislation’... Unfortunately, very often, in practice, the actions of the department’s employees DO NOT COMPLY, and your words... How to put it without being insulting... Are not entirely accurate.
You note: ‘Everyone perfectly understands that allowing any mistakes or violations regarding public figures puts at risk not only the image of the penitentiary service, but the Ukrainian authorities and the international authority of our state as a whole.’
Yes, everyone understands this perfectly well. Here I agree with you completely. But nonetheless, they do it. Starting from the very highest leaders of the state, from the President. Regardless of the catastrophic fall in the authority and image of the state. Why the President and all other high-ranking officials do this when ‘everyone understands’ is a mystery of the Ukrainian political sphere.
You ask several questions. For example: ‘And now let us ask ourselves the question again: “Could an institution employee, at night, by force, without Ms Y. Tymoshenko’s consent, with the practically daily presence of a lawyer-deputy, beat up a woman, especially the former prime minister of the country?”’
I can answer: why not? When there is no lawyer-deputy nearby, no witnesses, except for one or two colleagues who will always deny it, because that is how it is ALWAYS done in the system. Of course, they could. And your argumentation using only an imaginary situation proves you have no other arguments.
You rightly ask: ‘Is history repeating itself with the appearance last autumn on Ms Y. Tymoshenko’s body (when she was held in the Kyiv SIZO) of unknown spots? Indeed, of an aetiology unknown to doctors, but there was no resonance then, and now is probably a very convenient time for it. However, one should not be too distracted and forget, or not allow the people to forget, about the official back pain. After all, one can “get carried away”.’
In my view, it is worth applying a very simple European standard here: the authorities must provide a reasonable and credible explanation for the causes of any injuries on a prisoner’s body. Only a clear and substantiated justification for the origin of such injuries can be confirmation of the authorities’ non-involvement in their appearance, and not the number of witnesses who saw nothing. In all other cases, the authorities bear responsibility for the injuries, even if they cannot find a specific culprit within their own ranks. Full stop. Read the classic ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of ‘Ribitsch v. Austria’. Or do you lack the time and desire for such reading?
As for your words about ‘official back pain’... Regarding a person, a politician for whom half the country voted in the elections, regarding a woman who is currently quite ill... That is no longer cynical. That is immoral. It is simply unscrupulous. I considered you, Ivan Vasyliovych, to be a balanced person. But to reach such a limit of indecency... It seems you have already ‘gotten carried away’ and crossed the line of what is permissible. I am very sorry to observe this.
I cannot but agree with your bitter words: ‘But today, the penitentiary system is becoming a hostage to political games instead of focusing its efforts on building a civilised penitentiary system in Ukraine that would comply with universally recognised European standards for the observance of human rights.’
Although for some reason I do not quite believe in the sincerity of these words. I recall a heap of situations, but I will write about one. Maybe I don’t believe it because when, some four years ago, when you became ‘the public’ and headed the Public Council of the department, after a wave of extraordinary events in some colonies, I, together with my colleague Liudmyla Koval, appealed to you with a letter proposing to consider the glaring issues of prisoner rights violations together with human rights activists at the Public Council, you did not respond. I later appealed to you again, then three more times... You never replied once. So that must be how you adapted ‘European standards’ to the Ukrainian way? Or perhaps, if a meeting and conversation had taken place then, it would have been easier to find mutual understanding today? But it was you who chose to avoid the dialogue, you did not wish to hear the human rights activists. And now you want to be heard...
You, as I see, are ready for radical actions, as you call for: ‘For whom this is unconvincing – we invite you to serve in the bodies and institutions of the penitentiary department. Take personal part in the cleansing, revival, and recovery of our society.’
And by any chance, would you care to say for what salary in a penal institution, and without decent social protection, you suggest ‘cleansing and reviving’ society? Are you not ashamed to suggest this to people for one and a half to two thousand hryvnias, which is barely more than the minimum pension? And furthermore, to pretend as if this is what the ‘collective and veterans of the penitentiary service’ are calling for. After all, no one has any doubts as to exactly how your appeal was prepared and what the role of the collective was in its preparation.
As for the lawsuit... Inform me which court the service’s lawsuit will be directed to. Perhaps this letter of mine can also be added to the case there...

Oleksandr Bukalov
Chairman of the Council of the Human Rights Organisation ‘Donetsk Memorial’
Chairman of the Penitentiary Society of Ukraine
Member of the Commission on Prevention of Torture under the President of Ukraine