On the problems of organising the activities of supervisory commissions in Ukraine: the case of the Kharkiv region

As my own experience shows, the starting point for the effective operation of a supervisory commission (SC) is the proper organisation of its work, as well as the work of its members. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to identify the problems in the organisation of the activities of the SC in the Kharkiv region and to formulate some of my own proposals for their resolution.
Information frequently appears in the public domain regarding the inefficiency of the activities of supervisory commissions, the only body which, in accordance with correctional legislation, has the right to exercise public control over the observance of the rights of convicts in correctional institutions.
In order to verify this information, I, together with the Kharkiv Regional Charitable Foundation ‘Parus’ (‘Sail’), sent enquiries to the supervisory commissions of the Kharkiv region that are responsible for exercising control in the region’s correctional institutions. The exercise of such activities interested us, among other reasons, because the representative of the Kharkiv Regional Charitable Foundation ‘Parus’ and I had recently been included in the composition of the regional supervisory commission of the Kharkiv region, which is required to provide methodological assistance to district supervisory commissions in accordance with Clause 5 of the ‘Regulations on Supervisory Commissions’ (approved by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on 1 April 2004, No. 429 (as amended by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on 10 November 2010, No. 1042) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulations’)). To provide such methodological assistance, it was first necessary to define the existing problems in the activities of the SCs.
The addresses of the supervisory commissions and the names of their chairpersons were taken from the official website of the Department of the State Penitentiary Service in the Kharkiv region, via the following link: http://www.depkvs.kh.ua/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=590:sposterejni-kharkivoblasti&catid=50:2011-04-25-20-07-23&Itemid=58
They can be viewed at this link even today, which can also be done by visiting the Administration’s website (http://www.depkvs.kh.ua) and the corresponding section, ‘Supervisory Commissions’ (‘Спостережні комісії’).
We emphasise that the enquiries were sent precisely to those SCs which, by virtue of their location, are responsible for the observance of the rights of convicts in specific correctional institutions. Their list and addresses (taken from the Administration’s website) are as follows:
Body under which the supervisory commission is created, chairperson, address:
Administration of the Chervonozavodskyi District of the Kharkiv City Council
Kharkiv, Bohdana Khmelnytskoho St., 11, Baksheiev O.V.
Institution under supervision: Dykanivska (No. 12)
Body under which the supervisory commission is created, chairperson, address:
Balakliia District State Administration, Kharkiv Region,
Balakliia, Zhovtneva St., 18, Kholodnyi S.I.
Institution under supervision: Zhovtnevska (No. 17)
Body under which the supervisory commission is created, chairperson, address:
Administration of the Zhovtnevyi District of the Kharkiv City Council
Kharkiv, Poltavskyi Shliakh St., 11, Yanenko N.P.
Institution under supervision: Kholodnohirska (No. 18)
Body under which the supervisory commission is created, chairperson, address:
Administration of the Dzerzhynskyi District of the Kharkiv City Council
Kharkiv, Lenina Ave., 17a, Kazanzhyieva N.V.
Institution under supervision: Oleksiivska (No. 25)
Body under which the supervisory commission is created, chairperson, address:
Administration of the Ordzhonikidzevskyi District of the Kharkiv City Council
Kharkiv, Ordzhonikidze Ave., 9, Abdula O.K.
Institution under supervision: Kharkivska (No. 43)
Body under which the supervisory commission is created, chairperson, address:
Administration of the Kominternivskyi District of the Kharkiv City Council
Kharkiv, Plekhanivska St., 42, Lobiak V.O.
Institution under supervision: Kachanivska (No. 54)
Body under which the supervisory commission is created, chairperson, address:
Kharkiv District State Administration
Kharkiv, Komsomolske Highway, 52, Hus M.A.
Institution under supervision: Temnivska (No. 100)
Body under which the supervisory commission is created, address:
Balakliia District State Administration, Kharkiv Region,
Balakliia, Zhovtneva St., 18, Kholodnyi S.I.
Institution under supervision: Balakliiskyi Correctional Centre (No. 106)
Body under which the supervisory commission is created, chairperson, address:
Derhachi District State Administration, Kharkiv Region,
Derhachi, Peremohy Square, 5, Kalashnyk L.O.
Institution under supervision: Derhachivska (No. 109)
Body under which the supervisory commission is created, chairperson, address:
Executive Committee of the Pervomaiskyi City Council
Kharkiv Region, Pervomaiskyi,
40 Years of Victory Avenue, 1, Potapov M.V.
Institution under supervision: Pervomaiska (No. 117)
Body under which the supervisory commission is created, chairperson, address:
Derhachi District State Administration, Kharkiv Region,
Derhachi, Peremohy Square, 5
Kuklo S.D. (two different chairpersons of this commission are indicated on the website)
Institution under supervision: Kuryazka Juvenile Colony
Body under which the supervisory commission is created, chairperson, address:
Administration of the Zhovtnevyi District of the Kharkiv City Council
Kharkiv, Poltavskyi Shliakh St., 11, Yanenko N.P.
Institution under supervision: Kharkiv Pre-trial Detention Centre (SIZO), Kholodnohirska Correctional Colony No. 18
Body under which the supervisory commission is created, chairperson, address:
Kharkiv District State Administration
Kharkiv, Komsomolske Highway, 52, Hus M.A.
Institution under supervision: Khrolivskyi Correctional Centre (No. 140)
Consequently, on 23 May 2012, a letter with notification of receipt was sent to each of these addresses to ensure they were received by the addressees. The statement that was sent had the following content:
‘Statement
In accordance with Clause 5 of the ‘Regulations on Supervisory Commissions’ (approved by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 1 April 2004, No. 429 (as amended by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 10 November 2010, No. 1042)), supervisory commissions established by regional state administrations provide methodological assistance to supervisory commissions established by district state administrations and, in case of delegation of such powers by executive committees of city councils (except for cities of district significance), monitor their activities, summarise and disseminate their work experience. Taking into account the requirements of this provision, and for the purpose of fulfilling the tasks assigned to the Kharkiv Regional Supervisory Commission, visits by members of the regional commission to the relevant districts, including direct visits to correctional institutions of closed and open types, have been planned.
In light of the above and with the aim of fulfilling the outlined tasks, in accordance with Articles 1 and 5 of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Citizens’ Appeals’, Article 19 of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Access to Public Information’, and Articles 5 and 6 of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Information’,
we request that you provide information regarding:
1. The personal composition of the district supervisory commission.
2. Current contact details of the chairperson, deputy chairperson of the supervisory commission, as well as the secretary;
3. The work plan for the commission for the half-year (year);
4. Planned dates and times of the meetings of your supervisory commission, including meetings in correctional institutions;
5. The work schedule of the commission regarding issues of parole and the replacement of punishment with a more lenient one for the quarter for the correctional institution under the supervision of your supervisory commission (including the time of the meetings of the relevant commissions).
We request that you provide the response to our postal or email address within the time limit established by law and without delay.’
Results regarding the receipt of responses:
1. Supervisory commission in the Chervonozavodskyi District of the city of Kharkiv, chairperson Baksheiev O.V. — response provided on 01.06.2012.
2. Supervisory commission of the Balakliia District, chairperson Kholodnyi S.I. — no response.
3. Supervisory commission of the Zhovtnevyi District, chairperson Lazurenko D.I. (response provided by the new chairperson of the commission) — response provided on 22.06.2012.
4. Supervisory commission of the Dzerzhynskyi District, chairperson Kazanzhyieva N.V. — no response.
5. Supervisory commission of the Ordzhonikidzevskyi District, chairperson Abdula O.K. (response provided by the deputy of the supervisory commission, Ponomarov A.P.) — response provided on 26.06.2012.
6. Supervisory commission of the Kominternivskyi District, Lobiak V.O. (response provided by the new chairperson, Leshchenko S.M.) — response provided on 30.05.2012.
7. Supervisory commission of the Kharkiv District, chairperson Hus M.A. — no response.
8. Supervisory commission of the Derhachi District, chairperson Kalashnyk N.O. (response provided by V. Hurina) — response provided on 31.05.2012.
9. Supervisory commission of the Pervomaiskyi District, chairperson Potapov M.V. — response provided (date of response not indicated).
Of the responses provided, the response from the SC of the Derhachi District draws attention, in which it was indicated that at the time of the request, ‘the supervisory commission lacks a chairperson and several members of the district supervisory commission’ and that the response to the request would be sent ‘upon the approval of a new head and a new composition of the district supervisory commission’. However, the response has not been provided to this day. Although there is data that the new composition of the commission has been formed.
This became known from a response to a request for the inclusion of an acquaintance and colleague into the composition of this SC, which was denied with the justification that Clause 11 of the Regulations provides that the quantitative composition of the commission is determined depending on the volume of work, as a rule, from five to eleven members, and since the number of members is already 11, it is impossible to include the applicant in the composition of the SC. In the response, it was uncompromisingly stated that ‘the composition of supervisory commissions must be up to eleven members’.
Furthermore, letters from the Dzerzhynskyi and Kharkiv district commissions were returned marked ‘addressee has long since departed’ and ‘there is no person at this address’. On one hand, this can be explained by the fact that the former chairperson of the commission changed because they were dismissed from their post, as we indicated the chairperson of the supervisory commission as the addressee. Nevertheless, we indicated the chairpersons of the commissions listed on the website of the Department of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine in the Kharkiv region.
It is interesting that of the nine commissions to which letters were sent, only in three cases did the chairpersons remain the same as those indicated on the website of the Department of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine in the Kharkiv region. Nevertheless, unlike the SCs of the Dzerzhynskyi and Kharkiv districts, responses were provided by the other SCs where the chairpersons had changed, despite the fact that the ‘addressee had departed’.
And only one commission — that of the Balakliia District — did not provide a response, despite the fact that the addressee received our request.

Analysis of the responses (in the order of the questions posed in the request):
1. Supervisory commission in the Chervonozavodskyi District of the city of Kharkiv
a) Composition: 7 persons. Representatives of the public (which should be at least half of the total composition of the commission, Clause 9 of the ‘Regulations on Supervisory Commissions’) — 3 members (less than half).
b) Contact details.
Contact details of the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the commission were provided; data for the commission secretary were not provided.
c) Work plan of the commission for the half-year (year).
A plan for the first half of 2012 was provided.
A characteristic feature of the Plan is the uncertainty of the dates for the events. There are indications that this or that event is conducted ‘constantly’; for example, the reception of convicts on personal matters was supposed to be carried out constantly, and jointly with the institution’s administration! It is not difficult to imagine how effective such a personal reception could be in terms of the possibility of detecting violations of the rights of convicts.
Similarly, ‘constant’ checks were supposed to be carried out on the ‘legality of transferring convicts to camera-type premises, disciplinary isolation cells, and prison confinement’ (!) (emphasis mine. — V.Ch.). Thus, the SC assumed the function of the prosecutor’s office, namely the verification of the legality of the administration’s law-enforcement acts, as it is precisely the function of the prosecutor’s office to carry out such checks. Unlike the SCs, whose function in accordance with Part 2 of Article 25 of the ‘Correctional Code of Ukraine’ is to control the observance of the rights of convicts. The observance of legality and the observance of the rights of convicts are different concepts, and where legality is violated, the rights of convicts are not always violated. Furthermore, the fact that the SC ‘checks the legality’ of a transfer to prison confinement might suggest that the work plan of the supervisory commission has remained the same for at least 8 years, as that is how long it has been since the ‘Correctional-Labour Code of Ukraine’ lost force, in which such a place of deprivation of liberty as ‘prison’ was last provided for. Therefore, one can guess at the level of professionalism of the individuals who are members of the SC if even in its basic document — the plan — such ‘blunders’ exist. This clearly testifies to the illusory nature of the capacity to check not only the legality of the transfer of convicts to a maximum-security colony (formerly prison confinement), but also simply to check the observance of the rights of convicts during such a transfer. In view of such qualifications, such an item in the Plan as (orthography and sentence structure in the original version from the response) ‘study by members of the commission of the correctional, procedural and criminal Codes of Ukraine’, which is planned once a quarter, looks quite amusing.
This once again reminds us of the urgent need for professional training of members of supervisory commissions and the unjustified nature of the dual roles held by chairpersons and deputy chairpersons of SCs, who hold their positions alongside positions in the bodies under which the SCs are created. As one of the solutions to the situation, it is worth proposing the introduction of a paid position for the SC chairperson, who would be exclusively occupied with performing duties related to the activities of the SC.
d) Planned dates and times of meetings of the supervisory commission, including meetings in correctional institutions — not provided. There are grounds to believe that the dates of such meetings have not been established at all (based on the provided work plan of the commission). Therefore, it is impossible to verify whether such meetings are being held at all, but one can probably guess that they are not, based on the fact that information about the dates of such meetings was not provided. Moreover, in our request, it was indicated that we planned to attend the SC meetings.
e) Work schedule of the commission regarding issues of parole and the replacement of punishment with a more lenient one for the quarter for the correctional institution under the supervision of the supervisory commission (including the time of the meetings of the relevant commissions).
A work schedule for three months was provided, but only the dates were indicated, and the time for conducting these commissions was not.
2. Supervisory commission of the Zhovtnevyi District
a) Composition of the commission: 11 persons. Representatives of the public: 6 persons — more than half.
b) Contact details of the chairperson, deputy chairperson, and secretary.
Provided.
c) Work plan of the commission for the half-year (year).
A work plan for the entire year of 2012 was provided. The plan is relatively detailed in nature.
It is worth noting such points as: ‘listening at SC meetings to the report of the correctional inspection on work with individuals paroled’, because, as is well known, such accounting by correctional inspections has not been carried out for a long time. In accordance with the requirement of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and the instruction of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine of 18.03.2011 No. 16/1-1855/Ls on the cancellation of the instruction of the State Department of Ukraine for the Execution of Punishments (hereinafter — the Department) regarding the temporary procedure for accounting for individuals paroled from serving a sentence and exercising control over their behaviour (of 13.02.2009 No. 19/713/Kn), the accounting of individuals paroled from serving a sentence has been discontinued. Therefore, once again, the knowledge of the current correctional legislation by the members of the SC draws attention, especially regarding that which directly regulates their activities.
Point 6 of the Plan draws attention, where it is indicated that Osnach O.O. is the member of the commission responsible for ‘assisting the administration of the Correctional Colony No. 18 and the SIZO in carrying out health-prevention measures ‘constantly according to a separate schedule’’. Such a schedule was not provided; moreover, in accordance with (Clause 4.3.), supervisory commissions are only supposed to assist the administrations of correctional institutions in carrying out such activities, which a SIZO (pre-trial detention centre) is not, despite the fact that it holds convicts who have been left for household maintenance. It is likely that the non-provision of the schedule has its reasons, namely the blind copying of the functions of the SC from the Regulations, despite their clarity or practicality in terms of implementation, which ultimately puts the SC in a deadlock regarding the possibility and ways of implementing this function.
Also needing attention is the fact that despite the composition of the SC in the Zhovtnevyi District being changed by the Decision of the Executive Committee of the Kharkiv City Council of 20.06.2012 No. 376, changes to the SC work plan and other plans were not made. As a result, for certain tasks of the SC, there were no responsible persons, as they had been excluded from the composition of the commission. This same problem was reflected in other plans (such as the plan for participation in meetings of the commission on parole in institutions, etc.).
However, in general, the plan can be noted for its comparative variety and use of the wording of current legislation when defining the activities planned for the year.
A schedule of personal reception of convicts of the Kholodnohirska Correctional Colony No. 18 (in the appendix) for the 1st and 2nd half of 2012 was provided, which was supposed to be conducted from 12:00 to 14:00 monthly, as well as a schedule of personal reception of convicts of the Kharkiv SIZO, which were supposed to be conducted on the same day by the same members of the commission. It is quite revealing that at the same time when the reception of convicts of the Kholodnohirska Correctional Colony No. 18 should be ending (14:00), the reception at the Kharkiv SIZO is supposed to begin (which, according to the schedule, is conducted from 14:00 to 16:00). It is evident that the punctuality of the members’ activities leaves much to be desired, not only in practice but also formally, as according to the schedules, not a single minute of time is allocated for the movement of commission members from the colony to the SIZO, even though they are located nearby.
A schedule of inspections by SC members in the Kholodnohirska Correctional Colony No. 18 and the Kharkiv SIZO was also provided. A positive feature of this plan is the appearance in the plan of different objects of inspection (working conditions, conditions of the medical-sanitary state of convicts, material-household provision), and the dates of such inspections are determined by an indication of the months of their conduct.
A schedule of participation of SC members in meetings of the commissions of the Kholodnohirska Correctional Colony No. 18 was provided, according to which different members of the commission are to be sent to the commission meeting each month, although one member of the commission is supposed to participate in such a commission twice.
d) Planned dates and times of meetings of the supervisory commission, including meetings in correctional institutions.
The date and time of SC meetings are indicated — every Friday at 11:00 in the premises of the administration of the Zhovtnevyi District of the Kharkiv City Council.
Information regarding the date and time of meetings in the Kholodnohirska Correctional Colony No. 17 was not provided, however, it was defined in the commission’s work plan that they were supposed to be conducted in May and November.
e) Work schedule of the commission regarding issues of parole and the replacement of punishment with a more lenient one for the quarter for the correctional institution under the supervision of the supervisory commission (including the time of the meetings of the relevant commissions).
Not provided at all.
3. Supervisory commission of the Ordzhonikidzevskyi District of the city of Kharkiv (Kharkiv Correctional Colony No. 43)
a) Composition of the commission — 10 persons. It is strange that according to the provided response about the personal composition, this SC lacks a chairperson. Representatives of the public — 6 persons, although 3 of them are chairpersons of street committees, which may raise certain suspicions regarding their groundless inclusion in the composition of the SC.
b) Contact details of the chairperson, deputy chairperson, and secretary.
Contacts of the deputy chairperson and secretary were provided. The chairperson’s contacts were not provided, as this position is absent in this commission.
c) Work plan of the commission for the half-year (year).
A work plan for 2012 was provided. According to it, it was planned to conduct 3 meetings of the commission in June, September, and December to summarise the state of work regarding the organisation of education for convicts in the evening school No. 16 and the work on personal reception of convicts by SC members in the Kharkiv Correctional Colony No. 43. It was also planned to have only one on-site meeting in the colony to consider issues regarding communal-household, medical, and food provision for convicts.
Monthly, ‘joint meetings of the supervisory commission and the commission of the Kharkiv Correctional Colony No. 43 on parole issues’ were planned. Thus, this commission invented a new form of organising the commission’s work, which is not provided for by the Regulations (presumably, this meant the participation of SC members in the meetings of so-called parole commissions). Moreover, a ‘Schedule of meetings of the commission of the Kharkiv Correctional Colony No. 43 and the supervisory commission for the 2nd quarter of 2012’ was provided, which is even agreed upon by the head of the colony with the deputy chairperson of the SC! Therefore, the SC of the Ordzhonikidzevskyi District, together with the administration of the colony, introduced a quite interesting type of practice — joint meetings of the SC and the parole commission, which were supposed to be carried out 4 times a month, and in August even 5. Although it is obvious that this concerns the schedule of meetings of the parole commission, the provided schedule testifies to a different understanding of the legal nature of the planned SC and colony activities.
d) Planned dates and times of meetings of the supervisory commission, including meetings in correctional institutions.
As can be seen from the information in point b, the dates and times of meetings are not defined.
e) Work schedule of the commission regarding issues of parole and the replacement of punishment with a more lenient one for the quarter for the correctional institution under the supervision of the supervisory commission (including the time of the meetings of the relevant commissions).
Only information about the dates of such meetings was provided, with the condition that meetings of the Kharkiv Correctional Colony No. 43 commission and the SC should be understood as exactly the meetings of such commissions.
4. Supervisory commission of the Kominternivskyi District
a) Composition of the commission — 10 persons. Of these, only 4 are representatives of public organisations, i.e., less than half, which, as stated, is a violation of the legislation.
b) Contact details of the chairperson, deputy chairperson, and secretary.
Provided.
c) Work plan of the commission for the half-year (year).
The provided plan is the most comprehensive of all those provided. Practically, this is the only commission that clearly planned monthly meetings (as it should be according to the legislation) and indicated the questions that would be considered each month. However, we were not provided with information about either the time or the dates of such meetings.
One of the oversights of the plan, in our opinion, is the existence within it of planned meeting topics that have no relation to the duties that were distributed among the commission members, as defined by the plan itself.
The distinctive features of the plan include the provision for the involvement of and listening to representatives of internal affairs bodies (on the issue of the work of the personnel of the district department with previously convicted persons at their place of residence), the employment centre (regarding the employment of individuals released from places of deprivation of liberty who arrived in the Kominternivskyi District), and others.
An original point of the plan is the verification of the observance of convicts’ rights to cultural events.
According to the SC Plan, schedules of personal reception of convicts of the Kachanivska Correctional Colony No. 54 and a schedule of inspections by SC members of conditions of detention in the colony for 2012 were drawn up, although such schedules were not provided.
d) Planned dates and times of meetings of the supervisory commission, including meetings in correctional institutions.
Not provided. Planning for SC meetings in Colony No. 54 is not mentioned in the plan at all.
e) Work schedule of the commission regarding issues of parole and the replacement of punishment with a more lenient one for the quarter for the correctional institution under the supervision of the supervisory commission (including the time of the meetings of the relevant commissions).
Not provided. Based on the SC plan, such meetings are held on Thursdays.
5. Supervisory commission of the Pervomaiskyi District
a) Composition of the commission — 13 members. Of these, only 3 are representatives of the public, which again, as indicated, is a violation of the current legislation.
b) Contact details of the chairperson, deputy chairperson, and secretary.
Provided.
c) Work plan of the commission for the half-year (year).
A work plan for 2012 was provided. A characteristic distinctive feature of this plan is that the measures listed in it essentially have no time frames. There are only indications that this or that measure takes place ‘constantly’, ‘throughout the year’ (which is essentially the same thing), ‘during 2012’ (again the same thing), and ‘as needed’.
Even the conducting of personal reception of convicts is carried out ‘constantly’, and the responsible parties are not any individual members, but the entire supervisory commission. Such ‘lack of specificity’ will hardly contribute to the systematic conducting of personal receptions of convicts.
d) Planned dates and times of meetings of the supervisory commission, including meetings in correctional institutions.
Information about the date and even the time of the commission’s meetings was provided. However, it was not indicated when exactly direct meetings in correctional institutions are conducted and when not. From the content of the provided response, it is impossible to say. It is worth noting that for June 2012, it was planned to conduct 4 meetings of the commission.
e) Work schedule of the commission regarding issues of parole and the replacement of punishment with a more lenient one for the quarter for the correctional institution under the supervision of the supervisory commission (including the time of the meetings of the relevant commissions).
A schedule was provided, however, it concerns not only the parole commission but simultaneously the supervisory commission as well, as follows from the wording of its title in the response: ‘schedule of conducting the commission of the Pervomaiska Correctional Colony of the State Department of Ukraine for the Execution of Punishments (No. 117) and the supervisory commission under the executive committee of the Pervomaiskyi City Council of the Kharkiv Region’.
In conclusion, I would like to say a few words about the activities of the regional supervisory commission. It is worth drawing the reader’s attention to the fact that I cannot comment on its activities as an unbiased, and even less so, a critical author, as I have been a member since April 2012, when it was formed. At the same time, it must be said that it is indicative in this regard that even today, I and other individual members of the commission have to ‘beg’ for the issuance of passes for visiting correctional institutions from the SC leadership. In this regard, and also in connection with the absence of regular meetings of the commission, a corresponding appeal has already been sent to the body that created it.
Summarising the analysis, some general observations can be made regarding the organisation of the activities of supervisory commissions. In the majority of them, plans were created ‘in a rush’ and, so to speak, ‘carelessly’; only a few stand out with a detailed and more suitable work plan. A typical error is also the lack of proper definition of time frames for carrying out measures and the lack of specification of responsible persons. In individual commissions, meetings are planned less frequently than once a month as it should be in accordance with the ‘Regulations on Supervisory Commissions’. Not all commissions have schedules for the personal reception of convicts.
It is worth proposing our own, fundamentally different option for compiling the SC activity plan, which could ensure not only the clarity and understandability of the commission’s actual activity but also its effectiveness. This can be achieved if each member of the commission develops their own proposed activity plan with concrete measures for which they wish to be responsible, and then they should be coordinated and approved together with the general plan of the SC, in which those directions of activity that can only be carried out collectively by the SC can be noted. At the request of the members, the general plan of the SC can also provide for such measures that certain members wish or that are expedient to be carried out jointly by several members.
In accordance with the Regulations (Clause 16), it is provided that meetings of supervisory commissions are conducted directly in correctional institutions no less than once per quarter (per half-year). The SCs either did not provide information about such meetings at all or did not indicate the specific dates when they are planned, etc. From personal conversations with members of supervisory commissions of the region, one can conclude that the majority of them do not even know that meetings directly in a correctional institution are mandatory for the SC. Therefore, the relevant dates must be fixed in the commission’s work plan.
It is also indicative that only one commission (of the Zhovtnevyi District) has clearly defined days and times for scheduled commission meetings. Emulating its practice, in my opinion, could contribute to certainty in the activities of SCs.
A general problem is the inappropriate ratio of public and state authority representatives in the composition of the commission. Mostly, the number of state representatives outweighs the other by 1-2 persons, however, for example, the SC of the Pervomaiskyi District generally has only 3 representatives of the public in its composition, while the number of its members exceeds that recommended by the Regulations. Such a problem can be explained by the presence of another — the insufficiency in certain districts of public organisations interested in participating in the work of the SC. Even those organisations that are part of the region’s SC today are mostly far from being organisations that work in the penitentiary sphere or in the sphere of reforming criminal justice. Among them are trade unions of former employees of state bodies, organisations of veterans of the Second World War or the war in Afghanistan, representatives of street committees, those affected by the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster, and clergy. The inclusion of representatives of such organisations in the composition of the SC primarily testifies to a kind of ‘incompleteness’ of them.
In my opinion, one of the solutions to the situation of an inappropriate ratio of state and civil society in the composition of commissions could be a simple reduction in the number of commission members who represent the state. There is nothing terrible in leaving five people in the composition of the SC who have the desire to work, instead of eleven, among whom are individuals included on a voluntary-compulsory basis as civil servants who have added to their own duties the duties of an SC member and who, having no motivation, will not work in the commission.
Nevertheless, individual SCs, as practice shows, even having a prevailing number of state body employees, refuse interested representatives of the public from being included in the composition of the commission. An example is the refusal by the Derhachi SC to accept a public representative into its composition (the response can be viewed in the appendix), although the list of SC members provided upon the request for inclusion contains only 4 representatives of public organisations and seven representatives of state bodies. The motivation for the refusal was that the maximum number of SC members could be eleven people, although the Regulations contain only a guiding norm regarding this; it states that ‘the quantitative composition of the commission is determined depending on the volume of work, as a rule, from five to eleven members’. In any case, it is difficult to understand why, for example, it was not possible to exclude a representative of a state body and include a representative of the public, especially in view of the violation of the ratio provided for by the Regulations. In this regard, the banal saying ‘neither eats himself nor lets someone else’ comes to mind.
It happens that commission members are not familiar with each other and do not even have contact details of their colleagues on the SC. This, in turn, can make it impossible to organise operational group visits to correctional institutions in case of necessity. Therefore, it is recommended that at the very first meeting of the SC, a list of members with contact details be compiled, which must be distributed among the members.
It is not in vain that in the majority of institutions in the region that I managed to visit, contact details of commission members are absent from public access, and addresses of the SC are also absent from such access. This has influenced the fact that convicts know little about the SC. The vast majority of convicts, when asked if they have heard anything about supervisory commissions, say no. For example, individual convicts of the Temnivska Correctional Colony No. 100 indicated to me that one board with SC contact details appeared in their institution a year ago, when they made and hung it right before the arrival of the commission in order to report to the commission, which, by the way, according to the convicts, was seen by them on the territory of the colony only once.
Taking this into account, to establish access for convicts to legal aid, the SC is strongly recommended by the Department of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine in the Kharkiv and other regions, as well as by the SCs themselves, to organise the placement of information about the SC in an accessible place in the premises of every department of the socio-psychological service of correctional institutions. It is proposed that the information necessarily contain general information about the functions, rights, and duties of the SC and, necessarily, the contact details of the chairperson, deputy chairperson, and secretary of the commission under whose supervision the institution falls, as well as the regional supervisory commission. With the consent of the commission members, it would be worthwhile to indicate their contact details in the information materials so that every convict, if desired, could address any given member of the commission personally.
Another problem, in my opinion, is that in none of the commissions is there a chairperson, deputy chairperson, or secretary who would be a representative of the public. The reason for this is that the chairperson and secretary of the SC, in accordance with the Regulations, are chosen by the body that formed the SC. Undoubtedly, this can make the entire activity of the SC dependent on the will of the state authority body, and also become an obstacle to the implementation of genuine human rights initiatives of public representatives. It is my conviction that such a practice of forming the composition of commissions should be changed, because it is not hard to guess that, in fact, the representative of the state, who is not at all interested in the vigorous activity of the commission, becomes the chairperson of the commission a priori, because the vigorous activity of individual members of the commission == additional ‘unnecessary headaches’ for the chairperson himself. Because of this, representatives of the public will have to act in the role of ‘petitioners’ before the chairperson of the commission every time a desire appears to implement this or that initiative, because he is an official mostly occupied with tasks other than the observance of the rights of convicts, and even meeting with him from time to time can be a problem. An illustration of this example is my own experience of resolving certain issues as a member of the regional SC, which was mentioned earlier.
As one of the extremely promising variants for solving the problem of the inactivity of SC activities, the appointment of a paid, non-concurrent position of the SC chairperson is an option. This would add motivation and effectiveness, as well as systematicity to the activity of the SC. However, as is well known, today such a prospect of reforming the activity of the SC is not considered, although it could become a kind of alternative in the penitentiary sphere to the ‘infamous’ OMBUDSMAN+. It is thought that such an alternative could more likely become an effective mechanism for protecting the rights of convicts serving sentences.
Summarising, we note that only the proper organisation of the work of the SC, its members, as well as, undoubtedly, control on the part of civil society over the SCs themselves, can result in effective and non-imitated work of the, for now, only body which, in accordance with current legislation, exercises control over the observance of the rights of convicts. In addition, for scientists and human rights activists working on the problems of the correctional system, the task remains to develop, summarise, and disseminate effective practices for organising the activities of SCs, because it can be emphasised with confidence that failures in the activities of SCs often occur not because of the unwillingness of their members to work, but because of the unsuccessful organisation of the commissions.