An Open Media Petition by the Family of Former Acting Defense Minister of Ukraine
Ivashchenko’s family about severe systematic human rights violations in Ukraine
Petition from the family of ex-acting defense minister of Ukraine
On 1st August Pechersk Kiyv Court demonstrated absolutelyfrank disregard for the norms of the Constitution, which specifies the rights and freedoms.
Two motions filed by our father and husband and his defenders were rejected by judges with argumentsthat directly contradict the Constitution of Ukraine. It is difficult to assume that judges are not aware of norms of Constitution, which means that they knowingly made illegal and and Shepit koshould be changed fromcustodyonsign ban onpermanent residence."
These and other arguments insupport of thiscourt decisionare almostentirelythe same as thosethatwere citedby lawyersof ValeryIvashchenko intheirmotion(seeapp.2).
But the decision of the court headed by judge Vovk is quite different. The motion was rejected, and what concerns the inability to ensure our father with necessary treatment in prison, instead of the obvious logical, fair, lawful and humane solution – to release Valery Ivashchenko on sign ban (so he could get access to medical care) the court expressed the claims to prison administration about the lack of possibility to provide such treatment in prison.
It seems that Appeal court and Kiyv Pechersk court use different legislation. Or it`s better to say that one uses legislation and another someone`s unlawful instructions.
Thus, thePechersk courtas apublic authority(Article 6of the Constitution)declinedto performthe mainc onstitutional duty imposedby Article 3 ofthe Constitution of theUkraine: to be responsable to the individuals forits activitiesand to ensure their rights and freedoms"in this case – the rights and freedoms of Valeriy Ivashchenko.
All of us:relatives,friends -everyone whosupportsValeriyIvashchenko andbelieves in hisinnocence, were struckandoutraged bythe decisionof the courtfromAugust 1, 2011- illegal, unjust, unfair.
We were sure that the judicial review of these applications (broadcasted by media, including TV) and the decisions made by court would attract the attention of the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights. Unfortunately, the lack of any response from this institution, designed to protect human rights in our country (and created for this purpose), confirmed the rightness of skepticism of our father about this organization, who did not want to refer to them again.
Perhapsit is more important for Ms.Karpachova and her employees to tell the press about their concern forthe rights of people than practically to help them. I declare so,because Ms.Karpachova twice told reporters that during her visits thejail,she “got familiar with the conditions of Ivashchenko", "heard Ivashchenko," although she had neverpersonallydone it–just senther subordinates. And two appeals of Valeriy Ivashchenko to her concerning a gross violationof his rights, and one -hiswife,Valentina Ivashchenko, were even not answered, not to mention areal help.
Althoughthe issues raisedin thesemotionsrelatenotonlyto ValeriyIvashchenko-theyindicateserioussystemic, fundamental violationsof human rights guaranteed by International Conventionof Human Rights andFundamentalFreedoms andconfirmedand guaranteedby the Constitutionof Ukraine.