Regarding the statements made by Alexander Dobrindt, head of the Christian Social Union (CSU) parliamentary group in the Bundestag, during an interview with Bild am Sonntag on June 23, 2024, it has been established that these statements contain elements of discrimination against Ukrainian refugees, violating their rights to protection and support in accordance with international law, national law, and the criminal law of Germany.   Factual Background   In his statement, Alexander Dobrindt proposed sending Ukrainian refugees back to their home country if they fail to find employment in Germany, despite the ongoing military conflict in Ukraine. He also criticized the payment of welfare benefits to refugees, claiming that guaranteed benefits slow down their job-seeking efforts.   This statement triggered sharp criticism from representatives of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and the “Alliance 90/Greens” party, who pointed out that such proposals endanger the lives of Ukrainian women and children forced to flee the country due to the war.   Violations of International Law   1. Violation of the non-refoulement principle, enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol. According to Article 33 of the Convention, states are obligated not to expel refugees to countries where their lives or freedom would be threatened. The threat of deporting Ukrainian refugees to the “safe regions of Western Ukraine” without considering individual circumstances and without recognizing the entire country as a zone of active conflict is a blatant violation of this principle. 2. Discrimination based on nationality, prohibited by Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Proposals to limit access to social benefits for Ukrainian refugees or subject them to stricter requirements than other refugee groups directly violate the right to equal treatment and support enshrined in the ECHR. 3. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees the right of everyone to seek asylum from persecution. Dobrindt’s proposal to return refugees to Ukraine contradicts this right, as it disregards the ongoing threats to their safety and the conditions that led to their forced displacement.   Violations of Germany’s Criminal Law   Alexander Dobrindt’s statements also violate the provisions of Germany’s criminal law, specifically § 130 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) – Incitement to Hatred. According to this provision, any public statement aimed at inciting hatred or hostility based on nationality, race, or ethnic origin can be considered a criminal offense.   1. Dobrindt’s statements about returning refugees if they fail to find employment could be perceived as inciting hostile attitudes towards Ukrainians in Germany, which violates § 130 StGB. 2. § 241 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) – Threats: The proposal to deport Ukrainian refugees if they fail to secure employment can be seen as a threat aimed at intimidating this group, also violating criminal law.   Impact on Public Sentiment   Alexander Dobrindt’s statements directly contribute to the formation of negative attitudes toward Ukrainian refugees in German society, laying the groundwork for discrimination and xenophobia. Public calls to deprive refugees of social benefits or deport them for failing to find employment may be interpreted as justification for infringing on refugee rights, which is unacceptable in a state governed by the rule of law that adheres to international human rights obligations.   Conclusion   Based on the above, the actions of Alexander Dobrindt, expressed in his public statements, should be qualified as violations of international law, the provisions of German criminal law, and incitement to discrimination against Ukrainian refugees. These statements require immediate legal review and appropriate measures within both national and international judicial instances.   Source: Bild am Sonntag, interview published on June 23, 2024.                                                                                       

Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz. Photo: PAP/Piotr Nowak - the Deputy Prime Minister of Poland and the Minister of National Defence

It is crucial to acknowledge the differential treatment between various national groups. Notably, while Poland and Lithuania have pledged to assist in the repatriation of Ukrainian men subject to military draft, thereby recognizing their vulnerable status, the broader policies enacted by the EU fail to protect these same individuals under the established norms of international refugee law. This selective enforcement contravenes Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution, as well as the non-refoulement principle enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Moreover, the contrasting responses of the European Union to the restrictive measures imposed by Belarus on its citizens and its passive acceptance of similar constraints on Ukrainians underscore a disconcerting inconsistency. We must recognize that while the European Commission vehemently opposed Belarus’s actions, deeming them a violation of basic human rights, it simultaneously dismissed or ignored parallel actions when they affected Ukrainian nationals.

This selective silence and inaction embody a clear breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which stipulates that all individuals are equal before the law and are entitled to non-discriminatory treatment irrespective of nationality. The failure to uphold these fundamental principles not only undermines the credibility of the EU’s commitment to human rights but also sets a dangerous precedent of selective legal enforcement based on nationality and gender.

Therefore, we urge to recognize these actions as discriminatory and contrary to the spirit and letter of both international law and European Union directives. We seek a ruling that acknowledges these violations and compels the involved states to rectify their policies to ensure fair and equal treatment of all individuals, particularly those affected by conflict and displacement.

 

On Swedish State Television, during the program “IFS - Invandrare för Svenskar” on the national channel SVT, journalist Elaf Ali made a controversial joke about Ukrainian women who have sought refuge in Sweden. 

Ali quipped,

“They’re blond and blue-eyed, so their presence is hardly noticeable, except maybe in the brothels.”

Source: Visegrád 24

This remark was made in the context of a segment intended for humor.

Elaf Ali’s derogatory comments about Ukrainian refugees, specifically women, on Swedish State Television raise significant legal concerns, potentially violating both European Union directives and a series of international laws and conventions dedicated to the prevention of discrimination and hate speech. These include:   1. European Union Frameworks:   • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 21, which prohibits discrimination on various grounds including sex, race, and ethnic origin.   • Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), which mandates that audiovisual services must not contain incitement to violence or hatred based on race, sex, religion, or nationality.   • Council Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, which criminalizes public incitement to violence or hatred based on race, color, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin.   2. International Conventions:   • Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 7, advocating for equal protection against discrimination.   • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 19 (freedom of expression) and Article 20 (prohibition of hate speech and incitement to discrimination).   • Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), focusing on eliminating gender-based discrimination.   • International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), obligating the elimination of racial discrimination and the promotion of understanding among all races.   Ali’s comments risk contravening these critical legal standards set to uphold dignity, equality, and non-discrimination at both European and international levels.

 

Refugees subject to Ukrainian conscription laws should go to fight in Ukraine. Slovak Defense Minister Robert Kaliňák said this in the V politike talk show. According to the head of defense, there is no need to send NATO soldiers to the territory of Ukraine.

"Of all the refugees we are protecting, (…) there is a group that corresponds to the Ukrainian conscription law," Kaliňák said in the talk show, saying that he thinks it is "the biggest help to the Ukrainian army if it has enough people."

Source: standard.sk

A potential legal violations in the statement suggesting that Ukrainian refugees subject to Ukraine’s conscription laws should participate in military efforts, it would include the following points:

1. Violation of the Non-Refoulement Principle:

The statement implicates a violation of the non-refoulement principle, a fundamental aspect of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Article 33), which prohibits expelling or returning a refugee in any manner to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened. Suggesting that refugees, who have sought safety, should return to a conflict zone contradicts this principle.

2. Infringement of the Right to Asylum:

The right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 14). By proposing that refugees engage in military conflict, the spirit of this right is undermined, as it subjects individuals to the very conditions from which they fled.

3. Breach of European Union Law:

The statement may also breach European Union law, specifically the Qualification Directive (2011/95/EU), which sets out the standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection. Sending refugees to partake in military actions can compromise their status and safety, contrary to the directive’s intent to offer protection.

4. Contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):

Specifically, Article 3, which prohibits torture and “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Forcing or coercing refugees into military conflict could be seen as a violation of this article by subjecting them to severe mental and physical distress.

5. Undermining the Principles of Voluntary Repatriation:

The UNHCR’s guidelines on voluntary repatriation underline the necessity for repatriation to be a voluntary act. Any form of coercion or pressure that compromises the voluntary nature of repatriation, especially for the purpose of military conscription, is in direct contradiction with these guidelines.

 

Regarding the inquiry contained within Part I, Question 178 of the European Union (EU) Questionnaire and Responses for Ukraine’s Candidacy Status:

“Does Ukraine possess a National Human Rights Institution (NHRI)? Is it in compliance with the Paris Principles concerning NHRIs, and does the NHRI hold accreditation from GANHRI, including its accreditation status?”

Ukraine’s response elucidates that the sole human rights body operational within the nation is the Human Rights Ombudsman.

There is an absence of a legal advocacy institution as delineated in the disclosed questionnaire, which raises certain implications.

The Ukrainian Bar is a non-governmental, self-governing institution tasked with ensuring the provision of defense, representation, and other forms of legal assistance on a professional basis. Furthermore, it autonomously addresses matters concerning the organization and function of the legal profession in accordance with established legal statutes.

The Ukrainian Bar comprises all lawyers within Ukraine who are authorized to engage in legal practice.

In Ukraine, a lawyer is an individual who undertakes legal practice as stipulated by the “Law of Ukraine on the Bar and Practice of Law.” Lawyers operate as self-employed individuals engaged in independent professional (legal) activities. It is noteworthy that the legal profession in Ukraine is perceived as the most corrupt sector, masquerading as a state entity without any formal association with statehood.

The Ukrainian National Bar Assosiation employs the term “NATIONAL” in its title as a guise for fraudulent activities, thereby misleading the global community.

Ukrainian lawyers hold prominent positions within the State apparatus (including judges, prosecutors, the Attorney General, and members of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau) and are accused of consciously concealing this fact.

The head of the Ukrainian National Bar Assosiation (UNBA) represents a non-governmental entity on behalf of the State of Ukraine, a status that the Ukrainian State does not contest, thereby affirming its legitimacy.

However, it raises the question of why the Ukrainian populace lacks a mechanism for legal protection against the State. There exists a fee-based protection mechanism as stipulated by the Law of Ukraine on the Legal Profession and Legal Practice, accompanied by an ambiguous provision for free legal aid. Lawyers providing free legal assistance, certified by this same private entity, have offered their services to the State under certain conditions if required.

As a result, the private, non-state entity known as the Ukrainian National Bar Assosiation operates without state oversight or accountability to its members, answerable only to the association’s leadership.

The Ukrainian legal profession declares its representations in every country worldwide, which generally do not benefit Ukraine or Ukrainians, whether in that country or elsewhere. None of these representations are accredited by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which explains why no foreign consulate lists these representations on their websites, a fact that is arguably self-evident.

The question remains as to what occurs within the private legal profession in Ukraine and how its leaders maintain power, and why.

Pursuant to the assembly of lawyers on June 9, 2017, which resolved key personnel decisions regarding the leadership of the higher bodies of legal self-governance from November 17, 2017, to November 17, 2022, the tenure of the leadership within Ukraine’s private legal profession concluded on November 17, 2022. Despite this, throughout the duration of the conflict, the legal profession continued to make decisions, administer examinations, proliferate the number of lawyers, and represent the legal profession on behalf of Ukraine internationally.

This raises the question:

Can lawyers, who are complicit in the fraudulence within their own structure, expose corruption or defend Ukrainians?

From the aforementioned date, the bodies of legal self-governance in Ukraine have been operating without legitimate authority, as the mandates of all such bodies and their leadership have ceased, with no lawful basis for continuation.

The leadership of Ukraine’s legal profession employs the principle of continuity to extend its power, which, in this context, does not apply. Continuity is intended to bridge the period until a new body is constituted and operational. However, in the absence of a newly formed body of legal self-governance, there is no continuity, as it only applies post-election but before the newly elected bodies commence their duties.

This situation arises exclusively due to the monopolistic position of the legal institution, which remains uninfluenced as a private entity. Membership in this entity is at the discretion of its members. However, this structure self-regulates as a representative of the entire Ukrainian legal profession, which it fundamentally is not, deceitfully employing the term “NATIONAL” in its name.

According to Order No. 368/5 from March 5, 2012, by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, the term “national” is used in the names of institutions in the humanitarian sphere in Ukraine that acquire national status in accordance with the Presidential Decree from June 16, 1995, No. 451 “On the Status of National Institutions in Ukraine.” According to this decree, the status of a national institution in Ukraine is conferred by a Presidential Decree, which is absent from the presidential's website.

In every European state, there are not only armed forces but also intelligence agencies. In the context of the modern world, it is impossible to conceal the fact of coercive retention of a nation against its will. Consequently, governments worldwide are aware of significant human rights violations in Ukraine, yet they choose not to inform their citizens about these issues.

The international community prefers not to discuss or analyze the details and legal nuances of the conflict, wherein military actions are not legally defined as warfare, leading to the infringement of the rights of the Ukrainian people for the sake of the defensive, economic, and political interests of Western nations, and the legitimization of the privatization of state property under the condition of zero competition.

According to international law principles, failure to report a crime makes a party complicit in that crime, including crimes committed by the ruling regime in Ukraine.

Ukrainians are forced to fight for their survival not only against Russia but also against the global community, which, by ignoring human rights violation facts and its direct involvement in these violations, contributes to the continuation of the conflict.

Ukrainians abroad face criticism for their non-participation in a war that has not been officially declared and face discrimination due to the privileges granted to them by other states, leading to public discontent and a negative attitude towards Ukrainians from the local population.

There are grounds to believe that the hunting on Ukrainians has already begun, and genocide may become a reality if no appropriate actions are taken. Genocide often starts not with acts of violence but with discriminatory statements in the media and by political figures, which may seem peaceful and harmless at first glance.

For any Ukrainian refugee, their legal counsel, or a foreign immigration officer, our project serves as a comprehensive guide, offering ready-to-use solutions. The preparation of the material was conducted exclusively by Ukrainian attorneys, ensuring its relevance and applicability.

Furthermore, the initiative is set to relentlessly track political speeches and media worldwide, addressing every instance of discrimination against Ukrainians with a strategic and forceful response, ensuring that no slander or biased report goes without appropriate challenge.

E-mail: editor@voiceofukrainians.org 

In a statement to the FOCUS magazine, German journalist Ulrich Reitz controversially labeled Ukrainian refugees as deserters, a term he did not apply to refugees from Syria, Libya, or various African nations. This selective use of the term by Reitz suggests a troubling disparity in the treatment of Ukrainian refugees within Germany, implying a potential prejudice or bias that may unfavorably contrast with the treatment of other refugee groups.   The remarks made by Ulrich Reitz have sparked debate over the potential infringement of various national and international legal principles, particularly those related to the equal treatment of refugees and anti-discrimination. Titles that might reflect the legal and ethical concerns raised by Reitz’s statement could include:   German Laws:   1. Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz - GG): Particularly Articles 1, which ensures human dignity, and Article 3, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of nationality, among other criteria.   2. General Equal Treatment Act (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz - AGG): This act aims to prevent or eliminate discrimination on various grounds, including race or ethnic origin.   International Laws and Conventions:   1. 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol: These establish the rights of refugees and the responsibilities of nations in granting asylum, including the principle of non-discrimination.   2. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): Article 14 prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention.   3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Article 26 ensures equality before the law and non-discrimination.   4. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Although not a treaty itself, it sets out fundamental human rights, including non-discrimination, to be universally protected.   Reitz’s comments could be interpreted as discriminatory or prejudicial, potentially undermining the dignity and rights of Ukrainian refugees, which is protected under both German and international law. 

"The Polish government should help Kiev in the deportation of Ukrainians who are in exile - said General Waldemar Skrzypczak. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs referred to this idea. "We are considering how we can support the Ukrainian side" - said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs..."

Source: gazeta.pl

General Waldemar Skrzypczak’s statements suggesting that the Polish government should assist in the deportation of Ukrainian refugees potentially violates the principle of non-refoulement, which is a fundamental aspect of international refugee law as established by the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. This principle strictly prohibits the forced return of refugees to countries where they are at risk of facing persecution, serious harm, or threats to their life or freedom.

The general’s call for the deportation of Ukrainian refugees, specifically targeting them based on their nationality and potentially their gender, disregards this international legal standard. The principle of non-refoulement is obligatory for all countries, irrespective of their ratification status of the Refugee Convention, and aims to protect the rights and safety of individuals fleeing conflict and persecution.

Furthermore, such discriminatory treatment towards Ukrainian refugees, as opposed to individuals from other conflict-affected regions like the Middle East or Africa, could also be seen as a breach of the principles of equality and non-discrimination, which are core to international human rights law. These principles are enshrined in various international instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Poland is a party.

 

The head of the state does not take adequate measures to restore the housing of Ukrainian citizens who were forced to move from occupied territories or areas where combat operations are conducted, as well as those who have lost their homes and other property due to the occupation.

Many Ukrainian citizens have relatives left in the occupied territories who require assistance and protection, yet the state takes no action to protect them and does not allow family reunions by prohibiting movement across the demarcation line with the occupied territories.

As a result of rights violations, Ukrainian citizens suffer both moral and material damage.

Moral harm is recognized as suffering inflicted on a citizen due to physical or psychological impact, leading to a deterioration or loss of opportunities to engage in their usual habits and desires, worsening relationships with others, and other negative moral consequences.

Compensation for moral harm is made in cases where unlawful actions by state bodies have inflicted moral loss on a citizen, led to the disruption of normal life connections, and required the citizen to make additional efforts to organize their life.

Due to the actions of officials, the rights and freedoms were restricted and violated.

Compensation for moral harm during the period of stay in a country in a de facto state of war and where martial law has been imposed should be based on an amount not less than one minimum wage for each day.

The violations required me to make constant additional efforts to organize my life as a restricted person, impacting my entire future life and disrupting people’s future plans.

Moreover, citizens constantly have to engage in disputes with state representatives, prove their righteousness in courts, and obtain professional legal assistance to restore their rights, although Ukrainian courts, in reality, do not make decisions on adequate compensation for the inflicted moral harm, settling for trivial amounts approximately equivalent to 100 euros, demeaning human dignity.

The violation of the constitutional right to non-discrimination also causes moral pain to many citizens since other categories of Ukrainian citizens can enjoy rights that they cannot.

Additionally, this situation causes emotional distress to the relatives of the person whose rights are violated, who worry for them because the individual has to fight against state bodies in a situation of human rights non-compliance in the country, negatively affecting the psychological state of Ukrainian citizens.

Due to the inability of people to restore their violated rights and the constant threat to their lives, health, and psychological state from ongoing shelling of Ukrainian territory and armed aggression by the armed forces of the Russian Federation, which was effectively a result of the unlawful conduct of state leadership up to the year 2022, this all could lead to more severe consequences at any time.

This causes particular inconvenience, requiring the individual to make additional efforts to organize their life.

The leadership of the country is objectively suspected of embezzling property, that is, resources belonging to the citizens of Ukraine.

In 2023, with the assistance of parliament, the possibility was introduced to apply probationary supervision as a new form of punishment instead of imprisonment for individuals found guilty of abusing their official position, giving bribes, and bribing officials of private legal entities. In effect, such individuals would not face actual punishment.

Furthermore, one of the most frequently applied categories in the economic sphere is the composition of fraud as a criminal offense.

In Ukrainian judicial practice, for many cases of bribery, corruption, and official crimes, the criminal law provided by Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (fraud) is applied, as it can be demonstrated in court that the corrupt individual did not act as an official.

On August 11, 2023, a law came into effect amending Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. According to this, part 4 of the said article was renamed as part 5.

Due to such simple manipulations, fraudsters who committed fraud on a particularly large scale before August 11, 2023, will not be held accountable for their actions, as requalifying their actions to part 5 is impossible, and part 4 now contains a different set of crimes not applicable to other actions.

The amendments to Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine were made possible by introducing an amendment before the second reading without discussing this amendment in the relevant parliamentary committees, in the scientific-expert institute, legal community, and it was not put up for discussion among the citizens of Ukraine. Thus, the changes were made by misleading the people of Ukraine.

It can be stated that public officials are preparing escape routes for themselves and modifying legislation so that they cannot be held criminally accountable in the future should the power change.

This will lead to the impossibility of compensating Ukrainian citizens for the material and moral damages caused by the illegal activities of fraudsters.

Ukrainian administrative courts are systematically denying Ukrainian citizens satisfaction in lawsuits challenging the decisions of military personnel of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine on the temporary restriction of their rights as Ukrainian citizens to leave Ukraine; the recognition as illegal and the annulment of their decisions to deny crossing the state border of Ukraine, and the obligation for them to provide Ukrainian citizens with permissions to cross the state border of Ukraine on a permanent basis according to the law, based on the passport of a citizen of Ukraine for foreign travel.

The basis for the refusal to satisfy the claim, as stated in the court decision, is that the court considers that the Rules for Crossing the State Border by Citizens of Ukraine, approved by the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 57 dated 17.01.1995 (hereinafter also referred to as the Rules), establish that in cases defined by legislation, for crossing the state border, citizens must also present supporting documents in addition to passport documents. According to the court’s conclusion, my right to leave the country was limited by specific provisions of the Rules for Crossing the State Border by Citizens of Ukraine.

The courts justify their decision by the fact that at the time of the disputed legal relations, martial law was in effect in Ukraine, and a general mobilization was declared, and therefore the constitutional right of Ukrainian citizens to freely leave Ukraine was limited by legislation.

However, neither the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law”, nor the Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 64/2022 “On the Introduction of Martial Law in Ukraine”, nor the Law of Ukraine “On Approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine ‘On the Introduction of Martial Law in Ukraine’” dated 24.02.2022, nor the Law of Ukraine “On Approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine ‘On the Introduction of Martial Law in Ukraine’” dated 24.02.2022, nor the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 57, to which the courts and officials of the border guard units refer as the legal basis for the legitimacy of the contested decision, contain requirements for restricting the right to leave Ukraine and necessary grounds for the right to cross the state border.

The aforementioned legal acts do not contain norms on the restriction of men’s departure from Ukraine during martial law; therefore, the refusal to cross the state border of Ukraine is unfounded, and the decisions of the border guards and courts cannot be considered in accordance with the current legislation of Ukraine.

According to current legislation, military personnel do not have the right to restrict the rights of Ukrainian citizens, yet they do so with verbal permission from the state leadership.

The separation of state power is the structural differentiation of three coequal primary functions of the state: legislative, executive, and judicial. It reflects the functional definiteness of each state organ, entails not only the demarcation of their powers but also their interaction, a system of mutual checks and balances aimed at ensuring their cooperation as a single state authority.

The principle of the separation of state powers only becomes meaningful under the condition that all state authorities act within a unified legal field.

This means that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches exercise their powers within the limits established by the Constitution of Ukraine and in accordance with the laws of Ukraine (Part Two of Article 6 of the Constitution).

State authorities and local self-government bodies, and their officials are obliged to act only on the basis, within the limits of the powers, and in the manner provided by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine (Part Two of Article 19 of the Constitution of Ukraine).

The strict adherence by the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to the Constitution and laws of Ukraine ensures the implementation of the principle of separation of powers and is a guarantee of their unity, an important condition for stability, maintaining public peace, and concord in the state.

Systemic violations of the principle of separation of powers always lead to adverse outcomes in all countries if not halted at the onset. This is invariably accompanied by slogans about protecting the country’s security, societal needs, and the necessity for anti-corruption reforms.

Currently, in Ukraine, all power resides with an unauthorized institution - the Office of the President of Ukraine, whose officials control all branches of power, constituting a breach of democratic principles, and consequently, a violation of the rights of Ukrainian citizens to governance in their country.

In Ukraine, the actions of unlawful judicial authorities fail to protect the rights and legitimate interests of citizens.

During the judicial reform of 2016, the Supreme Court of Ukraine was abolished. A new Supreme Court was established in its place through a separate competition. The authors of the reform intended this process to purge the highest judicial body of corrupt judges. The parliament amended the Constitution and changed the name of the institution from “Supreme Court of Ukraine” (SCU) to simply “Supreme Court” (SC).

In February 2020, the Constitutional Court issued a decision declaring the abolition of the SCU unconstitutional and called on the parliament to immediately rectify the situation. This decision recognized the abolition of the Supreme Court of Ukraine and the provisions on lower amounts of lifetime financial support for retired judges who did not pass the qualification assessment as unconstitutional.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in case No. 11423/19 “Gumenyuk and others vs. Ukraine” concluded that the abolition of the Supreme Court of Ukraine during the 2016 judicial reform was unlawful, as stated in the ECHR’s decision of July 22.

The attempt to abolish Ukraine’s highest judicial body violated two articles of the international Convention on Human Rights, particularly the right to a fair trial, as stated in the decision.

However, until this time, the Supreme Court operates in Ukraine without the “of Ukraine” suffix.

On December 13, 2022, the Verkhovna Rada passed a law on the liquidation of the District Administrative Court of the city of Kyiv, which was initiated and then signed by the President of Ukraine.

Subsequently, tens of thousands of cases that were under the jurisdiction of the District Administrative Court of the city of Kyiv were transferred to the Kyiv District Administrative Court.

Since the primary function of the District Administrative Court of the city of Kyiv was to resolve disputes between citizens and central authorities, these appeals are now effectively blocked. Cases are not being heard, thereby the right to a fair trial against the President of Ukraine, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, and other authorities in Kyiv is compromised.

Ukrainian authorities and officials within the European Union are accusing thousands of Ukrainian men of crimes stipulated by Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (evasion from mobilization) without having sufficient grounds for such accusations, as they lack information that these individuals are sought for committed crimes. Consequently, they predispose local citizens of the EU against Ukrainian men, which may lead to illegal actions against Ukrainians who are refugees in other countries.

They assert that Ukrainians should return and fight for their families, thereby unequivocally proposing to discriminate against men. This constitutes discrimination on the basis of gender.

Article 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Rome, 4.XI.1950) prohibits discrimination. The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention must be secured without any discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, color of skin, language, religion, political or other beliefs, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property status, birth, or any other status.

According to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Rome, 4.XI.2000), no one shall be discriminated against by any public authority on any ground such as those mentioned in the first section of this article.

Thus, the Law of Ukraine “On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization” was amended in 2005 with Article 23, during Ukraine’s first revolution (Orange Revolution), to include, among others, the right for members of the Ukrainian parliament and deputies of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea to defer conscription during mobilization.

In 2014, following the second revolution (Euromaidan), the aforementioned article was supplemented with a new section according to Law No. 1575-VII of July 3, 2014, establishing that full-time students are also exempt from conscription for military service during mobilization and special periods.

In 2022, following a large-scale invasion, the article was further amended to exempt individuals with a spouse with disabilities and/or one of their parents or the spouse’s parents with a disability of group I or II from conscription during mobilization (paragraph eleven of part one of Article 23 in the version of Law No. 2122-IX of March 15, 2022).

However, in 2023, the rights granted were narrowed, and individuals with a spouse with a disability and/or one of their parents or the spouse’s parents with a disability of group I or II were granted the right to exemption from conscription only under the condition that such individuals with disabilities do not have other able-bodied individuals legally obliged to support them (paragraph eleven of part one of Article 23 in the version of Law No. 2122-IX of March 15, 2022; with amendments made according to Law No. 3161-IX of June 28, 2023).

Despite the explicit prohibition set forth in Article 22 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the authorities have narrowed the content and scope of the existing rights and freedoms of citizens.

It is reminded that constitutional rights and freedoms are guaranteed and cannot be abrogated. The introduction of new laws or amendments to existing laws must not reduce the content and scope of existing rights and freedoms.

Thus, while amendments to laws may introduce additional human rights and freedoms, the reduction in the content and scope of existing rights and freedoms is not permissible.

Currently, there are attempts to narrow the rights of students by amending the aforementioned article of the Law of Ukraine “On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization,” which continues the policy of violating the Constitution of Ukraine and human rights.

By Resolution No. 724 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated August 25, 2010, amendments were introduced to paragraph 4 of point 2 of the Rules for the Crossing of the State Border by Citizens of Ukraine, previously approved by its Resolution No. 57 dated January 27, 1995.

According to the aforementioned amendments, it was established that “In cases determined by legislation, for crossing the state border, citizens must also have supporting documents in addition to passport documents.”

Thus, the government had preemptively taken certain actions by adopting Resolution No. 724 dated August 25, 2010, which limited the existing scope of rights of Ukrainian citizens to cross the state border of Ukraine, and this was later utilized in 2022.

In 2022, continuing its unlawful actions aimed at narrowing the rights of Ukrainian citizens, the government introduced additional amendments to the Rules for the Crossing of the State Border by Citizens of Ukraine, approved by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 57 dated January 27, 1995, specifically by adopting point 2-6 of these Rules, which stated: “In the event of the imposition of a state of emergency or martial law within the territory of Ukraine, the right to cross the state border, besides the individuals specified in points 2-1 and 2-2 of these Rules, is also granted to other military-liable individuals not subject to conscription during mobilization. This provision does not apply to individuals specified in paragraphs two to eight of part three of Article 23 of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization’, as well as point 2-14 of these Rules.”, adopted by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 383 dated March 29, 2022, with amendments introduced by Resolution No. 399 dated April 1, 2022, No. 69 dated January 27, 2023.

The government also took specific actions by adopting Resolutions No. 383 dated March 29, 2022, and No. 399 dated April 1, 2022, which limited the existing scope of my rights and the rights of other Ukrainian citizens to cross the state border of Ukraine, by establishing a limitation (restriction on the content and scope of the existing right and freedom) on crossing the state border in case of the imposition of a state of emergency or martial law within the territory of Ukraine, thus restricting the existing rights of Ukrainian citizens.

Furthermore, the Ukrainian government adopted Resolutions No. 1044 dated September 10, 2022, No. 264 dated March 12, 2022, No. 411 dated April 5, 2022, No. 615 dated May 20, 2022, No. 1285, No. 992 dated September 2, 2022, No. 1148 dated October 4, 2022, No. 119 dated February 10, 2023, No. 69 dated January 27, 2023, No. 661 dated June 10, 2022, which during 2022 modified points 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-17 of the Rules for the Crossing of the State Border by Citizens of Ukraine, also establishing additional restrictions on the constitutional right of Ukrainian citizens to leave the territory of Ukraine (the right to freely leave the territory of Ukraine), creating discrimination and additional privileges for certain categories of citizens, and thus limiting the scope and content of the rights and freedoms of Ukrainian citizens to leave the territory of Ukraine (the right to freely leave the territory of Ukraine).

The established restrictions single out a specific category of individuals, namely military-liable individuals not subject to conscription during mobilization, in addition to individuals specified in paragraphs two to eight of part three of Article 23 of the Law of Ukraine “On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization”, as well as individuals with disabilities and other categories of people granted privileges in exercising the constitutional right to leave the country. This constitutes clear discrimination.

Point 12 of the aforementioned Rules further narrows the previously existing rights of citizens and establishes that for the execution of border control, citizens present to the authorized officials of the state border guard service passport documents, and in cases prescribed by legislation, supporting documents as well.

During the document check at departure from Ukraine, the presence or absence of grounds for temporary restriction of the citizen’s right to leave the country is determined.

Previously, the 1995 version of Clause 12 of the Regulations stated, “Border control is conducted: upon exiting Ukraine – after completing all necessary types of control; upon entering Ukraine – before conducting other types of control,” which did not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of citizens.

The new edition of the Regulations was approved by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on August 25, 2010, No. 724 “On Amendments to the Rules for Crossing the State Border by Citizens of Ukraine,” which effectively narrowed the scope of existing rights and freedoms of citizens, including by granting additional powers in Clause 12 for conducting border control and imposing an obligation on citizens to present, in addition to passport documents, other “supporting documents” to authorized officials of the state border protection units.

Article 64, Part 2 of the Constitution of Ukraine notes that rights and freedoms provided by Article 24 of the Constitution cannot be restricted.

Article 24 of the Constitution of Ukraine establishes that citizens have equal constitutional rights and freedoms and are equal before the law. There can be no privileges or restrictions based on race, skin color, political, religious, and other beliefs, gender, ethnic and social origin, property status, place of residence, language, or other characteristics.

Article 22 of the Constitution of Ukraine states that the adoption of new laws or amendments to existing laws must not diminish the content and scope of existing rights and freedoms.

Therefore, it is not possible to amend the law to impose restrictions on the freedom of citizens to leave the country beyond those in effect at the time of the Constitution of Ukraine’s adoption.

It is constitutionally infeasible to amend the Law of Ukraine “On the Procedure for Exit from Ukraine and Entry into Ukraine of Ukrainian Citizens” or to issue other normative legal acts that would narrow the existing right of a Ukrainian citizen to leave Ukraine, as any action to narrow this right directly violates the laws.

Subordinate legal acts, like laws, are obligatory and have the necessary legal force. However, their effect is limited by law: they cannot exceed the bounds of legislative regulation, and their norms are secondary to those of the law. Subordinate legal acts cannot change or repeal legal norms.

Therefore, if the law does not establish an obligation for Ukrainian citizens to have, in addition to passport documents, also supporting documents for crossing the state border, then the aforementioned resolution of the respondent should be recognized as unlawful and invalid.

According to Parts 2 and 3 of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, guaranteeing certain rights and freedoms not included in the Convention and its First Protocol:

“2. Everyone is free to leave any country, including their own. 3. No restrictions on the exercise of these rights shall be imposed except such as are in accordance with the law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the maintenance of public order, for the prevention of crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

 

The Constitutional Court of Ukraine, in its decision No. 10-r/2020 dated August 28, 2020, stated that “the restriction of constitutional rights and freedoms of a person and citizen is possible only in cases defined by the Constitution of Ukraine. Such restriction can only be established by law – an act adopted by the Verkhovna Rada as the sole legislative authority in Ukraine. Establishing such a restriction by a subordinate legal act contradicts Articles 1, 3, 6, 8, 19, 64 of the Constitution of Ukraine” (paragraph 3.2 of the reasoning part of the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated August 28, 2020, No. 10-r/2020).

The Constitutional Court of Ukraine clarified that, according to paragraphs 41 and 45 of the Report “Rule of Law,” approved by the European Commission “For Democracy through Law” (25-26 March 2011), the elements of the rule of law include: legality, including a transparent, accountable, and democratic process of enacting legal provisions; legal certainty; prohibition of arbitrariness; access to justice, represented by independent and impartial courts, including those exercising judicial oversight over administrative activity; respect for human rights; prohibition of discrimination and equality before the law.

In this context, a law that grants discretionary powers to a certain state body must clearly and understandably delineate the scope of such discretion. It would not be in accordance with the rule of law if the discretion granted to the executive authority by the law amounted to unchecked power.

Therefore, the law must specify the scope of any such discretion and the manner of its exercise with sufficient clarity so that individuals can adequately protect themselves against arbitrary actions by the authorities.

Hence, according to experts, the issue of the list of individuals allowed to travel abroad during the legal regime of martial law cannot be partially addressed in the law, delegating almost unlimited powers to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine to define other categories of such individuals allowed such departure.

In other words, any restrictions on the right of a Ukrainian citizen to depart from Ukraine must be governed and are currently governed solely by law, and this law is No. 3857-XII dated January 21, 1994, “On the Procedure for Departure from Ukraine and Entry into Ukraine of Ukrainian Citizens.”

Furthermore, in its decision dated April 1, 2008, No. 4-rp/2008, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine emphasized that the strict adherence to the Constitution and laws of Ukraine by legislative, executive, and judicial authorities ensures the implementation of the principle of the separation of powers and is a guarantee of their unity, an important precondition for the stability and maintenance of public peace and concord in the state.

Article 3 of Ukraine’s “Law on the Procedure for Departure from and Entry into Ukraine by Ukrainian Citizens” sets forth a straightforward principle: Ukrainian citizens should cross the state border at designated points, armed with the requisite documents enumerated in Article 2. This provision ensures a structured and lawful framework for international travel.

However, Regulation No. 57 introduces a murky area during martial law periods, failing to explicitly mandate additional documentation for men, thereby creating a loophole that undermines the clarity and intent of the law. Moreover, the regulation ambiguously skirts around the issue of whether Ukrainian males aged 18 to 60 are outright forbidden from exiting Ukraine during martial law, leaving room for arbitrary enforcement and potential misuse of power.

Paragraph 2 of the Rules attempts to clarify the procedure for crossing the state border, emphasizing the necessity of presenting legally sanctioned documents, such as a passport for international travel. The law underscores that any supplementary document requirements must be transparently stipulated within the legislative texts. Yet, the ambiguity persists.

The interpretation by certain courts and public officials, suggesting that the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine augmented the border crossing regulations with points 2-1 to 2-13 to outline exit conditions under martial law, blatantly contradicts Ukrainian Law, the Constitution, and the nation’s obligations under international treaties. This misinterpretation represents a gross attempt to distort the legal framework based on judicially established precedents. Notably, the Cabinet’s amendments did not introduce new restrictions but vaguely suggested the provision of additional documents for specific groups, leaving the passport as the primary travel document.

Despite the legal safeguards intended to protect citizens’ rights, the Ukrainian military and judiciary have continued to unlawfully restrict male citizens’ rights to depart. This ongoing infringement not only violates the explicit stipulations of Ukrainian law and constitutional guarantees but also flouts the principles of transparency, legality, and individual freedom. The actions of these bodies, in failing to adhere to the legal and constitutional framework, amount to an egregious breach of trust and an assault on the fundamental rights of Ukrainian citizens. The persistence of such restrictive practices highlights a disturbing trend of overreach and disregard for the rule of law, necessitating urgent scrutiny and rectification to restore citizens’ rights and uphold democratic principles.

Under Article 313 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, it is provided that an individual has the right to freedom of movement. An individual who has reached the age of sixteen has the right to freely and independently depart from the territory of Ukraine. An individual’s right to movement can only be restricted in cases established by law.   The Preamble of the Law of Ukraine No. 3857-XII dated January 21, 1994, “On the Procedure for Departure from Ukraine and Entry into Ukraine of Ukrainian Citizens,” states:

“This Law regulates the procedure for exercising the right of Ukrainian citizens to depart from Ukraine and enter Ukraine, the procedure for processing documents for foreign travel, determines the cases of temporary restriction of citizens’ right to depart from Ukraine, and establishes the procedure for resolving disputes in this sphere.”   Article 1 of the Law establishes that a citizen of Ukraine has the right to depart from Ukraine, except in cases provided for by this Law, and to enter Ukraine.   Thus, the above provision establishes that only this Law, and not any other normative legal act (presidential decree, government resolutions, other laws, directives, and letters from the head of the border service, security service, etc.), may establish cases in which a citizen of Ukraine does not have the right to depart from Ukraine.   Such restrictions are specified in Article 6 of the Law of Ukraine on the Procedure for Departure from Ukraine and Entry into Ukraine of Ukrainian Citizens, which sets forth exclusive grounds for temporary restriction of the right of Ukrainian citizens to depart from Ukraine.   Accordingly, the right of a Ukrainian citizen to depart from Ukraine can be temporarily restricted only in 6 cases:   1. If they are privy to information constituting a state secret, until the expiration of the term set by Article 12 of this Law;   2. If a measure of restraint is applied to them in accordance with criminal procedural legislation, under the terms of which they are prohibited from traveling abroad, until the end of the criminal proceedings or the lifting of the respective restrictions;   3. If they are convicted of committing a criminal offense, until serving the sentence or being released from the punishment;   4. If they are evading the fulfillment of obligations imposed by a court decision or decision of other bodies (officials) subject to mandatory enforcement under the law, until fulfilling the obligations or paying off the debt on alimony payments;   5. If they are under administrative supervision of the National Police, until the termination of such supervision;   6. If they are a leader of a legal entity or a permanent establishment of a non-resident (according to information from the Unified State Register, provided in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On State Registration of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs, and Public Formations”), not fulfilling the tax obligation to pay financial obligations as established by the Tax Code of Ukraine, which led to the emergence of a tax debt exceeding 1 million hryvnias for such a legal entity or permanent establishment of a non-resident, and if such tax debt is not paid within 240 calendar days from the day of delivery of the tax demand to the taxpayer, until the payment of such tax debt, in connection with which such restriction is established.   Thus, the analysis of these legislative provisions indicates the existence of a significant range of grounds for restricting freedom of movement and fairly broad discretionary powers of state authorities and their officials on these matters.   Moreover, this article has been edited before, meaning changes have been made to it. Despite the prohibition of such manipulations with the establishment of additional restrictions on human rights, this law was adopted before the adoption of the Constitution, and accordingly, citizens’ rights to restrictions on departure from the country cannot be narrowed as long as the Constitution of Ukraine exists and Ukraine exists as a country.

State officials in Ukraine are engaged in a blatant disregard for constitutional rights, notably violating Article 33 of the Ukrainian Constitution, which unequivocally guarantees every individual within Ukraine’s territory the freedom of movement, the free choice of residence, and the unrestricted right to leave the country, subject only to legal restrictions. In a grave overstep, these officials are enforcing subordinate regulations—namely, the Rules for crossing the state border established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine under Law No. 3857-XII—which, not being laws themselves, starkly contradict the Constitution, the Law of Ukraine, and the stipulations of international treaties.

This overreach is further compounded by the military command’s misuse of their authority to limit citizens’ movements, an authority that should be strictly defined by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine as outlined in point 6 of part 1 of Article 8 of the Law “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law”. The “Procedure for establishing a special regime of entry and exit, restriction of the freedom of movement of citizens, foreigners, and stateless persons, as well as the movement of vehicles in Ukraine or in its specific localities where martial law is introduced,” approved by the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 1455 dated December 29, 2021, explicitly delineates the scope of these measures as internal to Ukraine.

Crucially, point 8 of this Procedure clarifies that the crossing of state borders and the imposition of any restrictions at border crossing points must be governed by existing legislation, not by the Procedure itself. This point decisively indicates that the military command’s powers do not extend to border crossings, which are to be regulated by other legal instruments, including international treaties and the Law of Ukraine “On the Procedure for Exit from Ukraine and Entry into Ukraine of Ukrainian Citizens”.

Thus, any arbitrary restrictions imposed by border service officials or state leadership on crossing the state border are not only unfounded but also constitute a direct assault on the legal and constitutional rights of Ukrainian citizens. Such actions by state officials represent a stark violation of the rule of law and a profound failure to uphold the fundamental rights enshrined in the Ukrainian Constitution.

In a blatant defiance of the legal framework set by Law 389-VIII, “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law,” dated May 12, 2015, the military command has engaged in egregious overreaches that starkly violate the constitutional rights of Ukrainian citizens. This law, which specifies the conditions under which martial law may be invoked, clearly limits the scope of temporary restrictions on rights and freedoms to those expressly outlined by presidential decree and ratified by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

Contrary to these legal stipulations, the military command has usurped powers not granted to them, notably by imposing unwarranted restrictions on citizens’ freedom to move and cross borders. Such actions blatantly contravene the directives of Article 3, Section 2, and point 6 of part 1 of Article 8 of Law 389, which confine military authority to specific measures such as establishing special entry and exit regimes within Ukraine, as detailed by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 1455 resolution dated December 29, 2021.

This unauthorized assertion of power by the military at border crossings is a clear infringement of the Law of Ukraine “On the Procedure for Exit from Ukraine and Entry into Ukraine of Ukrainian Citizens,” and represents a direct assault on the fundamental rights of individuals. Furthermore, Article 6 of Law 389 unequivocally mandates that any restrictions on constitutional rights due to martial law must be explicitly enumerated in the President’s decree, a requirement grossly ignored in these instances.

The military and police’s arbitrary confiscation of vehicles from citizens and businesses, without due legal process or subsequent accountability, is a stark violation of property rights and rule of law principles. The absence of state-led efforts to locate this confiscated property or compensate the aggrieved parties highlights a disturbing disregard for legal norms and the well-being of Ukrainian citizens.

These actions by the military command not only exceed their legal mandates but also erode the very foundations of justice and democratic governance, betraying the trust of the Ukrainian populace and undermining the integrity of the state’s commitment to uphold the rule of law and protect citizens’ rights and freedoms.

Article 106 of the Ukrainian Constitution clearly delineates the powers vested in the President of Ukraine, notably omitting any authority to curtail citizens’ rights, even amidst the enactment of martial law. Despite this constitutional limitation, Ukrainian courts have erroneously upheld Presidential Decree No. 64/2022, dated 24 February 2022, “On the Imposition of Martial Law in Ukraine,” as a basis for restricting the fundamental right of citizens to freely exit the country during martial law periods.

Such interpretations grossly exceed the constitutional framework, as it is unequivocally impermissible under Ukrainian law to introduce amendments or new regulations that impose restrictions on the freedom of citizens to leave the country that are more stringent than those existing at the time of the Constitution’s enactment in 1996.

The constitutional and legal landscape of Ukraine does not permit the amendment of the Law of Ukraine “On the Procedure for Exit from Ukraine and Entry into Ukraine for Ukrainian Citizens” or the enactment of other regulatory legal acts to unjustly narrow the pre-established right of Ukrainian citizens to exit the nation. Any attempt to constrict this fundamental right represents a blatant violation of the law.

Yet, Ukrainian courts persist in the misguided assertion that for a male citizen aged 18 to 60 to depart from Ukraine during martial law, he must present additional documentation verifying his legal military status, thereby imposing an undue burden that finds no basis in existing legislation. This judicial stance not only contravenes the Constitution but also undermines the rule of law, casting a shadow over the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the legal rights and freedoms of Ukrainian citizens.

Despite the clear directives of Part 2 of Article 64 and Article 24 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which mandate the equality of all citizens and prohibit any restrictions on constitutional rights and freedoms based on gender, social, or economic status, even during martial law, Ukrainian authorities have instituted discriminatory practices that starkly contravene these constitutional provisions.

Article 24 emphatically asserts the principle of equality before the law, explicitly forbidding any form of discrimination, including on the grounds of gender or social origin. Yet, in a blatant disregard for these constitutional safeguards, Ukrainian policies during martial law have unjustly targeted men aged 18 to 60, along with those outside the echelons of state leadership, imposing on them undue restrictions on their right to exit the country.

This selective enforcement of travel restrictions not only violates the Constitution of Ukraine but also undermines the very principles of equality and justice that form the bedrock of a democratic society. The imposition of such discriminatory measures based on gender and social status is a direct affront to the rule of law and represents a grievous breach of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every Ukrainian citizen.

State officials and the judiciary in Ukraine are engaging in a flagrant violation of the Constitution by failing to uphold the unequivocal mandates of Article 22, which solemnly guarantees the inviolability of constitutional rights and freedoms. This article explicitly states that no new law or amendment can curtail the breadth and depth of the existing rights and liberties afforded to Ukrainian citizens.

The government’s enactment of subordinate legislative acts that diminish these rights further exacerbates this breach of constitutional duty, directly contravening the legal principle that no legislative change should ever infringe upon the established freedoms of the populace.

Current Ukrainian legislation categorically prohibits any modification to laws that would unjustly impose additional constraints on the citizens’ inherent freedom to exit the country or evade conscription during periods of mobilization, as previously delineated by law.

The situation is further aggravated by pervasive discriminatory practices sanctioned by the state, in clear violation of Part 2 of Article 64 and Article 24 of the Constitution of Ukraine. These articles enshrine the principle of equality before the law, prohibiting any form of discrimination based on race, gender, ethnic background, social status, or any other characteristic.

Despite these constitutional safeguards, Ukrainian men aged 18 to 60 and those outside the echelons of state leadership face unjust restrictions on their freedom to leave the country—a discriminatory policy that blatantly favors certain demographics over others. This discrimination not only undermines the spirit of equality enshrined in the Ukrainian Constitution but also highlights a systemic failure to protect the fundamental human rights of all Ukrainian citizens, particularly in times of martial law.

This deliberate neglect and the discriminatory application of the law by Ukrainian state officials and the judiciary represent a grave assault on the rule of law and the democratic principles that form the bedrock of Ukrainian society.

In a flagrant violation of constitutional law, military entities such as the Armed Forces of Ukraine, State Border Guard Service of Ukraine, National Guard of Ukraine, and others, along with state and judicial bodies and their officials, are systematically infringing upon the rights and freedoms of Ukrainian citizens, directly contravening Article 17 of the Constitution of Ukraine. This article explicitly prohibits the use of military formations to restrict citizens’ liberties.

Despite the clear mandate in Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine on the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which obligates military administrative bodies to uphold the constitutional ban against employing the Armed Forces to curtail civil rights, there exists a pervasive pattern of rights violations orchestrated by the military. These include unauthorized detentions at borders, prevention of citizens’ departures, arbitrary street detentions, and illicit confinements within so-called mobilization and social support centers - Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support.

Such actions not only defy the Constitution but also transgress criminal law, as delineated in Part 3 of Article 371 and Part 3 of Article 146 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. These articles prescribe severe penalties for unlawful detention, confinement, and kidnapping, highlighting the criminal nature of these military actions.

Furthermore, Article 426-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine penalizes the abuse of power by military officials, underscoring that any overextension of authority, especially during martial law or combat situations, that results in significant harm, is subject to stringent legal consequences.

The persistence of these unlawful military actions signifies the existence of a coordinated effort to perpetrate mass crimes against Ukrainian citizens, effectively constituting a criminal organization with a defined hierarchy and malicious intent.

Despite numerous criminal proceedings initiated against these unlawful military actions, a concerning lack of accountability prevails. Law enforcement agencies, including the police and the State Bureau of Investigations, fail to thoroughly investigate these crimes, leading to a judicial stalemate where the perpetrators remain unpunished.

Compounding this alarming situation is the state and judiciary’s failure to adhere to Article 22 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which safeguards constitutional rights and freedoms from cancellation or diminution. This neglect extends to the refusal to amend legislation in a manner that would unjustly impose additional restrictions on citizens’ freedoms, particularly concerning the freedom to leave the country and exemption from conscription during mobilization.

Moreover, this systemic disregard for constitutional protections has led to egregious instances of discrimination based on gender, social, and property status, in direct violation of Part 2 of Article 64 and Article 24 of the Constitution of Ukraine. The discriminatory policies, which unjustly restrict the mobility of men aged 18 to 60 and those not in state leadership roles, starkly contrast with the freedoms afforded to other demographic groups, further exacerbating the legal and moral crisis.

In sum, the widespread abuse of military power and the judiciary’s complicity in these acts represent a grave breach of Ukraine’s legal and constitutional framework, undermining the rule of law and eroding the foundational principles of justice and equality in the country.

Ukrainian courts are engaging in a deliberate and egregious violation of international law by systematically ignoring the rights enshrined in significant international treaties to which Ukraine is unequivocally bound. The blatant disregard for Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ratified under Ukrainian Law No. 475/97-VR on 17 July 1997, which unequivocally grants individuals the right to leave any country, is a stark testament to the judiciary’s neglect of its legal obligations.

This flagrant oversight is compounded by the courts’ failure to uphold Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Decree No. 2148-VIII on 19 October 1973, which similarly safeguards the freedom of movement. The judiciary’s neglect of this critical provision further exposes a deep-seated contempt for Ukraine’s international commitments.

The disregard extends to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a cornerstone of global human rights adopted on 10 December 1948, which guarantees freedom of movement and residence. The Ukrainian judiciary’s blatant indifference to this fundamental right is a grave affront to international human rights standards.

Furthermore, the actions of Ukrainian courts blatantly contravene Article 13 of the Law of Ukraine No. 3857-XII dated 21 January 1994, “On the Procedure for Leaving and Entering Ukraine for Ukrainian Citizens,” which clearly mandates that international treaties take precedence over conflicting national laws. This willful disregard represents a severe breach of both Ukraine’s domestic legal framework and its international obligations.

The Ukrainian judiciary’s persistent refusal to adhere to these binding international laws is not merely a breach of legal duty; it is a calculated assault on the very principles of justice, fairness, and human dignity. By willfully neglecting its legal responsibilities, the Ukrainian judiciary is betraying Ukraine’s pledge to uphold human rights and is depriving its citizens of their rightful freedoms and protections on the global stage. The actions of the Ukrainian courts in this regard are not just a failure to uphold the law but a direct attack on the integrity of Ukraine’s commitment to international law and the fundamental rights of its citizens.

From a legal standpoint, the concept of “martial law” is more thoroughly delineated within Ukraine’s “Law on the Legal Regime of Martial Law” compared to the vague treatment of a “state of war” in the “Defense of Ukraine Law.” The crucial distinction rests on international acknowledgment of Ukraine being in a state of war, a status vital for rectifying breached human rights. Yet, the Ukrainian government’s failure to formally recognize a state of war with the Russian Federation has left Ukraine and Russia in a de facto state of peace. This omission blocks the path to formally concluding the war, achieving peace, and significantly, robs Ukrainian citizens of the chance to reclaim their rights and seek reparations for the war’s toll from Russia.

The imposition of martial law in Ukraine has led to curtailed citizen rights, with far-reaching implications for Ukraine’s diplomatic engagements, notably hindering Ukrainian citizens’ prospects of obtaining reparations from Russia through international legal channels.

Currently, in the eyes of international legal bodies, from the UN to various arbitration panels, the conflict is not recognized as a war. There exists a state of martial law and isolated military engagements, but neither Ukraine nor Russia is deemed to be in a formal state of war under international law.

This situation opens the door to potential misuse of the martial law regime for undemocratic practices within Ukraine, such as quashing civil protests and orchestrating governmental coups.

Given that neither the “Law on the Legal Regime of Martial Law,” the Presidential Decree No. 64/2022 introducing martial law, the law endorsing this decree, nor the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 57 explicitly mention restrictions on leaving Ukraine or the requisite conditions for border crossing, the contested decision lacks proper legal foundation.

None of these legal documents specify limitations on the rights of Ukrainian citizens, including men’s rights to exit Ukraine during martial law. This glaring legal oversight represents a stark abdication of responsibility by the Ukrainian government, leaving its citizens entangled in a web of legal ambiguity and injustice.

According to Article 106, Section 20 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the President, in accordance with the law, decides on general or partial mobilization and the imposition of martial law in Ukraine or in its specific areas in the event of a threat of aggression, danger to the state independence of Ukraine.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law” of December 12, 2015, No. 389-VIII, martial law is a special legal regime introduced in Ukraine or in its specific areas in the event of armed aggression or the threat of attack, danger to the state independence of Ukraine, its territorial integrity, and involves granting the relevant state authorities, military command, military administrations, and local self-government bodies the powers necessary to prevent the threat, repel armed aggression, and ensure national security, eliminate the threat to the state independence of Ukraine, its territorial integrity, as well as the temporary restriction of the constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals and citizens and the rights and lawful interests of legal entities with the indication of the duration of these restrictions.

That is, it is precisely the President who makes the above decisions, and these decisions are made by him at a stage when there is a danger or threat, but not when an attack has already occurred.

Such a decision should have been made by the President of Ukraine well before the start of the armed aggression on February 24, 2024, several months before this date, when he became aware of the threat of attack.

However, the President failed to fulfill his duties, thereby endangering the lives, health, and property of Ukrainian citizens. He introduced martial law and general mobilization after the start of armed aggression against Ukraine, that is, with a clear delay.

At that time, he should have taken measures to declare a state of war and make a decision on the use of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which by then should have already been properly staffed, including those called up during the preliminary mobilization of citizens.

Thus, according to Article 106, Section 19 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the President submits to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine a proposal to declare a state of war, and in the event of armed aggression against Ukraine, makes a decision on the use of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations established in accordance with the laws of Ukraine.

That is, in the event of armed aggression against Ukraine, the President is not endowed with the right to declare a state of war; such powers are only vested in the parliament, that is, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

It turns out that according to the Constitution of Ukraine, the President makes a decision on the use of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations after the declaration of a state of war.

However, the President of Ukraine did not submit to the parliament a proposal to declare a state of war, and bypassing the introduction of a state of war, made a decision on the use of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations, issuing the corresponding decree, which nevertheless, without the introduced state of war, was approved by the parliament controlled by the president.

Moreover, the current legislation of Ukraine (Article 106 of the Constitution of Ukraine) does not establish the powers of the President of Ukraine to extend martial law; however, he continues to extend it constantly over the past two years, making changes to his first decree.

Therefore, the Decrees of the President of Ukraine on the extension of the term of martial law in Ukraine No. 133/2022 of March 14, 2022, and subsequent No. 259/2022 of April 18, 2022, No. 341/2022 of May 17, 2022, No. 583/2022, No. 757/2022 of November 7, 2022, No. 58/2023 of February 6, 2023 (No. 254/2023 of May 1, 2023), and so forth, have no legal force, since the norms of the Constitution of Ukraine are norms of direct action.

In a stark and brutal affront to human dignity and freedom, reports have emerged that paint a chilling picture reminiscent of human trafficking, perpetrated at an institutional level within Ukraine amidst the ongoing conflict. Ukrainian male citizens, ostensibly protected by constitutional rights to free movement, have been ensnared in a nefarious scheme where their fundamental right to leave the country is held ransom against exorbitant sums, ranging from $3,000 to $15,000 USD. This grotesque monetization of human freedom, under the guise of bureaucratic measures, is an egregious violation of human rights and a dark echo of human trafficking practices.

The mechanisms of this exploitation, as alleged, are deeply entrenched in the state’s apparatus, leveraging the dire circumstances of conflict to coerce payments from those seeking refuge or safety abroad. Such actions not only strip individuals of their autonomy but also place them in a perilous limbo, where even after paying for their supposed freedom, their legal standing and safety in foreign lands remain uncertain, due to the Ukrainian government’s contradictory stance on the legality of these border crossings.

The foundation of this coercive practice appears to rest on shaky legal ground, with the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine overstepping its executive boundaries to enforce restrictions that should require legislative enactment. This subversion of legal norms and constitutional rights underlines a grim reality where state mechanisms are manipulated to facilitate what can only be described as state-sanctioned human trafficking.

Moreover, the invocation of martial law and the subsequent restrictions imposed on the movement of male citizens raise profound legal and ethical questions. The absence of a formal declaration of a state of war, as mandated by the Constitution of Ukraine, and the extension of martial law beyond its constitutional limits, exposes a blatant disregard for the rule of law and the principles of democracy.

This situation demands immediate international scrutiny and intervention. The exploitation of individuals under the guise of national security, especially in a manner that mirrors the darkest aspects of human trafficking, is a flagrant violation of international human rights norms. The global community must not stand idly by as the rights and freedoms of Ukrainian citizens are trampled upon in such a barbaric manner.

On MEP Jaak Madison egregiously slandered Ukrainian refugees during a European Parliament session, labeling them as “cowards” for seeking sanctuary from mobilization and baselessly accusing them of violating Ukrainian law.

Such statements not only exhibit a profound disrespect for the individuals fleeing conflict but also represent a flagrant violation of international and European Union legal standards governing the treatment and rights of refugees:

1. Geneva Convention on Refugees:

His derogatory characterization of refugees directly undermines the fundamental tenets of the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, which mandate the protection and humane treatment of individuals fleeing persecution. His remarks are an affront to the very essence of international refugee law.   2. Dublin Regulation of the European Union:

By disparaging refugees, Mr. Madison shows a blatant disregard for the EU’s structured process under the Dublin Regulation, which ensures the dignified and fair handling of asylum applications within the EU.   Furthermore, Mr. Madison’s conduct is in clear violation of:   • EU Charter of Fundamental Rights:

Particularly, Articles 18 and 19, safeguarding the right to asylum and prohibiting collective expulsion or refoulement.   • Principle of Solidarity and Fair Sharing of Responsibility:

His remarks undermine Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which is vital for the cooperative management of asylum and migration.   • Code of Conduct for Members of the European Parliament:

Mr. Madison’s blatant disrespect towards refugees and disregard for their legal rights breach the expected standards of dignity and respect mandated for MEPs, bringing dishonor to the European Parliament.   Mr. Madison’s reprehensible statements not only belittle the plight of those fleeing conflict but also challenge the foundational values and legal commitments of the European Union and its Member States to uphold human rights and refugee protections. Such inflammatory and baseless rhetoric is intolerable and demands immediate and unequivocal condemnation.

The European Parliament must take stern action to address this severe breach of ethical conduct and reaffirm its commitment to the principles of dignity, solidarity, and adherence to international and EU law.   This enhanced statement intensifies the criticism of Mr. Madison’s comments by explicitly labeling them as slander and highlighting their incompatibility with the legal and ethical frameworks that guide the European Union and its Member States.

The situation involving Ukrainian mothers in Europe, where allegations have emerged of children being unjustly taken by local social services, is deeply concerning. Reports suggest that on dubious grounds, children of Ukrainian refugees are being removed from their families, leading to prolonged and distressing legal battles for the parents to reclaim their rights. This situation raises serious questions about the treatment of vulnerable families seeking refuge and the potential misuse of child welfare protocols in Europe.

Critics argue that such practices not only violate parental rights but also exploit the precarious situation of refugees, turning their quest for safety into a nightmare of legal entanglements and separation from their children. The notion that European countries may have ulterior motives in retaining Ukrainian children adds a layer of suspicion and mistrust towards the social services involved.

This issue demands urgent attention and a thorough investigation to ensure that the rights of families are protected and that the principles of justice and humanity are upheld in the treatment of refugees and their children. The international community must scrutinize these practices and advocate for policies that support family unity and respect the dignity of all individuals seeking refuge from conflict and hardship.

 

On August 21, 2023, at 16:29, an article was published on the website of the Austrian media outlet eXXpress (https://exxpress.at/flucht-vor-der-front-14-000-ukrainer-im-wehrfaehigen-alter-in-oesterreich/) by the editor, which criticized the flight of male ambassadors from Ukraine and incited hostility towards Ukrainians in Austria based on national origin, urging Ukrainians to return to Ukraine and fight, and even promoting discrimination based on gender, age, and nationality.

The article cited statistics and referenced Ukrainian government officials, specifically President Volodymyr Zelensky and the Ukrainian Ambassador to Austria. The editor claimed to have received the statistics from the Austrian Ministry of the Interior, which allegedly has precise data on the age of Ukrainian refugees registered in Austria, including the number of men and their age group. The article highlighted that 25% of the refugees are men aged between 18 and 54.

Furthermore, the editor personally claimed that a significant number of Ukrainian men of conscription age have managed to avoid combat at the front, with 14,000 Ukrainian men aged between 18 and 54 registered as displaced persons in Austria. Thus, without sufficient evidence, the article accused these 14,000 Ukrainian men of committing the crime of evasion of mobilization, as defined in Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, given that the Austrian Ministry of the Interior does not have information indicating that these individuals are wanted for crimes.

The editorial stance potentially incites Austrian citizens against Ukrainian men, which could lead to unlawful actions against Ukrainians. The editor further suggested that Austrian taxpayers might be less enthusiastic about continuing to fund these young men, thereby advocating for the discrimination of men and the suspension of their funding while promoting support for women, constituting gender discrimination.

Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Rome, 4.XI.1950) prohibits discrimination. The enjoyment of rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention must be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, color, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth, or other status.

According to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights (Rome, 4 November 2000), the exercise of any right set forth by law must be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, color, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth, or other status.

No one shall be discriminated against by any public authority on any ground mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article.

The post on social media has garnered numerous comments. eXXpress is an Austrian right-wing tabloid (affiliated with the People’s Party and the Freedom Party) consisting of a news website and a television channel. The publication’s founder, Richard Schmitt, serves as the chief editor.

eXXpress claims to represent a “bourgeois-liberal digital environment for politics and business,” independent of political parties and interest groups. The online media outlet purports to advocate for the strengthening of personal freedoms, freedom of expression, and the promotion of tolerance in the spirit of humanism and enlightenment. However, it has gained popularity for inciting ethnic conflicts and unrest.

Such unlawful actions have caused irreparable harm to thousands of Ukrainians, making us feel unsafe in Austria.

Article 283 of the Criminal Code states that anyone who publicly, in a form accessible to many people, incites violence against a church or religious community or another person based on actual or perceived criteria such as race, skin color, language, religion or beliefs, nationality, origin, or national or ethnic origin, gender, disability, age, or sexual orientation, or incites hatred towards a group of persons defined by age or sexual orientation, or towards a member of such a group because of their membership in that group, or insults one of the groups mentioned in paragraph 1, or a person because of their membership in such a group with the intention of degrading the human dignity of the group members or the person in a manner suitable for offending the group or the person, intending to degrade or diminish public opinion, or approves, denies, grossly plays down the significance of, or justifies crimes within the meaning of articles 321–321f and article 321k, which have been lawfully established by a national or international court, and the act is committed against one of the groups mentioned in paragraph 1 or against a member of such a group explicitly because of their membership in that group and is committed in such a way that it can provoke violence or hatred against such a group or a member of such a group, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to two years.

For incitement to hatred, the court may impose a prison sentence of up to two years. If calls for violence or incitatation of the populace are made in the presence of a public audience (no fewer than 150 people), the punishment can be imprisonment for up to three years.

Given the foregoing, and in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code and Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights:

We request:

The initiation of criminal proceedings against the officials of the eXXpress media outlet in accordance with Article 283 of the Criminal Code, and measures to identify and hold accountable those responsible.