Maidan

For the first time since 2004 Amnesty International declared two Ukrainians nationals, sentenced by a domestic court over their peaceful protest in Kharkiv, prisoners of conscience. But the news, somehow, never made the headlines in Ukraine.

This is what Amnesty International report’s said: “The organization considers that two activists, Andrei Yevarnitsky and Denis Chernega, are prisoners of conscience, who have been sentenced for exercising their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and has called for their immediate and unconditional release. Although their sentences were subsequently decreased, the organization still calls for the legality of the charges to be investigated and for them to be compensated for their ordeal.”

The protesters attempted to protect an ancient Gorky park with ancient trees from illegal logging. The was taken by the local city council in May, and the logging started a day later, before any public hearings were held, and before the community had a chance to appeal the decision. No elementary safety precautions were taken, either.

The public hearings were held on June 19, post-factum, after the logging was finished. But the public, quite typically, was relegated the role of extras.

The news that Acting Mayor of Kharkiv, Henadiy Kernes, had belatedly organized public hearings was cautiously welcomed, and the civic society began mobilizing. A call went out throughout the country asking for concerned citizens to join Kharkiv residents in defending their right to protect their park and their right to be heard. A great many people heeded the call and by the morning of June 19, there was a large crowd of people waiting to register for the public hearings on the fate of Gorky Park.

One of the first to register, and receive his yellow ticket, was the editor of the publication “Civic Education.” (See him speak in the video below). However, he was rather bemused to find crowd of people ahead of him entering the hall, all clutching their yellow tickets.

It was quite clear, since registration had only just begun, that these people had received their mandates earlier. Most were teachers and pre-school workers from the district. Given their reluctance to speak to the media, and clear lack of interest or knowledge of the topic of the debate, one can safely assume that they had received instructions to be there – and, of course, to vote for continuation of the park’s destruction.

According to Oleh Perehon from the environmental group “Pechenihy” who was present at the “public” hearing, there were numerous irregularities, and even the 20 people in the hall who voted against the acting mayor’s resolution were counted as one vote.A large number of oppositionists were registered, but could not get into the hall, and were not allowed to vote.

Acting Mayor Kernes himself stated at the beginning that there were 2,341 people registered, but then changed his story, saying that there were conflicting accounts of the numbers. It is apparent from the video and photos that the numbers were high, and there are good grounds for believing that the result would have been different had their voices been heard.

That, however, was not the point of the exercise. Imitation of a democratic process was required, and was provided by public hearings in which the public were not needed. They were replaced by local teachers, whose timely payment of wages depends on the city council, and who were probably intimidated into turning up and voting en masse.

According to a Kyiv city council deputy who was present at the hearing, of the 17 members of the organizing committee, only three were members of the initiative group, while the rest were from the Kharkiv City Council. And most of the public had to stay in the street outside.

Perehon, the activist from Pechenihy, told Ukrainska Pravda online newspaper that it was possible to appeal against this travesty of public participation to the prosecutor, and to prove that the majority of people had actually been against the authorities’ resolution.

There is no guarantee that the prosecutor will not prove as malleable as local teachers and the police. But the appeal should still be attempted. Alternatively, Ukraine risks serious trouble over non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention on Public Participation over such overt disregard for the views of its own citizens. It would be well for those in higher places to understand that now – the democratic gloss has already worn dangerously thin.
Halya Coynash

http://www.kyivpost.com/news/opinion/op_ed/detail/70370/