United Nations Development Programme
Country: Ukraine
Programme Document
Rule of Law for Stabilisation in Ukraine:
Addressing the Causes and Consequences of the Conflict
Brief Description
Despite some reforms introduced over the years, and even prior to President Yanukovych’s reversal on
signing the EU Association Agreement in November 2013, Ukraine, since independence, has been
characterised by the weak rule of law, endemic corruption, and regular, albeit generally limited, violation
of people’s rights, which has led to a deep disconnect between citizens and state institutions.
Since February 2013, Ukraine has experienced a rapid change in its political, social, and economic
landscape. The protests in the Maidan, the change in government, the occupation of Crimea, and
ongoing conflict in the East, have created an immense and urgent challenge for Ukraine’s government
and society: to deal with the legacy of the past, stabilise the faltering economy, restore peace, and
satisfy the pressing demands of a mobilised population for tangible and positive change. At the same
time, the upheaval in society and, in particular, the war have further weakened the rule of law, increased
corruption, and led to a widespread and often severe violation of human rights, both in areas outside
and within government control. This, in turn, has exacerbated general discontent with and distrust of
government, as well as created great personal and community insecurity in conflict-affected areas.
UNDP and OHCHR were major participants in the Recovery and Peacebuilding Assessment (RPA) that
took place in Ukraine at the end of 2014. This programme was developed, in part, in order to respond to
the recommendations set out in Part 4 of the RPA, ‘Social Resilience, Peacebuilding and Community
Security’. The programme will address the consequences of the conflict, as well as some of its
underlying causes, by strengthening the protection of human rights and the rule of law. Specifically, the
programme will have four key outputs, as follows:
Output 1: Increased capacity of justice institutions for efficient, effective and transparent service
delivery
Output 2: Strengthened civilian oversight of rights protection
Output 3: Strengthened personal and community security
Output 4: Enhanced trust within and between communities and state institutions
The programme will build upon UNDP’s traditional strengths in Ukraine: community-based development,
civil society networks, and public engagement, providing a two-way link between local communities and
the national level reform and reconstructionProgramme
dialogue. TheID:
programme will be implemented countrywide,
ID: regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.
starting in 5 priority pilot regions; including theProposal
conflict-affected
Programme Period:
Key Result Area (Strategic Plan)
2015 -2018
______________
Atlas Award ID:
______________
Start date:
End Date
July 2015
December 2018
PAC Meeting Date
17 April 2015
Management Arrangements
DIM
Total resources required
USD 14,892,060
Total allocated resources:

Regular

Other:
o
Donor
o
Donor
o
Donor
o
Government
Unfunded budget:
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
In-kind Contributions
_________
I.
SITUATION ANALYSIS
1.1
Background
In the past year, Ukraine has experienced a radical change in its political, social, and economic
landscape. The presidency of Victor Yanukovych (2010-2014) was characterised by a decline in
the already weak rule of law, a rise in corruption, and ongoing, albeit low-level, violation of rights.
Some reforms were introduced to move Ukraine closer to the EU during his tenure, such as the
new Criminal Procedure Code in 2012. Most experts agree the new code was in formal conformity
with European and international standards,1 but the new procedures were poorly understood, not
least by the law enforcement bodies, and haphazardly implemented. Similarly, a very progressive
Law on (Free) Legal Aid was adopted in 2011, but full provision of free secondary legal aid (i.e.,
court representation) will only become operational from mid-2015. While civil society was active, it
was largely excluded from meaningful participation in government decision-making during this
period.
The failure of the President to sign the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement, in
November 2013, triggered a chain-reaction: starting with the Euromaidan protests, followed by the
large-scale use of lethal force against protestors in February 2014, and culminating in the flight of
Yanukovych and appointment of an interim president and new government immediately thereafter.
An early presidential election, in May 2014, brought Petro Poroshenko to power with a clear
mandate (54.7% of the votes cast) in the first round; while parliamentary elections in October
brought a number of reformist, pro-European parties to the forefront, resulting in the present
coalition government.
The current Presidential Administration and Government have staked out their intentions by
signing the EU Association Agreement, adopting Presidential Decree (No. 614/2014) “On ensuring
the implementation of unified state policy of reforms in Ukraine”, Presidential Decree (No. 5/2015)
“On the strategy for sustainable development ‘Ukraine-2020’”, and the ‘Development Strategy for
Police Reform’, as well as continuing to press ahead with finalisation of the ‘National Human
Rights Strategy’ (NHRS), ‘National Action Plan “Women. Peace. Security”’, and ‘Judiciary and
Justice Reform Strategy’ (JJRS). In July 2014, the President also established a National Reform
Council to spearhead the reform process.
In addition, the Government is considering accepting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal
Court (ICC), with a draft law on accession to the Rome Statute before Parliament, and lodged a
declaration accepting ICC jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed in Ukraine between 21
November 2013 and 22 February 2014. Ukraine is already a party to most of the main international
human rights conventions – with the notable exception of the Convention for the Protection of All
Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CED) – and underwent its second Universal Periodic
Review (UPR) in 2012.
That said, as of 31 January 2015, there were 13,350 cases against Ukraine pending at the
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR): i.e., 19.1% of the ECtHR’s total caseload and more
than any other single member – and more than 37 of the 47 member states combined.
Furthermore, between 1995 – when Ukraine joined the Council of Europe and, thereby, acceded
to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) - and 2014, the ECtHR has ruled that
Ukraine violated the ECHR in 1,002 cases. Of those: 481 were for a violation of the right to a fair
In its “Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine” of 15 April 2014, OHCHR notes: “A new Code of Criminal
Procedure (CCP) entered into force in November 2012. The new code responds to some of the major concerns
expressed by UN human rights mechanisms (e.g. the UN Human Rights Council, Universal Periodic Review, or the UN
Human Rights Committee). It introduces an adversarial system; supports the presumption of innocence, including the
need to specify the circumstances suggesting reasonable suspicion that would justify a deprivation of liberty; and
provides increased safeguards for timely access of detainees to a lawyer and a doctor. Alternative measures to
deprivation of liberty are also provided.”
1
2
trial; 298 for the undue length of judicial proceedings; and 185 for violation of the right to an
effective remedy.
But, even as the interim government and civil society began to grapple with the problems of
reform, new challenges appeared that threatened, and continue to threaten, the territorial integrity
of the Ukrainian state. In March 2014, following a locally-organised referendum, the validity of
which is not recognised by the international community, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was
annexed by the Russian Federation. In April, armed conflict erupted between the Government of
Ukraine and illegally-armed groups in Donetsk and Luhansk regions. An Anti-Terrorist Operation
(ATO) was launched by the Government in response - and is still ongoing.
While Crimea faces economic stagnation and international isolation, coupled with increased
allegations of violations of human and other rights by the new authorities there, life in Donetsk and
Luhansk regions – and, indirectly, in the rest of the country – has been severely disrupted by
conflict. As of the start of March 2015, over 6,000 people have been killed and over a million
displaced internally, and more than a quarter million externally, in what the UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights described as the "merciless devastation of civilian lives and infrastructure".
Apart from death and destruction, the situation in the East has witnessed an escalation in the
incidence and severity of violations of rights – including abductions, sexual and gender-based
violence (SGBV), torture, and murder – both in territory controlled by the separatists, as well as in
government-controlled areas.
The fighting and disruption of economic life in the East, including trade between regions and
internationally, in addition to the cost of supporting IDPs, has exacerbated the financial strain the
state, communities, and individuals are under. In parallel, expectations for positive and tangible
change run high in much of the country, with a civil society that has flexed its muscles in the
Maidan - and volunteer networks that have sprung into life to fill the gaps in government servicedelivery in support of the war effort, including the fighting itself, and the humanitarian crisis in the
East.
Moreover, the continued absence of a clear, shared reform vision for the justice sector, coupled
with a lack of separation between policy and law-making, results in ad hoc, often reactive, and
fragmented reforms. This has resulted in the adoption of some important legislation without a
considered debate on its impact or implementation modality, as well as on the relevant
international standards. While national policy and strategic planning is becoming more coherent,
with the development of a number of important strategies – e.g., the NHRS and JJRS - in
progress, the delay and lack of guidance from the national level has been felt acutely at the local
level, as well as by officials and official bodies, where reform is to be effected.
On one hand, this situation, coupled with reaffirmation of the principles of decentralisation, has
opened the door for greater local experimentation. On the other, it has prompted frustration
amongst those anxious for change, while perpetuating and even reinforcing inertia amongst those
who have an interest in maintaining the status quo. Moreover, political upheaval, the war, and
general conflict have increased divisions within society and the political sphere, feeding
intolerance and extremism. This is manifested in the creation of political ‘no-go’ topics - such as
the implementation of lustration or security operations under the ATO - in which discussion of the
merits (and rights implications) of such action is silenced, lest those voicing concerns be branded
reactionary or unpatriotic. In the worst cases, it surfaces as hate speech or even hate crimes
against those with differing views or from different groups.
1.2
National Stakeholders
The Presidential Administration, Verkhovna Rada (Parliament), and government – especially as
represented by the Cabinet of Ministers – are the main driving, and at times competing, forces
behind reform. However, even within the governing – reformist – coalition there are differences
over the nature and direction of reform, but often it is also about the pace or model of reform. The
3
most obvious divisions are between political parties, but they also exist between the Presidential
Administration, Parliament, and Government, within and between ministries and agencies – not to
mention between the administration and, or within, various social groupings.
The main domestic actors, in terms of ensuring the protection of human rights and the rule of law
on the ground, especially in conflict-affected areas, are:
The Procuracy: The Prosecutor’s Office – or Procuracy – was one of the pillars of the legal system
inherited from the Soviet Union, but now faces major restructuring: with a new Law on the
Procuracy, adopted in October 2014, set to come into full effect in April 2015. Most importantly, the
law divests the prosecutor's office of its ‘general supervision of legality’ mandate, a powerful
Soviet-era function, as well as some pre-trial investigation powers. One of the deputies of the
Prosecutor General is the Chief Military Prosecutor. The military prosecutors are, inter alia,
responsible for the prosecution of offences committed by members of the armed units participating
in the ATO, including: Ukrainian military forces, National Guard, voluntary battalions, State
Security Service (SBU), counter intelligence units, and the Service for Emergency Situations
(SES). Cases involving the military are tried in the civilian courts, as separate military courts were
abolished in 2010. The Prosecutor General, who is at the pinnacle of the country-wide pyramid of
prosecutors, has been changed three times in the past year – most recently in February 2015 –
not least because of the Prosecutor’s Office has been perceived as being reluctant to implement
the reforms introduced by the new Law. The Prosecutorial Academy is responsible for the initial
and continued education of prosecutors.
Military & Security Services: The military forces, National Guard, voluntary battalions, SBU, and
counter-intelligence units are not traditional agents for the promotion of human rights and rule of
law. However, there is now a military-civilian administration in the government-controlled areas of
Donetsk and Luhansk regions, which gives it a rule of law mandate – or, at least, requires that the
rule of law be reconciled with the extraordinary military-administrative regime now in place.
Moreover, the ATO has had a direct impact upon the human rights situation in conflict-afflicted
areas, in terms of conflict-related deaths and injuries, but also security operations conducted in the
areas adjacent to the conflict zone, as well as the individual behaviour of military and security
personnel with respect to the civilian population.
Ministry of Internal Affairs/Police: The Ministry of Internal Affairs, which has adopted a progressive
‘Development Strategy for Police Reform’, is the focus of much attention: particularly as regards
the restructuring of the police. This reflects, in part, the fact the police are a highly visible
manifestation of the state in people’s everyday lives, as well as having been one of the most
prominent and routine sources of abuse of authority in the past. The proliferation of reform
initiatives, coupled with decentralisation, has opened the door for greater local experimentation.
For example, in the area of police reform – a priority for citizens - a project on the ‘Creation of a
European Standard Police’ has been piloted in Lviv since 2014; building a community-based
system that establishes new criteria for police performance evaluation, an automated system for
receiving and responding to citizens’ complaints, and other activities aimed at making the police
service more transparent. In Kyiv, there is also a new pilot initiative that aims to replace the traffic
police – the service that is most distrusted (as disliked) by the public - with a unified police patrol
service.
Ministry/Department of Justice: The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is not exercising its potential role in
justice reform, especially as regards coordination of justice reform actors, as the Presidential
Administration currently heads this process, including overseeing finalisation of the JJRS.
However, the MoJ does have the lead in finalising the draft ‘National Human Rights Strategy’. The
Ministry is represented at the regional level by departments of Justice, which are responsible for
the coordination of the provision of justice services, including primary legal aid, in the region. The
departments of Justice also provide some direct primary free legal aid, albeit mostly relating to
registration issues, in the regional centres.
4
Legal Aid Coordination Centre: The LACC, a state institution under the supervision of the Ministry
of Justice was established pursuant to the 2011 Law on (Free) Legal Aid. It is now operational and
offers free secondary legal aid in all criminal cases through its regional centres. From 1 July 2015,
its mandate will be extended to provide free secondary legal aid in civil and administrative cases.
To implement this, it will establish an additional 100 centres country-wide.
Regional & Local Administrations: Regional and, in particular, district, town, and city
administrations are the routine point of contact between citizens and the state - “administration is
the exercise of political authority in everyday life”, as Max Weber, the German sociologist,
philosopher, and political economist, once put it - and, therefore, the point where state services are
delivered – or not - and where public feedback can have its most immediate effect, if officials are
receptive to it. It is in public administration where the rule of law either exists or does not for most
people: hence the importance of UNDP’s earlier pilot initiatives on municipal rule of law monitoring.
Indeed, most disputes, including cases before the courts, are administrative in nature – and much
petty corruption relates to administrative services: the issuance of administrative documents,
registration, permits, and benefits. Moreover, local administrations have a responsibility under the
law to ensure the provision of free primary legal aid (i.e., legal information and consultation), but
few do in practice: most free primary legal aid is still provided by CSOs.
Judiciary & Courts: The court system is composed of: local (district, city-district, town, and Kyiv
city) courts of first instance in criminal, civil, and administrative cases; regional courts of appeal
that may consider civil, criminal, commercial, and administrative-offence cases – while commercial
and administrative appeals are considered by commercial or administrative courts of appeal
created in appellate circuits pursuant to presidential decree; ‘high’ specialised, or ‘cassation’,
courts for criminal, civil, administrative, and commercial cases; and the Supreme Court of Ukraine,
which is the highest judicial authority in the system of general jurisdiction courts. Then, there is the
Constitutional Court, which has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of
legislation, as well as interpret or comment on certain specific provisions of law. Administration of
the courts is managed by the State Judicial Administration (SJA), with the Congress, as well as the
Council of Judges, and High Judicial Qualifications Commission being responsible for the
appointment and conduct of judges. The National School of Judges (NSJ) is responsible for the
training of candidate judges, as well as continuing education of serving judges.
Public Councils: An extension of civil society, Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 996 (2010)
regularised the requirement and procedure for all ministries and regional state administrations to
establish public councils. Public councils were to serve as an interface between specific
government bodies and CSOs: allowing for civil society guidance and oversight of the associated
administrative body, as well as enhancing the flow of information from the administrative body to
citizens. The effectiveness of such councils and, in particular, civil society participation in them,
was limited, however. Often, the public councils existed in name only, or the CSOs involved were
passive, or the council was simply ignored by the administrative officials. However, in Western
Ukraine – e.g., Lviv, Ternopil, and Ivano-Frankivsk – more proactive public councils were
established in conjunction with the regional departments of Justice and Internal Affairs and have
been active in the reform process. More recently, the Government instructed that the public
councils be dissolved and reconstituted2 – e.g., the new public council at MIA was elected on
2
Cabinet of Ministers’ Resolution No. 688, of 26 November 2014, introduced amendments to CoM Resolution No. 996
of 3 November 2010. Specifically, the amended text of Resolution No. 996 provides that: "disbandment of all public
councils within the ministries and other central executive bodies, Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of
Crimea, regional (oblast) councils, city councils in Kyiv and Sevastopol, district councils, district state administrations in
Kyiv and Sevastopol cities, which were constituted before 22 November 2014, is to be resolved.
Ministries and other central executive bodies, Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, regional
(oblast) councils, city councils in Kyiv and Sevastopol, district councils, district state administrations in Kyiv and
Sevastopol cities are to take measures accordingly to reconstitute, in conformity with the model statute of a public
council, public councils within ministries and other central executive bodies, Council of Ministers of the Autonomous
Republic of Crimea, regional (oblast) councils, city councils in Kyiv and Sevastopol, district councils, district state
administrations in Kyiv and Sevastopol cities."
5
February 26, 2015 - ideally with a view to bringing into them more dynamic civil society
participants.
Ombudsperson’s Office: The Office of the Ombudsperson (Ukrainian Parliamentary High
Commissioner for Human Rights) has recently been re-accredited, with ‘A’ status, by the
International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for Promotion and Protection of
Human Rights. It has become an important actor in the field of human rights and rule of law: inter
alia, working on detention through the National Protection Mechanism, discrimination, access to
information and privacy, social and economic rights, IDPs, gender equality, and children’s rights. It
plays a role in coordinating CSOs working in the field of human rights; particularly in Crimea. It will
also assume some of the duties formerly vested in the Procuracy, in particular regarding
representation of individuals in court,3 once the new Law on the Procuracy comes into effect in
April 2015. Arguably, it has already taken over aspects of the procurator’s ‘general supervision of
legality’ function, especially with respect to administrative actions and the inspection of places of
detention. (It received 60,000 complaints from citizens in 2014 – approximately half of the
applications related to the work of the Prosecutor’s Office.4) It operates through three regional
offices and has 14 regional coordinators, with plans to expand its coordinator network to all
regions.
Civil Society/Volunteers: There is a broad and growing number and range of CSOs, academic
institutes, and think-tanks that are active in the sector. They are of varied size and capacity, with
some of the newer ones rather weak or narrowly focused, but often very motivated: especially
those which began recently as volunteer movements. Others are more established, with
substantial substantive and human resource capacity. The Reanimation Package of Reforms
(RPR), a civic platform, which encompasses over 150 experts working on developing and
promoting national reforms in key areas, is one example. Another is the ‘New Country’ initiative, a
joint effort of experts and intellectuals from various regions of Ukraine which seek to elaborate a
common vision of the new state and identify development priorities. CSOs, working through CSOnetworks, are active in supporting the broader reform process, as well as in the provision of
specific services to communities and individuals: e.g., humanitarian aid, psychological counselling
for conflict-affected persons, primary legal aid, and legal representation, as well as human rights
monitoring and documentation.
In part as a consequence of the failings of the state, the volunteer movement is very strong and
empowered by civil society’s success in bringing down the Yanukovych Government. It is focused
on making up for the failure of state. In the East, where formal CSOs are traditionally less active,
and recently battered by anti-government forces, the volunteer movement has also filled the gap.
While such activism is a powerful instrument for change, it tends to be impatient for, and overly
focused upon, immediate tangible results, rather than on systemic or subtle changes in processes,
institutions, and mind-sets. Both CSO and volunteer networks span the country, reaching even into
the areas no longer controlled by the government, and, therefore, remain able to facilitate
individuals and organisations in different regions to work together for common aims.
1.3
Challenges
The tremendous change Ukraine has undergone in the past year, while opening up enormous
opportunities in terms of positive transformation, has also presented it with huge new challenges,
as well as putting pre-existing weaknesses in the system under unprecedented stress. While there
Point 5.37 of Section XII, ‘Final provisions’ of the Law on the Procuracy amends Article 13, Paragraph 10 of the Law
On the Ukrainian Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights to read: “for the purpose of protection of human rights
and freedoms, personally or using his/her representative as established by law: apply to the court for protection of rights
and freedoms of individuals who are unable to protect their rights and freedoms because of their physical condition,
minority status, old age, full or partial incapacity; participate in trials where proceedings are initiated on the basis of
his/her lawsuits (applications, petitions (motions); join cases initiated on the basis of lawsuits (applications, petitions
(motions)) of other persons at any stage of the trial; initiate review of court rulings irrespective of his/her involvement in
the proceedings".
4 Cited by Bogdan V. Kryklyvenko, Head of the Secretariat of the Ombudsperson’s Office at a meeting in Kyiv on 30
January 2015.
3
6
are many current challenges to the protection of human rights and strengthening the rule of law,
some the main issues, and potential bottle-necks, identified are:
Weak justice-service delivery capacity:
The conflict has highlighted the weakness of state institutions: most evident through the delayed
and still largely uncoordinated response to the crisis in the East. In addition to its deficiencies in
responding to events, government has a poor record of planning and coordination – a problem
which has been exacerbated in recent months by the blossoming of political pluralism and
exponential growth in the number of interest groups. Of more immediate concern for citizens trying
to negotiate the complexities of the administrative and judicial system, however, the coverage of
legal aid provision, while vastly improved, is still not complete. While the LACC will work to
strengthen both coordination between primary and secondary legal aid, including referral systems,
the fact remains that much of the free primary legal aid is still being provided by CSOs, with donor
support, and there are significant gaps in the coverage. Regional departments of Justice are
currently unable to track the provision of legal aid services and still less able to coordinate and
ensure comprehensive coverage in their areas of responsibility.
Furthermore, the conflict has increased the demand for legal aid, both primary and specialised
secondary. According to the ‘Recovery and Peacebuilding Assessment: Analysis of Crisis Impacts
and Needs in Eastern Ukraine’ (December 2014): “the crisis has created significant new demand
for legal services, particularly among IDP populations. The most common IDP legal needs include
legal advice related to: obtaining or replacing legal documentation; employment – e.g. gaining
employment without labour documents, gaining temporary employment without violating current
employment contracts in home areas; accessing pensions and social payments in host
communities; registering business, births, marriages/divorces and other life events; managing land
title and property registration; accessing bank accounts in home communities in armed groupscontrolled areas; court cases and legal proceedings interrupted by the crisis … Another deficiency
in access to justice services identified for both IDPs and other conflict-affected populations relates
to conflict-related crime and violence, including gender-based violence, and resolving grievances
related to discrimination or harassment.”
The Courts should, of course, be the main institutional check on state power in terms of protecting
citizens’ rights and upholding the rule of law. However, the court system is still widely perceived –
not without some basis – to be inefficient, incompetent or corrupt. Indeed, the judiciary is a key
focus of reform, as well as reformist wrath, albeit, perhaps, out of proportion to the courts role in
people’s ordinary lives – as opposed to the case of the police, who are more ubiquitous. Judicial
reform is a priority, as well as a major area of discussion and debate – not least over the lustration
of judges - of the new national authorities.
In part, there is such concern because of the use of the courts for political purposes under
Yanukovych, but also owing to their failure – along with that of the investigative bodies – to hold to
account those responsible for the killing of Maidan protesters. It also reflects, however, the fact
that many judges, as well as other judicial officials, are not fully conversant with the safeguards –
reflecting international standards and best practice – set out in the new CPC, to say nothing of the
practicalities of identifying and handling the kind of serious violations that are now occurring in
connection with the conflict. In addition, the lack of public understanding about how the courts
function and what the judges are doing contributes to continued suspicion; while the lack of
transparency provides cover for malpractice where it does still exist. Political influence, impunity
for protest and conflict-related crimes, as well as the lack of transparency in judicial procedures, all
contribute to the further erosion of trust in justice institutions.
Justice service-delivery is further complicated in the East by the fact that the courts – and other
justice institutions - in areas controlled by anti-government forces can no longer operate and they
have had to be relocated – jurisdictionally and physically – to government-controlled territory or
neighbouring regions. Courts have often been moved on a shoe-string budget and have lost
personnel, files, and equipment in the process. The new location of courts and related institutions
are often not well known to the public. Additionally, many justice institutions in conflict-areas have
suffered war damage and, even in non-conflict areas, most are run-down and technologically
7
backward – all of which makes them less accessible to the public and less efficient in the delivery
of justice services.
Significantly, the courts are now being confronted by conflict-related crimes of a type or scale to
which they are unaccustomed, and unprepared, to handle. Or, more likely, they are not being
confronted by as many of such cases as they should, given a reluctance on the part of victims or
their families to report cases of SGBV, abduction or torture. This is, in part, because of a general
lack of trust in the authorities. However, it also reflects the inexperience of investigators and lack of
mechanisms for dealing with sensitive or stigmatised crimes.
There are also now many instances in which no remedies are immediately available, as in cases
of violations and other crimes committed by anti-government forces. As noted by the RPA, “…
police in government-controlled areas do not register many cases of crime and/or violence that
occurred in areas outside Government control. As police are measured on their ability to resolve
cases, and as they are not able to investigate these crimes properly, these cases are often
perceived as unsolvable, and are therefore not registered. This represents a major gap in ensuring
access to justice and a major risk for the credibility of the state to protect its citizens.” Mechanisms,
therefore, need to be strengthened or put in place in order to ensure that the principle of the rule of
law is upheld: that crimes are acknowledged and the means established to ensure that a remedy –
or restitution - will be available in time, if and when the situation changes.
Lack of Civilian Oversight:
While civil society’s role in the justice system has strengthened considerably in last year, and the
capacity of specific institutions - such as the OO - have been greatly enhanced, the scale and
severity of rights violations has grown exponentially in the same period. The annexation of Crimea
and the conflict in the East have greatly increased the need for civilian monitoring of the human
rights situation, as well as for specialised monitoring skills. CSO coalitions – e.g., ‘Justice for
Peace in Donbas’ and the ‘Crimea Human Rights Field Monitoring Mission’ - have emerged in
response, but they face an enormous task and need capacity-strengthening and resources. At the
same time, there is also a general demand for expanded oversight of law implementation bodies such as the police, prosecution, and courts – to ensure that the rule of law and rights are
respected. In cases both of extraordinary and ‘routine’ violations, especially where the latter are
not the result of an honest lack of capacity, there is a need to apply external pressure on the
authorities to comply with the law, constitutional guarantees, and the state’s international
commitments.
Reduced Personal and Community Security:
In addition to the huge drain on resources, including human lives, the conflict represents, it has
vastly increased the number and severity of human rights’ abuses, and prevents citizens from
accessing justice – thereby, fostering a culture of impunity and making dispute resolution through
violence the norm. According to the RPA, it is essential “to address growing fragility and personal
insecurity in the east by strengthening the capacity, legitimacy and accountability of law
enforcement and justice institutions. The high level of citizen exposure to violence during the crisis,
the widespread mobilisation of civilians into volunteer security forces, the availability of weaponry,
and low levels of trust in justice and security institutions must be addressed as part of the recovery
process.”
And, as OHCHR has stated: “the principles of international humanitarian law in the conduct of
hostilities, including the principles of necessity, distinction, proportionality and precaution should
be recalled and respected in order to ensure the protection of civilians. There is need for
accountability for the crimes committed. Indeed, no matter who the perpetrators or the victims are,
every effort must be made to ensure that anyone who has committed serious violations of
international law is brought to justice. That is essential in order to overcome divisions and pave the
way for reconciliation.”5
“Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Ukraine” of 19
September 2014 (A/HRC/27/75).
5
8
Some of these abuses are the result of ignorance or ingrained training. The military, apart from its
depleted state of readiness at the start of the conflict, and subsequent loss of personnel and
equipment, was not highly trained in modern warfare theory and methodology, including
international humanitarian law and civilian relations. The rush to get mobilised soldiers to the front
has also not been conducive to extensive or intensive training in the law of war, even if the training
capacity were available. And, as the war effort was also initially heavily reliant upon volunteer
battalions, which are only now being brought under formal control of the military hierarchy, training,
as well as command chains and command responsibilities, have been even more erratic.
With respect to the Security Service of Ukraine (Sluzhba Bezpeky Ukrayiny or ‘SBU’) and counterintelligence units, their training and operating procedures are largely inherited from the Soviet era.
Many operatives are not versed in applicable domestic or international standards and safeguards,
even if they feel obliged to respect them; particularly in the current crisis context. At the same time,
because of lingering suspicions of state agents about the role of local officials, including the police,
early on in the conflict in the East – especially in the ‘liberated’ areas of Donetsk and Luhansk –
trust, cooperation, and coordination between civilian authorities, on the one hand, and the military
and security forces, on the other, is poor.
Even police and prosecutors are still not familiar with – or reluctant to apply – the more
progressive norms and restrictions set out in the new CPC and are not always careful in observing
procedural safeguards, particularly as regards obtaining evidence:
“It should be noted that the [CPC] in place until 2012, conferred considerable discretion to the
Prosecutor throughout criminal proceedings, including with regard to decisions on pre-trial detention.
In addition, the public prosecutor’s multiplicity of roles is also a cause of concern raised by many
international human rights mechanisms. Aside from his responsibility to conduct criminal
investigations and prosecute persons formally accused, s/he oversees the legality and human rights
compliance of those investigations.” 6
OHCHR went on to note that “[t]he prevalence of impunity for human rights violations perpetrated
by law enforcement forces has been an issue for a long time in Ukraine. An overall reform of the
security sector needs to be undertaken. In this context, law enforcement officers should receive
adequate training with regard to international human rights norms and standards.”
Police and prosecutors are also unfamiliar with dealing with conflict-related problems: in terms of
the applicable procedural and substantive law, but also in practical terms of ensuring security –
balanced with rights’ protection – in a crisis situation. Conversely, the breakdown of official
structures – e.g., police forces in some ‘liberated’ towns, where most of the police management
was implicated in the separatist movement and subsequently purged – and ‘novelty’ of the
circumstances, offers a prospect for experimentation and re-building freed from (bad) past practice
and influence.
Citizens and communities, on their side, have long distrusted the police and have little – and
decreasing, as a result of civilian casualties – common ground with the military and associated
forces. Security sweeps, with the unexplained disappearances, detention, and even ‘prisoner
exchange’ of a number of individuals in some conflict-affected communities, have spread panic
and fear. Such fear, and the potential for abuse, is fanned by a general lack of public knowledge
about legal rights, procedures and institutions, and remedies. At the same time, civilians are at risk
from other conflict-related sources: such as UXOs and mines, the profusion of weapons, and
continued shelling.
Reduced Public Confidence:
In simplistic terms, the difference between the ‘East’ and ‘West’ of Ukraine – or, more accurately,
between those who are pro-reform and EU integration, and those who are not – might now be
characterised as: those against reform do not see the point (or benefit) of it, while those are for it
6
OHCHR “Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine” of 15 April 2014.
9
want to – but do not - see immediate results. The challenge lies in raising awareness amongst the
former of the aims and potential impact of reform; while, for the latter, they need to learn what has
already been done and how it fits into the overall reform process. As such, civil society needs to be
engaged more in supporting the delivery of justice and security services – in terms of providing
guidance, oversight, and feedback - while the authorities must involve the public in, or
communicate to them more effectively about, legal developments and national reform processes.
Equally, national authorities should be better informed about the situation and developments at the
local level, in order to formulate more responsive policies and interventions.
Political upheaval, the conflict, security threats, and political polarisation have increased divisions
within society and between regions: e.g., between ‘East’ and ‘West’. Economic downturn and a
perceived competition for jobs, housing, education, and other services is progressively souring
relations between IDPs and previously welcoming host communities. There are currently few
institutions or activities in place that bring together disparate communities to work for the common
good and (re)build relationships and confidence.
The Need for Early Reconciliation Efforts:
While the conflict continues, there seems little appetite for discussion of peace or even
reconciliation. Few initiatives have been attempted and even mild dissent over continued reprisals
for past misguided actions can be interpreted as espousing anti-state sentiments. Even without a
solid ceasefire, however, there is an urgent need to begin the process of bridging political divides
and healing social wounds, if only within communities or in government-controlled territory, before
the divisions become irreparable. There is a need to address the most immediate or egregious
wrongs arising out of the conflict, redress some of the lesser grievances, and remove those
implicated in the violence from the position of investigating (and theoretically punishing)
themselves, lest such injustices fester and the differences become irreconcilable.
II.
STRATEGY & METHODOLOGY
2.1
Strategy
The underlying causes of the Maidan protests, and the subsequent unrest and conflict in the south
and east of Ukraine, are rooted in the relationship between the individual, community, and the
state. Both were a reaction to state institutions – in particular, justice and security bodies - which
were perceived to be distant, unresponsive, corrupt, and unaccountable. The main difference
between those advocating reform and those against it, it might be argued, was that the former
wanted the state to engage and enable; whereas, the latter wanted it to protect and provide.
The conflict in the East has diverted precious resources and attention from reform, at the same
time as shattering normal life. It has exacerbated the systemic problems in the country: if the
Maidan was, in part, against corruption and the arbitrary use of power, and in favour of human
rights and the rule of law, then, at least in conflict-affected areas, the war has resulted in the
replacement of civilian control by military-civilian rule, as well as increased the abuse of rights and
culture of impunity. And, even for those who favoured the status quo, the widespread violence and
displacement of communities has reduced personal and community security, broken social bonds,
and heightened pre-existing divisions between ‘East’ and ‘West’, as well as created new ones
between ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ government and host communities and IDPs. Individuals and communities
are now faced with crimes on a scale or of nature not experienced since WWII; including extrajudicial or mass killing, torture, SGBV, and enforced disappearance. Public confidence in the
police, courts, administration, and other state institutions was never strong, but it has been further
degraded - and even a lack of trust and cooperation between those very state institutions has now
arisen.
In order to address both the causes and consequences of the conflict, support stabilisation of the
situation, then promote constructive and systemic change, it is necessary to alter the fundamental
dynamic between individual, community, and state institutions. By asserting – and ensuring –
10
human and other fundamental rights, personal – and, through this, community and national security can restored and enhanced. By helping the state to listen to, as well as communicate with,
the people - and by strengthening the capacity of the law implementation bodies to deliver justice –
confidence between them can built-up and a social contract forged.
Restoring (or creating) public confidence in, and engagement with, state institutions will strengthen
the rule of law. Increasing personal and community security will reaffirm the sanctity of human
rights. While reducing tensions within and between communities will diminish the risk of further
conflict; thereby, reinforcing personal and community – and ultimately state – security. In turn, this
will reinforce the protection of human rights and generate further trust in the state in a kind of
virtuous circle. Thereby, and if communities can learn how to work together again for their mutual
benefit, society’s power will be channelled more effectively to rebuild the country and prevent
further conflict in future.
In light of the foregoing, as well as from consultations with national and international stakeholders
and partners, four outputs have been identified for support through the Programme:
Output 1: Increased capacity of justice institutions for efficient, effective and
transparent service delivery;
Output 2: Strengthened civilian oversight of rights protection;
Output 3: Strengthened personal and community security; and
Output 4: Enhanced trust within and between communities and state institutions.
It is anticipated that support to these output areas will engage society more directly in the reform
process: i.e., harness and channel more effectively the strong desire for change and improvement
– reflected in the volunteer and CSO movements – that is present in the country. Such support
should foster a culture of rights-holders (i.e., individuals, specific groups, and society) and dutybearers (e.g., state officials and other office-holders) in which the latter are seen, and see
themselves, as service-providers, rather than dispensers of largesse or agents of control. The
Programme should also promote greater understanding and acceptance of the purpose - and
benefit - of human rights protection and the rule of law, as well as specific reform processes,
amongst both rights-holders and duty-bearers. It should seek to empower people, both in terms of
realisation of their substantive rights, but also in their role as a check (and positive reinforcement)
on the performance of duty-bearers.
The Programme will operate country-wide to address the underlying causes of instability, but will
commence activity in 5 pilot regions – primarily those regions where the causes of the conflict are
most acutely experienced.
The key to Programme implementation will the Rule of Law Officer (ROLO) network. A ROLO will
be a member of Programme staff and one will be located in each of the pilot regions. The ROLO
will be responsible for coordination and management of activities to be implemented at the
community and local level. In particular, ROLOs will continuously interface with local communities
– e.g., in order to identify their security and justice concerns and needs, facilitate regular public
perception surveys, and actively engage the public in the development, implementation, and
monitoring of programme activities - and with local officials to provide community-based
planning, delivery, and assessment of the effectiveness of activities. ROLOs will disseminate
information to, and support implementation of activities developed at the national or regional level
in, municipalities or communities at the local level. Conversely, ROLOs will serve as the focal point
for information coming from the local level, transmitting it to the Programme Management, and
through it, to national level stakeholders and development partners.
The Programme will also foster the development of civil society networks – in parallel with and
augmented by technical expertise and material capacity within the Programme’s own management
structure – to connect the local level with the national, so as to ensure that feedback and lessons11
learnt from local initiatives informs national decision-makers – and that, in turn, national decisions
and plans inform local practice.
2.2
Methodology
UNDP’s Comparative Advantage
Although UNDP has not been significantly involved at the national level in justice sector reform for
a number of years, owing to the limited prospects for institutional reform in the past, UNDP’s
strength in Ukraine – indeed, its niche - lies in its networks: i.e., in being able to facilitate
development through society, from the bottom up.
In this regard, UNDP has been very active in the field of human rights and rule of law: inter alia,
supporting human rights’ monitoring, shadow treaty-reporting, legal aid provision, and strategic
litigation by CSOs, especially through its ‘Democratization and Human Rights [and Civil Society
Development]’ Programme (DHRP). The DHRP has also promoted more systemic reform,
including the sustainability of CSOs providing services in the sector, by building up CSO networks
and capacity-building ‘hubs’ for democracy and human rights at the local level. UNDP established
a close, constructive cooperation with the Ombudsperson’s Office (OO), assisting it to become
more transparent and open to civil society. DHRP supported the selection and training of highly
qualified human rights defenders to serve as OO regional coordinators. Along with the US
Embassy and Council of Europe (CoE), it supported the OO in monitoring the implementation of
the CPC. UNDP also assisted OO and CSOs to address the 26th and 28th sessions of the UN
Human Rights Council in Geneva and the Parliamentary Assembly of the CoE in Strasbourg. It
has also served as a vehicle for support to national reform processes, such as an expert advisor to
the committee developing the ‘National Human Rights Strategy’, as well as capacity-building in the
OO.
UNDP, through DHRP, has also provided some small grants to support civil society groups to
organise tentative peacebuilding and reconciliation efforts in the East. Successful initiatives mainly
took the form of confidence-building within polarised communities and with communities in the
centre of the country: including work with children and on community infrastructure.
UNDP Ukraine laid the foundation for its current work in this field with its ‘Legal Empowerment of
the Poor’ Project (2011-12): a joint initiative with the Ministry of Justice that provided rural
residents with knowledge and understanding of their property and land rights. Project activities
included an assessment of demand, legal dissemination and consultation provided to legal aid
providers and citizens at the community level, and advocacy in policy debates based upon the
feedback from the local level; i.e., feeding the “voice of rural communities” into the national reform
process.
More generally, UNDP has considerable knowledge and experience in rule of law programming in
crisis-affected countries, supported by the Global Programme for Strengthening the Rule of Law in
Crisis-Affected and Fragile Situations. The Global Programme aims to advance justice and
security in countries profoundly affected by violence and instability. In particular, the Global
Programme establishes a close linkage between protection and the rule of law, and between
humanitarian action and development principles; focusing on six key areas:
1. Access to security and justice during an on-going conflict or immediate post-crisis
recovery.
2. Women’s security and access to justice.
3. Capacity development of key justice and security institutions.
4. Transitional justice.
5. Armed violence reduction and citizen/community security.
6. Rule of law for economic recovery.
Drawing on lessons learned from some of UNDP’s most innovative and comprehensive rule of law
programmes around the world, the Global Programme seeks to build upon these specific country
12
experiences and utilise them to help other countries that are conflict-afflicted or otherwise
politically, socially or economically fragile. In particular, this programme will benefit from an
exchange of experiences with UNDP programmes and its partners in Bosnia and Herzegovina
(inter alia on victim and witness support and capacity building of national and local justice
institutions to deal with international crimes and addressing conflict-related sexual violence) and in
Tunisia (re-building public trust in justice and security institutions).
Rule of Law at the Municipal Level – Complementarity with other UN/UNDP programming areas
Through its ‘Municipal Governance and Sustainable Development’ Programme, 2004- 2013,
UNDP worked with community-based organisations in 29 municipalities. The ‘Community Based
Approach to Local Development’ (CBA) Programme now works with community organisations to
promote sustainable socio-economic development at the local level by strengthening participatory
governance and encouraging community-based initiatives throughout Ukraine: encompassing, 24
regions, 200 districts, 1000 villages, and 15 cities.
UNDP’s new ‘Early Recovery Support in Crisis-Affected Communities in Ukraine’ Project will build
the capacity of local administrations to respond more effectively and efficiently to the influx of
IDPs. This will involve some (limited) provision of legal aid to IDPs, as well as work with public
councils supporting municipal administrations in Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The Programme
will dovetail with this project, by working with the justice and law enforcement bodies and
associated public councils linked to the municipalities, help meet needs and fill gaps in legal aid
coverage on a sustainable basis, and re-build confidence within and between communities, as well
as state institutions, not only in Donetsk and Luhansk, but also in neighbouring regions and across
the country.
Methodological Elements
The Programme methodology has four main elements:
1) Tackling human rights and rule of law issues created by the conflict: Deterring violations of
international human rights, criminal or humanitarian law – and specifically targeting SGBV and generally strengthening the rule of law through systemic capacity-building and reform
in the local justice and security sectors, increasing members of the public’s ability to assert
their rights, and penalising violations when they do occur. While such initiatives will be
applicable in both conflict-affected and non-conflict-affected areas, there will be a particular
focus on the specific circumstances and pressing needs in conflict-affected areas.
2) Building upon past and current programming and UNDP’s network: To build upon – or rollout - past and current UNDP achievements in Ukraine and utilise the methodologies
developed, such as community-based development, public participation, civil society
partnerships, and confidence-building, including lessons-learned, to maximum effect. For
example: the ‘Democratization, Human Rights and Civil Society Development’ Programme
(DHRP) has promoted systemic reform, including the sustainability of CSOs, by building up
CSO networks and capacity-building ‘hubs’ for democracy and human rights at the local
level. UNDP also has close cooperation with the Ombudsperson’s Office, assisting in the
selection and training of its regional coordinators, as well as in its monitoring of
implementation of the Criminal Procedure Code. UNDP’s first major initiative in the sector
was the ‘Legal Empowerment of the Poor’ Project, which worked with the Ministry of
Justice (MoJ) to provide rural residents with information about their property and land
rights.
3) Linking local/regional experience into the national reform process: To facilitate the flow of
information and practical experience gained at the local and regional levels, especially
through pilot activities and public engagement, to national-level stakeholders – such as the
MoJ and Ministry of Internal Affairs - so as to feed into and inform further reforms.
Conversely, to use UNDP’s community networks to enable national policies, legislation,
13
and plans to be rolled-out and implemented at the regional and local levels in a targeted
and effective manner.
4) Measurement and monitoring: Establishment of clear baseline data will be given priority in
the initial phase of the programme. Continuous monitoring of programme implementation in
the pilot areas will be ensured through regular stakeholder/beneficiary perception surveys
and monitoring of justice and security service delivery.
2.2.1
Guiding Principles & Cross-cutting Issues
Guiding Principles
Programme implementation will be guided by the following principles:
i) Flexibility: The Programme will establish a framework and areas of activity. Within this
framework, activity identification, formulation, and implementation should remain as flexible
– and responsive – as possible, in order to adapt to the rapidly changing environment, as
well as to take advantage of opportunities as they arise. In addition to the careful
formulation of main activities, this may be achieved through identifying and filling gaps in
other stakeholders/partners’ activities, which their resources, networks or mandates do not
allow them to fill. In some cases, this may necessitate entering partnerships – sometimes
as beneficiary, sometimes as donor, and sometimes as simple collaborator – with other
development partners, government or civil society.
ii) Partnership: Within the Programme framework, and between output areas and activities,
Programme management will seek to foster linkages and cross-fertilisation between the
Programme, other UN and development partners’ initiatives, and the Government and civil
society’s activities. For example: feedback from local initiatives will be fed into national
policy-making and legislation. Conversely, technical expertise developed or utilised at the
national level will inform and shape local activities – and local stakeholders and
communities will themselves be informed and engaged.
iii) Empowerment & Oversight: Programme activities will strive to empower stakeholders
and society: empower and enable them to effect reform themselves – even if such self-help
sometimes requires the input of external, carefully targeted expertise – and empower and
enable them to engage with the process, serve as the checks and balances within the
system, and act as the oversight and feedback mechanism on the success of the reform
process in strengthening human rights’ protection and the rule of law.
iv) Sustainability: Although the Programme will address, inter alia, the immediate
consequences of the conflict in the East, it will simultaneously address the underlying
causes of the conflict, which also affect non-conflict-affected communities. As such,
positive change vis-à-vis personal security and, in particular, in the relationship between
citizens and the state should have countrywide application and can feed into Ukraine’s
broader democratic reform and development agenda.
v) National Ownership: The Programme will channel support to implement – or align the
design and implementation of its activities with – inter alia, the EU-Ukraine Association
Agreement, Ukraine’s other international commitments in the field of human rights and rule
of law, Presidential Decree (No. 614/2014) “On ensuring the implementation of unified state
policy of reforms in Ukraine”, Presidential Decree (No. 5/2015) “About the strategy for
sustainable development ‘Ukraine-2020’”, and the ‘Development Strategy for Police
Reform’, as well as the ‘National Human Rights Strategy’, ‘National Action Plan “Women.
Peace. Security”’, and ‘Judiciary and Justice Reform Strategy’, once they are adopted. The
Programme may also provide support, as needed, to finalisation of such strategies and
development of any related action plans.
14
vi) Do-No-Harm Approach: As the Programme will operate in a conflict-affected setting, and
address sensitive issues such as serious human rights’ violations and (S)GBV, particular
attention must be given to ensure that there is no negative impact upon beneficiaries or
stakeholders as a result of Programme interventions. The Programme will use a conflict
sensitive lens when programming and base support in a sound understanding of the
operational setting. It will also draw upon relevant international expertise and best practice,
and collaborate with local partners familiar with the context and experienced in conflictsensitive work.
Cross-cutting Issues
Gender: A gender equality perspective will be mainstreamed throughout the programme, by
ensuring the collection and interpretation of sex/age disaggregated data and conducting gender
analysis to better inform programme design and implementation. The programme will prioritise
women’s access to justice services, a gender-focus in the delivery of security services, and
women’s participation and central role - including in decision-making - in strengthening the
framework for the rule of law and in advancing social integration, confidence-building, and
reconciliation. It will specifically:











Ensure that gender equality concerns are incorporated into all relevant policies,
regulations, and procedures, and that justice and security institutions and processes are
equal and fair for both women and men;
Advocate for increased participation of women and youth in the justice and security sectors
and in social integration, confidence-building, and reconciliation policy-making and
activities at the institutional level and support their active engagement in civil society;
Ensure that policy and planning processes are consultative, participatory, and ensure the
involvement and decision-making role of women, and that plans and services reach their
specific needs;
Raise awareness on women’s rights and gender issues and advocate for women’s
meaningful participation in the public sphere, especially among justice and security
officials;
Ensure gender issues are fully incorporated in curricula and training materials that are
developed;
Prioritize all actions at national and sub national level to ensure justice and security service
delivery and protection of survivors/ victims of sexual and gender based violence and
conflict based violence;
Ensure close co-ordination and collaboration with other UNDP and UN activities related to
specific aspects of women’s empowerment and gender issues;
Prioritize capacity building for female judges, prosecutors and lawyers and support
networks/platforms for their engagement in justice dialogue forums and coordination
mechanisms;
Ensure active involvement of women in legal awareness campaigns and legal clinics; and
Ensure active involvement and participation of women and women’s organisations in social
integration, confidence-building, and reconciliation actions, and target skills development
and training activities for women and women’s organisations in these areas; and
Support (or advocate for) judicial and legal aid reforms that fully respond to the needs of
victims of SGBV, including by providing adequate protection
Other cross-cutting issues – in particular, ethnic and linguistic minority rights, and the protection
of children and other vulnerable persons – will be specifically analysed and then mainstreamed
into all planning and activity implementation. As this is a programme focused upon human rights,
initiatives specifically addressing the needs of these groups will be a mainstay of programming.
2.3
Expected Programme Outcomes and Outputs
The overall Outcome of the Programme is:
15
PROGRAMME OUTCOME: Strengthened protection of human rights and rule of law, which
addresses the consequences and underlying causes of the conflict, in conflict-affected
regions of Ukraine.
The Programme is designed around four key outputs. Sub-outputs and indicative activities will be
sequenced to address priorities in a balanced and mutually reinforcing manner. The Outputs and
Sub-outputs are:
OUTPUT 1: Increased capacity of justice institutions for efficient, effective, and transparent
service delivery.
The Programme will help justice sector institutions to provide more comprehensive, efficient,
effective, and transparent justice service-delivery to the public, including targeted services to
vulnerable persons, adapted to take into account the special circumstances of the crisis in the
country and conflict-related crime. Support will assist justice sector personnel to enhance access
to justice by reducing physical barriers, providing more effective and coherent justice servicedelivery to citizens to negotiate through complex procedures, and, thereby, enable citizens to
overcome social, physiological or psychological hurdles, in order to assert - or obtain remedies to
violations of - their rights and feel that justice is being done.
Main Partners: MoJ and regional departments of Justice, local courts and prosecutors, lawyers
and the Bar, CSOs, and communities
Output 1.1: Institutionalised primary and secondary legal aid system7 providing quality legal aid
service to the vulnerable and conflict- affected population, including victims of SGBV.
The Programme will assist regional departments of justice to better coordinate primary free legal
aid provision – and continue to support institutionalisation of primary legal aid services in
municipalities or communities where it is lacking based on experience of previous support – while
strengthening the referral system to free secondary legal aid services, in order to ensure more
comprehensive and sustainable legal aid provision to all citizens, but especially to the conflictaffected population and those most in need, such as women and youth. It will also support
enhanced primary and secondary legal aid by civil society to address any specific gaps in the legal
services being provided to persons directly affected by the conflict: e.g., victims of conflict-related
crime.
Output 1.2: Justice sector personnel have the knowledge and skills to address conflict-related
crime, including the SGBV crimes.
The Programme will, based upon Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) implementation monitoring
previously supported by UNDP, assist in the development of tools, methodology, and delivery of
practical training. Such training will encompass constitutional guarantees, ECHR, international
criminal law, and other applicable international norms, as well as the professional and emotional
skills necessary to relate sensitively and effectively with the victims or witnesses of conflict-related
crime, especially SGBV, and cope with potentially traumatic evidence. The aim will be to enable
local level judges, local court staff, prosecutors, and lawyers to apply the criminal law properly, so
that violations of the rights of citizens, especially those arising from the conflict, may be identified,
avoided, reduced or punished, and ensure that victims receive ‘justice’.
2011 Law of Ukraine on “Free legal aid” lays down the foundation for development of a two-fold (primary and
secondary) legal aid system. The primary legal aid comprises provision of general legal information and initial legal
advice and is to be offered free of charge in every legal matter for the whole population. This includes information on
issues related to health, social assistance, housing, property, etc. The secondary legal aid is more specific and
comprises detailed provision of legal opinion and assistance in writing submissions, protection of the interests of
accused and convicted persons, representation before courts, state administration bodies and other institutions.
7
16
Output 1.3: Access to information and transparency in the courts is enhanced.
The Programme will support the introduction of practices intended to promote access to
information and transparency in the courts, making them more accountable and open to citizens
and, thereby, increasing public trust. Toward this end, two aspects will be addressed: (1)
transparency regarding the administrative functioning of the courts (e.g., access to information on
budgets, procurement, and other expenses; access to data on judges’ assets and income
disclosure statements), and (2) transparency regarding the courts’ judicial functioning (e.g.,
publication of court judgements and court statistics.
Output 1.4: Reduced physical obstacles to justice-service delivery, particularly in conflict-affected
communities.
The Programme will assist local justice authorities to identify and rehabilitate or reconstruct justice
infrastructure – courts, department of justice offices, police facilities, etc. – that has been damaged
by military action, fallen into a state of disrepair or obsolescence, or been relocated from the
conflict zone or occupied territory. Support will also encompass procurement of technical
equipment and rectification of other deficiencies that significantly impair the functionality of the
institution or the public’s – as well as victims and witnesses’ - access to it; including transportation.
(This would be done based upon the principles of cost-sharing applied by UNDP in other projects.)
Output 1.5: Government has a comprehensive policy and mechanism for conflict-related
restitution.
In order to acknowledge the suffering of victims of the conflict and begin the reconciliation process,
the Programme will assist the Government, in consultation with stakeholders, to develop a
comprehensive policy and action plan, in line with international standards and best practice, for the
compensation of victims of crimes – e.g., (S)GBV, torture, ill-treatment, enforced disappearance or property rights violations that occurred in territory when it was not under government-control,
including in subsequently liberated territories, as a result of the conflict.
OUTPUT 2: Strengthened civilian oversight of rights’ protection.
The Programme will channel support to civil society to allow them to monitor more territory and
institutions, as well as research and analyse more efficiently and in-depth. In this manner, civilians
may oversee law implementation by the authorities, providing a check and feedback mechanism
on justice service-delivery to citizens, and applying targeted pressure – domestic and international
- on officials when they violate the rights of citizens.
Main Partners: OO; CSOs; CSO-networks or coalitions, and law faculties
Output 2.1: Civil society exercises more effective oversight over justice and security service
delivery.
The Programme will continue, and enhance upon, previous UNDP support to CSOs, by monitoring
justice-delivery bodies - i.e., defence lawyers, prosecutors and courts – specifically, as regards
implementation of the CPC but, more generally, of the overall court procedure. Additionally, it will
support civil society, including the OO, in monitoring implementation of the ‘National Human Rights
Strategy’ and ‘National Action Plan “Women. Peace. Security”’, once adopted.
Output 2.2: Civil society networks strengthened for human rights’ monitoring, documentation, and
reporting.
The Programme will increase support to CSOs to continue to monitor – document and report - the
overall human rights situation, as well as specific violations, in Crimea and conflict-affected areas
17
in the East. It will facilitate the extension of the OO coordinator network to the conflict-affected
areas, in particular Donetsk and Luhansk, and the OO’s capacity to coordinate and support the
work of CSOs in those areas. The monitoring work supported will include: (a) investigation of
complaints relating to violations of rights that occur or occurred in government-controlled territory,
(b) documentation – to the extent possible – of violations that occur or occurred in territory
currently controlled by anti-government forces, and (c) support for the registration of complaints
with the OO regarding crimes or other violations of rights – e.g., property rights - committed in
territory currently controlled by anti-government forces. The results of monitoring will feed into, and
the Programme will support CSOs, including strengthening CSO coalitions and networks, in the
preparation of alternative or shadow reports, on the implementation of the international human
rights obligations of Ukraine.
OUTPUT 3: Strengthened personal and community security.
In order to enhance actual and perceived security for individuals and communities, the Programme
will support initiatives that: (a) enable the officials responsible for security in conflict-affected areas
to better understand and cope with the challenges of the crisis and, thereby, better protect society;
and (b) ensure that individuals and communities in the conflict-affected areas are more informed
about security risks and about their rights, and better able to access remedies, including protection
from and by the security services, so that they might take steps to safeguard and increase their
own security. Communities’ perception of their security will be tracked, starting with a baseline
survey, with follow-up surveys at regular intervals for the duration of the Programme.
Main Partners: Local police, military prosecutors, Army, security services, CSOs, and communities
Output 3.1: Security and military services have better skills and understanding of their rights and
responsibilities to protect people in conflict-affected areas.
In order to reduce the incidence of inadvertent violation of citizens’ rights, as well as to prepare
officials better to deal with the specific and extraordinary nature of crimes and other violations of
rights occurring in the context of a conflict, the Programme will support training on Human Rights –
including dealing with survivors of SGBV - and International Criminal and Humanitarian Law for
law enforcement officers, military prosecutors, security services, and military forces. Training
would place particular emphasis on gender aspects of the conflict – including SGBV and zero
tolerance for sexual exploitation, abuse or GBV committed by security services or military forces and safeguards for individuals and civilian/non-combatants; e.g., incorporating the ‘Basic
Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officers’ and other applicable
international standards. The training will be prepared and presented using practical, interactive
methodology that sets the violations within the national legal framework – e.g., CPC and Criminal
Code - and operating procedures of the trainees, with targeted case-studies and scenarios. As a
check on the system, and success of this activity-area, the Programme will additionally support the
development of internal capacity in law enforcement bodies to monitor their own observance of
human rights, including developing curricula and training police and prosecutors on standards –
e.g., Criminal Procedure Code and international standards - regarding investigation procedures
and the collection of evidence.
Output 3.2: Improved coordination between citizens, law enforcement bodies, and military and
security services to promote community security.
The Programme will facilitate initiatives to build confidence within the community and with state
bodies: e.g., citizens’ forums or discussion platforms; education on and development of CivilMilitary Co-operation (CIMIC) programmes within the Army; more accountable staffing of local
police forces; improved coordination and collaboration between civilians – and, in particular,
women - police, prosecutors, and military/security services, including information exchange. Such
initiatives might include the development of communication links – including use of technologybased information exchange – between communities and security/military services, especially the
18
police, through introduction of joint-patrols, community-policing techniques or regular informationexchange mechanisms.
Output 3.3: Improved individual and community awareness of rights and risks in the conflictaffected areas.
The Programme will, from the outset and continually throughout implementation, gauge local
communities’ perception and understanding of the security situation and their rights. Based upon
this, the Programme will assist local communities and civil society to prepare and
distribute/present materials at schools, through local media, and in public/community meetings that
raise public awareness about security-related concerns and coping in a hostile environment: e.g.,
weapons proliferation, UXOs and mines, conflict-related SGBV, and incident reaction, or the
operations of the police, security services or military in the area. In conjunction with this,
Programme support will be given to the development of effective, user-friendly materials and use
of media that explain, in practical terms with realist scenarios, the scope and content of human
and other legal rights – including procedural rights – as well as personal responsibilities, the
mandate and function of relevant institutions, the processes by which to protect or assert one’s
rights, and remedies (including legal aid and victim-support services) for any violation of rights.
The Programme will also support CSOs to provide accompaniment to conflict-affected population
(victims) and support the creation of victims associations and networks.
OUTPUT 4: Enhanced trust within and between communities and state institutions.
The Programme will, in this output-area, seek to overcome tensions, support information-sharing
and promote understanding, including joint-action for the common benefit, between IDP and host
communities, and between communities in different regions of the country, as well as with, and
between, justice and security agencies, thereby reducing the potential for further conflict.
Main Partners: Local police, justice and security (public) councils, regional depts. of Justice, Army
and other military forces, security services, CSOs, volunteer networks, and communities
Output 4.1: Enhanced trust between local institutions and the population, through increased
citizens’ participation with local authorities.
Confidence between citizens and the state will be built-up, or re-built, by increasing the
understanding, and engagement, of citizens and civil society representatives in policy and
legislative development, the delivery of justice services, and the broader justice reform process. In
part, this will be pursued using models and modalities first developed in the west of Ukraine, then
adapted to the circumstances in the east. Specifically, the Programme will promote the
development of public councils – i.e., the legally-mandated platforms, established in conjunction
with administrative bodies, for CSOs to review the actions of, consult, and advise said associated
bodies - associated with regional departments of justice or internal affairs. That is, to make the
councils more effective platforms civil society input and advice regarding justice reform and the
protection of rights. It will do this by identifying the key elements and practices of successful
‘justice’ or ‘security’ councils – mainly in Western Ukraine - and supporting the replication of these,
with appropriate adaptations to local conditions, including building local CSO capacity, in other
regions where the councils are being reconstituted.
The Programme will also assist regional departments of justice develop or use tools and
methodologies to more effectively disseminate information about policy and legislation to the
public, including targeted beneficiary groups. Links with public councils attached to the MoJ, MIA
or related national-level agencies will also be supported by the Programme, in order to improve
their effectiveness, but also to cultivate an access point for feedback from Programme-sponsored
local level activities and reforms in the justice sector.
Output 4.2: Confidence increased between communities in the country.
19
The Programme will foster initiatives to build confidence and reduce tension between communities
in different parts of the country (“East-West”). This will include tapping into existing volunteer or
CSO networks, as well as use of social media, to promote inter-community dialogue, cultural,
professional or educational exchanges, volunteerism, or provide assistance to initiatives – e.g.,
SME development, provision/exchange of professional services or volunteerism - to engage IDPs
with their host communities, returnees with those who remained during the conflict, or residents of
communities in one region with those in other regions, as well as to counter intolerance and
extremism, including hate crimes. It will also assist communities to identify, rehabilitate or
reconstruct community infrastructure that is of benefit to both IDP and host communities – e.g.,
schools, medical facilities – ideally with in-kind contributions or the direct participation of the
beneficiaries.
2.4
Beneficiaries
The primary beneficiaries of the Programme will be communities and individuals in the conflictaffected areas of the country, but the system change promoted will also benefit communities and
individuals in other parts of the country, as well as justice and security sector personnel: e.g.,
regional departments of justice, local level judges, prosecutors, police forces, and regional legal
aid coordination centres, public councils affiliated with regional departments of Justice or Internal
Affairs, the Bar, local lawyers, and CSOs, as well as the Army and security services.
2.5
Partnerships & Coordination
One UN - Global Focal Point on Rule of Law
OHCHR is the main partner for UNDP in the Programme: sharing a ‘joint approach’ to support for
strengthened protection of human rights, which will include coordinated programming and
exchange of technical expertise. In March 2014, OHCHR deployed a Human Rights Monitoring
Mission to Ukraine to monitor and report on the human rights situation throughout Ukraine. The
Mission’s mandate also included proposing recommendations to the Government and other actors
on ways to address emerging human rights issues, as well as the root causes of the situation that
was developing. Since April 2014, OHCHR has issued monthly public reports on the human rights
situation, based on the findings of the Human Rights Monitoring Mission teams in Kyiv, Donetsk,
Kharkiv, Lviv and Odessa. (The Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine also monitors the
situation in Crimea from its office in Kyiv and elsewhere.) Initially deployed for a period of three
months, the mandate of the Human Rights Monitoring Mission has been extended several times.
OHCHR will continue and upgrade its mission and expand the number and territorial coverage of
its human rights’ monitoring; mainly in the East. It will also provide technical assistance to the
Government to follow-up (implementation of) its international human rights commitments, as well
as implement the National Human Rights Strategy.
UNDP has agreed on a ‘joint approach’ to programming with the OHCHR HRMMU, pursuant to
which OHCHR’s targeted technical assistance – e.g., training on specific thematic issues – would
complement the Programme’s support to general capacity-building of the Ombudsperson’s Office
and ‘Justice for Peace in Donbas’ CSO-coalition, as well as substantive human rights expert input
into the formulation or implementation of certain additional activities.
In the framework of the Global Focal Point for the Rule of Law, UNDP will also work closely with
other UN agencies – e.g., UNHCR, UNICEF and UNODC - as well as with the Global Protection
Cluster system. In particular, the Programme will coordinate closely with UNHCR in all activities
relating to IDPs, such as legal aid, given UNHCR’s mandate for the protection of IDPs. UNODC,
UNICEF, and ILO also run small projects, which are closely linked to their core mandates, with
which the Programme will coordinate if its activities touch upon those competencies: e.g.,
narcotics and trafficking, protection of children, or labour rights.
20
Donor Landscape & Coordination
Development Banks/Financial Institutions: The World Bank, EBRD, and IFC are not actively
involved in the sector. They currently limit their involvement in justice reform to matters relating to
financial and economic management, as well as business and trade - though the World Bank’s
engagement and commitments through the RPA process will be monitored for possible
cooperation opportunities.
The Programme will more actively engage with:
European Union (EU): The EU is probably the largest actor in the sector: manifested mainly
through projects administered by the EU Delegation, as well as the EU Advisory Mission
for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM).
The EUAM has a 2-year mandate, with a budget of EUR 2.68 million allocated for the start-up
phase of the mission, i.e. until 30 November 2015. After a long inception phase, the EUAM is now
up and running. It has a fairly wide mandate – i.e., the civilian security sector - which
encompasses human rights and civil society. EUAM advisors have already been actively involved
in discussions about police reform, the prosecution service, and judicial reform. However, EUAM
provides only technical expertise and cannot provide resources or funding for roll-out of initiatives.
EU projects cover a wide range of governance, democracy, human rights, and institutional reform
issues – and include, or have included legal aid, strategic litigation, civic oversight, awarenessraising, human rights’ education, detention regimes, and administrative courts. Most notably, the
EU is supporting development of the national ‘Judiciary and Justice Reform Strategy’ through its
‘Support to Justice Sector Reforms in Ukraine’ Project. The project facilitates cooperation and
exchange of experience and best practices between the Ukrainian authorities and experts from EU
countries (e.g., Germany, France, Lithuania, and Poland) in order to ensure sustainable reform in
five key areas: access to justice, the right to defence, police and prosecutorial reform,
strengthening the independence of the judiciary, and fighting corruption. The project will run for 3.5
years, starting in 15 October 2013, with a total budget of EUR 8.6 million. The EU has collaborated
with UNDP in the past – not least in the CBA Project - as it has no direct implementation capacity
of its own.
Council of Europe (CoE): Although technically separate, the Council of Europe often implements
EU-funded initiatives, and has worked with UNDP on a pilot to monitor courts’ implementation of
the CPC. Apart from providing technical expertise and advice on key justice sector legislation –
and, in particular, on application of the ECHR - through the Venice Commission and other
mechanisms, the CoE has or is planning projects working on broader criminal justice reform, the
judiciary, the Bar (lawyers’ associations), police, anti-discrimination and minorities, ill-treatment,
and constitutional reform. CoE support is mainly focused around standards, monitoring of
implementation (e.g., of CPC), and technical assistance. The CoE, in general, does not implement
or provide direct support at the local level.
OSCE: The OSCE presence in Ukraine is via the Project Co-ordinator’s office (PCO) and the
Special Monitoring Mission (SMMU).
While the SMMU engages in some preliminary dialogue facilitation and reconciliation work, its
work in the sphere of human rights and rule of law mainly takes the form of gathering data from its
field teams, including those in the conflict-zone. To date, it has done little analysis of the data
collected, although it has transferred some of it to other agencies, but it plans to develop more
analytical capacity in its Kyiv HQ in the near future.
The PCO has a number of projects in the rule of law field: most notably on administrative justice
and related training of judges, legal education, and primary legal aid with local branches of the
MoJ. It also reviews draft legislation and supports dialogue on judicial reform. It is planning a
project on police reform in consultation with the EUAM, which may involve an element on
community policing, but that seems to be hold because of a lack of funding, It plans to provide
support to convert the National Human Rights Strategy into an action plan.
21
ODIHR is also now working in Ukraine: training human rights defenders and conducting
assessments on civil society, minorities, and freedom of religion. It is planning a major project (2
years – approx. EUR 2 million) that will: promote dialogue and build confidence between
communities; support cooperation between Ukrainian and Russian CSOs on human rights,
conflict, and reconciliation, provide training for civil society on human rights’ monitoring and
advocacy, supported with a small grants funds; facilitate discussions between civil society and
national government stakeholders on parliamentary and political party ethics and regulation, as
well as women’s participation and public consultation; and strengthen civil society’s capacity to
monitor and record incidents of hate crimes, as well as support victims and other groups at risk.
USA: The US is the other big actor in the sector in Ukraine. It provides support through a number
of USAID-funded projects, as well as directly from the Embassy, through small Democracy Grants,
and via the US Department of Justice, which provides technical assistance and funding to support
criminal justice reform and anti-corruption. USAID projects include initiatives to enhance access to
justice, through pro bono legal aid, strategic litigation, and training of monitors. The major initiative
in the sector is the FAIR Justice project, which supports court reform, including some work –
particularly on automation - with pilot courts, and on judicial qualification, as well as monitoring of
(physical) access to courts. USAID is currently formulating its new country strategy, as the current
one ends in early 2016.
Sweden: Sida is working through the Folke Bernadotte Academy (FBA), is rolling-out the
municipal rule of law monitoring methodology that the latter piloted with UNDP. The new, 3-year,
‘Local Self-Government and Rule of Law in Ukraine’ Project will also build capacity with local
authorities to improve administrative service-delivery, as well as enhance related legal awareness
and advocacy in local populations.
Canada: DFATD (formerly CIDA) has a mature project focused on juvenile justice and relatively
new projects on ‘Judicial Education for Economic Growth’ and ‘Quality and Accessible Legal Aid’.
The latter is assisting the Legal Aid Coordination Centre to establish 100 new legal aid centres
countrywide, pursuant to the Centre’s mandate to provide free secondary legal aid in
administrative and civil disputes. The ‘Safeguarding Human Rights through Courts’ Project, which
is being implemented by OSCE over four years from 2014, has a budget of EUR 2.2 million.
Under the project, more than 3,000 Ukrainian judges will be trained to apply the European
Convention on Human Rights and case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
more effectively.
IRF: The International Renaissance Foundation (IRF)’s mission in Ukraine is to foster an open,
participatory, pluralist society, based on democratic values. It is part of the ‘Open Society
Foundations’ network established by George Soros. The Foundation has a human rights and
justice programme initiative, the goal of which is to prevent human rights violations, promote
effective anti-discrimination legislation and practices, and ensure disadvantaged and vulnerable
groups have access to justice and legal aid. In order to improve access to justice, the IRF
develops and promotes free legal aid systems across Ukraine by expanding the system of stateguaranteed legal aid, as well as providing consistent access to legal information and consultation
at the local level. In addition, it supports monitoring and documentation of violations of human
rights by: studying anti-discrimination practices and forming legislative mechanisms to defend
against various forms of discrimination; and increasing the capacity of civil society activists to
monitor and prevent torture and mistreatment in places of detention.
The Programme will work closely with the aforementioned development partners and initiatives,
both to ensure that there is no overlap or duplication, but also in order to cooperate so as to create
synergy in closely-related or inter-connected activity areas and, thereby, achieve maximum
developmental impact and roll-out. While the Programme Coordinator will have overall
responsibility for ensuring such coordination, the CTA and National Human Rights & Rule of Law
Specialist will facilitate such coordination and collaboration on a day-to-day, technical level.
22
2.6
Sustainability & Exit Strategy
The concept of sustainability is fundamental to the Programme theory of change, as it seeks to
promote positive change through reforms that – in addition to providing redress for specific
violations and injuries arising from the conflict - tackle the underlying causes of past (and potential
future) conflict in the country.
Programme support will primarily be aimed at the capacity-building of institutions and personnel,
even by means ad hoc activities, to: increase knowledge and skills of justice and security serviceproviders, and the understanding and engagement of rights-holders; enhance institutional capacity
to organise and coordinate; create systems and procedures; institutionalise justice (legal aid)
service-provision; facilitate routine and regular exchange of information and experience between
the centre and the regions; and change perceptions and build relationships between groups and
institutions. For example: when dedicated training is developed and delivered, it will then be
integrated into standing national training programmes. And, when systems are developed, the
knowledge to use, maintain, and expand them will be built into the beneficiary institution.
Personnel development, as well as the participation of stakeholders in all aspects of programme
planning and activity implementation, will be the basis for programme operation.
As the Programme will work in five pilot regions, and support pilot activities therein, successful
activities will then be up-scaled and replicated; while less successful ones will be analysed and
adapted based upon lessons-learned. The use of a ‘control’ region will facilitate the rolling-out of
effective mechanisms developed under the Programme before the conflict-affected regions and,
thereby, lay a foundation for nation-wide change.
The Programme will set up a M&E framework - including specific programme activities to establish
more concrete baselines and benchmarks - to be able to track progress in capacity and
confidence-building. It will provide technical assistance through international and national experts particularly for training and institution-strengthening - so that appropriate quality assurance
mechanisms will be established within national implementing partners; enabling them to take the
programme agenda forward in full. In addition, the programme is built upon lessons-learnt from
earlier initiatives, and will be implemented by means of pilot activities, initially in 5 regions, working
through a community-based network; thereby, paving the way for future ‘replicability’, scaling-up,
and rolling-out countrywide.
An exit strategy will be linked to the mid to long-term reform agenda of the Government, once
those are formalised, as well as developments on the ground and in consultation with national
stakeholders. There must be flexibility, not only in implementing the programme, but also in the
development and execution of an exit strategy. The exit strategy should be developed in close
consultation with stakeholders and beneficiaries, as well as development partners, during the
programme implementation phase, starting no later than – and as part of - a programme mid-term
review. Based upon these consultations, as well as needs identified in the sector, the programme
may then be phased out, refocused or extended in the form of a second phase or follow-up
programme.
23
III.
RESULTS AND RESOURCES FRAMEWORK
Intended Outcome as stated in
the Country Programme
Results and Resources
Framework:
Outcome indicator(s) as stated
in the Country Programme
Results and Resources
Framework:
Applicable Key Result Area
(from UNDP Strategic Plan,
2014-20##):
Intended Project Outputs:
Implementation Modality:
Partnership Strategy:
Project Title and ID:
Outcome #:
CPR Key Result Area #.#
Output 1: Increased capacity of justice institutions for efficient, effective, and transparent service delivery
Output 2: Strengthened civilian oversight of rights protection
Output 3: Strengthened personal and community security
Output 4: Enhanced trust within and between communities and state institutions
Direct implementation (DIM)
TITLE: Rule of Law for Stabilisation in Ukraine: Addressing the Causes and Consequences of the Conflict (2015-2018).
ID: ########
Sub-Outputs
Baseline(s) / Indicator(s)
Output Targets (for years)
Indicative Activities
Responsible
Parties
Inputs
OUTPUT 1: Increased capacity of justice institutions for efficient, effective, and transparent service delivery
1.1. Institutionalised primary and
secondary legal aid system
providing quality legal aid service
to the vulnerable and conflictaffected population
Targets (year 1):
- Legal aid providers and
provision mapped.
- 4 coordination
meetings/region held.
Activity 1.1.1. Strengthen the ability of regional departments of
justice to coordinate primary legal aid provision, in order to ensure
more comprehensive and sustainable legal aid provision:
- Conduct a mapping of legal aid providers and legal aid provision
in pilot regions and gender sensitive baseline study/assessment
on access to justice in pilot regions.
Baseline:
- Support quarterly coordination meetings between depts. of
- Based upon mapping, legal
- No comprehensive picture of
justice and legal aid providers.
aid beneficiary criteria
(primary) legal aid coverage.
- Support establishment of (on-line) platform for coordination of
- Gaps in referral system between established.
legal aid provision.
primary and secondary legal aid. - 25 legal aid providers
- Commission an analysis of types of cases handled by all legal
aid providers.
trained.
- High and increasing demand for
- 10 mini-grants for legal aid
legal aid; especially amongst
Activity 1.1.2. Support enhanced primary and secondary legal aid
provision awarded.
vulnerable persons, and in
to vulnerable persons:
- X no. of beneficiaries
particular as a result of the
- Based upon demand/needs identified in mapping (1.1.1) identify
provided legal aid, 50% of
conflict.
categories of beneficiaries.
- Legal aid providers
- Provide mini-grants to CSOs to provide legal aid services to
whom are women.
inexperienced in dealing with
identified categories of beneficiaries.
victims of conflict.
- Provide training to selected CSOs on special legal needs of
- 5 legal aid (window) centres
beneficiaries
established in municipalities.
- Primary legal aid at the local
- 5 municipalities adopt
level still mainly provided by
Activity 1.1.3. Support continued institutionalisation of primary
primary legal aid provision
CSOs, usually with donor
legal aid:
support.
- Support establishment of municipal primary legal aid (window)
plans.
centres.
Indicators:
- Enhance legal aid provision in municipalities through outsourced
Targets (year 2):
- Mapping of legal aid providers - - 4 coordination
competition for basic primary legal aid provision by private
and provision.
lawyers.
meetings/region held.
- Quarterly coordination meetings.
- (Online) legal aid coordination
- Legal aid beneficiary criteria
platform.
reviewed (and revised).
- Beneficiary criteria for legal aid
25
UNDP,
M/DoJ,
partnership
CSOs, local
admin.
USD 1,065,000
provision.
- No. of small grants to provide
primary legal aid awarded
- No. of beneficiaries of legal aid
provision (segregated by sex and
categories identified)
- No. legal aid providers trained to
deal with conflict-affected clients
and cases including the victims of
SGBV
- 25 legal aid providers
trained
- 10 mini-grants for legal aid
provision awarded.
- X no. of beneficiaries
provided legal aid, 50% of
whom are women.
- 5 legal aid (window) centres
established in municipalities.
- No. legal aid (window) centres.
- X municipalities adopt
- No. of municipalities supporting
primary legal aid provision
primary legal aid provision.
plans.
- 1 municipality/region holds
competition for provision of
legal aid.
Targets (year 3):
- 4 coordination meetings/
region held.
- Legal aid caseload
analysed.
- X no. of beneficiaries
provided legal aid, 50% of
whom are women.
- 10 legal aid (window)
centres established in
municipalities.
- X municipalities adopt
primary legal aid provision
plans.
- 1 municipality/region holds
competition for provision of
primary legal aid.
26
- 10 contracts for provision of
primary legal aid awarded by
municipalities.
1.2 Justice sector personnel have Targets (year 1):
the knowledge and skills to
- Baseline study on SGBV
address conflict-related crime
designed and completed
(possibly as part of A2J
Baseline:
assessment – link to
- [Results of CPC Monitoring ?].
- Continued weak implementation activity1.1.1 ),
Activity 1.2.1. Train local judges and prosecutors, court staff, and
lawyers on implementation of the Criminal Law, including
international criminal law:
- Develop, based upon CPC monitoring, a training course and
materials on application of the Criminal Procedure Code and
Criminal Code, integrating the principles of the European
Convention on Human Rights, practice of the European Court on
of CPC by prosecutors and
Human rights, and applicable international norms governing
- Training course and
judges.
conflict-related crimes (i.e., international criminal law).
materials developed.
- Lack of understanding amongst
- Support training course and mentoring programme for judges,
justice personnel of implications
prosecutors, and defence lawyers (and court staff).
- 125 judges, prosecutors,
of Rome Statute accession.
- Support specific training for local judges, prosecutors, court staff,
lawyers, and court staff
- Judges, prosecutors, defence
and lawyers on addressing cases of SGBV and conflict-related
trained.
lawyers, and court staff struggle
sexual violence.
- International conference on - Facilitate exchange of experience with peers from the region
to cope professionally and
judicial training
personally with new (both in
(e.g., a study tour to ECtHR in Strasbourg and/or ICC in The
methodology held.
nature and severity) crimes
Hague) for successful trainees.
committed as a result of the
- Hold an international conference on judicial training
conflict; especially SGBV.
methodology.
Targets (year 2):
- Judges and prosecutors have
- 125 judges, prosecutors,
limited experience of international lawyers, and court staff
Activity 1.2.2 Strengthen capacity of judicial institutions
best practice with respect to the
strengthened to efficiently handle SGBV cases and ensure equal
trained.
trying of conflict-related crime.
access to legal and judicial protection for SGBV victims) (linked
- 1 study tour or peer-to-peer
- Judicial trainers have limited
to activity 3.1.1):
exchange held.
experience of international best
Support SGBV awareness campaigns through radio, TV,
practice regarding training
social media, etc.
Targets (year 3):
methodologies.
Support dissemination of legal information on SGBV by
- n/a
CSOs, legal aid providers and local authorities.
Indicators:
Support capacity of legal aid service providers to provide
- % change in misapplication of
services to SGBV survivors (linked to activities under subCPC and criminal law
output 1.1).
- % change in cases relating to
Support the mapping and development, if required, of
conflict-related crime, including
curriculum, training modules and training techniques on
sexual violence, and SGBV
SGBV for all justice sector institutions and actors (medico- No. of study tours or peer-tolegal, judicial and other relevant officials).
peer exchanges.
Support the development of policy and SOPs with other
- International conference on
partners to ensure prioritization of cases for investigation,
27
UNDP, NSJ,
NPA
USD 600,000
judicial training.
- [CPC monitoring results ?]
- % increase of cases of SGBV
processed by criminal justice
system.
1.3. Access to information and
transparency in the courts is
enhanced
Targets (year 1):
- Study of international best
practice on the administrative
transparency of courts
Baseline:
conducted.
- Data about court finances,
- Conference on international
including staff salaries, not
best practice regarding public
available to the public.
- Court efficiency statistics largely access to court operational
information held.
unavailable to the public.
- Few court decisions published
Targets (year 2):
or accessible to the public.
- 5 pilot initiatives to increase
- Heads of court and Court
Administrators unaware of
local court financial
international best practice
transparency.
regarding court financial or
- 1 pilot project/region to
operational transparency.
make local court decisions
and statistics accessible to
Indicators:
the public online.
- Study on international best
practice.
Targets (year 3):
- Conference on best practice.
- 10 pilot initiatives to
- No. of pilot initiatives on local
court financial transparency.
increase local court financial
- No. of pilot projects to publish
transparency.
court judgements and statistics.
- 2 pilot projects/region to
make local court decisions
and statistics accessible to
the public online.
1.4. Reduced physical obstacles Targets (year 1):
to justice, particularly those in
- needs assessment on
conflict-affected communities
justice infrastructure
rehabilitation and
Baseline:
reconstruction completed.
- 0 needs assessments on justice
prosecution and adjudication on SGBV.
Activity 1.3.1. Increase the transparency of the functioning of local
courts:
- Conduct a study of international best practice regarding public
access to information on court budgets, procurement, and other
expenses, as well as disclosure of data on judges’ salaries and
assets.
- Hold a conference on regional and international best practice
regarding public access to operational information – i.e.,
caseloads and decisions - about the courts.
- Support pilot initiatives aimed at increasing transparency on the
financial functioning of the local courts and court staff, including
judges
- Organise a pilot project in 3 courts/region to publish local court
decisions and court statistics online.
UNDP, SJA,
head of local
cts.
Activity 1.4.1. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of justice
infrastructure in conflict-affected regions:
UNDP, SJA,
- Carry out a needs assessment and consultations with respective M/DoJ, M/DIA,
justice partners, including local communities, to define the plan
Pros., local
for renovation of justice infrastructure – courts, department of
admin.
justice offices, police facilities, etc. – that has been damaged by
28
USD 120,000
USD 2,500,000
infrastructure rehabilitation and
reconstruction undertaken.
- 0 community consultations on
justice infrastructure rehabilitation
and reconstruction conducted.
- 0 justice infrastructure
rehabilitation and reconstruction
plans.
- justice infrastructure facilities
rehabilitated or reconstructed.
military action, fallen into a state of disrepair or obsolescence, or
been relocated from the conflict zone or occupied territory.
- Establish an infrastructure rehabilitation and reconstruction plan
in close cooperation with stakeholders.
- Carry out an engineering design of 10 justice infrastructure
facilities using local companies selected through competitive
bidding processes (to the extent possible).
- Rehabilitate/reconstruct 10 justice infrastructure facilities in
targeted areas.
Handover the rehabilitated/reconstructed infrastructure to the
Targets (year 2):
- X community consultations relevant partners for operation and maintenance.
Indicators:
on justice infrastructure
- Needs assessment undertaken. rehabilitation and
- No. of community consultations
reconstruction conducted.
conducted.
- 4 justice infrastructure
- No. of justice infrastructure
facilities rehabilitated or
facilities rehabilitated or
reconstructed.
reconstructed.
1.5. Government has a
comprehensive policy and
mechanism for conflict-related
restitution.
Baseline:
- 0 consultations on conflict
related restitution or
compensation.
- No plans or procedures for
conflict-related restitution or
compensation.
- Ad hoc claims for restitution or
- X community consultations
on justice infrastructure
rehabilitation and
reconstruction conducted.
- 1 justice infrastructure
facility rehabilitated or
reconstructed.
Targets (year 3):
- X community consultations
on justice infrastructure
rehabilitation and
reconstruction conducted.
- 5 justice infrastructure
facilities rehabilitated or
reconstructed.
Targets (year 1):
- Study conducted.
- Study Report and Action
Plan drafted.
- 2 consultations on Study
Report and draft Action Plan
held.
Activity 1.5.1. Support the Government to develop a
comprehensive policy and plan for restitution or compensation of
victims of the conflict in the East:
- Support the establishment of governmental Working Group on
compensation of victims of conflict.
- Study of international standards and best practice regarding
conflict-related restitution and compensation for victims of
crimes – e.g., SGBV, torture, ill-treatment, enforced
disappearance, and other violations of rights, including property
Targets (year 2):
right – committed during armed conflict, and development of an
- 8 consultations on Study
action plan.
Report and draft Action Plan
- Stakeholder consultation on action plan for conflict-related
held.
restitution and compensation.
29
UNDP, MoJ,
SES
USD 330,000
compensation submitted to
domestic justice bodies.
- International Workshop
held.
- Workshop report, with
recommendation finalised.
Indicators:
- Study report and draft action
plan.
Targets (year 3):
- No. of consultations.
- n/a
- International workshop and
workshop report.
Subtotal Output 1:
OUTPUT 2: Strengthened civilian oversight of rights protection
Targets (year 1):
- Monitoring procedures and
focus developed.
- X monitors trained on
Baseline:
procedure.
- [Results of CPC Monitoring ?]
- Continued weak implementation - X small grants for
monitoring awarded.
of CPC by prosecutors and
- Preliminary monitoring data
judges.
- Continued violations of CPC
analysed and report drafted.
procedural safeguards regarding
collection and admissibility of
Targets (year 2):
evidence by police and
- X monitors trained on
prosecutors.
procedure.
- X small grants for
Indicators:
monitoring awarded.
- Monitoring procedure
- Interim monitoring data
developed.
analysed and report drafted.
- No. monitors trained.
- No. small grants for monitoring
awarded.
Targets (year 3):
- Reports of monitoring data
- X monitors trained on
analysis.
procedure.
- X small grants for
monitoring awarded.
- Final monitoring data
analysed and report drafted.
Targets (year 1):
2.2. Civil society networks
2.1. Civil society exercises more
effective oversight over justice
and security service delivery.
USD 4,615,000
Activity 2.1.1. Support enhanced civil society monitoring of the
functioning of the local justice system (e.g., CPC implementation, UNDP, partner
GBV cases):
CSOs,
law faculties
- Identify issues and develop procedures to monitor.
- Train monitors (CSOs, law students, etc.) on procedure, as well
as related gender issues.
- Small grants to conduct monitoring.
- Periodic analysis of data from monitoring and compilation of
reports identifying issues, along with recommendations to
improve the delivery of local justice services.
Activity 2.2.1. Enhance human rights’ monitoring and
30
USD 325,000
strengthened for human rights
monitoring, documenting, and
reporting
Baseline:
- Ongoing violations of rights in
Crimea.
- Escalating violations of rights in
Donetsk and Luhansk and
security alerts in neighbouring
regions.
- Civil society in conflict-affected
regions still weak/weakened by
the conflict and dislocation, as
well as persecution by illegally
armed groups.
- CSO networks in the East still
inexperienced.
- CSOs inexperienced at
monitoring and documenting
serious violations of rights and
conflict-related crimes.
- Monitoring and
documentation needs
assessment conducted.
- 30 CSO/members trained
on monitoring and
documentation methodology.
- 6 grants awarded to CSOs
to conduct monitoring.
- Database developed
- Basic equipment supplied
to ‘Justice for Peace in
Donbas’ Secretariat.
- 2 advocacy campaigns
implemented.
- 1 study tour to the Balkans
to exchange experience on
conflict-related monitoring
and documentation.
- Study of international
practice regarding NHRI
regional representation
conducted.
- Efficiency of the OO
representation regional
representation system
- CSOs have participated in past assessed.
- Consultation workshop held
international human rights
conventions reporting processes. on adaptation of the OO
- A number of convention reports system.
are coming due in thematic areas - OO regional coordinators in
4 more regions..
in which CSOs do not have
dedicated expertise or reporting
- 40 CSO/members trained
experience.
- Media coverage of human rights on 2 international human
rights treaty reporting
reporting process still weak and
processes.
limited.
- CSOs provide input into 3
- OO regional representatives and
coordinators in 14 regions; not in
conflict-affected regions.
- OO collaboration with CSOs still
in exploratory stages.
documentation capacity in conflict-affected areas:
UNDP,
- Assess needs to monitor and document crimes and violations of OO, partner
CSOs, CSO
rights in conflict-affected areas, including the AR of Crimea.
coalition
JfPiD
- Develop methodology for monitoring and documentation.
- Building capacity of CSOs to monitor and document.
- Small grants to CSOs to conduct monitoring.
- Support development of systems to document crimes and other
violations of rights, including data protection protocols.
- Support development of women’s CSOs and CSO-network.
- Support the Secretariat of the CSO coalition ‘Justice for Peace
in Donbas’.
- Support for advocacy campaigns.
- Facilitate the exchange of international experience on, and
techniques for, monitoring and documentation of conflict-related
crimes and other violations of rights.
Activity 2.2.2. Extending the Ombudsperson’s Office’s presence in
the regions:
- Conduct a study of international practice regarding NHRI
regional representation, including the engagement of CSOs in
the fulfilment of a NHRI’s mandate.
- Assess the efficiency of the current system of OO representation
in the regions.
- Consultation on past practice, international practice, and
adaptation of the Ukrainian system to improve its effectiveness.
- Strengthen the coordination between the OO and human rights
CSOs in the regions.
Activity 2.2.3. Support CSOs to prepare alternative/shadow
reports on the implementation of Ukraine’s international human
rights obligations:
- Build the capacity of CSOs, particularly human rights
organisations from the regions, to provide substantive input into
Ukraine’s CEDAW, CERD, UPR, CAT, CRC and/or ICCPR
reporting processes.
- Support the establishment of civil society coalitions on thematic
human rights issues.
- Support advocacy efforts at the national and international levels,
including participation in international human rights’ forums.
31
USD 1,242,000
Indicators:
alternative/shadow treaty
- Support to the network of Human Rights Journalists to report
- Monitoring needs assessment
reporting processes .
more effectively on the state’s treaty reporting processes.
for conflict-affected areas,
- 3 thematic human rights
- Training of journalists on human rights concepts and standards
including Crimea.
civil society coalitions
- No. of CSO/members trained in established.
monitoring and documentation
- 2 national or international
techniques.
advocacy events supported.
- No. of CSOs conducting
Targets (year 2):
monitoring.
- Documentation systems
- 6 grants awarded to CSOs
developed.
to conduct monitoring.
- No. of advocacy campaigns.
- X CSOs adopt database for
- No. of exchanges of
use.
international experience.
- ‘Justice for Peace in
Donbas’ Secretariat
- Study on international best
practice regarding NHRI regional supported.
representation.
- 2 advocacy campaigns
- assessment of efficiency of OO implemented.
regional representation.
- No. of consultations on
- OO regional coordinators
improving effectiveness of OO’s
continued in 4 additional
regional coverage.
regions.
- No. of regions with OO
coordinators.
- 40 CSO/members trained
- No. CSO/members trained on
international human rights treaty
reporting.
- No. of thematic human rights
civil society coalitions
established.
- Input into alternative/shadow
treaty reports.
- No. of national and international
advocacy efforts.
on 2 international human
rights treaty reporting
processes.
- CSOs provide input into 3
alternative/shadow treaty
reporting processes.
- 4 thematic human rights
civil society coalitions
established.
- 2 national or international
advocacy events supported.
Targets (year 3):
- X CSOs adopt database for
use.
32
- ‘Justice for Peace in
Donbas’ Secretariat support
continued.
- 2 advocacy campaigns
implemented.
- OO regional coordinators in
all regions.
- 20 CSO/members trained
on 1 international human
rights treaty reporting
processes.
- CSOs provide input into 3
alternative/shadow treaty
reporting processes.
- 3 thematic human rights
civil society coalitions
established.
- 2 national or international
advocacy events supported.
Subtotal Output 2:
OUTPUT 3: Strengthened personal and community security
3.1. Security and military services
have better skills and
understanding of their rights and
responsibilities to protect people
in conflict-affected areas
USD 1,567,000
Targets (year 1):
- 5 trainings (x 30 pax) for
police held.
Activity 3.1.1. Build the capacity of law enforcement, military, and
security services to address conflict-related violations of
UNDP,
fundamental rights, including SGBV:
MoD/Army,
Pros., M/DIA,
- Develop training curricula and materials on applicable
- 5 trainings (x 30 pax) for
SBU
International Human Rights Law, International Criminal Law
military prosecutors held.
(i.e., international norms governing conflict-related crimes), and
Baseline:
- 1 workshop (25 pax) for
International Humanitarian Law, with a particular emphasis on
- Law enforcement, military
security services conducted.
safeguards for individuals and civilians/non-combatants,
prosecutors, military, and security
I
workshop
(25)
for
military
prepared and presented using practical, interactive methodology
services have limited or no
personnel
(officers)
that sets the rights within the national legal framework – i.e.,
knowledge of international law
conducted.
governing conflicts and conflictConstitution, Criminal Procedure Code, and Criminal code – and
related crime, including SGBV
operating procedures of the trainees, with targeted case-studies
- % fewer incidents of
crimes, especially as regards the
and scenarios.
international law violations.
protection of civilians and non- Deliver training to police in conflict-affected areas and
combatants.
33
USD 576,000
- Law enforcement, military, and
security services have limited
knowledge or understanding of
the domestic legal and procedural
rights of individuals, particularly in
a conflict situation.
- 5 (x 25 pax) assessment/
TOT workshop/region for
police and prosecutors
conducted.
strengthen capacity to efficiently handle and investigate SGBV
cases.
- Deliver training to military prosecutors, military forces, and
security services in conflicted-affected areas or about to be
deployed to conflicted-affected areas, including on investigation
- 1 trainings (x30 pax)/region
and prosecution of SGBV crimes.
for police on CPC held.
- Awareness-raising of military forces and security forces in
- [CPC monitoring report?]
- 1 trainings (x30 pax)/region
- Police and prosecutors have
conflicted-affected areas or about to be deployed to conflictedfor prosecutors on CPC held.
limited understanding of CPC
affected areas on moral and legal consequences committed in
- % fewer violations of
procedures, particularly those
their official and civil capacity.
relating to procedural safeguards criminal procedural
- Incorporate training into institutional training programmes and
for the accused.
rights/inadmissible evidence.
standard operating procedures of beneficiary forces.
- Poor coordination and lack of
responsibility between police and
Activity 3.1.2. Build the capacity of police and prosecutors to
prosecutors about the collection Targets (year 2):
- 5 trainings (x 30 pax) for
implement the CPC, with a special focus on investigation and
and submission of admissible
collection of evidence:
police held.
evidence in criminal case files,
- Assess police and prosecution practice regarding criminal
including on SGBV crimes.
- 5 trainings (x 30 pax) for
investigation, including the questioning of suspects and
military prosecutors held.
Indicators:
collection of evidence, case-file review, and submission of
- 1 workshop (25 pax) for
- No. of police, military
evidence in court.
prosecutors, military, and security security services conducted.
- Design interactive training curricula and materials on the
service personnel trained on
- I workshop (25) for military
Criminal Procedure Code – regarding investigation procedures,
international human rights,
personnel (officers)
the accused’s rights, and the admissibility of evidence.
humanitarian, and criminal law.
conducted.
- Deliver training to police and prosecutors in the regions.
- & of reduction in incidents of
violations of international law with - % fewer incidents of
- Facilitate dialogue between police and prosecutors on ways to
respect to civilians and nonimprove coordination regarding proper implementation of
international law violations
combatants reported by
procedures.
- 1 agency incorporates
monitoring.
curricula into institutional
- Curricula incorporated into
training.
police, military, and security
service institutional training
programmes.
- 1 (x 25 pax) assessment/
TOT workshop/region for
- Assessment of police and
prosecution criminal investigation police and prosecutors
practice.
conducted.
- No. of police and prosecutors
- 1 trainings (x30 pax)/region
trained on CPC.
34
- Fewer cases of violations of
procedural rights resulting in
inadmissible evidence reported
by monitoring.
- % increase of cases in
accordance with new CPC
(means of verification –
monitoring reports).
- % increase of cases of SGBV
investigated and prosecuted by
police and/or military and military
prosecutor’s office (vis-à-vis data
registered by hospitals).
for police on CPC held.
- 1 trainings (x30 pax)/region
for prosecutors on CPC held.% fewer violations of criminal
procedural rights/inadmissible
evidence.
Targets (year 3):
- % fewer incidents of
international law violations.
- 2 agencies incorporate
curricula into institutional
training.
- % fewer violations of
criminal procedural
rights/inadmissible evidence.
3.2. Improved coordination
between citizens, law
enforcement bodies, and military
and security services to promote
community security
Baseline:
- Poor relations and little
cooperation between military and
many local communities in
conflict-affected areas.
- A lack of trust and, therefore,
communication and coordination
between the military and security
services and some local police
forces and prosecutors.
- Lack of coordination between
police, prosecutors, military, and
security services causes
confusion, increases public fear
Targets (year 1):
- 6 (x 25 pax) trainings for
military personnel (officers)
on CIMIC held.
- Coordination and
confidence between
police/prosecutors and
military/security services
assessed.
- 2 initiatives to improve
coordination between
police/prosecutors and
military/security services in
conflict-affected areas
developed.
- 1 initiative to improve
coordination between
police/prosecutors and
military/security services in
Activity 3.2.1. Build capacity for Civil-Military Co-operation
(CIMIC):
- Design training on principles and international best practice
regarding CIMIC.
- Deliver training to military commanders and officers in HQ, ATO
HQ or deployment centres outside of the conflict-affected areas.
Activity 3.2.2. Improve coordination and collaboration between law
enforcement and military/security bodies:
- Assess coordination and confidence issues between law
enforcement – police and prosecutors – and military and
security forces in conflict-affected areas.
- Develop and support initiatives to improve coordination and
confidence between security forces in conflict-affected areas;
including joint operations.
Activity 3.2.3. Facilitate communication links between communities
and the police and security services in conflict-affected regions:
- Identify, in consultation with communities (with a special focus
35
UNDP,
MoD/Army,
M/DIA,
Pros.,
SBU, local
admin., mil-civ
admin.
USD 699,000
because one force does not know
what the others are doing, and
reduces overall security.
- A long-standing lack of
confidence by the public in the
police, which has been
exacerbated by the conflict.
- The public fears the security
services, which has been
increased by counter-insurgency
security operations in conflictaffected areas.
- The lack of public confidence in
the police and security services
means there is poor
communications between them,
reducing the ability of the police
and security services to identify
and response rapidly and
effectively to security threats to
the public (or the state).
- A number of police in ‘liberated’
territories summarily dismissed,
causing resentment in local
forces.
- Some police who allegedly
collaborated with occupying
separatist forces and are
implicated in rights’ violations are
still serving on the police force.
conflict-affected areas
implemented.
Indicators:
- No. of military personnel trained
on CIMIC.
- Assessment of coordination and
confidence between the
police/prosecutors and
military/security services in
conflict-affected areas.
- No. of coordination and
confidence initiatives between
Targets (year 2):
- 2 (x 25 pax) trainings for
military personnel (officers)
on CIMIC held.
- 5 consultations with
communities about local
security concerns.
- 5 community security
response strategies
developed.
- 10 pilot initiatives to improve
communications between
communities and police
developed.
- 5 pilot initiatives to improve
communications between
communities and police
tested.
- % increase in public
confidence in police/security
services.
- Police forces in conflictaffected areas assessed
- Study of international police
disciplinary practice
conducted.
- 5 stakeholder consultations
on police disciplinary
procedures held.
on women and children), local personal and community security
concerns.
- Develop a response strategy.
- Pilot-test initiatives to improve communications: e.g.,
(a) joint civilian-police patrols;
(b) community policing techniques; or
(c) regular public consultation or information-exchange
mechanisms, including citizens’ forums, discussion
platforms or technology-based information exchange.
Activity 3.2.4. Support the Government to develop a policy and
procedure to review – and discipline – police officers and other
officials in conflict-affected areas:
- Assessment of police forces in Conflict-affected areas, including
acts or omissions during period of separatist occupation, and
disciplinary procedures previously undertaken.
- Study of international standards and best practice regarding
police disciplinary procedures, including procedural fairness,
and development of an action plan.
- Stakeholder consultation on action plan on police disciplinary
procedure.
- 3 initiatives to improve
coordination between
police/prosecutors and
military/security services in
conflict-affected areas
36
police/prosecutors and
military/security services in
conflict-affected areas.
- Response strategy to improve
confidence and cooperation
between communities and
police/security services.
- No. of pilot initiatives to improve
confidence and cooperation
between communities and the
police/security services.
- Baseline and no. of surveys on
the public’s perception of security
- Study of international police
disciplinary procedures.
- No. of stakeholder consultations
on police disciplinary procedures.
developed.
- 2 initiatives to improve
coordination between
police/prosecutors and
military/security services in
conflict-affected areas
implemented.
- 10 consultations with
communities about local
security concerns.
- 10 community security
response strategies
developed.
- 5 pilot initiatives to improve
communications between
communities and police
developed.
- 5 pilot initiatives to improve
communications between
communities and police
tested.
- % increase in public
confidence in police/security
services.
- 5 stakeholder consultations
on police disciplinary
procedures held.
Targets (year 3):
- 2 (x 25 pax) trainings for
military personnel (officers)
on CIMIC held.
- 2 initiatives to improve
coordination between
police/prosecutors and
military/security services in
conflict-affected areas
37
implemented.
- 5 pilot initiatives to improve
communications between
communities and police
tested.
- % increase in public
confidence in police/security
services.
3.3. Improved individual and
community awareness on rights
and risks in the conflict-affected
areas
Baseline:
- Limited hard data on public’s
perception of security in conflictaffected areas; especially that of
women.
- Low public knowledge about
risks posed by mines, UXOs,
shelling, weapons proliferation,
the heightened risk of SGBV or
generally how to identify and
respond to conflict-related
security threats.
[- Reports of casualties?]
- Poor public understanding of
police, military, and security
service operations in the conflict
zone result in hostility, occasional
security incidents, and a lack of
coordination and cooperation.
- Citizens have a poor
understanding of their legal rights,
as well as related procedures and
remedies, and the role of justice
and security institutions, which
- n/a
Targets (year 1):
Activity 3.3.1. Assessing communities’ sense of security:
- Baseline survey conducted. - Design survey to assess public – and, in particular, women’s –
perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes towards peace, security,
- X citizens exposed to
campaigns and materials on and justice.
- Conduct baseline survey.
hostile environment
- Analyse results and refine survey.
awareness.
- Conduct follow-up surveys annually.
- % increase in awareness
amongst the targeted
Activity 3.3.2. Raise public awareness of security-related issues:
population.
- [Fewer incidents/casualties] - Design user-friendly materials and media campaigns that
explain:
(a) hostile environment awareness – e.g., UXOs, mines,
- X citizens exposed to
weapons, conflict-related SGBV, incident reaction; and
campaigns and materials on
(b)
the operations of the police, security services, and
legal rights and remedies,
military
in the area.
including justice reform
Deliver
the
materials
and campaigns to communities in the
processes, awareness.
conflict-affected
regions.
- % increase in awareness
- Assess, before and after, the impact of the materials and
amongst the targeted
campaigns on the awareness of the target populations.
population.
- % increase in legal aid
consultations in targeted
communities.
Targets (year 2):
- 2nd survey conducted.
- X citizens exposed to
campaigns and materials on
hostile environment
awareness.
Activity 3.3.3. Increase citizens’ awareness of rights:
- Design user-friendly materials and media campaigns – including
use of social media – that explain, in practical terms with realist
scenarios, the scope and content of human and other legal rights
– including procedural rights – the mandate and function of
relevant justice and security institutions, the processes by which
one can protect or assert one’s rights – including use of legal aid
– and remedies for the violation of rights.
- Deliver the materials and campaigns to communities in the
regions.
38
UNDP,
local admin.,
mil-civ admin.,
partner CSOs,
SES
USD 1,150,000
makes them less likely to assert
their rights, vulnerable to abuse,
and distrustful of authorities.
- The public have little knowledge
understanding of national justice
sector reform processes, resulting
in mistrust, resentment or
impatience at the seeming lack of
positive change at the local level.
- % increase in awareness
- Assess, before and after, the impact of the materials and
amongst the targeted
campaigns on the awareness of the target populations- Specific
population.
awareness raising and “campaign” on SGBV
- [Fewer incidents/casualties]
Activity 3.3.4 Establish a Small Grants Fund (SGF) for CSOs to
- X citizens exposed to
provide accompaniment to conflict-affected population (victims):
campaigns and materials on - Create a SGF that can be accessed by locally-active CSOs for
legal rights and remedies,
projects ranging between 15,000-20,000 USD.
including justice reform
- Provide grants based on project proposals for assistance with
processes, awareness.
creating victims associations and networks, and with public
Indicators:
- % increase in awareness
outreach and advocacy.
- Baseline and no. of surveys on amongst the targeted
Create a coordination network between CSOs involved in SGF
the public’s perception of security. population.
component.
- No. of public awareness
- % increase in legal aid
campaigns and materials on
consultations in targeted
- Provide CSO training related to project development and
coping in a hostile (conflictcommunities.
implementation, reporting and grant drafting
affected) environment.
Targets (year 3):
- No. of public awareness
campaigns and materials on legal - 3rd and 4th (final) surveys
rights and remedies, as well as
conducted.
justice reform processes.
- X citizens exposed to
- Assessments of impact of
campaigns and materials on
campaigns and materials.
hostile environment
awareness.
- % increase in awareness
amongst the targeted
population.
- [Fewer incidents/casualties]
- X citizens exposed to
campaigns and materials on
legal rights and remedies,
including justice reform
processes, awareness.
- % increase in awareness
amongst the targeted
population.
- % increase in legal aid
consultations in targeted
communities.
Subtotal Output 3:
USD 2,425,000
39
OUTPUT 4: Enhanced trust within and between communities and state institutions
4.1. Enhanced trust between local
institutions and the population,
through increased citizens’
participation with local authorities
Baseline:
- Public councils inactive or
ignored by public bodies.
- CSO members of public
councils inexperienced or
deferential to public authority.
- All public councils to be
reconstituted.
Targets (year 1):
- Development 1 justice or
security public council
agenda/region strengthened.
- 1 national-regional justice
public council coordination
meeting/region facilitated.
- 1 national-regional security
public council coordination
meeting/region facilitated.
- Assessment of
communication and
dissemination methodologies
and tools conducted.
- DoJ/DIAs lack communications - Justice or security
strategy.
information campaigns/region
- Dissemination methods and
developed.
media underfunded, ineffective, - 1 national justice or security
and unresponsive.
communication strategy or
- No mechanism for implementing plan piloted in the regions.
national communications
Targets (year 2):
strategies at the local level.
- 1 justice or security public
Indicators:
council/region strengthened.
- No. public council agenda
- 1 national-regional justice
developed.
public council coordination
- No. of public councils meetings meeting/region facilitated.
and minutes of discussions.
- 1 national-regional security
- No. coordination meetings
public council coordination
between regional and national
meeting/region facilitated.
public councils.
- Justice or security
- Assessment of communication information campaigns/region
and dissemination methodologies developed.
and tools.
- 2 national or security
- No. of information campaigns
communication strategy or
using improved methodologies or plan piloted in the regions.
tools.
Activity 4.1.1. Support development of regional justice and security
(public) councils:
UNDP,
M/DoJ,
- Support the development of agendas for councils.
M/DIA, public
- Support civil society engagement, including women’s
councils,
associations (if existent) in the councils, including provision of
partner CSOs
expert advice and other resources, to enable them to more
effectively foster improved justice service-delivery and
strengthen rights’ protection.
- Support the coordination network between regional and
national-level justice and security public councils.
Activity 4.1.2. Strengthen responsive communication of justice and
security law and policy to the public:
- Assessment of existing local public communications and
dissemination methodologies and tools.
- Support for development and delivery of local justice or security
information campaigns, using improved methodologies and
tools, in the regions.
- Piloting of national justice or security communication strategies
– e.g., the EUAM-developed model – in the regions.
40
USD 416,000
- No. of national level
communications strategies or
plans piloted in the regions.
4.2. Increased confidence
between communities in the
country
Baseline:
- 0 consultations on intercommunity cooperation
conducted.
- 0 inter-community confidencebuilding initiatives carried out.
- 0 needs assessments on
community infrastructure
rehabilitation and reconstruction
undertaken.
- 0 community consultations on
community infrastructure
rehabilitation and reconstruction
conducted.
- 0 community infrastructure
rehabilitation and reconstruction
plan.
- Community infrastructure
facilities rehabilitated or
reconstructed.
Targets (year 3):
- 1 justice or security public
council/region supported.
- 1 national-regional justice
public council coordination
meeting/region facilitated.
- 1 national-regional security
public council coordination
meeting/region facilitated.
- Justice or security
information campaigns/region
developed.
- 2 national or security
communication strategy or
plan piloted in the regions.
Targets (year 1):
Activity 4.2.1. Foster initiatives to build confidence between
- X consultations on intercommunities in different regions of the country (‘East-West’):
community cooperation
- Consultation with communities involving at least 2 pilot regions
conducted.
on possible cooperation initiatives; including tapping into
- 5 small grants for interexisting volunteer or CSO networks, as well as use of social
community cooperation
media, to promote cross-community dialogue, cultural,
awarded.
professional or educational exchanges, volunteerism, or other
joint projects or SMEs, or to counter intolerance and extremism,
- Needs assessment on
including hate crimes.
community infrastructure
Small grants to community organisations for X no. of interrehabilitation and
community confidence-building initiatives.
reconstruction completed.
- X intra-community
consultations on community Activity 4.2.2. Support to community mobilisation initiatives that
enhance social cohesion:
infrastructure rehabilitation
- Carry out a needs assessment and consultations with respective
and reconstruction
governmental and non-governmental partners, including IDP
conducted.
and host communities, to define the plan for the rehabilitation or
- 1 community infrastructure
reconstruction of community infrastructure that is of benefit to
both IDP and host communities – e.g., schools, medical facilities
facility rehabilitated or
– in target regions.
reconstructed.
- Establish an infrastructure rehabilitation and reconstruction plan
in close cooperation with stakeholders.
Targets (year 2):
Carry out an engineering design of 10 community infrastructure
- X consultations on interfacilities using local companies selected through competitive
41
UNDP,
partner
CSOs/CSOnetworks,
volunteer
networks,
local admin.
USD 2,761,000
Indicators:
- No. of inter-community
consultations conducted.
- No. of inter-community initiatives
supported.
- Needs assessment undertaken.
- No. of intra-community
consultations conducted.
- No. of community infrastructure
facilities rehabilitated or
reconstructed.
community cooperation
conducted.
- 10 small grants for intercommunity cooperation
awarded.
bidding processes (to the extent possible).
- Rehabilitate/reconstruct 10 community infrastructure facilities in
targeted areas.
- Handover the rehabilitated/reconstructed infrastructure to the
relevant partners for operation and maintenance.
- X intra-community
consultations on community
infrastructure rehabilitation
and reconstruction
conducted.
- 4 community infrastructure
facilities rehabilitated or
reconstructed.
Targets (year 3):
- X consultations on intercommunity cooperation
conducted.
- 10 small grants for intercommunity cooperation
awarded.
- X intra-community
consultations on community
infrastructure rehabilitation
and reconstruction
conducted.
- 5 community infrastructure
facilities rehabilitated or
reconstructed.
Subtotal Output 4:
USD 3,177,000
Management Costs/Advisory Support
Project Implementation Unit
General Management Support (8%)
Launching regional-experience sharing event
Total Outputs (1-5):
USD 2,000,500
USD 1,107,560
USD 60,000
USD 14,892,060
42
IV.
INDICATIVE WORK PLAN: 2015-18
EXPECTED
OUTPUTS
And baseline, indicators
including annual targets
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
TIMEFRAME
PLANNED BUDGET
List activity results and associated actions
Y1***
Y2
Y3
Y4
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Funding
Source
Budget
Description
Amount,
USD
Output 1: Increased capacity of justice institutions for efficient, effective, and transparent service delivery
1.1. Institutionalised
primary and
secondary legal aid
system providing
quality legal aid
service to the
vulnerable and
conflict-affected
population
Baseline:
- No comprehensive
picture of (primary)
legal aid coverage.
- Gaps in referral
system between
primary and
secondary legal aid.
- High and increasing
demand for legal aid;
especially amongst
vulnerable persons,
and in particular as a
result of the conflict.
- Legal aid providers
inexperienced in
dealing with victims
of conflict.
***
1.1.1. Strengthened ability of regional departments of
justice to coordinate primary legal aid provision, in
order to ensure more comprehensive and
sustainable legal aid provision:
- Conduct a mapping of legal aid providers and legal
aid provision in pilot regions and gender sensitive
baseline study/assessment on access to justice in
pilot regions.
- Support quarterly coordination meetings between
depts. of justice and legal aid providers.
- Support establishment of (on-line) platform for
coordination of legal aid provision.
- Commission an analysis of types of cases handled
by all legal aid providers.
1.1.2. Enhanced primary and secondary legal aid to
vulnerable persons supported:
- Based upon demand/needs identified in mapping
(1.1.1) identify categories of beneficiaries.
- Provide mini-grants to CSOs to provide legal aid
services to identified categories of beneficiaries.
- Provide training to selected CSOs on special legal
needs of beneficiaries.
1.1.3. Continued institutionalisation of primary legal
aid supported:
- Support establishment of municipal primary legal
aid (window) centres.
- Enhance legal aid provision in municipalities
through outsourced competition for basic primary
legal aid provision by private lawyers.
10,000
40,000
15,000
15,000
UNDP,
M/DoJ,
partnership
CSOs
80,000
20,000
110,000
110,000
110,000
UNDP,
M/DoJ,
partnership
CSOs
350,000
5,000
150,000
330,000
150.000
UNDP,
M/DoJ,
partnership
CSOs, local
admin.
635,000
Year 1 (Y1) will be 4-6 months, depending upon the exact date when the programme commences in 2015.
43
- Primary legal aid at
the local level still
mainly provided by
CSOs, usually with
donor support.
Indicators:
- Mapping of legal
aid providers and
provision.
- Quarterly
coordination
meetings.
- (Online) legal aid
coordination
platform.
- Beneficiary criteria
for legal aid
provision.
- No. of small grants
to provide primary
legal aid awarded
- No. of beneficiaries
of legal aid provision
(segregated by sex
and categories
identified)
- No. legal aid
providers rained to
deal with conflictaffected clients and
cases including the
victims of SGBV
- No. legal aid
(window) centres.
- No. of municipalities
supporting primary
legal aid provision.
44
Targets:
- Legal aid providers
and provision
mapped.
- 4 coordination
meetings/region/year
held.
- Legal aid caseload
analysed.
- Legal aid
beneficiary
(conflicted-related
victims) criteria
established
- 25 legal aid
providers trained
- 10 mini-grants for
legal aid provision
awarded.
- X no. of
beneficiaries
provided legal aid,
50% of whom are
women.
- 10 legal aid
(window) centres
established in
municipalities.
- X municipalities
adopt primary legal
aid provision plans.
- 10 contracts for
provision of primary
legal aid awarded by
municipalities.
45
Related CP outcome:
46
1.2 Justice sector
personnel have the
knowledge and skills
to address conflictrelated crime
Baseline:
- [Results of CPC
Monitoring ?].
- Continued weak
implementation of
CPC by prosecutors
and judges.
- Lack of
understanding
amongst justice
personnel of
implications of Rome
Statute accession.
- Judges,
prosecutors, defence
lawyers, and court
staff struggle to cope
professionally and
personally with new
(both in nature and
severity) crimes
committed as a result
of the conflict;
especially SGBV.
- Judges and
prosecutors have
limited experience of
international best
practice with respect
to the trying of
conflict-related crime.
- Judicial trainers
have limited
experience of
1.2.1. Train local judges and prosecutors, court staff,
and lawyers on implementation of the Criminal Law,
including international criminal law:
- Develop, based upon CPC monitoring, a training
course and materials on application of the Criminal
Procedure Code and Criminal Code, integrating the
principles of the European Convention on Human
Rights, practice of the European Court on Human
rights, and applicable international norms governing
conflict-related crimes (i.e., international criminal law).
- Support training course for judges, prosecutors, and
defence lawyers (and court staff).
- Support specific training for local judges, prosecutors,
court staff, and lawyers on addressing cases of SGBV
and conflict-related sexual violence.
- Facilitate exchange of experience with peers from the
region (e.g., a study tour to ECtHR in Strasbourg
and/or ICC in The Hague) for successful trainees.
- Hold an international conference on judicial training
methodology.
35,000
47
165,000
25,000
25,000
UNDP,
NSJ,
NPA
250,000
international best
practice regarding
training
methodologies.
Indicators:
- % change in
misapplication of
CPC and criminal law
- % change in cases
relating to conflictrelated crime,
including sexual
violence, and SGBV
- No. of study tours
or peer-to-peer
exchanges.
- International
conference on
judicial training.
- [CPC monitoring
results?]
- % increase of cases
of SGBV processed
by criminal justice
system.
1.2.2 Strengthen capacity of judicial institutions
strengthened to efficiently handle SGBV cases and
ensure equal access to legal and judicial protection for
SGBV victims) (linked to activity 3.1.1)
- Support SGBV awareness campaigns through radio,
TV, social media, etc.
- Support dissemination of legal information on SGBV
by CSOs, legal aid providers and local authorities.
- Support capacity of legal aid service providers to
provide services to SGBV survivors (linked to activities
under sub-output 1.1).
- Support the mapping and development, if required, of
curriculum, training modules and training techniques
on SGBV for all justice sector institutions and actors
(medico-legal, judicial and other relevant officials).
- Support the development of policy and SOPs with
other partners to ensure prioritization of cases for
investigation, prosecution and adjudication on SGBV.
50,000
Targets:
- Baseline study on
SGBV completed.
- Training course
and materials
developed.
- 125 judges,
prosecutors,
lawyers, and court
staff trained.
- 1 study tour or
peer-to-peer
48
100,000
100, 000
100,000
UNDP,
CSOs,
NSJ,
PA, UIAs,
MoJ,
MIA, media
350,000
exchange held.
- International
conference on
judicial training
methodology held.
Related CP outcome:
49
1.3. Access to
information and
transparency in the
courts is enhanced
Baseline:
- Data about court
finances, including
staff salaries, not
available to the
public.
- Court efficiency
statistics largely
unavailable to the
public.
- Few court decisions
published or
accessible to the
public.
- Heads of court and
Court Administrators
unaware of
international best
practice regarding
court financial or
operational
transparency.
1.3.1. Transparency of the functioning of local courts
increased:
- Conduct a study of international best practice
regarding public access to information on court
budgets, procurement, and other expenses, as well
as disclosure of data on judges’ salaries and
assets.
- Hold a conference on regional and international
best practice regarding public access to operational
information – i.e., caseloads and decisions - about
the courts.
- Support pilot initiatives aimed at increasing
transparency on the financial functioning of the
local courts and court staff, including judges.
- Organise a pilot project in 3 courts/region to publish
local court decisions and court statistics online.
15,000
Indicators:
- Study on
international best
practice.
- Conference on best
practice.
- No. of pilot
initiatives on local
court financial
transparency.
- No. of pilot projects
50
40,000
40.000
25,000
UNDP,
SJA,
head of local
cts./
court
administrators
120,000
to publish court
judgements and
statistics.
Targets:
- Study of
international best
practice on the
administrative
transparency of
courts conducted.
- Conference on
international best
practice regarding
public access to
court operational
information held.
- 10 pilot initiatives to
increase local court
financial
transparency.
- 2 pilot
projects/region to
make local court
decisions and
statistics accessible
to the public online.
Related CP outcome:
51
1.4. Reduced
physical obstacles to
justice, particularly
those in conflictaffected communities
Baseline:
- 0 needs
assessments on
justice infrastructure
rehabilitation and
reconstruction
undertaken.
- 0 community
consultations on
justice infrastructure
rehabilitation and
reconstruction
conducted.
- 0 justice
infrastructure
rehabilitation and
reconstruction plans.
- justice infrastructure
facilities rehabilitated
or reconstructed.
1.4.1. Justice infrastructure in conflict-affected
regions rehabilitated or reconstructed:
- Carry out a needs assessment and consultations
with respective justice partners, including local
communities, to define the plan for renovation of
justice infrastructure – courts, department of justice
offices, police facilities, etc. – that has been
damaged by military action, fallen into a state of
disrepair or obsolescence, or been relocated from
the conflict zone or occupied territory.
- Establish an infrastructure rehabilitation and
reconstruction plan in close cooperation with
stakeholders.
- Carry out an engineering design of 10 justice
infrastructure facilities using local companies
selected through competitive bidding processes (to
the extent possible).
- Rehabilitate/reconstruct 10 justice infrastructure
facilities in targeted areas.
- Handover the rehabilitated/reconstructed
infrastructure to the relevant partners for operation
and maintenance.
50,000
Indicators:
- Needs assessment
undertaken.
- No. of community
consultations
conducted.
- No. of justice
infrastructure
facilities rehabilitated
or reconstructed.
Targets:
52
820,000
820,000
810,000
UNDP,
SJA,
M/DoJ,
M/DIA,
Pros.,
local admin.
2,500,000
- needs assessment
on justice
infrastructure
rehabilitation and
reconstruction
completed.
- X community
consultations on
justice infrastructure
rehabilitation and
reconstruction
conducted.
5
justice
infrastructure
facilities rehabilitated
or reconstructed.
Related CP outcome:
1.5. Government has
a comprehensive
policy and
mechanism for
conflict-related
restitution.
Baseline:
- 0 consultations on
conflict related
restitution or
compensation.
- No plans or
procedures for
conflict-related
restitution or
compensation.
- Ad hoc claims for
restitution or
compensation
submitted to
1.5.1. The Government supported in the
development of a comprehensive policy and plan for
restitution or compensation of victims of the conflict in
the East:
- Study of international standards and best practice
regarding conflict-related restitution and
compensation for victims of crimes – e.g., SGBV,
torture, ill-treatment, enforced disappearance, and
other violations of rights, including property right –
committed during armed conflict, and development
of an action plan.
- Stakeholder consultation on action plan for conflictrelated restitution and compensation.
- Support the establishment of governmental
Working Group on compensation of victims of
conflict.
50,000
53
160,000
60,000
60,000
UNDP,
MoJ,
SES
330,000
domestic justice
bodies.
Indicators:
- Study report and
draft action plan.
- No. of
consultations.
- International
workshop and
workshop report.
Targets:
- Study conducted.
- Study conducted &
Report and Action
Plan drafted.
- 10 consultations
on Study Report
and draft Action
Plan held.
- International
Workshop held.
- Workshop report,
with
recommendations
finalised.
Related CP outcome:
TOTAL Output 1
Output 2: Strengthened civilian oversight of rights protection
2.1. Civil society
exercises more
effective oversight
over justice and
security service
delivery.
Baseline:
2.1.1. Support enhanced civil society monitoring of the
functioning of the local justice system (e.g., CPC
implementation, GBV cases):
- Identify issues and develop procedures to monitor.
- Train monitors (CSOs, law students, etc.) on
procedure, as well as related gender issues.
- Small grants to conduct monitoring.
4,615,000
100,000
54
75,000
75,000
75,000
UNDP,
partner CSOs,
law faculties
325,000
- Periodic analysis of data from monitoring and
- [Results of CPC
Monitoring ?]
- Continued weak
implementation of
CPC by prosecutors
and judges.
- Continued
violations of CPC
procedural
safeguards regarding
collection and
admissibility of
evidence by police
and prosecutors.
compilation of reports identifying issues, along with
recommendations to improve the delivery of local
justice services.
Indicators:
- Monitoring
procedure
developed.
- No. monitors
trained.
- No. small grants for
monitoring awarded.
- Reports of
monitoring data
analysis.
Targets:
- Monitoring
procedures and
focus developed.
- X monitors trained
on procedure.
- X small grants for
monitoring awarded.
- Monitoring data
analysed and report
drafted.
55
Related CP outcome:
2.2. Civil society
networks
strengthened for
human rights
monitoring,
documenting, and
reporting
Baseline:
- Ongoing violations
of rights in Crimea.
- Escalating
violations of rights in
Donetsk and
Luhansk and security
alerts in neighbouring
regions.
- Civil society in
conflict-affected
regions still
weak/weakened by
the conflict and
dislocation, as well
as persecution by
illegally armed
groups.
- CSO networks in
the East still
inexperienced.
- CSOs
inexperienced at
monitoring and
documenting serious
violations of rights
and conflict-related
crimes.
- OO regional
2.2.1. Human rights’ monitoring and documentation
capacity in conflict-affected areas enhanced:
- Assess needs to monitor and document crimes and
violations of rights in conflict-affected areas,
including the AR of Crimea.
- Develop methodology for monitoring and
documentation.
- Building capacity of CSOs to monitor and
document.
- Small grants to CSOs to conduct monitoring.
- Support development of systems to document
crimes and other violations of rights, including data
protection protocols.
- Support development of women’s CSOs and CSOnetwork.
- Support the Secretariat of the CSO coalition
‘Justice for Peace in Donbas’.
- Support for advocacy campaigns.
- Facilitate the exchange of international experience
on, and techniques for, monitoring and
documentation of conflict-related crimes and other
violations of rights.
2.2.2 Ombudsperson’s Office’s presence in the
regions extended:
- Conduct a study of international practice regarding
NHRI regional representation, including the
engagement of CSOs in the fulfilment of a NHRI’s
mandate.
- Assess the efficiency of the current system of OO
representation in the regions.
- Consultation on past practice, international
practice, and adaptation of the Ukrainian system to
improve its effectiveness.
- Strengthen the coordination between the OO and
human rights CSOs in the regions.
2.2.3. CSOs supported in preparing alternative/
shadow reports on the implementation of Ukraine’s
international human rights obligations:
26,000
212,000
163,000
57,000
UNDP,
partner CSOs,
CSO coalition
JfPiD
458,000
16,000
88,000
88,000
87,000
UNDP,
OO,
partner CSOs,
CSO
coalitions
279,000
54,000
177,000
177,000
97,000
UNDP, CSOs,
CSO
505,000
56
representatives and
coordinators in 14
regions; not in
conflict-affected
regions.
- OO collaboration
with CSOs still in
exploratory stages.
- CSOs have
participated in past
international human
rights conventions
reporting processes.
- A number of
convention reports
are coming due in
thematic areas in
which CSOs do not
have dedicated
expertise or reporting
experience.
- Media coverage of
human rights
reporting process still
weak and limited.
- Build the capacity of CSOs, particularly human
-
-
-
coalitions,
journalists
rights organisations from the regions, to provide
substantive input into Ukraine’s CEDAW, CERD,
UPR, CAT, CRC and/or ICCPR reporting
processes.
Support the establishment of civil society coalitions
on thematic human rights issues.
Support advocacy efforts at the national and
international levels, including participation in
international human rights’ forums.
Support to the network of Human Rights
Journalists to report more effectively on the state’s
treaty reporting processes.
Training of journalists on human rights concepts
and standards
Indicators:
- Monitoring needs
assessment for
conflict-affected
areas, including
Crimea.
- No. of
CSO/members
trained in monitoring
and documentation
techniques.
- No. of CSOs
conducting
57
monitoring.
- Documentation
systems developed.
- No. of advocacy
campaigns.
- No. of exchanges of
international
experience.
- Study on
international best
practice regarding
NHRI regional
representation.
- assessment of
efficiency of OO
regional
representation.
- No. of consultations
on improving
effectiveness of OO’s
regional coverage.
- No. of regions with
OO coordinators.
- No. CSO/members
trained on
international human
rights treaty
reporting.
- No. of thematic
human rights civil
society coalitions
established.
- Input into
alternative/shadow
treaty reports.
- No. of national and
international
advocacy efforts.
58
Targets:
- Monitoring and
documentation
needs assessment
conducted.
- 30 CSO/members
trained on
monitoring and
documentation
methodology.
- 12 grants awarded
to CSOs to conduct
monitoring.
- Database
developed &
adopted for use by X
CSOs.
- Basic equipment
supplied to ‘Justice
for Peace in Donbas’
Secretariat and
Secretariat
supported.
- 6 advocacy
campaigns
implemented.
- 1 study tour to the
Balkans to exchange
experience on
conflict-related
monitoring and
documentation.
- Study of
international practice
regarding NHRI
regional
representation
conducted.
- Efficiency of the
59
OO representation
regional
representation
system assessed.
- Consultation
workshop held on
adaptation of the OO
system.
- OO regional
coordinators in all
regions.
- 100 CSO/members
trained on 5
international human
rights treaty
reporting processes.
- CSOs provide input
into 9
alternative/shadow
treaty reporting
processes.
- 5 thematic human
rights civil society
coalitions
established.
- 6 national or
international
advocacy events
supported.
Related CP outcome:
TOTAL Output 2
Output 3: Strengthened personal and community security
3.1. Security and
military services have
better skills and
understanding of
their rights and
responsibilities to
3.1.1. Capacity of law enforcement, military, and
security services built up to address conflict-related
violations of fundamental rights, including SGBV:
- Develop training curricula and materials on
applicable International Human Rights Law,
International Criminal Law (i.e., international norms
1,567,000.00
140,000
60
62,000
62,000
62,000
UNDP,
MoD/Army,
Pros.,
M/DIA,
SBU
326,000
protect people in
conflict-affected
areas
Baseline:
- Law enforcement,
military prosecutors,
military, and security
services have limited
or no knowledge of
international law
governing conflicts
and conflict-related
crime, including
SGBV crimes,
especially as regards
the protection of
civilians and noncombatants.
- Law enforcement,
military, and security
services have limited
knowledge or
understanding of the
domestic legal and
procedural rights of
individuals,
particularly in a
conflict situation.
- [CPC monitoring
report?]
- Police and
prosecutors have
limited understanding
of CPC procedures,
particularly those
relating to procedural
safeguards for the
accused.
governing conflict-related crimes), and International
Humanitarian Law, with a particular emphasis on
safeguards for individuals and civilians/noncombatants, prepared and presented using
practical, interactive methodology that sets the
rights within the national legal framework – i.e.,
Constitution, Criminal Procedure Code, and
Criminal code – and operating procedures of the
trainees, with targeted case-studies and scenarios.
- Deliver training to police in conflict-affected areas and
strengthen capacity to efficiently handle and
investigate SGBV cases..
- Deliver training to military prosecutors, military
forces, and security services in conflicted-affected
areas or about to be deployed to conflictedaffected areas, including on investigation and
prosecution of SGBV crimes
- Awareness-raising of military forces and security
forces in conflicted-affected areas or about to be
deployed to conflicted-affected areas on moral and
legal consequences committed in their official and
civil capacity.
- Incorporate training into institutional training
programmes and standard operating procedures of
beneficiary forces.
3.1.2. Capacity of police and prosecutors to
implement the CPC, with a special focus on
investigation and collection of evidence built:
- Assess police and prosecution practice regarding
criminal investigation, including the questioning of
suspects and collection of evidence, case-file
review, and submission of evidence in court.
- Design interactive training curricula and materials
on the Criminal Procedure Code – regarding
investigation procedures, the accused’s rights, and
the admissibility of evidence.
- Deliver training to police and prosecutors in the
regions.
- Facilitate dialogue between police and prosecutors
on ways to improve coordination regarding proper
implementation of procedures.
55,000
61
65,000
65,000
65,000
UNDP,
MoD/Army,
Pros.,
M/DIA,
SBU
250,000
- Poor coordination
and lack of
responsibility
between police and
prosecutors about
the collection and
submission of
admissible evidence
in criminal case files,
including on SGBV
crimes.
Indicators:
- No. of police,
military prosecutors,
military, and security
service personnel
trained on
international human
rights, humanitarian,
and criminal law.
- % of reduction
incidents of violations
of international law
with respect to
civilians and noncombatants reported
by monitoring.
- Curricula
incorporated into
police, military, and
security service
institutional training
programmes.
- Assessment of
police and
prosecution criminal
investigation
practice.
62
- No. of police and
prosecutors trained
on CPC.
- Fewer cases of
violations of
procedural rights
resulting in
inadmissible
evidence reported by
monitoring.
- % increase of cases
in accordance with
new CPC (means of
verification –
monitoring reports)
- % increase of cases
of SGBV investigated
and prosecuted by
police and/or military
and military
prosecutor’s office
(vis-à-vis data
registered by
hospitals).
Targets:
- 10 trainings (x 30
pax) for police held.
- 10 trainings (x 30
pax) for military
prosecutors held.
- 2 workshops (25
pax) for security
services conducted.
- 2 workshops (25)
for military personnel
(officers) conducted.
- % fewer incidents of
international law
violations.
63
- 2 agencies
incorporate curricula
into institutional
training.
- 6 (x 25 pax)
assessment/ TOT
workshop/region for
police and
prosecutors
conducted.
- 2 trainings (x30
pax)/region for police
on CPC held.
- 2 trainings (x30
pax)/region for
prosecutors on CPC
held.
- % fewer violations
of criminal procedural
rights/inadmissible
evidence.
Related CP outcome:
3.2. Improved
coordination between
citizens, law
enforcement bodies,
and military and
security services to
promote community
security
Baseline:
- Poor relations and
little cooperation
between military and
many local
communities in
Activity 3.2.1. Capacity for Civil-Military Co-operation
(CIMIC) built:
- Design training on principles and international best
practice regarding CIMIC.
- Deliver training to military commanders and officers
in HQ, ATO HQ or deployment centres outside of
the conflict-affected areas.
3.2.2. Coordination and collaboration between law
enforcement and military/security bodies improved:
- Assess coordination and confidence issues
between law enforcement – police and prosecutors
– and military and security forces in conflictaffected areas.
- Develop and support initiatives to improve
coordination and confidence between security
forces in conflict-affected areas; including joint
20,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
UNDP,
MoD/Army
56,000
5,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
UNDP,
MoD/Army,
M/DIA,
Pros.,
SBU,
local admin.,
mil-civ admin.
65,000
64
conflict-affected
areas.
- A lack of trust and,
therefore,
communication and
coordination between
the military and
security services and
some local police
forces and
prosecutors.
- Lack of coordination
between police,
prosecutors, military,
and security services
causes confusion,
increases public fear
because one force
does not know what
the others are doing,
and reduces overall
security.
- A long-standing
lack of confidence by
the public in the
police, which has
been exacerbated by
the conflict.
- The public fears the
security services,
which has been
increased by
counter-insurgency
security operations in
conflict-affected
areas.
- The lack of public
confidence in the
police and security
services means there
is poor
operations.
Activity 3.2.3. Communication links between
communities and the police and security services in
conflict-affected regions facilitated:
- Identify, in consultation with communities (with a
special focus on women and children), local
personal and community security concerns.
- Develop a response strategy.
- Pilot-test initiatives to improve communications:
e.g.,
(d) joint civilian-police patrols;
(e) community policing techniques; or
(f) regular public consultation or informationexchange mechanisms, including citizens’
forums, discussion platforms or
technology-based information exchange.
3.2.4. Government supporting in developing a policy
and procedure to review – and discipline – police
officers and other officials in conflict-affected areas:
- Assessment of police forces in Conflict-affected
areas, including acts or omissions during period of
separatist occupation, and disciplinary procedures
previously undertaken.
- Study of international standards and best practice
regarding police disciplinary procedures, including
procedural fairness, and development of an action
plan.
- Stakeholder consultation on action plan on police
disciplinary procedure.
30,000
102,000
60,000
60,000
UNDP,
M/DIA,
SBU
252,000
50,000
156,000
60,000
60,000
UNDP,
MIA
326,000
65
communications
between them,
reducing the ability of
the police and
security services to
identify and response
rapidly and
effectively to security
threats to the public
(or the state).
- A number of police
in ‘liberated’
territories summarily
dismissed, causing
resentment in local
forces.
- Some police who
allegedly
collaborated with
occupying separatist
forces and are
implicated in rights’
violations are still
serving on the police
force.
Indicators:
- No. of military
personnel trained on
CIMIC.
- Assessment of
coordination and
confidence between
the
police/prosecutors
and military/security
services in conflictaffected areas.
- No. of coordination
and confidence
66
initiatives between
police/prosecutors
and military/security
services in conflictaffected areas.
- Response strategy
to improve
confidence and
cooperation between
communities and
police/security
services.
- No. of pilot
initiatives to improve
confidence and
cooperation between
communities and the
police/security
services.
- Baseline and no. of
surveys on the
public’s perception of
security
- Study of
international police
disciplinary
procedures.
- No. of stakeholder
consultations
on
police
disciplinary
procedures.
Targets:
- 10 (x 25 pax)
trainings for military
personnel (officers)
on CIMIC held.
- Coordination and
confidence between
67
police/prosecutors
and military/security
services assessed.
- 5 initiative to
improve coordination
between
police/prosecutors
and military/security
services in conflictaffected areas
implemented.
- 15 consultations
with communities
about local security
concerns.
- 15 community
security response
strategies developed.
- 15 pilot initiatives to
improve
communications
between
communities and
police developed and
tested.
- % increase in public
confidence in
police/security
services.
- Police forces in
conflict-affected
areas assessed
- Study of
international police
disciplinary practice
conducted.
- 10 stakeholder
consultations on
68
police disciplinary
procedures held.
Related CP outcome:
3.3. Improved
individual and
community
awareness on rights
and risks in the
conflict-affected
areas
Baseline:
- Limited hard data
on public’s
perception of security
in conflict-affected
areas; especially that
of women.
- Low public
knowledge about
risks posed by
mines, UXOs,
shelling, weapons
3.3.1. Communities’ sense of security assessed:
- Design survey to assess public – and, in particular,
women’s – perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes
towards peace, security, and justice.
- Conduct baseline survey.
- Analyse results and refine survey.
- Conduct follow-up surveys annually.
3.3.2. Public awareness of security-related issues
raised:
- Design user-friendly materials and media
campaigns that explain:
(a) hostile environment awareness – e.g.,
weapons, conflict-related SGBV, incident
reaction; and
(b) the operations of the police, security
services, and military in the area.
- Deliver the materials and campaigns to
communities in the conflict-affected regions.
- Assess, before and after, the impact of the
materials and campaigns on the awareness of the
target populations.
50,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
UNDP,
local admin.,
mil-civ admin.,
partner CSOs,
SES
500,000
-
150,000
-
-
UNDP,
local admin.,
mil-civ admin.,
partner CSOs,
SES
150,000
69
proliferation, the
heightened risk of
SGBV or generally
how to identify and
respond to conflictrelated security
threats.
[- Reports of
casualties?]
- Poor public
understanding of
police, military, and
security service
operations in the
conflict zone result in
hostility, occasional
security incidents,
and a lack of
coordination and
cooperation.
3.3.3. Citizens’ awareness of rights increased:
- Design user-friendly materials and media
campaigns – including use of social media – that
explain, in practical terms with realist scenarios, the
scope and content of human and other legal rights
– including procedural rights – the mandate and
function of relevant justice and security institutions,
the processes by which one can protect or assert
one’s rights – including use of legal aid – and
remedies for the violation of rights.
- Deliver the materials and campaigns to
communities in the regions.
- Assess, before and after, the impact of the
materials and campaigns on the awareness of the
target populations
- Specific awareness raising and “campaign” on
SGBV.
-
10,000
- Citizens have a
poor understanding
of their legal rights,
as well as related
procedures and
70
20,000
20,000
UNDP,
local admin.,
mil-civ admin.,
partner CSOs,
SES
50,000
remedies, and the
role of justice and
security institutions,
which makes them
less likely to assert
their rights,
vulnerable to abuse,
and distrustful of
authorities.
- The public have
little knowledge
understanding of
national justice
sector reform
processes, resulting
in mistrust,
resentment or
impatience at the
seeming lack of
positive change at
the local level.
-
150,000
Indicators:
- Baseline and no. of
surveys on the
public’s perception of
71
150,000
150,000
450,000
security.
- No. of public
awareness
campaigns and
materials on coping
in a hostile (conflictaffected)
environment.
- No. of public
awareness
campaigns and
materials on legal
rights and remedies,
as well as justice
reform processes.
- Assessments of
impact of campaigns
and materials.
3.3.4 Small Grants Fund (SGF) for CSOs to provide
accompaniment to conflict-affected population
(victims) established:
- Create a SGF that can be accessed by locally-active
CSOs for projects ranging between 15,000-20,000
USD.
- Provide grants based on project proposals for
assistance with creating victims associations and
networks, and with public outreach and advocacy.
- Create a coordination network between CSOs
involved in SGF component.
-Provide CSO training related to project development
and implementation, reporting and grant drafting
Targets:
- Regular public
awareness surveys
conducted.
- X citizens exposed
to campaigns and
materials on hostile
environment
awareness.
- % increase in
awareness amongst
the targeted
population.
- [Fewer
incidents/casualties]
- X citizens exposed
to campaigns and
materials on legal
rights and remedies,
including justice
72
reform processes,
awareness.
- % increase in
awareness amongst
the targeted
population.
- % increase in legal
aid consultations in
targeted
communities.
Related CP outcome:
73
TOTAL Output 3
Output 4: Enhanced trust within and between communities and state institutions
4.1. Enhanced trust
between local
institutions and the
population, through
increased citizens’
participation with
local authorities
Baseline:
- Public councils
inactive or ignored by
public bodies.
- CSO members of
public councils
inexperienced or
deferential to public
authority.
- All public councils
to be reconstituted.
4.1.1. Development of regional justice and security
(public) councils supported:
- Support the development of agendas for councils.
- Support civil society engagement, including
women’s associations (if existent) in the councils,
including provision of expert advice and other
resources, to enable them to more effectively foster
improved justice service-delivery and strengthen
rights’ protection.
- Support the coordination network between regional
and national-level justice and security public
councils.
45,000
- DoJ/DIAs lack
communications
strategy.
- Dissemination
methods and media
underfunded,
ineffective, and
unresponsive.
- No mechanism for
implementing
national
communications
strategies at the local
level.
Indicators:
- No. public council
74
2,425,000
105,000
105,000
51,000
UNDP,
M/DoJ,
M/DIA,
public
councils,
partner CSOs
306,000
agenda developed.
- No. of public
councils meetings
and minutes of
discussions.
- No. coordination
meetings between
regional and national
public councils.
- Assessment of
communication and
dissemination
methodologies and
tools.
- No. of information
campaigns using
improved
methodologies or
tools.
- No. of national level
communications
strategies or plans
piloted
in
the
regions.Targets:
Related CP outcome:
Targets:
- Development of 1
justice or security
public council
agenda/region
strengthened.
- 1 justice or security
public council/region
strengthened and
supported.
- Regular nationalregional security
public council
coordination
4.1.2. Responsive communication of justice and
security law and policy to the public strengthened:
- Assessment of existing local public
communications and dissemination methodologies
and tools.
- Support for development and delivery of local
justice or security information campaigns, using
improved methodologies and tools, in the regions.
- Piloting of national justice or security
communication strategies – e.g., the EUAMdeveloped model – in the regions.
-
50,000
75
50,000
10,000
UNDP,
M/DoJ,
M/DIA,,
partner CSOs
110,000
meetings/region
facilitated.
- Communication and
dissemination
methodologies and
tools assessed.
- Justice or security
information
campaigns/region
developed.
- 5 national justice or
security
communication
strategies or plans
piloted in the regions.
Related CP outcome:
4.2. Increased
confidence between
communities in the
country
Baseline:
- 0 consultations on
inter-community
cooperation
conducted.
- 0 inter-community
confidence-building
initiatives carried out.
- 0 needs
assessments on
community
infrastructure
rehabilitation and
reconstruction
undertaken.
- 0 community
4.2.1. Initiatives fostered to build confidence between
communities in different regions of the country (‘EastWest’):
- Consultation with communities involving at least 2
pilot regions on possible cooperation initiatives;
including tapping into existing volunteer or CSO
networks, as well as use of social media, to
promote cross-community dialogue, cultural,
professional or educational exchanges,
volunteerism, or other joint projects or SMEs.
- Small grants to community organisations for X no.
of inter-community confidence-building initiatives.
4.2.2. Community mobilisation initiatives that
enhance social cohesion supported:
- Carry out a needs assessment and consultations
with respective governmental and nongovernmental partners, including IDP and host
communities, to define the plan for the
rehabilitation or reconstruction of community
infrastructure that is of benefit to both IDP and host
communities – e.g., schools, medical facilities – in
target regions.
60,000
80,000
80,000
66,000
UNDP,
partner
CSOs/CSOnetworks,
volunteer
networks,
local admin.
286,000
50,000
810,000
810,000
805,000
UNDP,
partner
CSOs/CSOnetworks,
volunteer
networks,
local admin.
2,475,000
76
consultations on
community
infrastructure
rehabilitation and
reconstruction
conducted.
- 0 community
infrastructure
rehabilitation and
reconstruction plan.
- Community
infrastructure
facilities rehabilitated
or reconstructed.
- Establish an infrastructure rehabilitation and
reconstruction plan in close cooperation with
stakeholders.
- Carry out an engineering design of 10 community
infrastructure facilities using local companies
selected through competitive bidding processes (to
the extent possible).
- Rehabilitate/reconstruct 10 community
infrastructure facilities in targeted areas.
- Handover the rehabilitated/reconstructed
infrastructure to the relevant partners for operation
and maintenance.
Indicators:
- No. of intercommunity
consultations
conducted.
No.
of
intercommunity initiatives
supported.
- Needs assessment
undertaken.
- No. of intracommunity
consultations
conducted.
- No. of community
infrastructure
facilities rehabilitated
or reconstructed.
Targets:
- X consultations on
inter-community
cooperation
77
conducted.
- 20 small grants for
inter-community
cooperation
awarded.
- Needs assessment
on community
infrastructure
rehabilitation and
reconstruction
completed.
- X intra-community
consultations on
community
infrastructure
rehabilitation and
reconstruction
conducted.
- 10 community
infrastructure facility
rehabilitated or
reconstructed.
Related CP outcome:
TOTAL Output 4
Management costs/ Advisory support
Project implantation unit
General Management Support (8%)
3,177,000
285,785.7
1
571,571.4
3
571,571.4
3
158,222.8
6
316,445.7
1
316,445.7
1
Launching regional-experience sharing event
TOTAL
571,571.43
316,445.71
2,000,50
0.00
1,107,56
0.00
60,000
14,892,060
78
V.
MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
This programme will be implemented under UNDP Country Programme Action Plan (2012-2016)
in a Direct Execution Modality. UNDP shall be responsible for the overall management of the
Programme, primarily with regard to the responsibility for the achievement of the outputs (results),
impact and objectives. Similarly, UNDP will be accountable to the Programme Board (PB) for the
use of programme resources. UNDP will delegate managerial duties for the day-to-day running of
the Programme to the Programme Coordinator, selected by UNDP through a competitive and
transparent selection process.
The Programme Board is the group responsible for making on a consensus basis management
decisions for a project when guidance is required by the Programme Coordinator, including
recommendation for approval of programme revisions. Programme reviews by this group are
made at designated decision points during the running of a programme, or as necessary when
raised by the Programme Coordinator. This group is consulted by the Programme Coordinator for
decisions when tolerances (i.e. constraints normally in terms of time and budget) have been
exceeded.
This group contains three roles:

Executive (role represented by UNDP);

Senior Supplier (role represented by development partners who provide financial support
for the Programme) that provides guidance regarding the technical feasibility of the
programme, and use of programme resources;

Senior Beneficiary (role represented by the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Internal Affairs,
Prosecutor’s Office, National School of Judges, Ombudsperson’s Office, Ministry of
Defence, SBU, and State Emergency Service) that ensures the realisation of programme
benefits from the perspective of programme beneficiaries.
Programme Assurance is the responsibility of each Programme Board member, but the role can
be delegated. The Programme Assurance role supports the Programme Board by carrying out
objective and independent project oversight and monitoring functions. This role ensures
appropriate project management milestones are managed and completed. A UNDP Programme
Manager holds the Programme Assurance role for the UNDP Board member.
The Programme Coordinator has the authority to run the project on a day-to-day basis on behalf of
the Programme Board within the constraints laid down by the Programme Board. The Programme
Coordinator is responsible for day-to-day management and decision-making for the programme.
The Programme Coordinator’s prime responsibility is to ensure that the programme produces the
results specified in the project document, to the required standard of quality and within the
specified constraints of time and cost.
Programme implementation will be governed by provisions of the present Programme Document,
its annexes and UNDP Operations Manual. Governance of the Programme will be supported
through annual work planning as well as reporting and monitoring the delivery of results and
impact on the basis of the results framework. The annual work plans as well as progress reporting
will be the responsibility of the programme management in close consultation with UNDP.
The work plan will be implemented upon its endorsement UNDP. The endorsed work plan will
serve as an authorization to the Programme Coordinator to disburse funds and programme
implementation. Implementation responsibility will be put on the Programme Coordinator in close
partnership with the UNDP management.
Implementing the Methodological Elements
UNDP’s strength in Ukraine – indeed, its niche - is in its networks: in being able to facilitate
development from the grassroots up, building on community-based development, civil society
networks, and public engagement. By working at the local level to develop responses to the
broader consequences and causes of the conflict, UNDP will identify solutions that are grounded,
field-tested, and of potential nation-wide application, as well as provide a two-way link between
local communities and the national level reform and reconstruction dialogue.
As noted in the Strategy section, the Programme will operate on a pilot basis in 5 regions. The
pilot regions will include those regions directly affected by the conflict, those regions that have
been indirectly, but significantly, affected by the conflict – e.g., IDP in-flows, heightened security
alert status or economic downturn – and at least one pilot region, in the west or centre of the
country, will serve as a ‘control experiment’. In the control region, activities can be tested in a ‘nonconflict’ environment, then be adapted to the specific and very different challenges of conflictaffected regions, but also be scaled-up and rolled-out in the rest of the country, as conditions
permit. The pilot regions to be selected are:



Donetsk and Luhansk regions (i.e., the government-controlled areas);
1-2 from Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk or Zaporizhzhya regions; and
At least one in a non-conflict-affected region.
Criteria for selection of the three undesignated regions will be determined during the inception
phase of the Programme, but will take into consideration the presence of IDP populations, sizeable
ethnic or linguistic non-majority populations, impact of the conflict on the local economy, social
tensions, and the activeness – and receptiveness to new initiatives - of local civil society,
communities, and local authorities. (Determination of the latter will be made with reference to the
CBA Programme and DHRP.)
Pilot activities will be implemented primarily at the municipal and community level, with the
involvement of local civil society, but some activities will necessarily require coordination and
cooperation with the responsible authorities at the regional or even national levels.
Overall management: The management of the Rule of Law for Stabilisation Programme in
Ukraine will be carried out by the Programme Management Unit in Kyiv.
The Programme stakeholders: The stakeholders will consist of the UNDP as management
organisation, Ukrainian CSOs and human rights organisations, departments of justice, judiciary,
prosecutors, and police, as well as the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Internal Affairs, and Office of
the Ombudsperson in Ukraine.
Programme Board: A Programme Board (PB) will consist of representatives of the UNDP in
Ukraine, development partners who provide financial support for the Programme, and
representatives of Programme beneficiaries/implementing partners. It will be chaired by the UNDP.
The PB will hold meetings on a semi-annual basis, or more frequently if deemed necessary. It will
monitor programme progress; decide on strategic decisions to ensure the continued coherence
between implementation and goals and objectives and decide on annual work plans and budgets,
revised semi-annual plans and semi-annual budgets, semi-annual requests for funds presented by
the UNDP. Amendments to the budget, including use of contingencies, will be subject to the
approval of the Programme Board.
The Programme Management Unit will be responsible for:





Overall management of Programme implementation;
Coordination with stakeholders, programme partners, and other development partners;
Strategic, technical and methodological backstopping to regional Rule of Law Officers
(ROLOs);
Monitoring of programme implementation and quality assurance; and
Communications, knowledge management, reporting and visibility.
In order to strengthen national capacity, in addition to administrative and logistic capacity, the PMU
will house capacity to refine component plans and activities, as well as to promote coordination –
80
including exchange of resources, expert personnel, and outputs - between the substantive
activities under the four output areas.
The PMU will also act as a ‘clearing house’ for external requests for support – to develop plans,
implement unfunded activities developed by others, etc. - from partners or stakeholders or identify
and develop opportunities to advance the reform agenda as they arise. At the same time, it will
identify and draw in external expertise and support – e.g., from other UN agencies or technical
assistance projects – to maximise the impact and effectiveness of programme activities. In
particular, the PMU will serve as the conduit for feeding information and experience identified or
cultivated at the local level – e.g., by ROLOs - into the national reform process – e.g., to the public
councils linked to national-level ministries, such as Justice or Internal Affairs.
To facilitate such coordination, identification of possible synergies, and the functioning of the
feedback loop – as well as management, administrative, financial, and technical tasks - the
Programme Management Unit will consist of the following staff:












Programme Coordinator
Chief Technical Advisor (CTA)
National Human Rights & Rule of Law Specialist (NHR&RoL Specialist)
Capacity Development Specialist
Communications & Reporting Specialist
Specialist on Construction
Construction Associate*
ICT Specialist
Programme Associate
Finance & Procurement Associate
Rule of Law Officers (ROLOs) (5)**
Driver
*
If the scale of the Programme is very large, and rehabilitation and reconstruction work is increased, the Construction
Associate may be replaced by 1-2 additional Specialists on Construction.)
** Depending upon the scale of the Programme, each ROLO may also be provided with support staff: e.g., an assistant
and driver.
81
The Programme organisational structure will be as follows:
Programme Organisation Structure
Project Board
Senior Beneficiary
Executive
Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Internal Affairs
Ombudsperson’s Office
UNDP
Senior Supplier
Project Assurance
Programme Associate
UNDP Programme Manager
Fin.& Proc. Associate
Programme
Coordinator
Comm & Rep. Specialist
ICT Specialist
Driver
CTA
(International)
National HR &
RoL Specialist
Specialist on
Construction
(2-3)
Capacity
Development
Specialist
Construction
Associate*
Rule of Law
Officer in
Donetsk
Rule of Law
Officer in
Luhansk
Rule of Law
Officer in
Region 3
Rule of Law
Officer in
Region 4
Rule of Law
Officer in
Region 5
The Programme Coordinator will head the PMU and be responsible for day-to-day programme
management. His/her prime responsibility will be to ensure that the Programme produces the
results specified in the Programme Document, to the required standard of quality and within the
specified constraints of time and cost. He/she will be eventually responsible for monitoring of
activities and results to be delivered by programme implementing partners. (If the Programme is
very large-scale, the Programme Coordinator position may be designated an international one.)
The Programme will contract a number of Specialists and Associates responsible for
management, coordination and facilitation of respective groups of activities, as well monitoring of
the work of implementing partners. The Specialists will directly report to the Programme
Coordinator. The National Human Rights & Rule of Law (NHR&RoL) Specialist, however, will have
dual reporting responsibilities: to the Programme Coordinator on programme management issues
and to the CTA on substantive technical matters. The Specialist on Construction and Construction
Associate will work primarily on Activities 1.4 and 4.2.
A Rule of Law Officer (ROLO) will be appointed in each of the pilot regions. The ROLO will be
responsible for coordination and management of activities to be implemented at the local level.
82
ROLOs will disseminate information to, and support implementation of activities developed at the
national or regional level in, municipalities or communities at the local level. Conversely, ROLOs
will serve as the focal point for information coming from the local level, transmitting it to the
Programme Coordinator (and beyond) through the PMU. The ROLO will report to the Programme
Coordinator, while ensuring that the CTA and NHR&RoL Specialist are also informed about
substantive (technical) activities and developments.
The Programme will also draw upon UNDP’s extensive CSO networks and hubs, while maintaining
close coordination with the ‘Early Recovery Support in Crisis-Affected Communities in Ukraine’
Project. Where possible, ROLOs will co-locate with other UNDP or UN project offices, but it may
be necessary to establish stand-alone offices – e.g., in southern Donetsk or Zaporizhzhya regions
– to ensure effective coverage of relevant communities.
Sustainable results will be effected through the identification and planning of specific programme
activities and interventions, as outlined in Section 2.3, as well as in the use of pilot and ‘control’
initiatives in different regions.
VI.
MONITORING FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION
In the initial phase of the programme, several baseline assessments will be conducted in order to
collect specific baseline data against which progress of programme implementation will be
measured. The baseline assessments will include:
-
assessment on access to justice and legal aid service providers in pilot regions;
needs assessment on justice infrastructure rehabilitation in pilot regions; and
baseline survey (and annual follow up surveys) on population’s perceptions, knowledge
and attitude towards peace, security and justice in pilot regions.
In accordance with the programming policies and procedures outlined in the UNDP User Guide,
the Programme will be monitored through the following:
Within the annual cycle
 On a quarterly basis, a quality assessment shall record progress towards the completion
of key results, based on quality criteria and methods captured in the Quality Management
table below.
 An Issue Log shall be activated in Atlas and updated by the Project Coordinator to facilitate
tracking and resolution of potential problems or requests for change.
 Based on the initial risk analysis submitted (see Annex 1), a risk log shall be activated in
Atlas and regularly updated by reviewing the external environment that may affect the
project implementation.
 Based on the above information recorded in Atlas, a Programme Progress Report (PPR)
shall be submitted by the Project Coordinator to the Programme Board through Programme
Assurance, using the standard report format available in the Executive Snapshot.

A programme Lesson-learned log shall be activated and regularly updated to ensure ongoing learning and adaptation within the organization, and to facilitate the preparation of
the Lessons-learned Report at the end of the project

A Monitoring Schedule Plan shall be activated in Atlas and updated to track key
management actions/events
Annually
 Annual Review Report. An Annual Review Report shall be prepared by the Project
Coordinator and shared with the Programme Board and the Outcome Board. As minimum
requirement, the Annual Review Report shall consist of the Atlas standard format for the
83
QPR covering the whole year with updated information for each above element of the QPR
as well as a summary of results achieved against pre-defined annual targets at the output
level.
 Annual Programme Review. Based on the above report, an annual project review shall
be conducted during the fourth quarter of the year or soon after, to assess the performance
of the project and appraise the Annual Work Plan (AWP) for the following year. In the last
year, this review will be a final assessment. This review is driven by the Programme Board
and may involve other stakeholders as required. It shall focus on the extent to which
progress is being made towards outputs, and that these remain aligned to appropriate
outcomes.
VII.
LEGAL CONTEXT
Click here for the standard text.
VIII. ANNEXES
84
ANNEX 1: RISK LOG
Project Title: Rule of Law for Stabilisation in Ukraine
Award ID:
Date:
# Description
Date
Identified
Type
Impact &
Probability
Counter-measures / Mngt
response
Owner
Submitted,
updated
by
1
March
2015
Strategic
Could significantly impact the ability
to carry out activities in the East,
including bordering regions;
affecting negatively the human
rights and rule of law in affected
areas, as well as making
communities and officials less
receptive to cooperate in
Programme initiatives – the main
challenge lies in the difficulty of
predicting the scale and scope of
conflict.
Activities will be rolled-out in
stages - if the situation
deteriorates, some activities
can be deferred, realigned or
cancelled. The Programme
design will be predicated upon
safeguarding rights and rule of
law principles in the face of the
continued existence of the
conflict, or at least of the
divisions – political and social created by the conflict.
PC
YS
Work from the ‘bottom up’ with
civil society, and use of pilot
activities, seeking to change
the relationship or perception
of the relationship between
citizen and state. At the
national
level,
targeted
intervention
–
including
identification of access-points
in the system - made after
careful selection and intensive
consultation with institutional
partners from the outset.
PC
YS
Continued
fighting or
expansion of the
conflict-zone in
the East.
P=3
I=4
2
Lack of
engagement
(commitment),
resistance to
change or rollback by
institutional
stakeholders: i.e.,
reforms will stall
or even be
reversed.
March
2015
Political
Will
reduce
the
space
for
experimentation – i.e., pilots – and
may make some officials less open
to civil society and capacity-building
initiatives.
P=3
I=2
Last
Update
Status
3
Divisions over
policy and
direction between
stakeholders,
particularly at the
national level.
March
2015
Political
Will slow the progress of reform and
make it harder to predict what
initiatives, especially with justice
officials,
are
sanctioned
or
permissible. It will also make it
harder to find an access point to
feed information gathered at the
local level into the national level
reform process, as that reform
process will not be clear and
institutions will be divided.
P=3
I= 2
4
Overlap or
duplication in an
area of high
donor interest
and activity.
March
2015
Organisational
While there is a possibility of
contradictory
messages
being
conveyed to the public and officials,
the main problem is that it places
additional stress and demands on a
system – and personnel – who have
limited capacity already. Also, the
benefits of potential cooperation
(synergy) could be lost.
The Programme will work at a
neutral, technical level and,
when it supports policymaking, it will seek primarily to
inform, rather than influence
policy decisions. At the local
level, it will seek to inform and
educate about rights and
reforms, so as to de-politicise
debates and serve to bridge
potential divisions between
stakeholders and within
society.
PC
YS
Continued and close
coordination with other
stakeholders, particularly other
donors, during design and
implementation. The
Programme is designed to
address gaps in the sector,
dovetail with other past or
current initiatives, and
harmonise with – and even
support the finalisation of –
national reform strategies and
coordination mechanisms.
PC
YS
Use of standardized UNDP
financial reporting
mechanisms that are stringent
and transparent enough to
prevent embezzling. Mid-term
review to include financial
audit of use of funds by regranting CSOs.
PC
YS
P=3
I= 1
5
Misuse of funds
by CSOs
March
2015
Operational
Diminished confidence in partners
and possible damage to
Programme image amongst
stakeholders and beneficiaries.
86
P=1
I=4
6
Individual partner
does not have
the capacity to
deliver expected
system change.
March
2015
Operational
Some activities or even outputs
may have to be substantially
reconfigured, reduced or even
cancelled.
P=3
I=2
87
Careful capacity assessment
and selection of partners, as
well as formulation of activities
and targets. Re-channelling of
funds allotted to other outputareas and activities within the
Programme framework, if
necessary.
PC
YS
ANNEX 2: ABBREVIATIONS
A2J
Access to Justice
AR(C)
Autonomous Republic (of Crimea)
ATO
Anti-terrorist Operation
CAT
Convention against Torture
CBA
Community-based Approach
CED
Convention for the Protection of All Persons
from Enforced Disappearance
CEDAW
Convention to Eliminate Discrimination
against Women
CERD
Convention on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination
CIDA
Canadian International Development Agency
CIMIC
Civil-Military Co-operation
CoE
Council of Europe
CoM
Cabinet of Ministers
CPC
Criminal Procedure Code
CRC
Convention on the Rights of the Child
CSO
Civil Society Organisation
CTA
Chief Technical Advisor
DFATD
Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade &
Development (Canada)
DHRP
Democratization and Human Rights (and
Civil Society Development) Programme
DIA
Department of Internal Affairs
DoJ
Department of Justice
EBRD
European Bank for Reconstruction &
Development
ECHR
European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
ECtHR
European Court of Human Rights
EU
European Union
EUAM
European Union Advisory Mission
for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine
EUD
European Union Delegation
FBA
Folke Bernadotte Academy
GBV
Gender-based Violence
HRMMU
(OHCHR) Human Rights Monitoring Mission
in Ukraine
HQ
Headquarters
ICC
International Criminal Court
ICCPR
International Covenant on Civil & Political
Rights
IDLO
International Development Law Organization
IDP
Internally-displaced Person
IFC
International Finance Corporation
ILO
International Labour Organization
INL
U.S. Bureau for International Narcotics and
Law Enforcement Affairs
IRF
International Renaissance Foundation
JfPiD
Justice for Peace in Donbas (CSO coalition)
JJRS
Judiciary & Justice Reform Strategy
LACC
Legal Aid Coordination Centre
MIA
Ministry of Internal Affairs
MoD
Ministry of Defence
MoJ
Ministry of Justice
NHRI
National Human Rights Institution
NHRS
National Human Rights Strategy
NSJ
National School of Judges
ODIHR
Office for Democratic Institutions & Human
Rights
OHCHR
Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights
OO
Ombudsperson’s Office (Ukrainian
Parliament High Commissioner for Human
Rights)
OSCE
Organization for Security & Co-operation in
Europe
M&E
Monitoring & Evaluation
NHR&RoL
National Human Rights & Rule of Law
(Specialist)
PA
Prosecutorial Academy
PB
Programme Board
PCO
(OSCE) Project Coordinator’s Office
PPR
Programme Progress Report
RoL
Rule of Law
ROLO
Rule of Law Officer
RPA
Recovery & Peacebuilding Assessment
SBU
Security Service of Ukraine
SES
State Emergency Service
SGBV
Sexual & Gender-based Violence
SGF
Small Grants Fund
Sida
Swedish International Development Agency
SJA
State Judicial Administration
SMMU
(OSCE) Special Monitoring Mission to
Ukraine
UIA
University of Internal Affairs
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNHCR
United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees
UNICEF
United Nations International Children’s
Emergency Fund
UNODC
United Nations Office on Drugs & Crime
UPR
Universal Periodic Review
USAID
United States Agency for International
Development
89