Concept Paper:

Rule of Law Strengthening and

Anti-Corruption in Ukraine

Recommendations for USAID Assistance

May 2005

David Black

Richard Blue

**I. Introduction**

***Background***

This concept paper outlines a strategy for developing a Rule of Law
program that reflects the conditions in Ukraine in 2005. There are three
key assumptions about Rule of Law conditions in the Ukraine that set the
context for this assessment . First, that the Yushchenko government has
the political will, and the political capital, to undertake significant,
and no doubt, controversial reforms of the judicial system. Reforms are
a requirement of various European Union agreements, and will become
important benchmarks for a closer relationship with the EU in the
future. Second, the Yushchenko government will welcome the active
engagement of the USG, along with the EU and other donors, in providing
material support, and where relevant, access to external technical
assistance to the reform process. Third, that nearly 15 years of
training, assistance, and exposure to the West has made a difference, in
that Ukraine today has a small but growing number of experts and leaders
who understand what is needed and how to prepare the basic laws and
organizations to realize reform objectives. Technical assistance may
still be requested, but of a very focused and specific nature, rather
than the broad brush approach of the mid 1990s.

Two assumptions about the USAID context are also important. First: this
will be a **three-year program, with emphasis on specific critical
results** within first year. Second: funding will be available from
existing and supplemental appropriations to permit quick engagement with
the Government of Ukraine on the issue of Rule of Law reform.

In developing the recommendations in this assessment, the team developed
certain criteria or principles that were used to guide our analysis,
conclusions and recommendations. Unless the political situation changes
dramatically, we believe these principles should serve as a basis for
further development of an new USAID Rule of Law program.

***Key Principles in Expansion of USAID ROL Strategy Acceleration and
Expansion***

1.  **Direct causal linkage with Strategic Objective** 4, IR 4.3,
    Adherence to the Rule of Law. USAID's existing strategic plan
    includes room for substantial acceleration of the USAID program.
    This expansion also conforms to the more comprehensive interest of
    the Embassy and EUR/ACE in promoting Rule of Law.

2.  **Design -- Implement**. The new assistance project should rely in
    large part on a design-implement approach. Three reasons underlie
    this principle: the situation is unstable; initial 2 week assessment
    too quick to make detailed appraisal of problems, needs, current
    actors; other donors still formulating own programs so USAID niche
    and comparative advantage may change. Quick assessments in priority
    areas must be completed preliminary to interventions.

3.  **Speed:** Although the situation appears chaotic, there is some
    evidence that government is moving now to develop a vision and
    conceptual framework/strategy for guiding rule of law and judicial
    reform. USAID needs to engage quickly, even before a formal project
    is activated.

4.  **Use Existing USAID developed assets**: where possible and where
    rapid expansion/scale up can occur without substantial project
    management reorganization or initial institution building. This is
    especially possible on the "Demand-Realization" side outlined below
    in Section C.

5.  **Flexibility in project implementation**; a rapidly evolving
    situation may create new needs and opportunities critical to overall
    success. As noted below, targets of opportunity may emerge that
    offer potential for quick results.

6.  **Focus**: rule of law is a vast and complex arena, with many
    problems and requirements. USAID will focus on several key
    interventions that have strong forward and backward linkages to
    other problem areas.

7.  **Anti-Corruption:** Reducing the level of perceived and actual
    corruption in the courts is a lynchpin for other anti-corruption
    initiatives. The focus for this program, to a great extent, will be
    on those areas of Rule of Law that support the following principles:

    a.  **That citizens expect government to exist to serve society.**

    b.  **That citizens have a right to expect and demand a rule of law,
        not rule by laws.**

    c.  **That the legal system must serve as the honest, fair and
        impartial arbiter, interpreter, and implementer of the Rule of
        Law.**

    d.  **That the legal system must be independent and self governing,
        but also accountable to the body politic.**

    e.  **That the Rule of Law must be transparent, widely accepted, and
        its basic principles clearly understood by all.**

    f.  **That without an honest, fair and effective judicial system,
        other efforts to control or eliminate corruption will fail.**

8.  **Coordination with European institutions**: integration with Europe
    is a powerful underlying policy behind rule of law and judicial
    development for Ukraine. EU/TACIS, Council of Europe, OSCE,
    International Court of Human Rights, and specific European
    bi-lateral programs will play a dominant role. The Acquis
    Communitaire, though not yet activated, sets out specific
    requirements for acceptance. USG foreign policy is to support
    Ukraine integration with Europe.

9.  **Coordination within USG**: USAID ROL programs need to have strong
    interface with programs developed through INL, DOJ, and others
    focusing on law enforcement and procuracy. At the same time,
    possibilities for joint programming in some areas should be
    exploited.

10. **Build on Ukrainian Competence/Experience**: The 2005 situation is
    vastly different than 1992. Ukrainian knowledge, understanding and
    competence have developed and must be appreciated and utilized to
    the fullest extent possible.

***Changing the Relationship Between Citizens and the State***

What follows is the outline of a strategy for renewed USAID support for
development of Rule of Law and, closely linked, efforts to bring under
control and significantly reduce the rather high level of corruption
that now exists. Overall this strategy proposes to focus on a theme of
changing the relationship between citizens and the state. Building on a
number of opportunities afforded by the Orange Revolution, such as
greater press freedom and increased political will to address
corruption, this strategy highlights the important role of the judiciary
not only as the guarantor of rule of law, but also as a primary means
for citizens to hold government accountable. Implementation of
administrative law reforms and establishment of the new administrative
courts will be key in this sense. But the strategy also highlights the
need for other means for citizen interaction with state, through civil
society, public oversight, the media, and greater awareness of citizens'
rights and the responsibilities of government

***Three Dimensions of Rule of Law Assistance***

There are three dimensions to this proposed strategy. The first is a
**public policy dimension**, highlighting the need to forge consensus on
and maintain momentum for finalizing and implementing a conceptual
framework or architecture of a reformed judicial system. This framework
would establish priorities for and identify areas where USG could
support new legislation needed to carry out a comprehensive judicial
reform strategy. The second is a **structural dimension**, identifying a
limited set of potential technical programs that, if USAID provided
assistance, would have substantial positive impact on the overall
efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial system as well as on
reducing corruption. Extensive USAID involvement in many, though not
all, of these technical areas would be conditional on the Government's
substantial progress on part one, the development of a strategy and new
legislation. Theses areas represent a new opportunity for USG to assist
on the "supply side" of the Rule of Law equation. Finally, the third is
a **demand and realization** **dimension**, addressing citizen
expectations, knowledge, and attitudes toward the effectiveness and
fairness of the judicial system, their ability to access justice, and
the realization of those rights. USAID has remained active in the
"demand side" of rule of law development following the conclusion of its
earlier ROL strengthening program in 1999, and it is important that the
demand side continue to receive attention and support, but in a manner
that goes beyond simple awareness raising and informing citizens of
their rights. What is needed now is effective realization of those
rights.

Of these three dimensions, the first is the most urgent and most
important. It will nonetheless require fewer resources than the other
two dimensions. The assessment team estimates that the total funding for
the activities in this proposed strategy will break out as roughly
20-30-50 for the three dimensions respectively. This does not reflect
the prioritization of each dimension, rather simply the relative
allocation of resources needed for each.

***Format of This Concept Paper***

The three dimensions of rule of law development noted above are
discussed below using a common format for each. First, we describe the
current situation and identify what we have found to be the main
**problems**. Second, we make specific **recommendations** as to what
kind of program might be developed to address those programs, keeping in
mind the design criteria outlined in part one above. Next, we identify
areas of **action**, where steps may be taken now, or where additional
research may be needed to develop a more detailed scope of work,
followed by i**llustrative activities**. Finally, we list the key
**expected results** that USAID should expect as a result of the
actions. This format is intended to facilitate the process of starting a
new assistance program, so the text in these sub-sections is written to
be used "as is" in a SOW or RFP for a future program.

**II. Assessment Findings and Proposed Actions**

**A. The Public Policy Dimension**

**Problem:** [Lack of Consensus on ROL Reform Strategy and Inadequate
Legislative Framework Inadequate to Support Reforms:]{.underline}

USAID Rule of Law programs in many countries have suffered from lack of
political will and commitment to real reform. USAID's major program in
Ukraine during the 1990s was terminated for this reason.

Political will, however, must be organized to be effective. In this
section, we identify issues and a possible approach to assisting the new
government with a means to organizing the political will for reform so
it may be translated in action.

-   Although there is nearly universal agreement on the need to
    undertake broad judicial and legal reform, the current landscape is
    crowded with many competing initiatives by existing state bodies,
    foundations, think tanks, and other NGOs.

-   There is no official strategy in place that lays out the basic
    conceptual and programmatic parameters, priorities, sequences, and
    time frames for action. Institutional authorities are unclear and
    overlapping. There are too many institutions, each eager to take the
    lead and blocking the initiatives of others. While a certain amount
    of competition is healthy, at some point it becomes dysfunctional
    unless there is a process by which good ideas and initiatives are
    organized within a strategic framework which delineates objectives,
    priorities, and the overall system of authorities and competencies
    necessary to make the system work.

-   Nearly every law relating to the establishment of the judicial
    system, e.g., Law on the Judiciary, as well as the Normative and
    Procedural laws fundamental to the corpus juris, Civil/Economic and
    Criminal law are in need of substantial revision. The most recent
    law establishing the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court was
    vetoed by the President while the team was in Kyiv. (See Annex B:
    list of laws identified by Ukrainian respondents as needing
    substantial revision)

-   The process of preparing draft laws and amendments is akin to an
    Egyptian souk. For example, at least 20 competing sets of draft
    amendments to the Law on the Judiciary are reported to be in the
    legislative hopper, and the Law on the Advocacy is five years old
    and needs revision to reflect the growth of a more progressive
    advocacy.

-   It is repeatedly reported that the Constitution will need amendment
    if new laws reflecting certain reform propositions are to be put
    into place.

-   There are at least two tentative plans by the government to
    establish a working group to take the lead on this process,
    suggesting competition for control and direction of reform at the
    very highest level of government. Secretary of the National Security
    and Defense Council, Petro Poroshenko, reportedly plans to establish
    a working group on judicial reform, but many believe that this is an
    inappropriate role for the Council. The assessment team also learned
    of a draft presidential decree to establish a National Commission
    for Strengthening Democracy and Rule of Law to function under the
    auspices of the Deputy Prime Minister for European Integration, Oleh
    Rybachuk.

**Recommendation #1**: That the Ambassador make representations to
President Yushchenko regarding the need for a comprehensive strategy or
concept for judicial reform, the desirability of putting this in place
sooner, rather than after the parliamentary elections, and the US
interest in supporting the speedy development of the National Commission
for Strengthening Democracy and Rule of Law as the most appropriate
vehicle for this purpose. ( NB: This recommendation has already been
conveyed to Ambassador Herbst during the team's exit briefing April 25,
at which were Mission Director Crowley, Mike Scanlan, Necia Quast, and
several others. Crowley and Scanlan supported the recommendation.)

The initiative for a National Commission for Strengthening Democracy and
Rule of Law appears to be the more attractive course for four reasons:
first, it has already been approved by the full cabinet, second, it has
the engagement of the more reform minded legal thinkers and jurists,
third, it would have greater durability than the working group currently
being formed under Mr. Poroshenko, and fourth, it is inappropriate for
the executive body in charge of national security to be in charge of
court reform. It is much more appropriate for this initiative to fall
under the purview of PM Rybachuk given the need to adopt reforms
consistent with European norms.

**Actions:** It is critical for Mission to form quickly its independent
reading on the National Commission proposal and the prospects for its
going forward to the President, especially in the light of the
Poroshenko 'working group'. More needs to be learned about this
initiative as well before Amb. Herbst pays a visit to the President.

**Recommendation #2:**

Assuming that the government establishes the National Commission for
Strengthening Democracy and Rule of Law or an equally acceptable
mechanism for building consensus on key legal reforms, it is recommended
that the Mission support the process of consensus-building and
legislative and regulatory drafting. USAID should build on the model
well established under the former ROL Consortium project which Ukrainian
counterparts sill cite as a very good example of effective donor
assistance. Furthermore, USAID should consider including in the scope of
work for its new ROL implementing partner the role of facilitating donor
coordination efforts in the ROL sphere.

**Actions:**

The USAID implementing partner shall support the work of the National
Commission for Strengthening Democracy and Rule of Law (or other similar
body or working group as determined by USAID) in the process of reaching
consensus on key judicial and related reforms and subsequent legislative
and regulatory drafting. The contractor will also facilitate the process
for building political consensus on key concepts and draft legislation
to expedite adoption and implementation, while at the same time
facilitating the involvement of relevant members of academia and civil
society. (The contractor might also provide similar assistance in the
development of national anti-corruption policies or strategies, although
the Council of Europe plans to provide such assistance so USAID
involvement may not be necessary.)

**Illustrative Activities**

*Illustrative Activity \# 1*

Based on a model previously implemented by USAID and other donors to
support Ukrainian working groups drafting the Constitution, Civil Code,
Administrative Law reforms, and other key legislation, the contractor
will establish close working relations with the Commission or Working
Group on Judicial Reform and provide it with technical and logistical
support. For example, the contractor will help coordinate donor
assistance to the Commission or Working Group, provide it with Ukrainian
translations of comparative laws and legal frameworks, and arrange for
outside expert legal opinions of drafts of Ukrainian laws or concepts
and translate them into Ukrainian. With USAID concurrence, the
contractor may procure the services of a Ukrainian or third country
legal expert to work full time with the Commission or Working Group,
arrange for a study trip to Europe for key drafters, or award sub grants
to Ukrainian NGOs with relevant expertise on the topic to partially
cover the cost of their participation in the Commission or Working
Group.

*Illustrative Activity \# 2*

Using the same model previously implemented by USAID and other donors to
support important legislative working groups, the contractor will help
the Commission or Working Group on Judicial Reform make logistical
arrangements and pay for costs related to one or more legislative
drafting "retreats" outside of Kyiv. Participants would include key
drafters such as MPs, staff of the Ministry of European Integration,
academics, judges and members of think tanks. An important role for the
contractor will be to help identify the relevant participants and ensure
their participation. The contractor will also help organize and pay for
administrative logistics such as bound copies of translated resource
materials, tables for easy comparison of competing draft
laws/amendments, and translation services. The contractor will help
facilitate consensus building and ensure timely publication and
dissemination of subsequent drafts for their immediate consideration by
the public and the Rada.

*Illustrative Activity \# 3*

The contractor will organize and convene regular donor coordination
meetings on the topic of rule of law assistance.

**Expected Results**

-   An official judicial reform concept paper and/or strategy endorsed
    by the president and/or prime minister as the government's road map
    for judicial reform starting immediately.

-   Clarification of key government and judicial system decision making
    authorities and roles necessary to implement the reform strategy.

-   Consensus draft legislation or amendments presented in the current
    Rada convocation in priority order necessary to effect the judicial
    reform road map.

-   Adoption of key legislation by the Rada.

-   Buy in and support for court reform concept and supporting
    legislation from key civil society groups as a result of their
    inclusion in the drafting process.

-   Faster implementation of key elements of the reform strategy

**B. The Structural Dimension**

**Problem:** [The Judicial System is Inefficient, Ineffective, and
Perceived as/is Corrupt:]{.underline}

While similar problems relate to other aspects of the judicial system,
this assessment does not include prosecutorial and investigative
functions. Mike Scanlan of the US Embassy has been actively engaged in
developing an approach to providing assistance to these functions. USAID
planning for ROL needs to coordinate closely with these efforts.

Based on the quick assessment research conducted by the team, the
following problems and issues affect the capacity of the Judicial System
to provide efficient, effective and fair judicial services to the
Ukraine society.

-   Judicial personnel system is in crisis. 1400 vacancies, widespread
    accusations of judicial corruption, judges not competent to protect
    right human rights, judges unable to keep abreast of constantly
    changing legislation.

-   Appointment system akin to feudal satraps. Court presidents have
    enormous authority in selection of judges at rayon and oblast level.
    Requirements of law degree and 2 years experience inadequate to
    ensure quality appointments. Many judges are transfers from the
    procuracy and military courts. It was reported by one respondent
    that the new Administrative Courts would be staffed in part by
    judges from the soon to be eradicated Military Tribunals.

-   Training of judges is totally ad hoc and inadequate. Academy of
    Judges in State Judicial Administration barely underway, with
    insufficient funding. Funding for other state training institutes,
    e.g., prosecutors, customs, tax, many times that available for
    judicial training. Efforts by NGOs, donors, and others to fill gaps
    is laudable, but falls far short of systematic approach to judicial
    training.

-   Assignment of cases is done by court presidents, a practice
    considered by many to lead to abuse.

-   Working conditions for most courts, especially first instance
    courts, continue to be inadequate. A computer network has been
    established by SJA, but most judges lack computers or bring in their
    own. Recording of hearings does not meet international standards.

-   Many courts lack sufficient budget for the most basic requirements,
    light, heat, paper, files.

-   Courts are by no means user friendly, inadequate security,
    insufficient space for litigants, brusque treatment, altogether an
    experience not conducive to enhancing respect for the law.

-   Organizational location and accountability relationships of SJA are
    unclear. SJA was moved from MoJ earlier, and established nominally
    under the Council of Judges, but also under the Cabinet of
    Ministers, making it an instrument of the executive branch. Many
    respondents said that SJA was set up as an instrument of executive
    control, rather than an administrative service organization for an
    independent judiciary. Now the question of who should set policy and
    oversee the work of SJA is under debate. The Minister of Justice
    wants it back, the Council of Judges acts like SJA reports to them,
    but many interlocutors said a decision had been made to put in under
    the Supreme Court.

-   The map of relevant policy guidance and oversight institutions for
    the judiciary is extremely complex. The High Judicial Council is a
    cumbersome body and appears to be ineffective as a policy body for
    the judiciary, in part because of its size, the participation of the
    procuracy (a feature found elsewhere), and because leadership was
    associated with the previous regime. The HJC claims authority over
    the judicial appointment process and has asked for assistance in
    introducing an examination system, either for entry, or for
    promotion to life tenure after the 5 year probationary term.

    -   Elements of a complex Judicial System

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Council of Judges, which is the 'executive arm' of the College
    of Judges, is possibly subordinate to the HJC, but in fact seems to
    exercise greater authority over the SJA than the HJC, and acts
    rather independently. .

-   Qualifying Commissions, tasked with assessing the qualifications of
    judicial nominees, are reported to generally make decisions based on
    political reasons or bribes paid, rather than on merits of the
    candidates.

-   The Verkhovna Rada Legal Committee is an important component of the
    system, being the source of oversight and legislative drafting for
    the judicial system, including substantive and organizational laws.

-   The Office of the Ombudsman is staffed with judicial and
    prosecutorial personnel, but most respondents consider it lacking
    any real power to investigate and follow up on complaints from
    citizens.

-   The Ministry of Justice is very active under the current Ministry,
    seeking to take the initiative in judicial training, human rights
    protection, provision of legal defense for indigent and poor
    persons, and many other functions now, theoretically carried out by
    the SJA.

**Recommendation**

That the new USAID program address certain elements of judicial reform
with the following caveats: (a) do so only if the government and Rada
are moving swiftly and decisively on judicial reform and have adopted a
reform road map and/or have begun to adopt or amend key laws, and (b)
focus on a few aspects of court reform that will improve court
efficiency as well as reduce corruption in the judiciary.

**Actions**

*Court reforms*

The contractor will assess the judicial system with the aim of **quickly
i**dentifying a limited set of structural problems that (a) can be
addressed by USAID assistance, and (b) will have noticeable quick impact
on reducing corruption and/or improving court performance. The
contractor should seek to identify problems that can be addressed
immediately without changes to legislation, if such changes are likely
to remain in effect. For example, it may be possible to introduce a new
procedure for random assignment of cases in Oblast courts, or introduce
a new test procedure for judicial candidates, without the adoption of
new legislation, and such reforms are likely to remain in effect in some
form regardless of the final court reform concept. Other examples
include, publishing of court decisions, eliminating ex parte
communications, expanding public and media access to court hearings, and
improving court recording.

At the same time, the contractor should identify the most urgent
problems that are likely to be among the first addressed in newly
adopted or amended legislation. Although some legislation may not be
adopted until after the 2006 parliamentary elections, it should be
possible to determine certain reforms emerging from consensus in the
Court Reform Working Group or in legislation adopted in first reading.
Based on this assessment, the contractor should identify opportunities
for technical assistance to prepare for the most urgent imminent
reforms. These are likely to include the process for nominating judicial
candidates, improving disciplinary procedures for judges, and improving
enforcement of judgments.

Upon identifying immediate- and likely medium-term court reforms, the
contractor shall provide technical assistance to assist Ukrainian
partners implement and prepare for implementation of the reforms.
Assistance might include mini assessments and recommendations for
implementing quick-fix and short-term reforms that don't require new or
amended legislation.

*Partners*

The selection of Ukrainian partners will depend on the reforms to be
implemented, but will likely include one or more of the following:
Council of Judges, High Council of Justice, Academy of Judges, State
Judicial Administration, Ministry of Justice,

**Illustrative Activities**

***These activities have been identified by the team as having high
potential for forward and backward linkages to other parts of the
system, and which meet the criteria set out at the beginning of this
report. While "illustrative", they have been selected with some care.***

*Illustrative Activity \# 1*

To improve financial management, cooperate with the Council of Judges to
introduce modern budget planning and fiscal management techniques,
procure budget management software, and train select officials in budget
management. Later, assist with pilot roll out to one or more Oblast
level courts.

*Illustrative Activity \# 2*

In cooperation with the High Council of Justice and/or Council of
Judges, advise on design of software for new system of testing
qualifications of judicial candidates; ensure new system includes
sufficient security to eliminate opportunities for corruption.

*Illustrative Activity \# 3 (target of opportunity)*

In cooperation with the Ministry of Justice, conduct an assessment of
execution of court decisions to determine measures the MOJ can undertake
to improve enforcement of decisions. Provide technical assistance to MOJ
to implement recommended measures.

**Expected Results**

-   Adoption of more transparent, fair and merit-based procedures for
    nominating, qualifying, disciplining and appointing judges. As a
    result, new judges will be better qualified and better prepared for
    their positions, new procedures will reduce opportunities for
    corruption and paying of bribes to obtain a nomination or position.

-   More transparent and efficient management of budgets for the courts
    and improved system for remuneration of judges and court staff. As a
    result, budget information will be publicly available, courts will
    be better equipped and staffed, and means for influencing judges
    through arbitrary awarding of promotions and benefits will be
    eliminated or reduced.

**C. The Demand-Realization Dimension**

**Problem:** [Justice is Undermined by Citizens' Inability to Navigate
the Court System, Incompetent or Unobtainable Legal Counsel, and
Inadequate Oversight and Protection of Human Rights]{.underline}

There is a close relationship between the capacity of citizens to
understand, support and use the judicial system and the integrity,
effectiveness and quality of justice delivered by that system. USAID and
other donors have invested with some success in raising citizen
knowledge and awareness of legal rights. However, preliminary evidence
suggests that serious constraints remain to the realization of those
rights. These constraints and problems are set out below:

-   There is considerable evidence that Ukraine citizens are prepared to
    assert rights and claims against the state. Demand for USAID
    supported legal counseling is high, written complaints to the
    President, the Ombudsman, and other visible points of access are
    overwhelming.

-   There is also considerable evidence to suggest that citizens do not
    know how, nor does the state make it easy, to access government for
    the satisfaction of claims and problems.

-   Akin to the role of public health and preventive medicine, the
    Government needs to do all it can to constrict the "corruption
    industry", by consolidating the regulatory regime, clarifying and
    simplifying the interface with citizens, and the processes by which
    citizens do business with government.

-   This principle can be applied to various aspects of the judiciary,
    beginning with the notaries, continuing through the criminal, civil,
    and administrative justice, and including the way citizens are
    served by court administrative personnel.

-   Preventive measures will not eliminate wrongdoing and litigation. In
    areas of civil, administrative and criminal law, citizens will need
    a system of access to professional assistance in pursing their
    defense, or their claims, whether against the state or other
    persons, legal or otherwise. Legal advice is needed on two broad
    fronts:

    -   Advice on how to make claims or redress actions short of going
        to court. Several USAID programs have built "one stop" access
        centers into their local government strengthening programs (see
        Macedonia, for example). In Bulgaria, first instance courts are
        opening windows where citizens can get forms, directions and
        referrals. These efforts are further enhanced by non-profit
        centers for providing, among other things, legal advice on how
        to access the bureaucracy and on legal matters generally short
        of preparation and defense in a court of law.

    -   A more specialized area of legal consultation involves cases
        which have a high probability of ending up in court. Here
        preliminary counsel can be provided, and subject to available
        expertise, legal defense counsel for trials as well.

-   Remedies for these last two needs have been slow in developing.
    Donors support development of legal clinics in Law Schools, NGO
    Legal Counseling and Defense Centers and Networks, and work with
    government sometimes to reform and make more effective State support
    for a citizen's constitutional right to be represented by competent
    defense.

-   In practice, the demand for legal services is outstripping the
    supply, especially among low income or indigent people who cannot
    afford highly skilled defense counsel. NGO supported programs are
    growing, but cannot by themselves, meet the demand. State
    requirements that all persons be represented are not met, as the
    stipend available to pay advocates is far too low, as are the
    appropriated funds available to courts for this purpose.

**Recommendation:**

That the new program include substantial focus on the citizen/demand
dimension, including access to justice and citizens holding government
accountable. This dimension not only complements the other dimensions,
but it essential to their success. Experience has shown that good
legislation and institutional reforms can easily be undermined or
skirted without informed citizen participation and adequate
non-government oversight. Given the concerns among many interviewees
that the reform process is not proceeding apace, this dimension should
be considered an integral part of any new ROL programming. It should be
noted, however, that the recommended actions below assume that at least
moderate progress will be made on advancing judicial reform. If this
assumption fails to materialize, the new program should adjust the focus
of this dimension accordingly, i.e., focus less on access to justice and
more on advocacy for legal reform, protection of human rights.

**Actions**

While the principle focus of USAID's efforts in the ROL area should be
on supporting the Government of Ukraine to design, adopt and implement
reforms, USAID should simultaneously intensify efforts to support the
"demand" side of reform. In fact, if there is a long delay or only
limited success in the public policy dimension, then the
demand-realization dimension should focus primarily on advocacy for
reform. In that case, the program will look similar to previous USAID
programs. However, assuming that there is sufficient political will for
reform and demonstrated progress in that area, this dimension should
build on previous activities that support(ed) advocacy, monitoring,
legal aid, and public education. New activities will likely focus on
three areas: Access to Justice; Participation and Government
Accountability; and Legal Education.

**Access to justice** activities should include support for free legal
advice centers and law school legal clinics; public advocacy and human
rights CSOs; improvements to the system of public defenders; and other
means for improving human rights protection and increasing citizen
access to justice. These activities would naturally build on or expand
some of the existing ABA/CEELI activities supporting legal aid centers
and law school clinics. \-- The latter have proven to be very popular
and students who experience this practical teaching approach are better
prepared and more desirable in the legal job market. However, legal
clinics have not been fully integrated into the required curriculum, and
therefore are not part of the regular academic budget. Mainstreaming
clinical education is the logical next step in USAID's demonstration
program.

**Participation and government accountability** activities should
include support for investigative journalism; CSO monitoring (e.g., of
courts, public procurements, corruption); and public education and
awareness. The contractor will likely undertake a small grants program
to support these initiatives and/or to promote public-private
partnerships to address corruption, perhaps modeled on the former
USAID-funded DAI anti-corruption program but with greater emphasis on
national-level issues.

**Legal education** might be considered a target of opportunity, and
here any program would have to be very focused on one or two critical
issues. For example, the proliferation of law schools has led to a
reduction in the quality of education and the production of poorly
prepared law graduates. It may be that market forces will eventually
produce a much needed reduction in the number of these institutions.
However, the state does have a responsibility to set and ensure
international standards of education and training for law graduates, a
responsibility not now being met by the Ministry of Education.

The assessment team recommends that activities in this dimension in
particular proceed using a design-implement approach, given the
complexity of this dimension as well as the very limited time the team
had to research this area. The contractor should be asked to do brief
assessments of, for example, the effectiveness of private-public
partnerships, demand for free legal aid, and public awareness. Of
course, many activities in this dimension should complement, or perhaps
be implemented under, existing USAID-funded media and civil society
strengthening programs.

**Illustrative Activities**

*Illustrative Activity #1*

The contractor shall support a program of public-private partnerships,
involving CSOs, media, business associations, and an array of government
officials to address anti-corruption, focusing on national and/or local
issues of greatest resonance with citizens. The program will include
grants to support a combination of research, workshops, public
awareness, investigative journalism, hotlines, or documentaries. The
contractor shall first conduct a brief assessment of the impact and
lessons learned from previous USAID-funded public-private partnerships
and then implement its program accordingly.

*Illustrative Activity #2*

The contractor shall work with an association of advocates, in
conjunction with other relevant Ukrainian counterpart (e.g., MOJ, Rada
Committee, Bar Association), in proposing and implementing changes to
the public defender system.

*Illustrative Activity \# 3*

The contractor shall assist an informal association of law schools and
the Ministry of Justice in establishing a system for accrediting law
schools.

**Expected Results**

-   Active oversight of judicial proceedings by non-partisan
    non-government civil society organization.

-   An increase in the percentage of citizens who take advantage of free
    legal consultations.

-   Improved legal defender program that clarifies responsibilities of
    advocates, provides appropriate compensation, and ensures that
    citizens accused of crimes who cannot afford legal counsel can
    obtain services of a public defender.

-   An increase in the amount of investigative journalism of corruption.

-   Visible and measurable steps are taken to expose or reduce
    corruption as a result of USAID-funded public-private partnerships.

-   Fewer judges and advocates with low qualifications entering the
    legal profession as a result of the establishment of accreditation
    standards for legal education. "The process of accreditation is
    meant to insure a level of national uniformity in legal education
    and practice."

**D. A Unifying Theme: Administrative Law**

The three dimensions of this strategy require substantial reform and
create an agenda that is far too broad for any one donor. Operating
under the supplemental appropriation, USAID must identify needs that
will have reasonably quick results as well as broadest possible impact
on developing Rule of Law. One way to achieve this is to have the
strategy focus on the area of **administrative law**, or that body of
laws that deals with the interaction of government and the public.
Ukraine is in the early stages of establishing **Administrative Courts**
and accompanying normative and procedural legislation. Administrative
law governs the relationship among state entities and, more importantly,
the relationship between the citizen and the state in those areas where
state services and regulatory structures come into play. In a country
undergoing change from a socialist to an open market economy, the
relationship between the state and the citizen is changing dramatically,
raising many issues of administrative law. Moreover, as private
ownership of land and other resources expands, the regulatory and public
interest protection role of the state faces new challenges. At bottom,
issues of administrative law will affect more citizens than criminal
law, and will certainly rival claims arising in the civil/commercial
code.

Focus on assisting in the development of the Administrative Court would
provide the USAID program an integrative structure that would tie
together the issues identified in part B of the structural issues
outlined above. Because the Administrative Court is new, there are fewer
vested interests to resist reform, and it may be easier for the
government to use the Court to demonstrate the positive effect of
reform, and to move more quickly toward that end. Administrative law
could also be a useful unifying theme for the problems and activities
outlined in part C above. For example, civil society advocacy and
oversight could focus on key administrative laws, such as the law on
access to information, and legal aid could focus on citizens' access to
justice in the new administrative courts. (See Annex D for an
illustration of this unifying theme within the broader strategy.)

**III. Problems Beyond the Scope of USAID's Manageable Interests
(Targets of Opportunity, Other Priorities, Lower Priorities)**

USAID should be aware of the following needs and problem areas which are
important aspects of ROL development and reducing corruption in
Ukraine.  However, given competing priorities, limited funding, limited
project time frame, other donor/partner involvement, sufficient
indigenous capacity to achieve success without donor assistance, etc.,
this new project cannot address all ROL and corruption-related
problems.  Some of these should fall outside this project's scope of
work, whereas others may be targets of opportunity, to be addressed if
opportunities arise and if the project has sufficient financial and
management capacity to respond. 

 

a.       Territorial and Administrative Reform

b.      Civil service and public administration reform

c.       Rada Accounting Chamber;  Other/new GOU internal audit bodies

d.      Advice on national anti-corruption concept, laws

e.       Civil service code of ethics

f.        Targeted anti-corruption effort in one ministry/sector

g.       Court Automation 

h.       Institution-building of judicial management organs, e.g. State
Judicial Administration, High Council of Judges, Congress of Judges,
Association of Judges

i.         Ombudsman of Ukraine

j.        Training in legislative drafting, e.g. Rada Institute

k.      Arbitration (*treiteski*) "courts"

l.         Notaries

m.     New system of community/local police

 

**ANNEX A**

**LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED**

**April 2005**

**[KYIV, UKRAINE MEETINGS]{.underline}**

**[US Government]{.underline}**

> **[US Embassy, Law Enforcement section]{.underline}**
>
> Ambassador John E. Herbst
>
> Sheila Gwaltney, DCM
>
> Michael Scanlan, Law Enforcement Section
>
> Necia Quast, Economic Section
>
> Aubrey Carlson, Political Section
>
> Anzhela Green, Public Affairs Section/ Cultural Affairs Office
>
> Tom Firestone, Department of Justice Attorney
>
> Oksana Klymovych, Law Enforcement Section

[]{.mark}

> **[USAID/Ukraine]{.underline}**
>
> Chris Crowley, Mission Director
>
> Karen Hilliard, Deputy Mission Director
>
> Kathryn Stevens, Director, Office of Democracy and Governance
>
> Assia Ivantcheva, Deputy Director, Office of Democracy and Governance
>
> Gary Linden, Director, Office of Economic Growth
>
> Rick Gurley, Chief of Private Enterprise Division
>
> Gleb Krivenko, Commercial Law Specialist

**[USAID Implementing Partners and Other Donors in
Ukraine]{.underline}**

> **[EC Delegation to Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus]{.underline}**
>
> **Andrey Spivak**, Project Manager JHA
>
> t: 462 00 10; fax: 462-0920
>
> **[International Renaissance Foundation]{.underline}**
>
> Roman Romanov, ROL Activity manager
>
> t: 246 83 63; fax: 216 76 29
>
> e-mail: <romanov@irf.kiev.ua>
>
> **[Canadian International Development Agency (]{.underline}CIDA)**
>
> **Jason Hollman**, First Secretary
>
> t: 464-11-44; fax: 464-0248
>
> **[Swiss Embassy]{.underline}**
>
> **Urs Kluser,** Deputy Country Director
>
> t: 238 62 50; f: 238-6251
>
> e-mail: <urs.kluser@sdc.net>
>
> **[UNDP Ukraine]{.underline}**
>
> **Petro Pavlychenko,** Governance Cluster Coordinator
>
> t: 254-0491; fax: 253-2607
>
> **[ABA/CEELI]{.underline}**
>
> **Robert Heuer**, Chief of Party
>
> **Dennis Hawkins**, Regional Anticorruption Advisor
>
> t: 492-9904
>
> e-mail: <robert_heuer@abaceeli.kiev.ua>
>
> **[Eurasia Foundation]{.underline}**
>
> **Erick Boyle,** Director
>
> t: 246-8355; 246-9961**\
> **
>
> **[Indiana University Parliamentary Development Project]{.underline}**
>
> **Edward Rakhimkulov**, Deputy
>
> t: 254-3691
>
> **[U.S.-Ukraine Foundation]{.underline}**
>
> **Marta Kolomayets**, Chief of Party
>
> t: 537-6230; fax: 537-6231
>
> **[Open World Leadership Center at the Library of
> Congress]{.underline}**
>
> **Lewis Maidanick,** Head
>
> t: 246-8221/22

**[Government of Ukraine]{.underline}**

> **[Supreme Court]{.underline}**
>
> Judge Vasyl Malyarenko, Chairman
>
> Judge Mykola Mykolayovytch Tsytovych, Criminal Panel, Chairman; t:
> 253-9429
>
> Judge Ivan Bohdanovytch Shytsky, Commercial Panel; t: 253-5028
>
> Judge Victor Kryvenko, Council of Judges/Head; t: 253-01-30
>
> Victor Potapenko, Head of International Department; t: 253-00-16
>
> Judge Natalia Naprienko; t: 253-6308
>
> **[Constitutional Court]{.underline}**
>
> **Volodymyr Yevhenovych Dubrovsky,** Head of the Secretariat of
> Constitutional Court
>
> t: 238-1031;
>
> e-mail: <idep@ccu.gov.ua>
>
> **[High Administrative Court]{.underline}**
>
> **Pasenyuk Oleksandr,** Head
>
> t: 244-1647; fax: 229-8450
>
> **[Ministry of Justice]{.underline}**
>
> **Roman Zvarych**, Minister of Justice of Ukraine; t: 279-3206; t:
> 244-1625
>
> **[High Council of Justice]{.underline}**
>
> **Mykola Anatoliyovych Shelest,** Chairman of the High Council of
> Justice of Ukraine
>
> **Lidiya P. Izovitova,** Deputy Chairman of High Council of Justice
>
> **Valentyna M. Paliy,** member of the High Council of Justice, Judge,
> Supreme Economic Court
>
> **Yuriy P. Poltavets,** Adviser to the Chairman of the High Council of
> Justice of Ukraine
>
> **Ivan M. Pyzhyk,** Head of the Department for international
> cooperation and relations with state administration bodies
>
> t: 238-6874,
>
> e-mail: <inter@vru.gov.ua>
>
> **[Kyiv Oblast Appellate Court]{.underline}** 
>
> **Nechyporenko Yuriy Arkadiyovych,** the President of Kyiv Oblast
> Appellate Court
>
> t: 278-2923
>
> **[Academy of General Procuracy]{.underline}**
>
> **Gryhoriy Sereda**, Rector of Kyiv Mohyla Academy
>
> **Volodymyr Sushchenko**, First Deputy Rector, former Dean of the Law
> School of Kyiv Mohyla Academy
>
> t: 206-00-51/52/53; fax: 206-0052
>
> **[Office of the Ombudsman]{.underline}**
>
> **Eduard Ivanovych Pavlenko**
>
> **Valeriy Mykolayovych** **Terets**
>
> t: 2537506
>
> **[Institute of Legislation of the Parliament of
> Ukraine]{.underline}**
>
> **Oleksandr Kopylenko,** Director
>
> t: 235-9617; 235-9601
>
> **[High Council of Justice]{.underline}**
>
> Professor **Anatoliy Oleksandrovytch Selivanov**, MP, Representative
> of the Parliament at the at the Constitutional Court
>
> t: 255-9160; 255-92-37
>
> []{.mark}
>
> **[State Judicial Administration]{.underline}**
>
> **Volodymyr Karaban',** Head
>
> t: 536 0505
>
> **[Academy of Judges of Ukraine]{.underline}**
>
> **Voytuk Iryna,** President
>
> t: 230-31-46; cell: 8-067-2335521
>
> **[Parliament]{.underline}**
>
> **Volodymyr Stretovyvh**, Chairman, Committee on Combatting Organized
> Crime and Corruption
>
> t: 255-3318; 255-35-03; fax:255-33-20
>
> **Serhiy Sobolev**, Representative of the President of Ukraine in the
> Parliament
>
> t: 255-2880
>
> **Vasyl Onopenko**, MP/Head of the Committee on Legal Policy
>
> t: 255-3582
>
> **[General Prosecutor Representative]{.underline}**
>
> **Oleksandr Ivanovych Medved'ko**, Deputy General Prosecutor
>
> **Grygoriy Mykolayovych Titarchuk,** Dep. Head, Organizational and
> Legal Guarantee Dept.
>
> **Olga Litvinchuk,** Prosecutor of International Legal Department
>
> t: 254-31-80

**[Ukrainian NGOs, Media and Associations]{.underline}**

> **[\"Justinian\" Edition]{.underline}**
>
> Journalist **Svetlana Maksimova**, Editor-in-Chief
>
> t: 8-067-2470630; <maximova@justinian.com.ua>
>
> **[All-Ukrainian Independent Judicial Association
> (AUIJA)]{.underline}**
>
> Judge **Oleksiy Kasian**, President
>
> Vitaliy Fedorovych Boyko, Deputy, former chairman of the Supreme
> Court, judge in retirement[\
> ]{.underline} t: 5015417
>
> **[Center of Non Profit Law in Ukraine]{.underline}**
>
> **Anatoliy Tkachuk,** former Member of Parliament, currently the
> Chairman of Civil Society Institute and a representative of the
> International
>
> t: 269 0732; 269 7394;\
> e-mail: [**taficn@ukrpacknet**](mailto:taficn@ukrpacknet);
> [**csi@ukrpacknet**](mailto:csi@ukrpacknet)
>
> **[Social Legal Foundation \"Chynnist zakonu\"]{.underline} (eng.
> \"Rule of law\").**
>
> Oleg Spornykov, Project Director
>
> Lydia Gusina, Project Coordinator
>
> t: 538-03-83\
> e-mail: [**info@rol.org.ua**](mailto:info@rol.org.ua)\
> [**www.rol.org.ua**](http://www.rol.org.ua/)
>
> **[NGO Laboratory of Legislative Initiatives]{.underline}**
>
> Ihor Kohut, Chairman
>
> t/fax: 238 24 69
>
> **[Yaroslav the Wise Institute of Legal Information]{.underline}**
>
> Oleksiyenko Michaylo Georhievych, Deputy Director
>
> t/fax: 254-00-00
>
> e-mail: <ili@ili.kiev.ua>
>
> **[Freedom of Choice Coalition]{.underline}**
>
> **Vlad Kaskiv**, Head
>
> t/fax: 461-9022
>
> e-mail: [**info@coalition.org.ua**](mailto:coalition@.......org.ua)
>
> **[Ukrainian Law Students Association]{.underline}**
>
> Ihor Cherednyk, Head
>
> t: 239-3322; cell: 8-050-487-2604
>
> **[Center for Political and Legal Reform]{.underline}**
>
> **Igor Koliushko,** Head (former MP, member of Committee on Legal
> Reform)
>
> t: 230-35-93 [http://www.pravo.org.ua](http://www.pravo.org.ua/)
>
> **[Advocates, Associations, Arbitrators]{.underline}**
>
> **[Kyiv Arbitral Court]{.underline}**
>
> **Pavlo Kuftirev,** Head
>
> t: 536-5707; f: 536-1277 f: 238-6101
>
> **[Ukrainian Bar Association]{.underline}**
>
> **Ihor Shevchenko**, President
>
> t: 230-6000; fax: 230-6001
>
> []{.mark}
>
> **[Council of Judges]{.underline}**
>
> Supreme Court Judge **Victor Kryvenko**, Head of Council of Judges
>
> t/f: 253-01-30
>
> **[Ukrainian Legal Foundation]{.underline}**
>
> **Serhiy Holovatyy**, MP
>
> t: 227-2236/52

**[KHARKIV, UKRAINE MEETINGS]{.underline}**

> **[National Law Academy]{.underline}**
>
> **Vyacheslav Vasyliovytch Komarov**, Deputy Rector on International
> Relations of Kharkiv
>
> t: 8(057)704-1155
>
> **[Prosecutor]{.underline}**
>
> **Vladimir Sergeyevytch Sukhodubov**, Chief Prosecutor of Kharkiv
>
> t: 8 (057) 704-1515

**[NGO "Journalist Initiative" Association]{.underline}**

> **Oleksiy Soldatenko**, Programs Director
>
> t: 8 (0572) 654-324 cell: 8(050) 323-1430
>
> e-mail: <aleksey.soldatenko@ji-association.org>
>
> **[Institute of Applied Humanitarian Research]{.underline}**

**Mikhail Vsevolodovytch Buromensky**

t: 8 (057) 714-0367; cell 8-050-3002902

**[Ukrainian American Bureau for the protection of Human
rights]{.underline}**

> **Maryanovskiy Hrygoriy Abramovytch** Coordinator
>
> cell: 8 (050)302-8126; h: 8(057)636-311
>
> **[Kharkiv Group for Human Rights Protection]{.underline}**

**Evgeniy Zakharov,** Co-Chairman

cell: 8(050)-402-4064

> **Arkadiy Buschenko**, Lawyer, Expert in Criminal Procedure and
> European Convention Law
>
> t: 8(057) 700-6771; 757-51-66; cell: 8(067)272-0155
>
> e-mail: <root@khpg.org>

**[LVIV, UKRAINE MEETINGS]{.underline}**

> **[Lviv Court of Appeal]{.underline}**
>
> **Taras Mykolayovytch Maritchak,** Judge + 2 rayon judges
>
> t: (0322) 72-2542; cell 8-067-397-6015
>
> **[Prosecutor of Lviv]{.underline}**

**Andriy Igorevytch Palyukh**, Prosecutor

t: (0322) 72-3008 (direct); 72-3007

> **[Advocates]{.underline}**
>
> Mikhailo Iosipovytch Burdyuk
>
> Stephan Stephanovytch Petlevytch
>
> **[Lviv Law Institute]{.underline}**
>
> **Volodymyr Lvovytch Ortynskiy**, Rector (founder of law magazine)
>
> t: 8(0322) 33-1119
>
> **Vyacheslav Oleksandrovytch Navrotskiy**, Dean
>
> t: 8(0322) 72-2723
>
> **[Lviv State University/ Lviv Law School, Law Faculty]{.underline}**
>
> **Andriy Mykolayovytch Boyko**, Dean
>
> **Vitaliy Myroslavovytch**, Professor
>
> 8(0322) 96-4537(direct); 96-4102
>
> []{.mark}
>
> **[NGOs]{.underline}**
>
> [Tax Payers Association of Lviv Oblast]{.underline}
>
> Teodor Diakiv, Head
>
> t: 8(0322) 72-5601
>
> [Institute of Political Technologies]{.underline}
>
> Mykhailo Komarnytskyi, Head
>
> t: 8(0322) 72-0647
>
> [Association of Employers of Lviv Oblast]{.underline}
>
> Zenoviy Bermes, Head
>
> t: 8(0322) 97-0962
>
> [Institute for Strategic Studies]{.underline}
>
> Stepan Filipovych, Head
>
> t: 8(0322)52-8580
>
> [Center of Educational Policy]{.underline}
>
> Oleh Protsak, Head
>
> cell 8-050-519-2006; 8(0322) 72-0647; 72-2861
>
> [Politics and Law]{.underline}
>
> Volodymyr Druchek, Head

**[WASHINGTON, DC MEETINGS]{.underline}**

> **[ABA/CEELI]{.underline}**

Michael Maya

Gavin Weise

Mary Greer

> **[International Republican Institute]{.underline}**
>
> **Stephen Nix**
>
> **[Dept. of State]{.underline}**
>
> **George Frowick**
>
> **Wolodymyr Sulzynsky**
>
> **[Dept. of Justice]{.underline}**
>
> **Chris Lehman**
>
> **[USAID]{.underline}**
>
> **Claudia Dumas, EE/DG**
>
> **[Other]{.underline}**
>
> **Judge Bohdan Futey,** US Court of Federal Claims

**ANNEX B**

**LIST OF LAWS AND CODES**

**RELATED TO ROL & ANTI-CORRUPTION**

**THAT NEED TO BE ADOPTED OR AMENDED**

Law on Cabinet of Ministers

Law on Central Bodies of Executive Branch

Law on Local Bodies of State Administration

Territorial and Administrative Law

Civil Service Law

Conflict of Interest Law for elected politicians

Law on Corruption

Administrative Justice Code (just vetoed by President)

Administrative Procedure Code

Law on Judiciary

Law on Status of Judges

Law on High Qualification Committees

Law on Discipline of Judges

Law on Publishing Court Decisions

Law on Advocates

Law on Public Defenders

Law on Legal Assistance

Law on Access to Information

Law on Confidentiality of Sources (for journalists)

Regulations (or amendments to law) on classification of information

Witness protection law

Whistleblower protection law

Amendments to Laws/Regs to rationalize criminal sentencing (introduce
alternative punishments, probation, fines)

Laws/regulations addressing rights of prisoners, penitentiary system

Amendments to Criminal Procedure Code (adopted in 1^st^ reading)

Amendments to Constitution:

General Oversight and Pre-trial investigation by Procuracy

Other competencies of Procuracy

Composition of High Council of Justice

**ANNEX C**

**OTHER DONOR AND USG**

**ROL ASSISTANCE PROVIDERS**

**The assessment team did not have time to meet with all donors
providing ROL assistance. USAID/Kyiv should find out more about current
and planned other donor assistance prior to finalizing the SOW for its
new program.**

[OTHER DONORS]{.underline}

**Council of Europe** -- (1) Support Good Governance: Assist with
development of a national anti-corruption action plan. 250,000 Euros;
(2) International Cooperation in Criminal Matters: Fulfilling
international treaties on cooperation on criminal matters. 1.8 million
Euros.

**CIDA** -- (1) Model Court Automation; (2) Juvenile Justice project

**International Renaissance Foundation---**

**OSCE --**

**Swiss** -- Penitentiary Reform

**UNDP** -- "Integrity in Action: Governance Program" Law on Public
Oversight, Ombudsman, Rada Accounting Chamber, Legislative Oversight,
Citizens Bureaus

**World Bank** - \[From Interfax Ukraine, 5/16/05\]. Possible new
program to start in 2005 to provide assistance in reform of the legal
system, including judicial reform and anti-corruption. The bank\'s
practical aid may involve the organization of training courses in the
application of European legal standards in Ukraine. The main directions
of the bank\'s assistance may also be programs for the support of
democratic reforms in such areas as independence, public information and
transparency, legal education and retraining of judges, court
management, administrative support and personnel, strategic and
budgetary planning, construction and reconstruction of court premises,
allied professions, alternatives for settling disputes and access to
justice.

[OTHER USG ASSISTANCE]{.underline}

**FBI** training for Ministry of Interior and SBU on anti-trafficking
and cyber crime.

**Regional Security Officer** training for Ministry of Interior on
security issues, e.g. investigative techniques.

**Treasury Dept** training for GOU officials on anti-money-laundering.

Most of the non-USAID USG assistance is funded by the State Department
**Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs**
(**INL**). The INL activities in Ukraine include:

-   Creation of a national migration system (in coop with IOM and EC
    TACIS) , and transformation of State Border Guard Service into an
    institution in conformity with European norms (in coop with EC
    TACIS).

-   Advice on the draft Criminal Procedure Code

-   With the Academy of Judges, training of judges on anti-trafficking

-   With ABA/CEELI regional training seminars for judges and defense
    attorneys on general judicial independence, then specifically on the
    criminal procedure code, and possibly on development of defense
    attorney bar association.

-   With the Coordinating Committee on Combating Corruption and
    Organized Crime (yet to be created) under the National Security and
    Defense Council, policy advice and TA with respect to law
    enforcement aspects of corruption and organized crime.

-   With Ministry of Interior, internal communications and internal
    control mechanisms

-   With State Penitentiary Service, defense attorneys and judges, on
    pre-trial detention.

Possible/supplemental:

-   Witness protection, expand all of above.

In addition to the above INL activities managed by the INL advisor in
Kyiv, the INL-funded **DOJ Regional Legal Advisor** (scheduled to arrive
to Kyiv in May 2005) will oversee training and other assistance focused
on the procuracy (prosecutors). Work with the procuracy will include a
focus on anti-corruption and anti-money-laundering.

**ANNEX F**

**PARTIAL LIST OF REFERENCED RESOURCES**

**UNDP Blue Ribbon Commission Report: *Proposals for the President: A
new Wave of Reform.* 2005.**

***Regional Anti-Corruption Action Plan*. Anti-Corruption Network for
Transition Economies. January 2004.**

**Cabinet of Ministers Program of Action: *Towards People*. February
2005.**

***Strengthening EU-Ukraine Cooperation Towards Enhancing the Rule of
Law in Ukraine*. Policy Paper and Policy Recommendations. (Preliminary
Working Paper. Final version to be released in April 2005.)
International Renaissance Foundation.**

***Developing the Rule of Law in Ukraine: Achievements, Impacts, and
Challenges*. MSI. June 2002**