Photo from the site: Ostro
TRK “Donbass” was attacked, as was the editorial office of the TV channel “Union”. The cottage of the editor-in-chief of the internet publishing company “Island”, Sergi Garmash, was also attacked.
Civilian casualties during anti-terrorist operations
Information about the progress and consequences of anti-terrorist operations (ATOs) published by the media and understood by the general public is extremely contradictory.
We have tried to collect information on the effects of the ATOs in Kramatorsk, which occurred prior to our arrival in the region, in Mariupol, where we arrived a few hours after a firefight on May 9th, and in Krasnoarmeysk, on the day of the referendum.
Ukrainian involvement in anti-terrorist operations in the Donetsk region
The confrontations in Donetsk involved actors from the Ukrainian side including army troops, internal troops, the National Guard and hastily formed battalions of police “special forces”, as well as illegal armed groups.
Involving the army in an internal conflict without declaring a state of emergency or martial law creates a situation of complete legal uncertainty. In such situations, no one understands where the limits of the permissible use of force lie, who has the right to request the mobilization of law enforcement support from the local population and where the power of law enforcement ends.
Parts of the internal troops of Ukraine have been largely unable to perform their duties. The police are disorganized and not willing to carry out orders to act decisively against any group, considering inaction to be the least dangerous option.
Under these circumstances, the Mistry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine have created new organizational units (OUs) of motivated individuals from the general population who want to protect the integrity of the country. The battalions of “Dnepr” and “Azov” where thus formed. However, in light of the civil conflict in Eastern Ukraine, these hastily formed structures will inevitably have to face opposition from unarmed, but aggressive masses. It is clear that such forces are not ready for such a confrontation. After a short period of preparation, they did not possess the necessary skills and they are generally poorly equipped (during the events of May 9th in Mariupol, the “Asov” battalion was not even in uniform), and they do not have the necessary instruments. An automatic machine gun should not be used to deter an aggressive crowd, since this inevitably leads to the unjustified loss of life.
The status of groups such as “Dnepr” and “Azov” is not sufficiently defined. In theory, such formations should serve as patrolmen and ensure order on the “territories liberated from the separatists and terrorists.” In reality, they are forced to engage in armed confrontation with militants, for example in the liberation of occupied buildings, and thus fulfill a function beyond what is expected of patrolmen.
The Ukrainian authorities urgently need to restore order within their own power structures in order to completely eliminate the possibility of dispatching poorly prepared and insufficiently equipped fighters in places where they may clash with hostile civilians.
At the same time, we cannot fail to note that, in many cases, the behavior of Ukrainian law enforcement demonstrates that they truly aim to minimize losses among the civilian population. One can only welcome the moderate behavior of troops at the beginning of the operation in Mariupol on May 9th, and regret that the poor organization and lack of training and equipment for law enforcement bodies led, by the end of the operation, to unnecessary casualties among civilians.
***
Our greatest concern is that local authorities have not only consented to the formation of illegal armed groups, but they actively support such formations. We are referring to the so-called battalion “Donbass”. This formation is not subject to any power exercised by Ukrainian officials and its activities are not governed by any laws. Meanwhile, soldiers of the battalion “grant themselves the power to conduct military operations, take control of populated areas and detain people. Their actions are illegal, but are conducted with the cooperation of the Ukrainian authorities.
The Ukrainian authorities must immediately put a stop to the activities of any unofficial groups that position themselves as defenders of Ukrainian statehood. Unofficial groups fighting in support of Ukrainian statehood can do as much damage as the activities of the separatists.
It should also be noted that there has been unacceptable interference by authoritative individuals into the dealings of the Ukrainian Security Forces. The most striking example of such interference is the case of the deputy Oleg Lyashko who was inexplicably involved in detentions (Watch Here) and interrogations (Watch Here); in the latter case, questions have arisen about the ill treatment of detainees.
Events in Mariupol on May 9th, 2014
It should be noted that there had been outbreaks of armed violence in Mariupol previous to those of May 9th. For example, on the evening of April 16th (around 10:00 pm local time), a crowd of people, many dressed in camouflage and wearing masks, came to the military unit number 3057 near the city center as if to negotiate, but in fact demanded surrender.
“Peace Negotiators”
After the military refused to disarm, the attackers threw Molotov cocktails onto the military base. According to the channel 1 “ORT” (VIDEO), one of the injured “peaceful civilians” explained that the cocktails had been thrown in order to illuminate the yard of the military base.
Source of Photograph
The “peaceful civilians” then broke down the gate. The military troops fired warning shots and then fired at the legs of the fighters. The following day, “Russia-24” reported that the troops opened fire on the citizens. The channel aired the statements of supposed witnesses which claimed that the doors fell down by themselves (VIDEO).
As a result of the confrontation, three of the attackers were killed (some sources report only two deaths), and sixteen people were injured. As of April 22nd, five of the injured had been discharged from the hospital (On the News). The Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine recognized the use of weapons as legitimate and it is difficult to argue with this conclusion. Responsibility for the death and injury of human beings lies entirely with the organizers of the attack on the military unit.
Nevertheless, a version of events that described the unprovoked shooting of civilians by the military became widespread, as did conspiracy theories about provocateurs who purposefully threw Molotov cocktails at the base. PRD supporters spread rumors about “dead bodies stashed on the military base”, that people allegedly “witnessed 19 deaths, of which only 11 people have been identified”, and that the perpetrators “sported military gear and arrived shortly before the shooting in MI-8 helicopters” (http://www.0629.com.ua/news/519472).
***
The situation became heated again during a special operation on May 7th, when the city council building was liberated from the occupation of PRD supporters (Click Here). According to press reports and eyewitnesses, the building was emptied using tear gas, without the use of firearms. Initial reports of injuries occurring during the dismantling of barricades have not been confirmed. Sixteen activists were detained by the PRD supporters. The crowd was trying to free detainees from the Primorskovo police station which had been opened in response to warning shots. The TV channel “LifeNews” claimed that “security forces repeatedly opened fire on civilians” (Clink Here), but there is no information relating to any casualties.
However, the Security Forces were not able to maintain control over the city council building and by May 8th, the PRD flag appeared over it once again. Despite the fact that the no one was injured, the city was greatly agitated by these events and rumors spread.
Not surprisingly, myths immediately began to develop related to the events of May 9th.
On May 9th in Mariupol, we visited all the hospitals where the wounded were being treated – the Emergency hospital and City Hospitals number 1, 2 and 9.
According to doctors, about 40 wounded people were brought to the hospitals in total, all between 12:00 pm and 3:00 pm and all were men aged 25 to 53 years old:
Hospital No. 1 received 15 wounded; the first six were law enforcement officers. They mainly had injuries to the legs and, to a lesser extent, the torso. There were no deaths.
Only one person was brought to Hospital No. 2 – a person who had been hit by a stray bullet while walking his dog; a bullet struck him in the heart and he died after two hours; another person was also wounded, but was not brought to the hospital.
Hospital No. 9 would only tell us the approximate number of wounded – around 15.
Ten people were taken to the Emergency Hospital; two were injured in the stomach, another in the leg. The wounds were serious. One of those delivered to the hospital (a soldier with a stomach wound) later died.
According to the victims and their relatives who we were able to interview, most were injured near the intersection of Lenin Avenue and Engels Street. At the same time, experts were conducting forensic analyses on three corpses. At the time of our initial survey, we were aware of five deaths. By the next day, the number had increased to ten.
On May 14th, the new police chief, Oleg Morgun, reported that during the investigation of the city council building, an eleventh corpse was found but that it “certainly wasn’t a member of the Mariupol police” (http://www.0629.com.ua/news/534419).
He also said that “all personnel where either at their workplaces or were away on sick leave. There is no one missing from the Mariupol police forces.” This statement directly contradicts that made by the leader of the Ukrainian Communist Party, Petro Symonenko who, at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada stated, “in Mariupol, personnel of the City Police Department were shot and killed because they refused to carry out a criminal command to disperse civilians at a rally.” (Link)
This version of events is also widespread on the internet and among the city’s inhabitants. In reality, the story was quite different.
According to our sources, on the morning of May 9th, in the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Mariupol (St. George Street, 63), a meeting was held with the heads of law enforcement agencies participating in the ATO. Shortly after 10:00 am, a group of armed men without visible insignia entered the building (possibly with the aid of someone on the staff of the MIA) and occupied the first two floors. According to eyewitnesses, intensive shooting could be heard inside the building. The meeting members barricaded themselves on the second floor and called for reinforcements. The first battalion of soldiers to arrive was “Azov”, who appeared in plainclothes (they did not have uniforms). According to the Deputy Battalion Commander, Yaroslav Gonchara, the “Asov” fighters were able to retake the first floor (VIDEO). The arrival of troops from the 72nd Brigade was delayed because the inhabitants of the city inhibited the movement of their armored vehicles.
Despite their aggressive behavior (throwing stones, attempts to cover the vehicles’ sights, creating road blocks), the soldiers showed the utmost restraint and did not open fire. However, one person who was heavily intoxicated was wounded on Lenin Avenue after he threw himself at the armed vehicle that was moving at a high speed. It is possible that this shot saved his life, since the driver was unlikely to have been able to slow down in time.
Due to a lack of coordination, some of the “Azov” fighters were briefly detained upon their arrival at the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
The operation around the Ministry of Internal Affairs was significantly complicated by the assembled townspeople who did not understand what was going on. It is from here that the interpretation grew which claimed the police were shot because they refused to take the side of the people.
In a shootout over the seizure of the building, the First Company Commander of the Special Forces unit “Azov”, Rodion Dobrodomo, died. Around 1:00 pm, the Second Commander of the “Azov” force, which were dressed in police uniforms, was wounded by a sniper. The sniper was located in a neighboring building; shots were returned and the sniper was destroyed (VIDEO).
Video of the final phase of the operation, released by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, shows at least two cases of injuries suffered by unarmed citizens who were in the battle zone and at least four Ukrainian military personnel who had surrounded the building (VIDEO).
***
A significant number of townspeople were injured at the intersection of Lenin Avenue and Engels Street shortly after 12:00 pm. Most of the injuries resulted from the use of weapons by military personnel who were moving down Engels Street, away from the Ministry of Internal Affairs. This episode requires thorough investigation.
There can be no doubt that the military had no intention to attack the gathered crowd and, judging by the nature of the injuries, the shots received were not intended to kill.
Judging by the video clips of the incident, it would have been quite possible to stop the aggression of the civilians without the use of firearms, if the servicemen had had stun grenades and tear gas. Since this riot was not the first in the city, and given the on-going celebratory events, the government should have provided troops with a sufficient amount of special equipment.
Source: VIDEO
Although the videos show people with Molotov cocktails and shooting stun guns at the military personnel, the organizers of the ATO are not absolved of liability for criminal negligence.
Of course, most of the blame for the deaths and injuries lies with those who attacked the Ministry on the holiday. Fighting in a city filled with crowds of people in the streets could not but result in casualties. However, the negligence of the authorities exacerbated the consequences.
Events in Krasnoarmeysk, May 11th, 2014
On the day of the referendum in Krasnoarmeysk, a group of armed men who claimed to represent the “Dnepr” battalion, “took custody” of the district “due to the threat of occupation”. (VIDEO) This caused an interruption in the referendum voting process (according to representatives of the PRD, however, the voting was forcefully terminated and the ballots were taken from the polling station).
Around 7:00 pm, a few dozen residents of Krasnoarmeysk protested because they did not have occasion to cast their votes. They behaved fairly aggressively and one of them even grabbed the barrel of a gun held by one of the new arrivals. As a result, they opened fire (mostly in the air and at the ground) – one person was killed on the spot and another was seriously injured and later died, with a third receiving a shot to the leg (LINK).
The Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, as well as the authorities of the Dnepropetrovsk region officially declared that the “Dnepr” battalion had not been in Krasnoarmeysk.
The “Kommersant” newspaper published an article (Found Here) stating that “Correspondent B. was able to identify in photographs from the city one of the participants in the protest. It was Andrei Denisenko, a leader from the “Right Sector” of Dnepropetrovsk, and the deputy head of the central party office which coordinates the campaign of the presidential candidate Dmitri Yarosh.
During an interview, “Memorial” representatives asked one of the senior officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine “Who came to Krasnoarmeysk on May 11th?” He curtly replied, “Bandits”. He denied any involvement of official law enforcement agencies in the events.
On May 14th, the Verkhovna Rada created a temporary Investigative Commission to look into the mass killings of civilians in the cities of Odessa, Mariupol and Krasnoarmeysk, as well as others cities in the south and east of Ukraine. They should also carefully review this information.
Without waiting for the results of the investigation, the government should take drastic measures to immediately suppress activities that fall outside of the law of armed engagement. Otherwise, the responsibility for the actions of armed groups will fall on the Ukrainian authorities.
No matter by which formation the operation in Krasnoarmeysk was carried out, the actions must be evaluated as criminal.
Kramatorsk
In this section, we present information about the situation in Kramatorsk, which we obtained on May 14th while visiting the city. The situation may have changed since that time.
Two cities feature prominently in media reports about the fighting the Donetsk region: Slavyansk and Kramatorsk. There have been reports of civilian casualties in these cities, not only in the outer areas, but also in the city centers.
Here are a few examples:
Armored vehicles entered Kramatorsk - Link
Ukrainian military stormed the city which was controlled by self-defense forces
03 May, Vladimir Azin
Ukrainian armored vehicles entered the city of Kramatorsk which was controlled by self-defense forces, as reported by local media.
A fight broke out in Kramatorsk around 11:30 am. This information was confirmed by acting Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov. According to “Vesti.ua”, gunfire and explosions could be heard in the Molvik mountain region.
Militias created roadblocks on the Slovyansk side, according to Kramatorsk.INFO, shooting from heavy weaponry could be heard and there was black smoke. Locals began to hastily return to their homes when an alarm sounded to warn them of the danger.
Shortly thereafter, according to eyewitnesses, a convoy of nine armored vehicles arrived in Kramatorsk accompanied by one jeep. In the city, according to LifeNews, shots could be heard and the militias burned trolley-buses and taxis to form roadblocks.
The Ministry of the Interior of Ukraine reported the release of the local television center which resumed broadcasting Ukrainian channels. “In the areas of the television center that had been occupied by the terrorists, Kalashnikov bullets were found along with note cards written with separatist content, some prayers cards issued in Moscow and St. Petersburg and some hand-written notes about the switching-on of Russian television channels” – the agency said in a statement.
Information about the seizure of military buildings of the Ukrainian Security Service later became known. “Now the building is under the control of the National Guard of Ukraine,” reported the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Arsen Avakov urged residents of Kramatorsk not to leave their homes. “We are moving on Kramatorsk. There is heavy fire from terrorists. A fight has ensued. We ask all residents of Slavyansk and Kramatorsk to remain indoors”, he wrote on his Facebook page.
The militia reported that self-defense fighters only held the city center. For the moment, the firing has ceased, but the militia is preparing for another assault on their positions.
According to “News Kramatorsk”, during the assault on the city, two people were killed and ten more were injured. The militia reported the deaths of two of their fighters from sniper fire.
Article Online
Moscow, May 3 /ITAR-TASS/ In Kramatorsk, in the Donetsk region, units of the Ukrainian Security Forces are conducting a special operation and fighting has erupted in the streets, reports TV channel “Russia 24”. According to unconfirmed information, there are victims. According to the correspondent, people in unmarked uniforms were “firing without warning on any moving target”.
Casualties in Kramatorsk
May 4. /ITAR-TASS/ Casualties in Kramatorsk
The renewed raid on Kramatorsk has resulted in the deaths of least six more people.
According to the Department of Health of the Donetsk region, all of the victims died of gunshot wounds. It is reported that at least 15 people have been injured.
Earlier, the Self-Defense Forces of South-East Ukraine reported that on the night of May 2nd to 3rd, ten residents of Kramatorsk were killed and 30 people were injured as a result of the collision.
At a plenary meeting on May 13th, the State Duma issued an appeal “to the governments of the world and international parliamentary organizations in connection with the threat of a humanitarian disaster in Ukraine.”
Based on the above information, when we headed to Kramatorsk on May 14th, we expected to see a picture resembling the situation in Chechnya in 2000.
Fortunately, the picture that we discovered was much different.
On the eve of May 13th, in the course of the fighting in Kramatorsk, eight Ukrainian military paratroopers were killed by the PRD militia. However, we were able to drive a taxi through several checkpoints held by PRD supporters relatively unhindered and we did not see any Ukrainian army posts.
In the center of Kramatorsk, some of the streets were blocked by burned-out trolleys, buses and cars. However there was no evidence of shootings or other damage.
Locals explained to us that in the city, there was generally no fighting or shots fired. The vehicles were set on fire on May 2nd by supporters of the PRD. On that day, a column of Ukrainian armored vehicles had been passing along the highway on the outskirts of Kramatorsk and tried to proceed into the city center. However, the militia, fearing that the Ukrainian military would try to storm the city administration building occupied by PRD supporters, built a barricade out of burned cars.
The shops in the city are operating normally (although a few remain closed), as do the pharmacies, schools, hospitals and municipals services. There have been no reported shortages of food or water. The city administration continues to carry out its functions from other buildings.
The city was only temporarily paralyzed from May 2nd to May 5th or 6th. Public transportation shut down on May 2nd and 3rd in the vicinity of the fighting and then for a couple of days afterwards, when people were afraid to go out onto the streets.
We spoke with several doctors at the city’s “Emergency Hospital” as well as city health department workers and forensic experts.
Our interlocutors in the medical professions reported that the service at the Emergency Hospital and at the city hospitals fortunately suffered no shortage of medications, dressings or lubricating oils for the medial equipment.
The ambulances have been able to move freely between Donetsk and Kramatorsk. Entry and exit from Slavyansk has also been open with the exception of a few periods of closure during firefights. The wounded from Slavyansk have sometimes been transferred to the hospitals in Kramatorsk or further on to Donetsk for more complicated procedures.
As we were told, not a single injury or death resulting from firearms or artillery occurred during the entire anti-terrorist operation of the Ukrainian military. We were able to confirm that there were no shootings. All of the fighting took place outside of the city.
During the entire period, seven residents were killed, including one woman. Two men were killed on May 2nd in the Andreyevka area during the battle for the television center. Four people were killed on May 3rd, including one woman. Apparently, the 21-year-old nurse, Yulia Izotov, died as Ukrainian forces were shooting at passenger cars, as was reported by several media outlets. According to these reports, three young men who were in the car were also killed. All were unarmed. Journalists provided inconsistent accounts of the circumstances of the shooting, except for one detail – the passenger car was near the PRD roadblock near Kramatorsk. On that day, the Ukrainian forces had tried to dismantle the checkpoint which had led to a confrontation with the militia. The circumstance of the death of Yulia Izotova and her companions must be thoroughly investigated.
There can be no justification for firing on a passenger car full of unarmed people. The seventh victim was wounded in unknown circumstances outside of the city and was being transferred to the city hospital, but died en route.
Over the course of the ATO, nineteen people were brought to urban hospitals with gunshot wounds, including one woman. None of them died. Seven of them have already been released.
Three people were delivered to the hospital in Kramatorsk during the most intense fighting on May 2nd from the area surrounding the village of Anreyevka, which is located between Slavyansk and Kramatorsk (this fighting was a struggle for control over the television tower). A woman of 36 had injuries to her lower extremities, a man of 43 had injuries to the lower extremities and a man of 19 had an injured pelvis.
The next day, four men were taken to the city hospital from the surrounding areas: a 33 year old with a stomach wound, a 29 year old who was wounded in the thigh, a 35 year old who was shot in the chest and a 47 year old who suffered a hip injury.
According to the medical professionals with whom we spoke, most of the wounded men who were brought to the hospital had gone on their own to the areas where the shootout with Ukrainian forces was occurring.
“Referendum” of May 11th, 2014
The material in this section is the result of direct observation on the day of the referendum.
The decision to hold a referendum was made by “the Council of representatives of the territorial communities, political parties and public organizations of the Donetsk region” of April 22nd, 2014. This Council also accepted the “Provisional Regulations on the Local Referendum in the Donetsk Region”.
This body is not provided for by the legislation of Ukraine, has not achieved legitimacy through elections and therefore does not have the authority to conduct a referendum or to determine the results thereof. This Council was established on the basis of the self-proclaimed “People’s Coordinating Council of the Donetsk region” after a majority of the deputies of the legitimately elected Donetsk Regional Council refused to convene an extraordinary session – according to the testimony of the separatists themselves, only three deputies appeared at the planning meeting.
Quote from the Memorandum of 13.04.2014
On the 5th and 6th of April, 2014, the Coordinating Council of the People’s Republic of the Donetsk region appealed through the media and to the Regional Council of Deputies a proposal to the leaders of the Donetsk Regional Council to convene an extraordinary session of the Regional Council at 12:00 pm on April 7th, 2014. Draft documents had been prepared for consideration by the Coordination Council of the People’s Republic of Donetsk on the status of the Donetsk region. However, on 12:00 pm on April 7th, 2014, only three deputies of the Regional Council appeared. The session was therefore not held. The Deputies refused to perform their duties.
Given the will of the voters in the Donetsk region, representatives of the territorial communities, political parties and public organizations of the Donetsk region have assembled in the session hall of the Donetsk Regional Council and have begun the process of taking responsibility to fulfill the will of the voters of the Donetsk region (Document Online).
A separate law on local referendums, referred to in Article 7 of the Law of Ukraine “Regarding local government in Ukraine”, which refers to ‘Provisional Regulations’, has not yet been adopted. However, within the meaning of this article, it is clear that the right to administer a referendum belongs to the authoritative bodies of the territory where the referendum is to be held (according to the abolished law “On national and local referendums”, Article 12 stipulated that local referenda shall be nominated by the relevant local councils of the People’s deputies). Thus, by holding this referendum, the “Council of representatives of the territorial communities, political parties and social organizations in the Donetsk region” usurped the rights of the Donetsk Regional Council.
Furthermore, Article 7 of the Law of Ukraine “On Local Self-Government in Ukraine” states,
Any question referred to by the Constitution of Ukraine, this Law, and other laws administered by local governments can be subject to a local referendum.
Issues related to the application of the law by public authorities cannot be decided through a local referendum.
Under no Ukrainian law are the issues of changes to the country or the State attributed to local government. Similarly, “matters relating to the constitutional and legal status of the People’s Republic of Donetsk” as referred to in the “Provisional Regulations”, are not attributed to local government.
The referendum itself was legally flawed and had not been properly published – even now, after the referendum, the provisions can only be found on a few obscure sites online. The questions on the referendum were worded as follows: “Do you support the act of State independence of the People’s Republic of Donetsk?” Meanwhile, the text of the Act was not properly communicated to the voters. One could only access it online or by receiving a flyer from the occupied regional administration building.
The text of the “Act of State Independence of the People’s Republic of Donetsk” contains false information – it alleges that the document was proclaimed on April 7th, 2014 by the Regional Council of Donetsk. However, the regional council issued no such document.
It is important to note that the City Council of Donetsk also did not acknowledge the legitimacy of the referendum on support of the “Act”. This was confirmed by the City Council Secretary, S.V. Bogachev during a conversation with representatives of HRC “Memorial”, which took place in the city administration building on May 7th, 2014.
Separately, it should be emphasized that neither in the text of the referendum, nor in any other document are the legal consequences of the vote’s outcome identified. It was not surprising, therefore, that not only ordinary voters, but also members of the Electoral Commission imagined the consequences of a positive answer to the referendum question in different ways – from the notorious “federalization” to immediate annexation by Russia.
Violations during the preliminary stages (prior to voting day)
Although section VI of the “Provisional Regulations” provides for “the right to freely and fully discuss the referendum, official referendum materials, the possible consequences of the referendum, and to campaign for or against the issue of the referendum”, the ability to freely speak out against the supporters of act for independence was absent – the local media were subject to pressure, activists campaigning for the preservation of the unity of Ukraine and/or against the referendum as such, were subject to attacks. As an example, we can point to a case that was not covered by the media – on May 9th, in Druzhkovka, a young man (a resident of the village Gornyak) made negative comments about the pro-referendum promotional flyers, and in response, was shot in the leg by a non-lethal weapon. The young man was transferred to the hospital where he received treatment.
The general character of the “freedom” to campaign is evident in the fact that the flag of Ukraine was effectively banned – the only building on which it could be seen was that of the Donetsk City Council. PRD activists forcibly removed Ukrainian flags from administrative buildings, schools, and homes. Wearing national symbols or the colors of the national flag became unsafe. The offices of those parties advocating for the unity of Ukraine were forced to close after coming under attack.
Most of the requirements of section IV of the “Provisional Regulations” (“Lists of participants in the referendum”) were routinely flouted. Until May 10th, there was no information on the locations of the election commissions and polling stations – obtaining or amending the list was technically impossible.
Although the Provisional Regulations state that the “districting of the referendum must be decided no later than three days prior to voting”, voters and journalists learned about their districts and polling places no earlier than May 10th.
In accordance with the regulations, observers were required to register at the territorial election commissions – since these locations had not been announced, this procedure was made virtually impossible.
Organizational and voting irregularities on the day of the referendum
On May 11th, the day of the referendum, the representatives of “Memorial” were able to interview eight Election Commission Chairmen in the course of visits made to polling stations in Voroshilov, Lenin and Proletariat districts. Additionally, we were able to observe the voting process at several sites and spoke with members of the Voroshilov Territorial Election Commission and a member of the Central Election Commission.
The designated organizers of the referendum claimed that, “although there are many territorial Election Commissions in Donetsk, the local authorities agreed to re-register them at the Central Election Commission of the PRD as referendum commissions” (Article Online). This is not true, however. Although there were fewer election commission than usual, we visited sites where fewer than half of the commission members had any experience.
The number of Electoral Commissions was found to be four times fewer than for regular elections, which explains the unusually high number of voters in the first few hours. Apparently, four and sometimes five sites were combined; not so much to create the impression of a high number voters, but due to a lack of adequate facilities (many agencies refused to provide space for the voting) and a due to a lack of election commissioners willing to work on the referendum (members of the referendum commission were working on a volunteer basis, without pay). At most of the polling stations, armed men who were not members of law enforcement stood at the entrances.
In the city center, in the Voroshilov voting district, polling booths and ballot boxes generally met the standards; however, in areas that are not in the center of Donetsk (in the Proletariat, Lenin, Kalinin and Budennovsk districts) lock boxes were non-existent. In the Proletariat district, cardboard boxes were used instead of regular ballot boxes.
The text of the “Act of State Independence of the People’s Republic of Donetsk” was not posted at any of the polling stations that we visited. In fact, those participating in the referendum generally had an intuited perception of the vote’s subject matter.
The Provisional Regulations were also not posted. Moreover, eight of the responding Electoral Commission chairpersons had only one copy of the text and another had only heard about it – the rest did not have any idea where to find the text or whether it existed at all and redirected the questions to their superiors.
Voter lists were not drawn up, since referendum organizers had neither the time nor the resources and they could not get access to the Ukrainian Central Election Commission. According to official (published) information, the electoral commission for the referendum used voter lists from 2012 (which were illegally obtained from the local electoral commissions). However, we only saw such lists in the areas of the city center, in the Voroshilov district. In this case the lists were not properly bound into book form and were printed on single unbounded sheets. At one of the six polling stations we visited in the Voroshilov district in the middle of the day, we received information that about a quarter of all voters were on additional lists. At the rest of the commissions, such statistics were not gathered.
However, at a significant number of polling stations there were no lists at all – all of the people attending the election were added to an empty chart.
In order for such an option to be considered legal, the “Provisional Regulations” provides for the “compilation of lists of referendum participants in exceptional circumstances” – in reality, this procedure became the rule rather than the exception.
In the event of unforeseen circumstances that lead to the inability to make advance preparation and transmission to the individual districts of lists of referendum participants, such lists may be compiled on the day of voting by the precinct commission itself.
Voters who arrive on the day of voting to such a district, can only be included on the list by commission representatives upon the presentation of a Ukrainian passport.
Under this protocol, there are not even registration requirements for the Donetsk region. In practice, some of the electoral commissions verified the residence of voters and others did not. One of the Electoral Commission Chairpersons told us that residents of the Lugansk region were allowed to vote. This practice probably has more to do with the lack of experience and awareness of the Electoral Commissioners than conscious manipulation of the results.
Electoral Commissions number 3 and 4 of the Lenin District not only lacked a pre-established list of voters, but they covered the same territory. A Chairman of the Electoral Commission number 3 naively explained to us that “residents residing on the territory of the Lenin District are not obligated to vote at one precinct or another.” Thus, residents of the area were free to vote twice (meaning that the turnout could reach 200%).
At all of the polling stations, even those that had preliminary lists, not only residents of the territory could vote, but also those who happened to be present and any other residents of the Donetsk region. Nothing prevented any resident of the Donetsk region from voting and nothing prevented them from voting at other polling stations (in the absence of voter lists) afterwards. We know of several cases of multiple voting at the same location which was carried out for experimental purposes. For example, Donetsk residents who are known to us, were able to vote five times at the electoral commissions in Budennovsk and Kalinin regions. None of these electoral commissions had voter lists or polling booths.
Referendum ballots were printed in black ink on plain paper and had no protection against counterfitting or even mere copying. Except for one area in the Voroshilov district, ballots were not even assured by the signature of the Chairman or a member of the commission.
The procedure for filing complaints against the electoral commissions were very vague and, in practice, they were not prepared to consider complaints. When visiting the EC number 5 in the Voroshilvo district, we observed an episode in which a young man came to vote and drew the attention of the EC Chairwoman to the fact that the paper seal on the ballot box had come unstuck (apparently due to a poor adhesive) and the box was therefore not sealed. Instead of inviting him to file a complaint and taking the necessary (procedural) actions (e.g. Article 85 of the Law on Elections of People’s Deputies which reads: “In case of damage to the ballot box during voting, it shall be sealed by the chairman and not less than three members of the Election Commission, representing different parties, in such a way as to make it impossible to remove or add additional ballots”), the EC Chairwoman accused the young man of having deliberately broken the seal and promised the “bring him to order.” After she made a phone call, three people resembling militants ran into the polling station and accused the young man of being a “provocateur” and “Banderovets”. They tried to take him to a back room, away from prying eyes. Not without difficulty, we managed to convince the EC Chair that the scandal would not be worth it and the young man was released. Having not received any response from the complaint, he was forced to leave the polling station.
Vote Counting
Many polling stations closed a few hours earlier than 10:00 pm, as planned. At the Proletariat EC number 3, we witnessed an incredible scene –at 5:00 pm, one of the ballot boxes was already opened and they began to count the votes while the voting process was still going on sluggishly.
Formally, the “Provisional Regulations” contain a reference to election observers, but in practice they were virtually absent. We did not see any observers at any of the districts (although the EC in Voroshilov claimed that someone had registered with them as an observer). One of the few issues on which the EC Chairmen and women gave the most consistent response was the question relating to the possibility to observe the counting of the votes; the answer was almost always negative and only in one district was a readiness to allow observers verbally expressed. Apparently, no one oversaw the counting of the ballots, so the answer to the question “when and where will the votes be counted?” is not entirely clear. There is evidence that in many local ECs in Donetsk, ballots were sent to the Regional Election Commission before being counted and on to the Central Election Commission (Article Online)
The speed with which the results of the referendum were announced casts doubt on their credibility. Final figures were released two hours after the official closing of the polls. Such rates are plainly impossible, even with normal voter turnout and with experienced people working the polls.
In this case it is impossible to determine the actual rate of voter turnout, given the lack of voter lists and the large number of people voting in districts where they do not reside. The announced figures are very implausible.
According to the official organizers of the referendum, voter turnout in Donetsk was more than 80%, which is contrary to our observations and to simple arithmetic calculation.
According to the Central Election Commission, there are 706,000 registered voters in Donetsk. According to the organizers of the referendum, 118 fixed polling stations were opened. Of the average number of voters in the area – around 6,000 – 4,800 of them voted, i.e. an average of six people would have had to vote every minute. This is implausible even if the members of the Electoral Commissions had been more skilled.
Conclusions
The referendum held on May 11, 2014 cannot be considered legitimate because:
The staging of the vote did not comply with Ukrainian legislation
The organizers of the referendum had no legal authority to carry out the vote
There was no freedom to campaign
Voters were not properly informed about the subject of the referendum or the possible consequences
The provisions of the referendum were in themselves legally flawed and were not observed
Voting took place with gross violations of accepted standards
The methodology of the referendum excludes the possibility of a reliable estimation of its results
|
