ANNEXURE - 1 STANDARDIZED CLINICAL PROTOCOL - VATARAKTA Title of PhD Developing a Standardized Clinical Protocol for Ayurveda clinicians based on Ayurveda theory and clinical practice Guide: Vd. Ramesh Nanal Researcher Scholar: Dr. Gangadharan University Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth, Pune The late Vaidya PG Nanal Department of Ayurveda.
Contents Introduction 1. Proposed amendments to the Internal Pre-Trial Detention Centers Rules 2.
Proposed amendments to the Internal Prisons Rules 3. The draft of the Internal Pre-Trial Detention Centers Rules prepared by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine 4. Ms office 2007 free download utorrent kickass. The draft of the Internal Prisons Rules prepared by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine This publication is the first comprehensive attempt to familiarize general public with the problems of the Internal Rules of Ukrainian prisons. It contains suggestions of amendments to the Internal Pre-Trial Detention Centers Rules, as well as the Internal Prisons Rules. The proposals are intended to implement international standards, such as recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. The changes are based on international standards as well as other logical and legal arguments.
The author points out the shortcomings of the two current Rules, which are considered as leftovers of the Soviet Union, and should therefore be changed in the light of modern approaches to prisoners’ rights. The publication also contains draft amendments to the Internal Pre-Trial Detention Centers Rules, as well as to Internal Prisons Rules developed by the Ministry of Justice as of August 2017. Introduction The title of this work speaks for itself. Ukrainian prisons still live by the orders written in the days of the USSR. Today, these orders are made sustainable through many legal acts, but their quintessence is in the Internal Prison and Pre-Trial Detention Centers Rules.
These regulations are by-laws that have undergone several stages of review during the Ukraine independence. However, despite the large number of formal amendments and changes in terminology, they essentially preserve the basic philosophy and provisions of the Soviet internal prison regulations developed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR. Every prison officer may confirm: these Rules are perceived as key documents that frame internal processes in prison. The Rules are sometimes referred to as the “Bible” of prisons, since their norms are perceived as sacred. At one time, a senior official responsible for the regime on the territory of all Ukraine indicated: “Every provision of the Rules is written by the blood of more than one generation of prison personnel and prisoners.” Therefore, in his opinion, maximum conservatism in the process of their revision is justified. Such a vision is observed in every new generation of managers of the Ukrainian penitentiary system.
New heads of the prison agency declared their readiness to reform the system in accordance with international standards. However, getting down to realities they became less enthusiastic. It either ended up with minor amendments to the Rules, as it was the case in 2013 and 2014, or everything was retained in its past forms.
My claims are based on own experience. I have repeatedly submitted to the new leaders of the penitentiary system concrete proposals for amendments to the Rules. These amendments were justified by references to specific international standards, including recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, some of which were continuously expressed to the Ukrainian authorities for more than a decade.
However, the government was not convinced. Everything followed a similar scenario: the officials received proposals for changes in the Rules, assigned them to the subordinated operational staff, former penitentiary employees, who, in turn, kept persuading the officials about the danger of international standards in Ukrainian conditions. As a result, the new officials ignored the proposals or, if they did take them into account, it concerned only a very small part of them. Moreover, during the last revision of the Rules, most of the provisions became even more repressive and introduced a number of new unreasonable restrictions. This motivated human rights activists to launch a public campaign. These lines are written at the time when the Rules are once again being reviewed on the initiative of the new managers of the system.