Ukraine: Bilateral Coordination Group Talks:

UNCLAS KIEV 000340 SIPDIS DEPT FOR EUR/UMB, G/TIP, INL/AEE, AND EUR/ACE JUSTICE FOR OIA, AFMLS, NDDS AND OPDAT E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PHUM PGOV KCRM SMIG KFRD PREF ELAB KWMN UP SUBJECT: Ukraine: Bilateral Coordination Group Talks: Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Ref: Kiev 168 ¶1. (U) In Bilateral Coordination Group talks January 24 (see septels for other issues discussed),the U.S. side pointed out that progress in combating trafficking in persons (TIP) was important not only because it protected Ukrainian citizens, but also because Ukraine was currently on the Tier Two Watch Group list. The GOU's recent positive steps - creating a Department for Combating TIP in the Ministry of Interior (MOI),making TIP a priority crime for the General Prosecutor's Office, and having senior officials speak out on destigmatizing victims of TIP - were all welcomed, but important worked remained. Two immediate steps the GOU could take were underscored: 1) President Yushchenko could sign into law the January 12 bill passed by the Parliament harmonizing the Ukrainian Criminal Code with the UN Palermo Convention and Protocol as it applied to TIP (ref A),and 2) the GOU could establish within the General Prosecutor's Office (GPO) a TIP division. (Note: Embassy has been working on the latter with the GPO and is awaiting a final decision.) Also, the U.S. urged the GOU to make a priority the funding of TIP victims reintegration centers, which to date have been funded almost exclusively by donors, and to begin efforts to establish a witness protection program for TIP victims. ¶2. (U) The Ukrainian side assured that the referenced January 12 bill would be signed into law and acknowledged that funding of reintegration centers had been almost the exclusive domain of the donor community. However, the GOU had begun funding some centers, and prosecutors would be stepping up their focus on the prosecution of TIP crimes. As for witness protection, discussions were ongoing to see if there were existing models that could be copied that were not cost prohibitive. (Note: Currently, the GOU has a witness protection plan, regardless of the type of criminal case, which amounts to a two-person protection detail for the witness in question during the course of the trial. MOI officials have told us they have been grappling with ideas for a witness re-location program for some time, but the cost has always been prohibitive. Post will seek to help identify models in neighboring countries that may ameliorate this challenge.) ¶3. (U) The delegation did not have a chance to clear this message. Herbst