192. In his reply, the representative of the State party noted that there were a number of discrepancies between the respective legislation and Constitutfons of the Republic6 and those of the USSR, which were the subject of negotiation6 aimed at finding mutually acceptable solutions. The Supreme Soviet of the USSR had recently decided that the powers entrusted by the Republios to the USSR had to be more clearly defined. The Declaration on State Sovereignty, whioh represented the Republic'6 intention to conduct it6 own 6tate. economic and political life on the basis of specific principles, wa6 to be incorporated The law on the procedure6 for secession from the into the new Constitution. USSR had been adopted on 3 April 1990, and, on its entry into force, an order of the USSR Supreme Soviet had been promulgated providing for the holdPng of referendums in the Republics. If the question of resorting to article 69 of the Constitution ever actually aroBe, there would not only be a call for a referendum but also a great deal of publicity, since the issue affected the fate of all the people, 193. The new Constitution would contain a norm giPing priority to the Republic'6 international treaty obligations, including those stemming from the Covenant. TreatLes would not be directly incorporated into domestic legislation, but it would be possible to refer to them in the courts. The primacy of international law over national law was already recognieed. The treaty establi6hed Civil Code, for exemple, provided that if an international rule6 that differed from those in Soviet civil legislation, the rules of the treaty would apply. The decision by the authorities of the Ukrainian SSR in April 1989 to remove reservation6 regarding the recognition of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice represented a first 6tep toward6 improving the implementation of its commitment6 regarding international monitoring. 194. Under section 31-A of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Ukrainian SSR, citizens could complain not only against actions of individual official6 but also against those of collegiate bodice. The Supreme Soviet had recently taken direct responsibility for monitoring the protection of Citixen6' right6 through the consideration of complaint6 relating to the activities of the The Supreme Court of the Republic wa6 re6pOn6ible for various 6tate organs. hearing individual ca6e6 of violation6 of citieens' rights, while the Constitutional Court wa6 empowered to rule on the constitutionality of the Accession to the Optional Protocol would require the law6 themselves. agreement of all government and legislative bodies which, it wa6 hoped, would be forthcoming in the near future. The result of the Committee'6 consideration would be reported to the Human Rights Commission and to the public, thus encouraging further attention to human right6 i66uss. Within the Republic’s multi-party 6y6temr the Communist Party expressed its view6 in Parliament on & pluralistic basis. The concept6 of socialist democracy and socialist centralism were characteristic of the class approach that had long In the new Constitution, the concepts of been followed in the country. legality and democracy would be applied without qualifying them with the term “socialist”, de195. With reference to that issue, member6 of the Conunittee wished to know whether the validity of any enactxnents of the USSR Council of Ministers or of USSRMinistries had been actually suspended by the Supreme Soviet of the -47-