us, consider complaint6 from individuals about violation6 of their barrier created constitutional rights but, in thet regard, the psychological by the old doctrine of state paternalism , which had encouraged people to believe that human rights came second to the interest of the State, would need to be overcome. Committees of People's Deputies had been established to ensure that new legislative proposals were consistent with human rights and to safeguard the rights of people who had suffered in the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Efforts were also being made to publicise human right6 i66UeSr and training courses were being held for persons working in are%6 where human right6 considerations were particularly relevant, 189. With regard to that issue, member6 of the Committee wished to receive detailed information on the legal effect of the Ukrainian Declaration of State Sovereignty of 16 July 1990, particularly in terms of its relatiOnShip to the existing Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR and the Constitution of the USSR. They also wished to know the extent to which the prOViSiOn of the Covenant had been enacted into domestic law; what measures were contemplated to ensure consistency between the Covenant and new constitutional or other legal instruments; and how the USSR Act of 30 June 1987, as supplemented by section 31-A of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Ukrainian SSR, had actually been implemented, what the status of the Covenant would be under the new Constitution and whether it would give the Covenant priority over national law. 190. In addition, members wished to know whether section X of the Ukrainian Declaration of State Sovereignty implied any change6 in the Status of international law relative to domestic legislation; whether individuals could invoke the Covenant in accordance with the new Code of Civil Procedure8 whether citizens complaining of arbitrary action6 by official6 could appeal directly to a court without first exhausting all administrative remediesr whether it was planned to set up special bodies to deal with human rights issues in the Republic; what was the status of non-governmental organizationsj what was the relationship between the Commission on Human Right6 and the Constitutional Court, on the one hand, and the Supreme Court on the other; what measures had been taken to disseminate information on the rights recognized in the Covenant: whether any special factors or difficulties had affected the implementation of the Covcnantr whether the public had been informed about the submission of the Republic'6 third periodic report} and whether the Commission on Human Rights had been given an opportunity to make any contribution to the report. Clarification was also requested as to the precise meaning of the term6 "socialist democracy", "EOCialiSt law and order" and "democratic centralism" used in the report, the role of the Communist Party within the Republic, and on how the right of the Ukrainian SSR to secede from the USSR could be exercised at the present stage. 191. In connection with the recognition by the Ukrainian SSR of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice with regard to six international human rights treaties, members wished to know whether that recognition would be broadened to encompass other international treaties, such as the Covenant: what the implications were for the State-to-State dispute settlement procedures already in existence under some of those instruments; whether that change in approach had any practical implications in terms of the Republic's accession to the Optional Protocol; and whether accession to the Optional Protocol was in any way linked to accession by the USSR. -46-