SECTION 2. The results of NMP operation in Ukraine 137 2.10. COOPERATION WITH PUBLIC AUTHORITIES IN PERFORMANCE OF NPM FUNCTIONS: RESPONSE TO THE OMBUDSMAN’S RECOMMENDATIONS RESPONSE ACTION OF THE MINISTRY OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS (MIA) ON THE OMBUDSMAN’S RECOMMENDATIONS In response to the Ombudsman’s recommendations with regard to elimination of shortcomings and violations of human rights in the operation of subordinate bodies and units the Ministry of Internal Affairs conducted 15 internal investigations and passed 16 decisions on disciplinary liability of 66 employees, of different levels, found responsible for such shortcomings and violations. However, detailed examination of relevant conclusions and decisions suggests that some of the investigations were conducted by the heads of city, district or line police bodies whose omission of authority had earlier entailed the identified violations. Such investigations proceeded formally, with intentional distortion and groundless justification of the facts of violations quoted in the reports of the Ombudsman’s Secretariat staff. The culpability for violations was usually attributed to enlisted and junior non-commissioned personnel or individuals not subject to disciplinary punishment under the Rules of Service (on the grounds of the on-going effect of an earlier disciplinary punishment imposed as established by MIA Disciplinary Statutes, etc.). Omission of authority on the part of the heads of city, district or line police units and of higher officials – in the form of absence of control over their subordinates’ compliance with the human rights legislation – was not noted in the approved decisions. The leadership of the Ministry fails to exert control over impartiality of conducted inspections. Any participation of the chiefs of MIA Services in implementation of the Ombudsman’s recommendations was not observable. Absence of efficient measures to eliminate the shortcomings and violations characteristic of nearly all bodies and units in MIA subordination necessitated repeat visits and additional communication with MIA, inclusive of the Ombudsman’s official acts of response. The leadership of MIA and its authorities readily explained inappropriate conditions in custodial settings (rooms for apprehended and detained persons at duty units, temporary holding facilities and other places where individuals are held under court rulings or decisions of administrative bodies) by insufficient funding. However, such arguments clash with p. 4 of the European Penitentiary Rules, under which holding of prisoners in conditions violating their human rights may not be justified by lack of resources.