The investigative journalism centre Syla Pravdy received a letter from Oksana Hobod, director of the Volyn Oblast State Administration’s social work department, warning the team of possible criminal liability for their then-upcoming investigation into possible mistreatment of residents at a psychoneurological care home in Volyn oblast. An Institute of Mass Information lawyer considers the official’s actions to constitute pressure and an attempt to unlawfully influence the journalists.
The events are covered in a report on the Syla Pravdy YouTube channel and in comments provided to IMI by the news outlet’s representatives and officials.
On 29 August, the team released a piece titled “Pension Embezzlement and Exploitation of Residents: What’s Happening Behind the Walls of a Volyn Care Home”. The care home in question is run by the Volyn Oblast Council and houses 167 women with mental disabilities, around fifty of whom are officially recognised as legally capable.
Syla Pravdy reported that the facility’s director, Olena Misiuk, had made residents work on her private farm. The residents said they have weeded carrots, onions, and did other farm work, having been taken there in groups by the care home’s driver. Some were threatened with injections in the event of refusal.
The team also found the care home staff to be using the residents’ pensions in non-transparent ways.
While working the investigation, the journalists reached out openly to the institution’s management and to representatives of the relevant Oblast Administration department.
Natalka Koval, the investigation’s author, says that officials had commented on the facts discovered by Syla Pravdy, since they had known in advance that the journalists had visited the institution.
However, the day before the investigation’s release, the team received a letter from the Volyn Oblast State Administration, accusing the journalists of trespassing and mentioning potential liability under Article 182 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of privacy).
According to Natalka Koval, the administration’s letter claimed that the journalists should have contacted the care home’s director in advance to request permission to visit residents and interview them. The letter said that the journalist’s actions had involved unlawfully entering the facility’s premises, as well as blackmailing or exerting pressure on a legally incapacitated person.
“We didn’t deceive anyone to sneak in, and we got permission from an authorised person before speaking to the residents. And this kind of behaviour from officials is, to us, yet another sign that the care home itself and the relevant department have something to hide. They really don’t want anyone to ever find out what’s happening behind the walls of the Ruda Psychoneurological Care Home,” Natalka Koval commented.
Syla Pravdy told IMI that Oksana Hobod had not contacted the journalists again after the first letter.
“Right now, we’re waiting for the police, the Oblast State Administration leadership, and the Oblast Council to respond to the situation themselves. We’ve been in touch with the representative of the Human Rights Commissioner in Volyn oblast,” journalist Natalka Koval said.
Oksana Hobod told IMI’s representative that the situation needed further examination.
“We’ll set up a commission, check all the facts, and only then will we say anything,” she said.
Volyn Oblast Police spokeswoman Olha Buzuluk told IMI that no one from the Oblast State Administration had contacted the police over “trespassing” into the care home. Nor is there any ongoing investigation into the care home.
Institute of Mass Information lawyer Petro Stoinov believes that the the Volyn Oblast Administration officials’ actions may constitute pressure on the journalists and an attempt to unlawfully influence their work.
“The trespassing allegations have no legal grounds whatsoever. The psychoneurological care home is a communal institution funded from the oblast budget. The filming crew was on the care home’s premises openly, exercising their lawful right to gather information, and, crucially, had obtained consent to be present and to film directly from authorised representatives of the facility’s administration. So what we’re dealing with here is purely lawful reporting, not ‘trespassing,'” the lawyer said.
Petro Stoinov considers the threats of criminal liability to be groundless in this case, as well.
“Information about potential human rights violations, forced labour, and the non-transparent use of pensions at a communal institution is unquestionably a matter of public interest. Under Part 2, Article 29 of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Information,’ the public’s right to know these facts outweighs any potential harm from their disclosure. The care home is not the director’s private property, and letters of this kind from a government body have a clearly pronounced ‘chilling effect,’ aimed at censoring a topic of public importance,” IMI’s lawyer said.