The Human Rights Ombudsman explains the norms of the current legislation, enshrined in Art. 14, 15 of the DPR Constitution, which regulate the human right to life and personal inviolability.
The basic value of the Donetsk People’s Republic is adherence to the model of a social state, which recognizes, guarantees and protects human and civil rights and freedoms, in accordance with generally recognized principles and norms of international law and in accordance with the Constitution of the DPR.
The right to life includes not only the inadmissibility of infringement on human life. The criteria for quality of life, the right to a decent standard of living and a favourable environment, conditions and procedures for abortion and euthanasia, the use of compulsory treatment for persons suffering from mental disorders, etc. are closely related to the right to life. The right to life requires the state to implement such positive obligations as measures to reduce the level of infant mortality, increase life expectancy, improve the quality of nutrition, combat epidemics (pandemics), etc. In addition, the state must take adequate (preventive) measures to protect the lives of persons under its jurisdiction.
The right to personal integrity is a systemic civil law concept that characterizes a person’s belonging to other intangible benefits (Art. 195 of the Civil Code of the DPR), the violation of which is impossible without violating personal integrity, that is, violation of the physical and (or) mental integrity of a person can lead to a violation of both this separately fixed intangible benefit, as well as other intangible benefits (life; health; honour; inviolability of private life, home).
Ensuring personal integrity leads to the provision of all other intangible benefits of a person. At the same time, personal integrity, being a derivative of the terms “person”, “personal”, does not depend on the concept of “personality” and is not determined by the named category.
Personal inviolability is inherent is common to all of civil law without exception. It is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of “personal integrity” and “inviolability of the person”, due to their heterogeneity. The inviolability of the person presupposes its own peculiarities of the legal status of persons to whom this status applies (deputies, judges, prosecutors, etc.). Personal integrity is a public law, not a private one. In turn, any subject of civil law has personal integrity, while it is impossible to violate the especially established (special) inviolability of the person without violating the inviolability of the person as such, that is, his/her personal integrity.
The inviolability of the person is a complex legal norm, including the norms of constitutional, civil, labour, family, administrative, criminal, criminal procedure and other branches of law. The structure of the right to the inviolability of the person is quite complex and consists of separate elements, which, in accordance with the generally accepted classification, can be subdivided into the following types:
– right-action: directly the right to the inviolability of the person, which includes guarantees that no one has the right to forcibly restrict a person’s freedom, to dispose of his/her actions within the framework of the law, to enjoy freedom of movement. No one can be arrested, detained and held in custody except on the basis of a court decision. The grounds for arrest are regulated by the criminal procedure and other legislation, which provides for an extensive system of guarantees against unjustified arrest, against violation of human rights upon arrest;
– right-demand: the right to the inviolability of the person on the part of an uncertain circle of persons.
In case of violation of these rights, citizens of the Donetsk People’s Republic have the right to protect them (restore) in an administrative or judicial order, in accordance with Art. 26, 39 of the Constitution of the DPR.
Additionally, we inform that the Human Rights Ombudsman considers complaints about decisions or actions (inaction) of state bodies, local self-government bodies, officials, civil servants, if the applicant has previously appealed these decisions or actions (inaction) in a judicial or administrative procedure, but does not agree with the decisions taken on his/her complaint.