Khmelnytskyi's ZHAR.INFO complains to Human Rights Commissioner against two prosecutor's offices

The online media outlet ZHAR.INFO has filed a complaint with the Verkhovna Rada Commissioner for Human Rights against the actions of two state bodies: the Prosecutor General's Office and the Khmelnytskyi Oblast Prosecutor’s Office, ZHAR.INFO journalist Alyona Bereza reports to the Institute of Mass Information.

According to her, the Oblast Prosecutor’s Office refused to disclose data on the salaries paied to some prosecutors in a three-month period. The Prosecutor General’s Office, for their part, failed to respond to the media outlet’s complaint against the Oblast Prosecutor’s Office, instead referring it back to the Office for consideration.

In the complaint, the journalist asks the Commissioner to address to the violation of the law.

“Officials of the Khmelnytskyi Oblast Prosecutor’s Office violated my right to access public information. The violation of the Law of Ukraine 'On Access to Public Information' consists of refusing to disclose open public information. By not reviewing my complaint and instead forwarding it to the body whose actions were being contested, the Prosecutor General’s Office violated Articles 7, 16, 18, 19 of the Law of Ukraine 'On Appeals by Citizens'. All these actions by the Prosecutor’s Office officials are unlawful and have signs of administrative offenses stipulated by Article 212-3 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (CAO), which warrants a response from the Verkhovna Rada Commissioner for Human Rights,” reads the media outlet's complaint to the Commissioner.

Alyona Bereza submitted a query to the Khmelnytskyi Oblast Prosecutor’s Office on April 15, asking for data on the salaries of the Office's staff and that of district prosecutor’s offices for December 2024, January and March 2025. In response to the query, the Office shared the data on all employees except for those who are active military servicemembers.

ZHAR.INFO responded by filing a complaint with the Prosecutor General’s Office, who, instead of reviewing the complaint and responding to the actions of its subordinate entity, referred the complaint back to the Oblast Prosecutor’s Office. The latter refused to provide the information again.