Beginning September 3, 2026, CrimeaWatch formally contacted twelve organizations newly documented on this site as having taken part in forming the Public Integrity Council. Each received the specific facts recorded about it — the decisions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges that admitted it, the compositions it staffed, its delegates by name — and five calendar days to respond before the record is treated as final. For two further organizations no contact channel could be established, and this post states that plainly rather than recording them as having declined to comment.
This is the second such round. The first, on August 31, covered the forty organizations then documented in the Entities section.
Why This Round Is Different#
The forty organizations contacted in August were documented, in almost every case, as employers: someone who works there sits on the Council. The fourteen organizations added since are documented for something they did themselves. They applied to the High Qualification Commission of Judges for admission to the assembly that forms the Council, were vetted and admitted by a numbered decision, and put forward candidates.
That difference is reflected in the notices. Each letter states the organization’s own record rather than a general description: the decision number and date, the composition, the delegates by name, and — where the Commission published candidate tables — how many candidates the organization nominated and how many were seated.
Each letter also reproduces the limits the profile itself sets. No organization is alleged to have made any statement recognizing Crimea as Russian territory. Delegation is not a vote: the Council’s conclusions are voted on by its members, not by the organizations that delegated them. Participation in forming the first composition in 2016 predates the Indicators of Integrity entirely. Where a profile records a narrower involvement still — a delegate who left before the December 2020 revision, an admission that produced no member — the letter says so in terms.
A Change in What CrimeaWatch Undertakes#
The August notices promised that responses would be published in full alongside the profile. That undertaking stands for the organizations to which it was given, and it will be honoured.
The notices sent in this round make a different undertaking, and it is narrower. A response will be assessed against the underlying sources; where a statement on a profile is shown to be inaccurate, incomplete or out of date, the profile is amended and the correction is recorded on the page. CrimeaWatch does not undertake to reproduce responses verbatim. What a verified response changes is the content of the profile itself.
The change is stated here, and in each letter, because a documentation project that quietly narrows its own commitments has no business asking anyone else for accuracy. The same wording appears in the “Response and Corrections” section of every profile in this round, so that the letter and the page say the same thing.
The Twelve Organizations Contacted#
| Organization | Documented involvement |
|---|---|
| Ukrainian Bar Association | All four compositions, 2016–2025 |
| Transparency International Ukraine | All four compositions, 2016–2025 |
| Nova Kraina Civic Platform | All four compositions, 2016–2025 |
| Centre for Economic Strategy | Third and fourth compositions |
| Sich Human Rights Group | Fourth composition |
| Public Control Platform | Third composition; admitted in 2025, nominee not elected |
| Ukrainian Centre for European Policy | Third composition |
| Centre of United Actions | First and second compositions |
| Avtomaidan | First and second compositions; PROSUD partner |
| Public Lustration Committee | First and second compositions |
| Center for Civil Liberties | Second composition; admitted in 2023, no member elected |
| CrimeaSOS | Second composition, sixteen days |
One notice asks a question rather than only inviting a response. The Commission’s 2016 candidate table lists only Natalia Sokolenko for Centre UA, while Halyna Chyzhyk’s candidacy was submitted by the Centre for Democracy and Rule of Law; the Council’s own first-composition roster records both as Centre UA representatives. The two official sources disagree, and the organization is the party best placed to explain which is right.
The Two Organizations That Could Not Be Contacted#
| Organization | What was checked |
|---|---|
| TOM 14 | No website; no published email address; no social media under its own name; no address in the state register. Its public work appears under the Bihus.Info name, a separate legal entity — a letter to one is not a notice to the other. |
| European Dimension (Sumy) | No website; no email address established. The profile records a telephone number, which is not used for this purpose: a right of reply requires a written record. |
Neither profile will say that the organization was invited to comment and did not reply. They were not invited, because there was nowhere to send the invitation. Where that remains true at the close of the round, the profile will record that no contact channel could be established, and what was checked.
One notice in the main list carries a similar caveat. The Public Lustration Committee’s published address is at a domain that survives only in a web archive; if the message does not deliver, that is a failure of the channel and will be recorded as such, not as silence.
What Happens Next#
Each five-day window closes on its own schedule, measured from the date the individual notice was sent. As each deadline passes the corresponding profile is updated: with the correction, where a response established one; with a plain statement that the organization was invited to comment and none was received, where none was; with a record that no contact channel could be established, where that is the case. A response arriving after the deadline is treated exactly as a timely one and is acted on in a dated update.
No profile will be left to imply an outcome that did not occur.
All profiles on this site are based on publicly available sources: official registers, published decisions of state bodies, organizational records, and media coverage. Source links are provided within each profile. Organizations documented on this site are contacted for comment before their record is treated as final; this post documents that process for the fourteen organizations added in the founding-registry round, and states which of them could be reached and which could not.