LEGISLATION

Law on NGO

On the 17th of January Rossiiskaya Gazeta published the federal law ‘On non-governmental and non-commercial organizations.’ As was revealed, the document had been signed by the president as early as a week before that, on the 10th of January. It will take effect in 3 months, that is, in April this year.

Just a day before it was published the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin discussed this law with Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, but did not say a word that it was signed already. At least, after the meeting with the Russian President Merkel spoke about a draft law.

Moreover, Putin claimedthat the draft law was coordinated with the Council of Europe. He underlined that before the law was adopted he personally sent a delegation led by the minister of justice to the Council of Europe. ‘Our colleagues in Strasbourg took this issue very seriously; they not just scanned the draft law superficially, but gathered a group of international experts. We received a written statement from them,’ Putin said.

A week later when the resolution on Chechnya was discussed on January 25, 2006 PACE unexpectedly switched to the law ‘On non-governmental and non-commercial organizations’ (NGO).Parliamentarians decidedthat the new law on the status of NGO in Russia ‘does not meet the criteria of the Council of Europe.’ It will be recalled that the draft resolution on human rights violations in Chechnya was reviewed in terms of responsibility of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe before the assembly. The resolution was based on the respective report made by Rudolph Bidding, PACE speaker on the human rights in Chechnya, who now leaves the assembly, puts aside his functions and retires.

In between the publishing of the law and PACE’s ‘verdict’ on this problem all persons concerned seem to have voiced their opinion. But the reaction of the Public Chamber, in the first place, was amazing. A member of its Council of Aldermen Leonid Roshal referred to the adoption of the law as a ‘political mistake.’ He recalled that ‘the only request’ to the legislators was to abstain from discussing the law on non-commercial organizations before the Public Chamber would begin working in full. ‘To my big regret, the Duma did not respond,’ said L.Roshal.

The new law was criticized by high-ranking persons of some European countries and international organizations, including Amnesty International. The German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned: ‘‘We shall watch the application of this law very attentively so that non-governmental organizations could continue their activities.’ The US State Department Press Secretary Sean McCormack stated: ‘We repeatedly voiced our concern to the Russian government over the legislation on non-governmental organizations. Now we intend to monitor the implementation of this law and its impact on the civil society in Russia.’

The Executive Director of the movement ‘For human rights’ Lev Ponomarev asserts that the law in anti-democratic and anti-constitutional, while the fact that the Russian head of state signed it indicates that the president ignores the Public Chamber.

In the opinion of Ponomarev, first it was ‘the law on banning the civil society’, the law of rude totalitarian control over the public life. Later the authorities pretended that they are bringing the law in compliance with the democratic and international legal standards. But the Kremlin’s intention remained obvious – ‘to suspend’ the civil organizations and ‘shut off oxygen’ to the most active ones.

According to Lev Ponomarev, several paragraphs constitute the grossest violations of the human rights:

- The whole categories of citizens lose the inalienable right to the freedom of associations. At the same time, the authorities assume wide possibilities for ideological and political control. And, above all, they can actually demand that the foreign partners deny financial support to any organization. Besides, it seems to me that such publicist terms as ‘national unity,’ ‘cultural heritage’ and ‘national interests’ (and these notions are laid down in the law) give officials grounds for monstrous arbitrary actions against NGOs under the pretext of failure to comply with Russian identity.

FSB investigative isolation wards were transferred to the Ministry of Justice

Since January 1, 2006 the Lefortovo investigative detention centre was transferred from FSB control into the charge of the Ministry of Justice. As was reported in the public relations centre of the Ministry of Justice, this step was taken in connection with the commitments that Russia assumed when being admitted into the Council of Europe. In view of the change of command over the isolation wards earlier supervised by FSB a number of amendments and corrections were introduced into the effective legislation and into the normative and legal acts, noted the Ministry of Justice. The head of this department Yuri Chaika earlier said that the decision on reattachment of the FSB isolation wards to the Ministry of Justice was taken by the country’s president.

Parties that won in the local elections will nominate their own governor

President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin signed the federal law ‘On introducing amendments into article 18 of the federal law ‘On general principles of organization of legislative (representative) and executive bodies of the state power of the constituent parts of the Russian Federation’ and the federal law ‘On political parties.’

Now the political party that got the biggest number of deputy mandates in the legislative bodies of a region is entitled to initiate a review by the said body of a proposal to the President of the Russian Federation on the candidacy of the top executive in the constituent part of the Russian Federation.

This candidacy is subject to mandatory review by the legislative body of state power in the constituent part of the Russian Federation and in case this proposal is supported by the majority of the votes from the number of elected deputies it is sent to the President of the Russian Federation in the established procedure.

Therefore, it is clear how far the Kremlin leadership is from being confident in the system they themselves created. Event the pro-presidential United Russia which by hook or by crook will win in the elections is not entitled to appoint its own governor without consultations with the president.

PERSONAL IMMUNITY

In the investigative detention ward of Northern Ossetia ethnic Ingushes are subjected to torture

The International Helsinki Federation sent a letter to the Prosecutor of Northern Ossetia Alexander Bigulov in which concern is voiced over the growingly frequent incidents of torture and unlawful actions against the people of Ingushetia. In particular, what is meant here is the unlawful detention, torture and fabrication of a criminal case by the personnel of the Department for Fighting Organized Crime of Northern Ossetia’s Ministry of Internal Affairs against four men: Muslim B.Tsechoev, Ruslan B. Tsechoev , Magomed M. Tsechoev and Usup Um.Khashiev.

All the four detainees were tortured with the use of an awl, flat pliers, hack saws and hammers. Pointing to these objects policemen asked: ‘Well, what shall we torture you with? Choose yourself.’ After that the men were beaten and tortured cruelly for several hours. At the same time the police showed them the photos of some people and demanded that they identify them, asked questions about militants. In the process the men were beaten with a hammer on the legs, with a club on the kidneys and tortured with an electric shocker. After that the three of them were released on the same night but against Ruslan Tsechoev a criminal case was initiated. Those who were released had to give hand receipts to the effect that they have no complaints against law enforcement agencies and that no unlawful methods were used against them. They were also compelled to sign the minutes of the interrogation without prior reading.

On the very next day after the release Muslim and Magomed Tsechoev and Usup Khashiev filed complaints with the prosecution office about unlawful detention and physical violence against them. They asked the republican hospital to record the traces of cruel treatment. Doctors, in their turn, demanded a warrant from the forensic medical examination office which they managed to obtain with difficulty. The medical examination held after that confirmed the facts of torture and beatings. However, the urologist and the neuropathologist refused to examine the young men referring to being extremely busy.


Ruslan Tsechoev’s relatives hired lawyer Ruslan Evloyev who, after meeting with his client, revealed that during the interrogation physical force was used against him and wrote a complaint about the actions of the investigative bodies.

The head of the International Helsinki Federation Aaron Roads requested that the criminal case be closed and Tsechoev be released. He also asked to investigate the circumstances of the obviously unlawful detention of the four men and bring those guilty of torture against him to responsibility.

The prosecution office of Northen Ossetia confirmed the receipt of Doctor Aaron Roads’s letter. But the investigators believe the facts presented by the human rights activist and the request on closing the criminal case to be non-objective and impracticable.

‘We categorically deny the cases of torture because it never happened. They (the Ingush nationals) were checked up, as is required, when they were put into the investigative isolation ward. There is the relevant document of the forensic medical examination office to this effect. If there are indeed traces of using force, these were sustained during the detention when the citizens of Ingushetia offered resistance. But this is far from torture, all the more so with the objects indicated: an awl, pliers and the like. No wrongful actions the letter of the human rights activist tells about were committed against these persons, all investigative and operative activities on the criminal case are conducted within the framework of the effective legislation,’ underscored a representative of the investigation group of the Chief Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office in the southern federal district.


HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS, POWER AND SOCIETY

Spy scandal
On Sunday, January 22nd, the television channel Russia in the programme ’Special correspondent’ showed the video frames of clandestine shooting, as well as the comments by FSB staffers who allegedly prove the fact of intelligence activities by these diplomats against Russia. The interest of the Russian special services was caused by four British diplomats. Among them is the Second Secretary of the U.K. Embassy Mark Dow who was coordinating the activities of the ‘Foundation of Global Opportunities’ under the U.K. Foreign Office and who was in charge of the foundation’s cooperation with the Russian non-governmental organizations. The programme stated that Dow endorsed the transfer of grant money to some NGOs, in particular, for the Moscow Helsinki Group and the Eurasia foundation. The TV aired copies of payment documents with Dow’s signatures according to which large sums of money (both cash and cashless) were transferred to a number of NGOs.

FSB Press Secretary Diana Shemyakina said on air that the majority of NGOs in Russia were established, are funded and exist under the aegis of the governments and public organizations of the USA and their NATO allies. FSB operatives demonstrated a number of payment documents witnessing money transfer to the Russian NGO.

The Chairperson of the Moscow Helsinki Group Ludmila Alekseeva referred to the statements to the effect that British intelligence officers were involved in funding NGOs in Russia as a slander campaign. ‘This TV programme, to put it politely, is made for uneducated and very gullible people,’ said Alekseeva. In her words, the author of the item ‘lugged the Moscow Helsinki Group into the spy plot, quite adroitly at that – the material does not say directly that the Moscow Helsinki Group fulfilled spy tasks for Dow». ‘The author did not say that directly because he realizes that for such things I will sue immediately and will win the lawsuit even in a Russian court which is called ‘basmanny,’ and not independent.’

‘The purpose of such programmes is this: to prepare public opinion for crushing the human rights community, the most active and most independent part of the third sector and civil society in Russia,’ Alekseeva believes. ‘The idea is to trample the civil society underfoot after suppressing the human rights activists so that by 2007-2008 and further all would be silent.’

Alekseeva called the document itself shown on the RTR TV channel a fake. ‘I didn’t know yesterday, I thought that, perhaps, there is some document signed by Dow, since it was quite possible given his position, says the human rights activist. ‘The Moscow Helsinki Group received two grants from the Embassy of Great Britain. But I checked: neither of the grants was signed by Dow. That is, what they produced is a fake.’

According to the information of the Association of human rights organization Agora, in 2005 many human rights organizations were regularly subjected to tax audits, their personnel - to prosecution and threats of reprisals, while the human rights sites – to hackers’ attacks.

From September to December 2005 representatives of the Association registered 21 reports on persecution of human rights activists in Russia. Geographically, signals were received from 16 regions. In 11 cases of persecution the motive of persecuting the activists for their public activities was confirmed.

Agora believes that the efforts of every civil activist in Russia are closely watched by FSB. Some human rights activists are engaged in prophylactic conversations, others receive proposals of cooperation.




FREEDOM OF SPEECH

The case of Stanislav Dmietrievsky and the newspaper Pravo-Zaschita»

In Nizhny Novgorod court hearings on the so called ‘Dmietrievsky’s case’ continued. It will be recalled that on September 2nd, 2005 Dmietrievsky was charged under article 282 of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation – ‘actions aimed at inciting hatred or hostility, as well as humiliation of the dignity of a person or a group of persons by the signs of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, attitude to religion, as well as belonging to some social group.’ The article provides for a punishment up to five years’ imprisonment.

On the 18th of January hearings of the parties’ arguments were held In the Soviet court.. The state prosecutor insisted on Dmietrievsky’s being guilty of fomenting racial and national discord. The prosecution believes that Dmietrievsky is socially dangerous and his actions are extremist activities aimed at undermining the country’s security. Moreover, Dmietrievsky shows neglect with relation to the authorities and the society and even uses court as a tribune for the propaganda of his views. On these grounds jurist 3rd class Maslova deems Dmietrievsky to be socially dangerous and demands that he be sentenced to 4 years in prison.

A week before that, on the 11th of January, the prosecutor of the Nizhny Novgorod region Vladimir Demidov said: ‘I am sure that Dmietrievsky will be imprisoned and being the prosecution side we shall seek measures of criminal responsibility enforced against him.

On the 20th of January at the plenary session of the European parliament a resolution was adoptedwhich, among other things, mentions Stanislav Dmietrievsky who is now on trial in Nizhny Novgorod. The document says: ‘The European Parliament... calls upon to drop all charges against Stanislav Dmietrievsky, as well as calls upon the Russian authorities to respect the freedom of speech and journalists.’

Human rights activists believe the charges brought against Dmietrievsky to be politically motivated and aimed at liquidation of the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of speech. In autumn last year Amnesty International made an open statement in which it voiced concern over the campaign of pressure conducted by various state entities against the Society of Russian-Chechen Friendship and stated its intention to declare Dmietrievsky prisoner of conscience if convicted.

‘The prosecution’s performance was amazingly inconsistent and used quasi arguments, – saidsaid the Director of the Foundation ‘Public verdict’ Natalia Taubina. ‘From my point of view, presentations by the defence lawyers were a notch higher, more concrete and contained more arguments. Lawyer Yuri Sidorov said in his speech that this process is very similar to the proceedings of the Soviet period on dissident cases when a person was tried for the expression of his/her own opinion. It is difficult to say what verdict will be delivered. If it were not a politically motivated process Dmietrievsky would certainly be acquitted.’ But in this process there is a feeling that this case is not resolved by the judge.’


XENOPHOBIA

Incident in a Moscow synagogue

On January 11, 2006 Alexander Koptsev, 20, attacked visitors of the synagogue on Bolshaya Bronnaya street with a knife inflicting wounds on eight believers. The witness of the attack – the rabbi’s son Josif Kogan told that the attacker shouted: ‘Hail, Hitler!’ and ‘I will kill you!’ After Koptsev wounded several people worshippers managed to overpower him and then security guards arrived on the scene to assist them.

The father of the young man confirmed the available information to the effect that his son is not a member of any extremist organization. ‘I think that he only saw the Nazis, extremists and skinheads you are talking about on TV, if at all,’ added Alexander Koptsev-Senior. However, shortly before the incident the father saw a book on the son’s table. ‘We don’t usually keep many books at home, he said. ‘That’s why I asked: what are reading, son? Sasha answered that the book tells how kikes sold out Russia, but he refused to discuss what he read.’

Human rights activists believe the attack in the synagogue to be have been caused by the general growth of xenophobia and national intolerance in Russia.

A day after the incident it became the subject of discussionin the State Duma. In the process the majority of the deputies used the tragedy for fighting between fractions.

A representative of the fraction United Russia deputy Andrei Isayev recalled that the leaders of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) and Rodina Gennadi Zyuganov and Dmitri Rogozin, respectively, condemned the manifestations of anti-Semitism. However, deputies from these particular fractions signed ‘the known anti-Semitic letter to the prosecution office’ last year.

The colleague was supported by deputy Yuri Voronin who reminded Rodina not only about the anti-Semitic letter, but also about the xenophobic pre-election roller.

In response communist Victor Kuznetsov put forward a motion that Isayev be denied the right to speak for ‘offensive utterances.’ LDPR representative Nikolai Kurianovich joined the argument. He proposed that ‘a commission should be set up which would review the facts of unlawful actions by migrants against the Russian population of Moscow.’ However, his speech was softened by another LDPR deputy Aleksei Mitrofanov who supported Isayev against Rodina and the CPRF.

The head of the legislation committee Pavel Krasheninnikov stated that he now has a ready package of amendments to the law ‘On countering extremist activities’ which proposes tougher responsibility for various manifestations of the extremist activities. Sergei Popov, head of the Committee on public associations and religious organizations, joined forces with him: ‘We propose tougher legislative responsibility of physical persons for extremist activities.’

While the deputies were embroiled in arguments, in Rostov-on-Don a former student of the Rostov State Medical University Vadim Domnitzky, 18, being in an intoxicated state came to a synagogue with a broken bottle where he started shouting insults against Jews. In particular, he threatened to slaughter the people present in the room unless the rabbi came out to see him. The guards pushed the ‘alarm button.’ The police who arrived on the scene apprehended the hooligan. He explained his behaviour by the fact that he ‘was drinking twenty four hours and was watching television with the news broadcast from Moscow where a culprit was displayed on the screen who attacked the visitors of a synagogue and decided to take revenge for the abortive life.’

Sova Centre expert Galina Kozhevnikova: No doubt, it is the main event in January. At least because it is the first precedent of this sort. It is logical if one remembers that the year 2005 became the time of noticeable activation of anti-Semitic activities. I am surprised that mentally unbalanced people had not done it before. Regrettably, only the incident of such magnitude made the authorities react. To my double regret, the reaction proved inadequate – instead of real actions we got another ‘advertising campaign.’ As far as the incident in Rostov in concerned, I am glad and surprised that there is only one imitator (even so unsuccessful). I was afraid that there would be more of them.

EUROPEAN COURT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Aleksei Mikheev versus Russia

On the 26th of January the European Court for Human Rights passed a judgment on the case ‘Mikheev versus Russia.’ The Court recognized the fact of Mikheev’s torture and absence of effective investigation. Mikheev was awarded a compensation in the amount of 250 thousand Euro.

Here is the essence of the case in brief. In the autumn of 1998 Aleksei Mikheev together with his friend met two girls – Savelyeva and Krylova – in the city of Bogorodsk of the Nizhny Novgorod region. At Savelyeva’s request Mikheev gave her a lift to Nizhny Novgorod where they parted.
Later on Savelyeva’s mother filed a report with the police stating that her daughter has disappeared. Mikheev and Frolov were detained. During the interrogations policemen used various forms of torture against Frolov. Having failed to withstand the torture the latter criminated himself and Mikheev by admitting that they had raped and then killed Savelyeva.

Aleksei Mikheev denied his guilt during the interrogations. He was tortured with electric current. Being unable to withstand the torture Mikheev, being handcuffed, threw himself out of the window from the third floor having broken the window glass with his head. As a result of the fall he sustained a heavy compression fracture of the backbone with the crush injury of the spinal cord. And several days later the ‘killed’ Maria Savelyeva came back home.

The judge sentenced police Major Igor Somov, chief of the Lenin district division of internal affairs, and the former police Major Nikolai Kosterin, an operative with the Lenin district division of internal affairs, to 4 years’ imprisonment each. At present Mikheev is paralyzed below the waist line and needs constant care.

Mikheev’s case in Russia and Strasbourg was conducted by the lawyers of the Nizhny Novgorod Committee Against Torture. The case lasted for 7 years. During this time various prosecution authorities thrice passed resolutions on forbearance to initiate a criminal case, another three times they suspended the criminal case and they ruled to terminate the criminal case 20 times. The fact that the case of torture was not duly investigated enabled the Committee Against Torture to prepare a complaint to the European Court for Human Rights.

According to the European Convention, to appeal to the Strasbourg Court a citizen is supposed to have used up all effective remedies in the territory of the country. In November 2001 Aleksei Mikheev’s complaint was registered with the Secretariat of the Court and a bit later the Court decided that it takes over the case.

Maxim Prytkov, head of the press service of the Committee Against Torture: Of course, we are satisfied with the fact that the European Court recognized violations of articles 3 and 13 and awarded a compensation. However, we don’t think it is a victory. The Committee did its utmost to resolve the situation at the level of national justice. But this did not happen. As a result the Russian Federation proved to be the loser. But we are not fighting against our country, we are fighting violations committed by representatives of its law enforcement agencies. It is an open secret that violence in various forms is inherent not only in the Russian law enforcement agencies. But it is in Russia that people concerned do not respond to these facts. So the blame for this defeat of this country in Strasbourg lies with the prosecution authorities and personally with the Prosecutor of the Nizhy Novgorod region Mr.Demidov.


‘Anoshin’s case’ in European Court

Two weeks before Mikheev’s victory on Strasbourg, on January 13, 2006, the European Court for Human Rights initiated proceedings on the complaint referred to as ‘Anoshin’s case.’

It will be recalled that Alexander Anoshin died on the premises of a medical sobering-up station of the Soviet district division of internal affairs of Nizny Novgorod on the 25th of July, 2002. The analysis of materials of public and criminal investigation gives every ground to assume that Anoshin’s death was caused by unlawful actions of the police personnel. However, up till now the prosecution office failed to find the culprits.

The lawyers of the Committee Against Torture came to the conclusion that actions of the state representatives contain signs of violations of the ‘Right to life’ (article 2 of the European Convention on human rights). The actions (to be exact – inaction) of the prosecution office contain the violation of article 13 of the European Convention on human rights – ‘Every one whose rights and freedoms<…> were violated is entitled to an effective remedy in a state body even if this violation was committed by persons who acted in the official capacity.’
It is possible that the beginning of the European Court’s work on ‘Anoshin’s case’ will after all make the prosecution office of the Nizny Novgorod region follow the legal standards in terms of undertaking an effective investigation.