Main themes of this issue: Abolition of the death penalty as a means of strengthening authority; Khodorkovsky’s lawyers help all prisoners; Udmurtia, Marii El, Chita and Tomsk: police force accused of despotism; Trepashkin remains in custody; Discrimination against Muslims in Kabardino-Balkariya becomes increasingly widespread.


Themes of the issue:

LEGISLATION: Abolition of the death penalty as a means of strengthening authority


THE PENITENTIARY SYSTEM: Khodorkovsky’s lawyers help all prisoners


LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: Udmurtia, Marii El, Chita and Tomsk: police force accused of despotism


RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL: Trepashkin remains in custody


FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Censorship reaches the internet


CONSCRIPTS AND SERVICEMEN IN THE ARMY FOR A FIXED PERIOD: Father brings officer home from the army


THE SITUATION IN KABARDINO-BALKARIYA: Discrimination against Muslims becomes increasingly widespread


THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: Three Russian citizens win their cases in Strasbourg



LEGISLATION

Abolition of the death penalty as a means of strengthening authority

At the beginning of March the Council of Europe once again reminded Russia that a mere moratorium on the use of the death penalty is not acceptable, and called on Russia to ratify the convention on its abolition. However, ratification of the article of the European Convention concerning the abolition of the death penalty has not been including on the agenda of pressing issues for discussion at the spring session of the Parliament. In reality, it is unlikely that a review of the National Assembly’s ratification of this article will take place before the autumn. Before this date juries will be introduced in all regions of the Russian Federation (Chechnya being the last region where they will start to work). This will officially give MPs the right to review the use of the death penalty. Gennadii Gudkov, a member of the Duma Committee for Safety, explained that at the very least such a review “should take place only in strict connection with the full introduction of the jury system.”


The issue of the death penalty can be used as an important tool in the battle of propaganda. Prevailing public opinion in Russia views the death penalty as an essential weapon in the fight against crime, and it has come to the attention of the media that a group of MPs are preparing a bill calling for its revival. In such circumstances President Putin, who has on several occasions publicly voiced his disapproval of the death penalty and presented his own initiatives for its abolition, can be accused of pandering to “European Values”.

Olga Shepeleva, Lawyer at the DEMOS Centre : It isn’t entirely clear what bill MPs want to introduce, given that the use of the death penalty as a means of punishment is already established in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In order to start using the death penalty again, there is no need to change existing legislation. The death penalty isn’t used at the moment because Russia’s Constitutional Court ruled that its use by the courts in the absence of a jury system would constitute a violation of the Constitutional Principle that all citizens are equal before the law and court. Thus, when system of juries is set up in Chechnya, the formal grounds for the moratorium will disappear.

What will happen regarding the 6th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, which Russia promised to ratify ten years ago, is different question. It is at the moment regarded as a non-fulfillment of international obligations. The President has already brought a law before the Duma about the ratification of the 6th Protocol, but it was rejected by an overwhelming majority. The lower house of parliament is of the view that the abolition of the death penalty would contravene Russia’s state interests, and justifies this opinion with reasoning that strikes me as paradoxical: that Russia has a high level of crime and a poor level of efficiency in the court system.

Return to main menu


THE PENITENTIARY SYSTEM

Khodorkovsky’s lawyers help all prisoners

On the 2nd March lawyers for the most famous criminal in the country – Mikhail Khodorkovsky – won a victory that is significant for all citizens serving a custodial sentence. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation pronounced that point 83 of the prison system’s internal code of order is not justifiable by law, in that it permits convicts to hold legal consultation with their lawyers only during their non-working time. Previously this point had stipulated that consultation with advisors must take up no more than 4 hours of the convict’s non-working time and may take place “only in the hours between getting up and lunch”. Upon making his case in court Khodorkovsky’s lawyer, Yurii Schmidt, claimed that the rule in question violated the right of the detained to qualified legal help, the right to appeal their sentence in the highest court, the right to turn to international legal structures in the defense of their rights and freedoms, and the right to time of rest.


Return to main menu


LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

Udmurtia, Marii El, Chita and Tomsk: police force accused of despotism

On the 2nd March the Magistrate Court (Mirovoj Sud) of the Leninskii Region, city of Izhevsk began its investigation into the case against former employee of the Department for the Fight against Organized Crime, Igor Nikolaev, charged with Assault (Part 1, Article 116 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). A year ago Nikolaev assaulted 77 year old Vasilii Zagumenov, a caretaker at one of the middle schools in Izhevsk.

Materials collected as part of the criminal investigation suggest that at approximately 9pm, after walking around the grounds under his watch, the caretaker was returning to the school buildings when he saw one of the school’s teachers and an unknown man standing at the entrance. The unknown man was behaving very aggressively, shouting, promising to get everybody fired, and demanded to see the head teacher. Then man introduced himself as Nikolaev, deputy director of the Department for the Fight against Organized Crime of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Udmurtskaya Republic. It later emerged that Nikolaev’s son had earlier been assaulted near to the school.

The caretaker’s asked him to leave the school’s territory, and suggested that given the late hour he would do better to come back the next day. In response Nikolaev kicked Zagumenov and then hit him across the head. Zagumenov fell against the door frame and lost consciousness.

On the 2nd April 2005 Vasilii Zagumenov brought forward a complaint to the Office of Public Prosecutor for the Leninskii Region of Izhevsk. However, a criminal investigation was launched only following the involvement of the local human rights organization “Initiative”.

***

On the 9th March the Yoshkar-Olinskii Regional Court was in sitting for the case of Rosa Likhacheva vs. the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Marii El and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation. Likhacheva demanded compensation for emotional suffering caused by the murder of her son at the hands of members of the police force.

On the night of the 17th-18th March 2004 Evgenii Abrosimov, Mikhail Tulovchikov and Dmitrii Likhachev were detained in the Riverside Division of the police force, where they were brutally beaten with baseball bats. Dmitrii Likhachev died from his injuries in hospital.
The Yoshkar-Olinskii city social society “Man and Law”, the fund “Social Verdict” and the Committee against Torture (Nizhnij Novgorod) worked together to carry out a public investigation into the actions of members of the police force. Senior Lieutenant Nikolai Zhuravlev and Captain Vladimir Popov were sentenced by the court to eleven and a half and twelve and a half years imprisonment respectively, to be served in a high security prison. Senior Lieutenant Dmitrii Konev was sentenced to a three year suspended sentence.

With the help of human rights workers Rosa Likhacheva later filed two claims for compensation for emotional suffering. Her claims were partially successful, and she was awarded compensation for the emotional suffering caused by the death of her son to the sum of 280 thousand rubles, to be paid for from the budge of the Republic of Marii El.

***

At the beginning of March a preliminary investigation into the so-called “Case of Golovin-Pashkov” was carried out in Chita The Office of Public Prosecutor for the Chitinskii Region brought a charge of overstepping the bounds of duty (Article 286, Point a, Part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) against two employees of the local Department for the Fight against Organized Crime. Igor Yatzenko and Boris Pyazhskih, policemen of this division, illegally detained two teenagers and attempted to force them to confess to a crime that they did not commit. According to the students themselves (Vladislav Golovin and Maksim Pashkov), they were beaten in the kidneys, ribs and round the head, and kicked in the stomach.

In light of the seemingly clear evidence that the employees of the Department for the Fight against Organized Crime had acted illegally, the parents of the two Chitinskii teenagers and human rights workers tried to convince law enforcement agencies to launch criminal proceedings for almost two years. Yet the Office of Public Prosecutor for Chita’s Ingodinskii Region refused the teenagers’ parents access to justice a total of five times, each time citing a different reason for his decision.

Chitinksii human rights workers offering legal support to the teenagers in question, assisted by the legal fund “Social Verdict”, lodged a complaint with the Russian Office of the Public Prosecutor against the Chitinskii Office of the Public Prosecutor and its unwillingness to act. As a result of this senior staff at the local Office of Public Prosecutor admitted that they were not acquainted with the cases of the five employees who at various times had been responsible for the court proceedings in this case. Russian human rights workers included the “Case of Golovin-Pashkov” in an alternative report presented to the UN Committee against Torture. It serves as a telling example of the deep-rooted violation of human rights in Russia.

***

On the 15th March the Office of the Public Prosecutor for Tobolsk (of the Tumen Region) referred the criminal case against the local Department of Internal Affairs (in violation of part 3, article 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation – overstepping the boundaries of duty with the intention of violence) to trial. In September 2005 a member of the criminal investigative team, wishing to solve a case involving a burglary at a flat, broke the law. In an attempt to extract a confession of theft, the employee hit the juvenile under suspicion several times and in several different parts of the body. The juvenile was hospitalized and the case remained unsolved. His older sister appealed to the Office of the Public Prosecutor, which reviewed the circumstances and launched a criminal case.

***

A sociological survey carried out but the Y. Levada Analytical Centre at the end of February 2006 - as part of the research program run by the fund “Social Verdict” - showed that Russian citizens put criminality within the law enforcement agencies at the top of their list of fears. According to the results of the survey 80% of Russians think that despotism in the law enforcement agencies is a very relevant problem for modern day Russia. 73% of Russians think of the law enforcement agencies with fear, and believe that either they or their relatives could easily fall victim to the despotic behavior of law enforcement employees. Only 2% of those asked were confident that the Office of the Public Prosecutor and court would defend their rights if they were violated by employees of the police force. It is necessary to note that financially less well-off citizens regarded themselves more vulnerable and more at risk. As part of the survey 1600 people were questioned, aged 18 and over and from 128 different areas.


Oleg Khabibrakhmanov, head of the research department at the Committee against Torture, Nizhnij Novgorod : I don’t think that the situation regarding despotism in the law enforcement agencies has significantly changed in recent times. People continue to turn to us for support in situations arising from this problem. The reaction of the Office of the Public Prosecutor is a different question. A year ago we developed a dynamic project in this area. I can’t speak for the situation in other regions, but in the Nizhnij Novgorod Region there is a clear connection: we sent a pile of papers to the General Russian Office of the Public Prosecution, and their bosses forced our local Office to sort itself out. And now the situation is markedly better – complaints about police despotism are at least looked at and investigated.

Return to main menu


RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

Trepashkin remains in custody

On the 15th March the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the decision of the local court to refuse ex-FSB employee Mikhail Trepashkin bail. He is accused of divulging state secrets. The appeal was launched by Trepashkin’s defense, but his lawyers were not in attendance when the court convened.

On the day before the scheduled hearing Trepashkin’s lawyer Sergei Brovchenko had announced that the appeal would not take place on the 15th March: « the case will be postponed as I am participating in a hearing at the Supreme Court and won’t be able to attend….and Trepashkin’s second lawyer, Elena Liptzer, also sent a telegram to the court requesting the postponement of the hearing until the beginning of April. Our absence, and in particular my participation in another case, constitute valid reasons for postponing the hearing.»

The ruling made by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court can therefore be considered illegitimate. Sergei Brovchenko made the following statement: «it is established in law that if the lawyers participating in the case are unable to attend, then the hearing shall be postponed».

Return to main menu


FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Censorship reaches the internet

On 13th March the Governor or the Vladimirskii region, Nikolai Vinogradov, demanded that five participants of the internet forum www.kovrov.ru face legal action for critical sentiments expressed in an address against the authorities. The Department of Internal Affairs in the city of Kovrov was quick to launch legal criminal proceedings in accordance with article 319 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Insulting a representative of the authorities”). Until this, lively discussion about the actions of the local authorities had taken place on the internet forum, during which doubts about the professionalism of the Governor’s administration had been expressed. Colorful and coarse language was used, which undoubtedly did insult representatives of the local authorities. As a result the forum was forced to close.

Sergei Gromov, a member of the legislative assembly in the Vladimirskii Region, considers that “problems surrounding the Kovrov forum were incited by the local administration and law enforcement agencies, towards which most unpleasant commentary was directed”.

Here it is necessary to note that over a year ago a representative of the Centre of Information Security of the Russian FSB called for the widening of the Special Forces’ jurisdiction in controlling the internet. Sources within the FSB claim “it is necessary to call all illegal activities taking place on the internet to account, for the internet strongly influences the formation of public opinion”, and various political groups are able to use the internet “to mobilize political forces against the authorities”.

Return to main menu


CONSCRIPTS AND SERVICEMEN IN THE ARMY FOR A FIXED PERIOD

Father brings officer home from the army

An officer serving in the army for a fixed period was taken out of the army by his father after the latter saw injuries from beatings and cigarette burn marks on the soldier’s body. Private Alexander Kikhtyanin was serving in the Lomonosovskii area of the Leningradksii Region. He had been in the army for 9 months. His father had come to visit Alexander, who was on day leave from the army.

"We rented a room and started to eat. I saw wounds on my son’s arms – cigarette burns and bruises from beatings. I asked what they were. Alexander said that the company’s commander had caught him in the toilet, stubbed out his cigarette end on my son’s arm, then proceeded to beat him. He was beaten on another occasion in the office. I made up my mind immediately: I took my son, bought tickets and went to Vologda, where we sought help at the local military prosecutor’s office.”, – Alexander’s father reported to an officer of the Ministry for Emergencies.

On the 2nd March Alexander Kikhtyanin was taken to the St. Petersburg Office of the Public Prosecutor. During the day he underwent a legal-medical examination. The Prosecutor for the 53rd Military Office, Alexander Reva, who commands a unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ internal troops, refused to make the results of the examination public. He simply announced that the verification of the facts surrounding the hazing would take place over the next three days. It would then be decided whether or not to launch a criminal investigation into the case.

It is worth noting that the soldier involved in this particular incident of bullying was serving in a unit (No.3526), from which 200 soldiers were sent to Chechnya at the end of February. According to the commander of the Leningradskii Region, all soldiers went to Chechnya “on a purely voluntary basis”: only 4 refused because of “family reasons”. It would seem that one of the four was Alexander Kikhtyanin.

Return to main menu


THE SITUATION IN KABARDINO-BALKARIYA

Discrimination against Muslims becomes increasingly widespread

On the 1st March relatives of those killed and arrested in Nalchik as a result of the military operation that took place in October 2005 made an appeal to international human rights organizations. They presented a record of the victimization experienced by Muslims and called for the help of “the international human rights court in the face of mass violations of the rights of Muslims in the Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya…we call on you to intercede for us and help us in our mass exodus from the country to a place of permanent residence”

“Our sons’ names were placed on a list of “Wahhabi Muslims” [extremist interpretation of Islam] not because they had committed any violation of the law, but simply because there were opposed to the official Spiritual Leadership of Muslims (SLM). They were victimized for many years, destroying them physically and morally…The ignorant and self-interested SLM, sensing competition in the form of religiously informed young Muslims educated in the traditions of Islam, created a list of “Wahhabi Muslims”, onto which were placed the names of the young believers in opposition”,– it is written in the appeal.

Relatives of those who died in Nalchik are also certain that the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Kabardino-Balkariya “significantly increased the number of names on the black list, under the guise of combating religious extremism, and started an intensive battle against Muslims who were not guilty of anything, who simply go to Mosque…The Office of the Public Prosecutor and local authorities did not react to the large number of complaints. However, as a result of the repeated complaints provocation became more focused and more cynical, provoking mass outrage amongst young religious Muslims. Those detained by organs of the Ministry of Internal Affairs were brutally beaten, and there were cases of rape with batons, wire being tied around genitals and attached to electric currents, urination on detainees, the stubbing out of cigarettes on their skin, etc.”

The statement asserts that the events of 13th October were an armed uprising exclusively against the power structures of Kabardino-Balkariya, and not an act of terrorism against the civilian population.

«“We are convinced that our sons suffered from the despotism of the Republic’s power structures for a very long time. They understood before we did that to talk with the authorities in legal language is useless. We no longer believe anyone or that it is possible to secure justice and protection in our country. Both our children and we ourselves have appealed to the General Public Prosecutor of the Russian Federation, V. V. Ustinov, many times…..even if there is the slightest chance that you can help, we ask you to intervene and help us in our mass exodus from this country to a place of permanent residence”», – write the relatives of those killed and arrested in the capital of Kabardino-Balkariya.


***

On the 11th March the Russian Council of Muftis once again spoke out against the introduction of an institute of military clergymen. They pointed out that the proposed law “On military clergymen” may lead to a “fundamental opposition between believers of different religious traditions, and to discrimination in the military based on nationality or religion. Raising the issue in military barracks of which faith is “the right one”, of who is a “heretic” and who is a “sectarian”, will not lead to increased unity, but on the contrary, to the labeling of the guy in the neighboring bunk as “the enemy” because he is not ‘of the right faith’”. The Russian Council of Muftis also remarks that with the exception of the Russian Orthodox Church representatives of all religious groups, including the Christian Church, share their concerns.

***

The Plenum of Muslims of the Saratov Region voiced concern about the introduction of the “principles of Orthodox culture” in schools. The statement contains a reminder of Article 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and of Article 2 of the law “On education”, which establishes the secular nature of both the state and education.

“In state education establishments there is appropriate teaching of “the History of World Religions”, which is a secular course. Any other position would be inappropriate, in that it would contravene the Founding Law of the Russian Foundation, according to which all religious associations are separated from the state and equal before the law. Any attempt to instill the approach of a particular confession into the education process would be extremely dangerous”, the statement reads.

The Saratov Diocese reacted by insisting upon the teaching of “the principles of Orthodox culture” in schools, referring to the fact that 91.5% of the residents of the Saratov Region consider themselves to be Orthodox, and only 6.25% Muslim. It would seem from this statement that the numerical advantage is considered to be of greater importance than the law.

Return to main menu


THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Three Russian citizens win their cases in Strasbourg

On the 3rd March the European Court of Human Rights supported the claim of an activist from the National-Bolshevik Party (NBP), Valentina Dolgova, and awarded her compensation for emotional suffering to the sum of 5000 euros.

In December 2004 Dolgova and other National Bolshevik “Decembrists” were detained as they dispersed following a demonstration of the NBP at a social reception held by the President of the Russian Federation. She was held in prison for almost a year before her trial, when she was sentenced to three years suspended sentence. During her case at the court in Strasbourg, Dolgova pointed to a series of violations of the European Convention on Human Rights that were committed during the investigation into her case.

The judges in Strasbourg ruled that the decision to place Dolgova in custody before her trial was justified, but that there had not been just grounds for keeping her under arrest for a whole year.

***

On the 10th March the European Court of Human Rights ordered the Russian government to pay compensation to a sum in excess of 35 000 euros to Olga Menesheva, a citizen of the Bataiska Rostovskii Region, who had been subjected to torture at the hands of the police.

She was detained in 1999 by plain clothes policemen carrying out a murder investigation. The policemen illegally entered her flat and carried out a search without possessing the necessary search warrant. In detention at the police station she was beaten and threatened with rape. In addition the local court sentenced her to five days imprisonment for resisting arrest.

Menesheva filed complaints at the local Bataiskii and Rostovskii regional courts, but the actions of the police were found to be justified. When employees of the police force found out about her suit at the European Court, they started to threaten Olga, pressuring her to drop her case. This, however, only resulted in the acceleration of the investigation in Strasbourg.

***

On the 14th March another Russian citizen won her case in Strasbourg. Ludmila Igusheva, a resident of Ukhta, was sentenced to a year imprisonment but the Ukhtinskii Federal Court for the use of excessive force, not necessary for her own defense (murder). During the case she spent approximately a year in a remand centre. She later launched an appeal at the Koma Supreme Court, which found her not guilty. As a result, the Ukhtinskii Federal Court awarded her 70 000 rubles in compensation for emotional suffering, but the court’s decision was not implemented for another 6 months. The government now owes L. Igusheva 1000 euros in compensation and 600 euros in court expenses. According to the ruling of the European Court, the money should be paid in full within three months.

***

On the 10th March the head of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Vyacheslav Lebedev, expressed his approval for the increasing frequency with which the European Court of Human Rights is ruling in cases filed by Russian citizens protesting against illegitimate judgments of the Russian Courts. He seemed to think that the very fact that Russian citizens were freely able to appeal to Strasbourg reflects well on the Russian state. He added that such cases, when citizens are forced to turn to the European Court in search of a fair ruling, should not be regarded in a negative light by the Russian justice system.

It is necessary to note that since 1998 the Court in Strasbourg has received more than 28 000 complaints of human rights violations in Russia. This is more than in any other country of the Council of Europe. Most cases involve abuse by the police and corruption of the legal system. Strasbourg has investigated 106 of these cases and pronounced the Russian state guilty on 90 occasions.

Valerii Borschev, Moscow Helsinki Group : the Court typically encourages cases to be investigated not in Strasbourg but by the Russian courts themselves. And in theory this happens quite often. Many cases don’t go to the European Court because the Russian courts immediately correct their own mistakes. There was no reason why we couldn’t resolve the latter case – in Bataisko Rostovskii Region – by ourselves. And the European Court would have seen it as a positive development. But we didn’t resolve it – there were obstacles blocking the legal system. Lebedev speaks of some sort of conflict between the courts and those powers that exert influence over them. This meant that the Court wasn’t able to resolve this case. His statement serves as an indirect protest against the obstacles that hinder justice.