Tips to Europe

Status Russian human rights activists recommend that Europeans not rush with the expulsion of Russia from the Council of Europe, and Russia - not to clap the door. Recently, they released a memorandum entitled "The Way to Overcome the Crisis in Relations between the Council of Europe and Russia." About 70 people signed under the memorandum, and the collection of signatures continues.

The current crisis in relations between Russia and CE began in 2014, after the annexation of Crimea. Then the Council of Europe deprived Russia of the right to vote, forbade the Russians to occupy senior positions in the parliamentary assembly and participate in the missions of PACE observers. Since then, Russia has been conducting an illusory lifestyle in the European Council: its authority does not confirm, has not been involved in meetings, and since last year has not been paid. In the project of the State Budget of Russia for next year, such expenses are also not planned . Finally, this is tired of this, and the Secretary General of the Sebjurn Jagund threatened Russia with the suspension of membership in the organization since June 2019. Russia promised to decide on its decision until January 2019. That is, a few days remained.

Human rights activists who signed the memorandum, a significant part of which receives grants for their activities from the Russian government, formally recognize the inconsistency of Russian politics to the values ​​of the Council of Europe. And how not to admit the obvious! But they are categorically against the release of Russia from Ce, no matter how it is furnished. It seems to them that "a lot is put on the card." They draw pictures of terrible repressions that are waiting for us immediately after Russia's exit from CE. The fact that such repressions have long been practiced, and the Council of Europe is not able to interfere with this, they ignore. The fact that Russia, after its entry into CE waged wars in Chechnya, Georgia, in the east of Ukraine and annexed Crimea, but could not stop it, is not taken into account. Despite the many decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, in Russia there are no less torture, abductions, extrajudicial executions and non -legal sentences. The maximum that the Strasbourg court can do is to appoint the victims of lawlessness compensation from the Russian state, which does not affect the further practice of political repression.

It should be understood that an insignificant percentage of cases of violations of human rights in Russia reaches the European Court. Meanwhile, such cases are no exceptions from the rule, not an excess of the contractor, but a well -functioning and uninterruptedly working system. The government is ready to pay compensation for the decisions of the Strasbourg Court, but it is not ready to draw conclusions from these decisions and sufficiently adjust the legislation and its policy. Moreover, the Kremlin clearly demonstrates a disregard for European values, preserving, for example, the death penalty in the Criminal Code or making an anti -constitutional decision on the permissibility of the priority of national legislation over international.

The authors of the Memorandum write: "If Russia had not been a member of the Council of Europe since 1998 (in fact from 1996 - A.P. ), the situation with human rights in the country would be much worse." An alternative story is a fertile field for political speculation. But the question is: if the impact of the Council of Europe on Russia is so beneficial, then why is the situation with human rights in our country in the past 20 years only worsen? The answer is obvious: the opinion of the Council of Europe is for the Kremlin in tenth place, so there can be no tool for restraining repression.

But what about status human rights activists? Why are they so holding on to the Council of Europe, in which for Russia there was nothing more than a democratic screen, creating the illusion of its European choice worldwide? I believe that the point here is in their status and current work. Their status in most cases is associated with the Kremlin money and depends on the relationship of state bodies to them. Their work is largely related to the activities of the Council of Europe, in particular, the European Court of Human Rights. There is no dispute, they use the mechanism of international European justice for the benefit of the innocent victims of the current Russian regime, although most often this good is expressed simply by a monetary equivalent. This, of course, is not bad, but it does not solve general problems. The state pays off from one case out of a thousand and continues to bend its line. There is a certain mutually beneficial balance between human rights activists and the authorities, in which everyone is busy with their work and are interested in maintaining the status quo.

The authors of the Memorandum do not forget to bow in all directions. “We are convinced that the situation has come to a dead end, not only because of the uncompromising position of the Russian authorities, but also because of the imprudent actions of some representatives of the Council of Europe and its member states,” they write. As a result, according to them, "not the Russian government, but the Russian people will suffer." They call for a “reasonable compromise”, which should not be considered the “peace of the aggressor”.

And what else should this be considered?

The human rights center "Memorial" refused to join the memorandum. He believes that it is necessary to apply with calls and exhortations not to the Council of Europe, but to the Russian leadership. "We consider it inappropriate - at least from the part of Russian human rights defenders - to recommend that the Council of Europe be on unilateral concessions in the complete absence of changes in the position of Russia," the statement of the human rights center said. The Memorial quite rightly notes that the "peace of the malicious violator of international law" will have destructive consequences for international human rights mechanisms.