Human rights in Russia. January 2006

The review offered to the attention of readers is devoted to the situation with human rights in Russia: the main events and the attitude of the human rights community towards them. The review was prepared by the Demos Center with the support of the OSI - Assistance Foundation.

**LEGISLATION

Law on NGOs**

On January 17, Rossiyskaya Gazeta published the Federal Law "On Non-Governmental and Non-Commercial Organizations". The document, as it turned out, was signed by the president a week before, on January 10. It will enter into force in 3 months, that is, in April of this year.

Literally a day before the publication, at a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed this law, but did not say a word that it had already been signed. At least, after the meeting with the President of the Russian Federation, Merkel spoke about the bill.

Not only that, Putin claimed that the bill had been agreed with the Council of Europe. He stressed 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 approached this issue very seriously, not only got acquainted with the draft law superficially, but also gathered a group of international experts. We received a written opinion from them," Putin recalled.

Later, a week later, when discussing the resolution on Chechnya on January 25, 2006 of this year, PACE unexpectedly switched to the law "On Non-Governmental and Non-Commercial Organizations" (NGOs). The parliamentarians considered that the new law on the status of NGOs in Russia "does not meet the criteria of the Council of Europe." Let us recall that the draft resolution on violations of human rights in Chechnya was considered in the aspect of the responsibility of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to the Assembly. The resolution was drawn up on the basis of a relevant report by Rudolf Bieding, PACE rapporteur on human rights in Chechnya, who is now leaving the assembly, leaving his functions and retiring.

Between the publication of the law and the "verdict" of PACE on this issue, it seems that all interested persons have spoken out. But, first of all, I was surprised by the reaction of the Public Chamber. Leonid Roshal, a member of its Council of Elders, called the adoption of the law a "political mistake". He recalled that the "only request" to the legislators was to refrain from discussing the law on NGOs until the Public Chamber began its full work. "To my great regret, the Duma did not react," said L. Roshal.

The new law was criticized by dignitaries in some European countries and international organizations, including Amnesty International. German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned : "We will monitor its (law's) application very closely so that non-governmental organizations will continue to be able to carry out their activities." US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said: "We have repeatedly brought to the attention of the Russian government our concerns about the law on non-governmental organizations. Now we intend to monitor the implementation of this law and its impact on civil society in Russia."

The executive director of the Movement "For Human Rights" Lev Ponomarev argues that the law is anti-democratic and anti-constitutional, and its signing by the head of Russia shows that the president is ignoring the institution of the Public Chamber.

According to Ponomarev , at first it was "the law on the prohibition of civil society", the law of grossly totalitarian subjugation of public life. Later, the authorities pretended to bring the law in line with democratic and international legal norms. But the Kremlin's goal remained clear - to "hang up" civil organizations and "cut off the oxygen" to the most active.

Lev Ponomarev considers several points to be the grossest violations of human rights contained in the new law:

• Entire categories of citizens are losing their inalienable right to freedom of association. At the same time, the government appropriates wide opportunities for ideological and political control. And, above all, it may actually require foreign partners to deprive any organization of financial support. In addition, it seems to me that such journalism as "national unity", "cultural heritage" and "national interests" (and these concepts are in the law) give officials grounds for monstrous arbitrariness in relation to NGOs under the pretext of inconsistency with Russian identity.

FSB pre-trial detention centers transferred to the Ministry of Justice

On January 1, 2006, the Lefortovo pre-trial detention center was transferred from the FSB to the Ministry of Justice. According to the center of public relations of the Ministry of Justice, this step was taken in connection with the obligations that Russia assumed when joining the Council of Europe. In connection with the reassignment of the insulators, which were under the jurisdiction of the FSB, a number of amendments and changes were made to the current legislation and regulations, the Ministry of Justice noted. The head of this department, Yuri Chaika, said earlier that the decision to transfer the FSB detention centers to the Ministry of Justice was made by the president of the country.

Parties that win local elections will nominate their own governor

Russian President Vladimir Putin signed the federal law "On Amendments to Article 18 of the Federal Law "On the General Principles of Organization of Legislative (Representative) and Executive Bodies of State Power of the Subjects of the Russian Federation" and the Federal Law "On Political Parties".

Now the political party that has received the largest number of deputy mandates in the legislative bodies of the region has the right to initiate consideration by the said body of a proposal to the President of the Russian Federation on the candidacy of the highest official of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation.

This candidacy is subject to mandatory consideration by the legislative body of state power of the subject of the Federation, and if this proposal is supported by a majority of votes from the number of elected deputies, it is sent in the prescribed manner to the President of the Russian Federation.

Thus, it is obvious how much the Kremlin leadership does not trust the system they have created. Even the pro-presidential United Russia, which will win elections by hook or by crook, has no right to appoint its own governor without consulting the president.

**PERSONAL INVIOLABILITY

Residents of Ingushetia are being tortured in the pre-trial detention center of North Ossetia**

The International Helsinki Federation has sent a letter to the Prosecutor of North Ossetia, Alexander Bigulov, expressing concern about the increasing cases of torture and illegal actions against residents of Ingushetia. In particular, we are talking about the illegal detention, torture and fabrication of a criminal case by officers of the Organized Crime Control Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of North Ossetia against four men: Tsechoev Muslim Bagaudinovich, Tsechoev Ruslan Bagaudinovich, Tsechoev Magomed Makhmedgireevich and Khashiev Yusup Umatgireevich.

All four detainees were tortured using an awl, pliers, hacksaws and hammers. Pointing to these objects, the young people were asked: "Well, how to torture you? Choose for yourself." After that, they were severely beaten and tortured for several hours. At the same time, they were shown photographs of some people and demanded to identify them, asked about the militants. At the same time, they were beaten with a hammer on their legs, with a club in the kidneys and tortured with electric shocks. After that, three of them were released the same night, and a criminal case was initiated against Ruslan Tsechoev. From those who were released, they took receipts stating that they had no claims against law enforcement agencies and that no illegal actions were applied against them. They were forced to sign interrogation protocols without prior acquaintance.

The very next day after their release, Muslim and Magomed Tsechoev and Khashiev wrote statements to the prosecutor's office on the fact of illegal detention and physical violence against them. They appealed to the Republican Hospital with a request to record traces of ill-treatment. The doctors, in turn, demanded a referral from the medical examiner's office, which they managed to get with difficulty. A medical examination carried out after that confirmed the facts of torture and beatings. However, the urologist and neuropathologist refused to examine the young people, citing excessive employment.

Relatives of Ruslan Tsechoev hired lawyer Ruslan Evloev, who, after meeting with the client, found out that physical force was used against him during the interrogation, and wrote a complaint against the actions of the investigating authorities.

The head of the IHF, Aaron Rhodes, asks to close the criminal case and release Tsechoev, as well as to investigate the circumstances of the apparently illegal detention of four men and bring to justice those responsible for torturing them.

The Prosecutor's Office of North Ossetia confirmed receipt of Dr. Aaron Rhodes' letter. But investigators consider the facts presented by the human rights activist and the request to close the criminal case to be biased and impracticable.

“We categorically deny cases of torture, because there was no such thing. They (inhabitants of Ingushetia) were examined, as it should be, when they were placed in a pre-trial detention center. There is a corresponding forensic examination document about this. detention, during which the residents of Ingushetia resisted, but this is by no means torture, moreover, with such objects as were indicated: an awl, pliers, etc. No illegal actions, which are stated in the letter of the human rights activist, were committed against these persons , all investigative and operational activities in a criminal case are carried out within the framework of the current legislation," the representative of the investigative group of the Main Directorate of the Prosecutor General's Office in the Southern Federal District emphasized.

** RIGHTS DEFENDERS, AUTHORITIES AND SOCIETY

Spy Scandal**

On Sunday, January 22, the Rossiya TV channel in the Special Correspondent program showed footage of operational footage, as well as a commentary by FSB officers who allegedly prove the fact of intelligence activities of these diplomats against Russia. The interest of the Russian special services was aroused by four British diplomats. Among them - the second secretary of the embassy Mark Doe, who coordinated the activities of the "Global Opportunities Fund" at the British Foreign Office and oversaw the fund's cooperation with Russian non-governmental organizations. The program claimed that Dow had endorsed transfers of grant money to certain NGOs, notably the Moscow Helsinki Group and the Eurasia Foundation. Copies of payment documents signed by Dow were shown on the air, according to which large sums of money (both in cash and by bank transfer) were transferred to a number of NGOs.

Russian FSB spokeswoman Diana Shemyakina said on the air that most NGOs in Russia are created, funded and exist under the patronage of the governments and public organizations of the United States and its NATO allies. FSB operatives showed a number of payment documents indicating the transfer of money to Russian NGOs.

Chairman of the Moscow Helsinki Group Lyudmila Alekseyeva called claims that British intelligence agents were involved in Russia's funding of NGOs a smear campaign against human rights activists. "This transfer, I will put it politely, is done for illiterate and very gullible people," Alekseeva said. According to her, the author of the plot "drew the Moscow Helsinki Group into this espionage plot, and rather cleverly - the material does not directly say that the MHG carried out espionage tasks for Dow." “The author did not say this directly because he understands that I will immediately file for such things and win this court even in Russia, where the court is called not independent, but “basman”.

"The purpose of these broadcasts is this: to prepare public opinion for the defeat of the human rights community, the most active and most independent part of the third sector and civil society in Russia," Alekseeva believes. all by 2007-2008 and beyond".

The document itself, shown on RTR, Alekseeva called fake. “I didn’t know yesterday, I thought maybe there was some kind of document signed by Doe, because it was quite possible in his position,” the human rights activist says. “The Moscow Helsinki Group received two grants from the British Embassy. But I checked: both grants are not signed by Dow, so what they showed is fake."

According to the Agora Association of Human Rights Organizations, in 2005 many human rights organizations were regularly subjected to tax audits, their employees to criminal prosecution and death threats, and human rights websites to hacker attacks.

From September to December 2005, representatives of the association registered 21 reports about the persecution of human rights activists in Russia. The geography of signals is represented by 16 regions. In 11 cases of persecution, the motive for persecuting activists for public activities was confirmed.

Agora believes that the activities of every civil activist in Russia are under close scrutiny by the FSB. Preventive talks are being held with some human rights activists, while others receive proposals for cooperation.

**FREEDOM OF SPEECH

The case of Stanislav Dmitrievsky and the newspaper Pravo-Zashchita**

Court hearings on the so-called "Dmitrievsky case" continued in Nizhny Novgorod. Let us recall that on September 2, 2005, Dmitrievsky was charged under Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - "actions aimed at inciting hatred or enmity, as well as humiliating the dignity of a person or a group of persons on the grounds of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, attitude to religion, as well as belonging to any social group." The article provides for punishment of up to five years in prison.

took place in the Soviet Court On January 18 , the debate of the parties . The public prosecutor insisted that Dmitrievsky was guilty of inciting hatred on racial and national grounds. The prosecutor's office believes that Dmitrievsky is socially dangerous, and his actions are extremist activities aimed at undermining the country's security. Little of. Dmitrievsky demonstrates contempt for the authorities and society, and even uses the court as a platform to promote his views. On these grounds, a lawyer of the 3rd class Maslova considers Dmitrievsky socially dangerous and demands 4 years in prison for him.

A week earlier, on January 11, Vladimir Demidov, prosecutor of the Nizhny Novgorod region, said: "I am sure that Dmitrievsky will be imprisoned, and, as a side supporting the prosecution, we will seek criminal sanctions against him."

was adopted On January 20, at the plenary session of the European Parliament, a resolution , which, among other things, mentions Stanislav Dmitrievsky, whose trial is now taking place in Nizhny Novgorod. The document says: "The European Parliament ... calls for the drop of all charges against Stanislav Dmitrievsky, and also calls on the Russian authorities to respect the freedom of the press and journalists."

Human rights activists consider the charges brought against Dmitrievsky politically motivated and aimed at eliminating the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech. Last fall, Amnesty International issued an open statement in which it expressed its concern about the pressure campaign carried out by various state structures against the RCFS, and announced its intention, if Dmitrievsky is convicted, to recognize him as a prisoner of conscience.

“The prosecution’s speech was striking in its groundlessness and quasi-argumentation,” said Natalia Taubina, director of the Public Verdict Foundation. “From my point of view, the speeches of the defense representatives were an order of magnitude higher, more reasoned, more specific. Lawyer Yuri Sidorov said in his speech that this the process is very similar to the processes of the Soviet period in dissident cases, when a person was tried for expressing his opinion. It is difficult to say what the verdict will be. If this was not a politically motivated trial, Dmitrievsky would have been unequivocally acquitted. But in this process there is a feeling that It's not the judge who decides."

**XENOPHOBIA

Incident in Moscow Synagogue**

On January 11, 2006, 20-year-old Muscovite Alexander Koptsev attacked visitors to the synagogue on Bolshaya Bronnaya Street with a knife, injuring eight parishioners. A witness to the attack, the son of the rabbi of the synagogue, Joseph Kogan, said that the attacker shouted: "Heil, Hitler!", "I'll kill you!" After Koptsev wounded several people, the parishioners managed to twist him, then the guards came to their aid.

The young man's father confirmed the information that his son was not a member of any extremist organization. “I think that if he saw all these Nazis, extremists and skinheads that you are talking about, he only saw them on TV,” Alexander Koptsev Sr. added. However, shortly before the incident, the father saw a book on his son's table. “We actually don’t have any books at home,” he says. “That’s why I asked: what are you reading, son? Sasha replied that the book was about how the Jews sold Russia, but he didn’t want to discuss what he read.”

Human rights activists consider the attack in the synagogue a consequence of the general growth of xenophobia and national intolerance in Russia.

A day after the incident, the state of emergency became the subject of discussion in the State Duma. At the same time, most of the deputies used the tragedy for inter-factional struggle.

The representative of the faction "United Russia", MP Andrey Isaev recalled that the leaders of the factions of the Communist Party and "Motherland" Gennady Zyuganov and Dmitry Rogozin condemned the manifestations of anti-Semitism. However, last year it was the deputies from these two factions who signed the "well-known anti-Semitic letter to the prosecutor's office."

Deputy Yuri Voronin supported his colleague, recalling to Motherland not only the anti-Semitic letter, but also the xenophobic pre-election video.

In response, communist Viktor Kuznetsov proposed to deprive Isaev and Voronin of speech for a month "for insulting statements." The representative of the Liberal Democratic Party, Nikolai Kuryanovich, also intervened in the dispute. He proposed "creating a commission that would consider the facts of illegal actions of migrants against the Russian population of Moscow." True, his speech was softened by another deputy from the Liberal Democratic Party - Alexei Mitrofanov, who supported Isaev against Rodina and the Communist Party.

Pavel Krasheninnikov, head of the Committee on Legislation, said that he had already prepared a package of amendments to the law "On Counteracting Extremist Activity", which proposed toughening liability for various manifestations of extremist activity. He was joined by the head of the Committee for Public Associations and Religious Organizations Sergei Popov: "We propose to legislatively strengthen the responsibility of individuals for extremist activity."

While the deputies were arguing, in Rostov-on-Don, a former student of the Rostov State Medical University, 18-year-old Vadim Domnitsky, drunk, came with a broken bottle to the synagogue, where he began to shout insulting phrases at the Jews. In particular, he threatened to kill the people in the room if the rabbi did not come to him. The guards pressed the "panic button". The police arrived at the scene and arrested the hooligan. He explained his behavior by the fact that "he drank for days, watched TV with news from Moscow, where they showed a criminal who attacked synagogue visitors, and decided to avenge his failed life."

Expert of the SOVA Center Galina Kozhevnikova: Undoubtedly, this is the main incident in January. If only because it is the first precedent of its kind. This is natural, if we remember that 2005 was a time of noticeable intensification of anti-Semitic propaganda. I'm surprised the mentally unstable people haven't done this before. Unfortunately, only an incident of this magnitude forced the authorities to react. To double regret, the reaction turned out to be inadequate - instead of real actions, we got another "advertising campaign". As for the incident in Rostov, I am glad and surprised that only one imitator (even such an unsuccessful one) was found. I was afraid that there would be more of them.

**EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Alexey Mikheev v. Russia**

On January 26, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in Mikheev v. Russia. The court recognized the fact of Mikheev's torture and the lack of an effective investigation. Mikheev was awarded compensation in the amount of 250 thousand euros.

Let us briefly recall the essence of the matter. In the fall of 1998, Alexei Mikheev, together with a friend, met in the city of Bogorodsk, Nizhny Novgorod Region, two girls - Savelyeva and Krylova. At the request of Savelyeva, Mikheev took her to Nizhny Novgorod, where they parted.

Later, Savelyeva's mother turned to the police with a statement about the disappearance of her daughter. Mikheev and Frolov were detained. During interrogations, police officers used various forms of torture against Frolov. Unable to withstand the bullying, he slandered himself and Mikheev, admitting that they had raped and then killed Saveliev.

Alexei Mikheev denied his guilt during interrogations. He was subjected to electric shock torture. Unable to bear the humiliation, Mikheev, handcuffed, threw himself out of a window on the third floor, breaking the glass with his head. As a result of the fall, he received a severe compression fracture of the spine with crushing of the spinal cord. A few days later, the "killed" Maria Savelyeva returned home.

The judge sentenced the police major, head of the department of the Leninsky district police department, detective Igor Somov, and the former police major, detective of the Leninsky district police department, Nikolai Kosterin, to 4 years in prison each. Currently, Mikheev is paralyzed from the waist down and needs constant care.

Mikheev's case in Russia and Strasbourg was handled by lawyers from the Nizhny Novgorod Committee Against Torture (CPT). It lasted 7 years. During this time, various bodies of the prosecutor's office issued decisions to refuse to initiate a criminal case - three times, to suspend a criminal case - three more times, to terminate a criminal case - 20 times. The fact that the case of torture was not properly investigated allowed the CPT to prepare a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights.

According to the European Convention, in order to apply to the Strasbourg Court, a citizen must have exhausted all effective remedies in the country. In November 2001, Aleksey Mikheev's complaint was registered with the secretariat of the Court, and a little later the Court ruled that it was accepting the case for proceedings.

Maxim Prytkov, head of the press service of the CPT: Of course, we are also satisfied that the European Court found violations of Articles 3 and 13, and compensation. However, we do not consider this a victory. The Committee tried to do everything to resolve this situation at the level of national justice. That did not happen. As a result, the Russian Federation was the loser. And we are not fighting with our country, we are fighting against violations that are allowed by representatives of its power structures. It is no secret that violence in various forms is characteristic not only of Russian law enforcement agencies. But it is in Russia that those who should do not react to these facts. So the blame for this defeat of our country in Strasbourg lies with the prosecutor's office and personally with the prosecutor of the Nizhny Novgorod region, Mr. Demidov

"The Anoshin case" in the European Court

Two weeks before Mikheev's victory in Strasbourg, on January 13, 2006, the European Court of Human Rights for proceedings . accepted the complaint in the Anoshin Case

Recall that Alexander Anoshin died in the premises of the medical detoxification center of the Sovetsky District Department of Internal Affairs in Nizhny Novgorod on July 25, 2002. An analysis of the materials of the public investigation case and the criminal case gives every reason to believe that Anoshin's death was the result of unlawful actions of police officers. However, the prosecutor's office has not yet identified the perpetrators of this crime.

The lawyers of the CPT came to the conclusion that the actions of the representatives of the state show signs of a violation of the "Right to Life" (Article 2 of the ECHR). In the actions (or rather inaction) of the prosecutor's office, a violation of Art. 13 ECHR - "Everyone whose rights and freedoms <...> have been violated shall have the right to an effective remedy before a public authority, even if the violation was committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

It is possible that the start of the work of the European Court on the "Anoshin case" will finally force the Prosecutor's Office of the Nizhny Novgorod Region to follow the norms of the law in terms of conducting an effective investigation.