The Law of the Turkmenbashi

Make the status of the Commissioner for Human Rights the subject of manipulations immorally and dangerous

Human rights activists, authors of a well -known appeal to the President of the Russian Federation propose to change the law on the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Russian Federation. Let me briefly speak out about the situation with the elections of the 4th Ombudsman; The situation with which the appeal to Mr. Putin can give, I would say, a scandalous character. I think that my close involvement in the constitutional norm on the Commissioner, and the original version of the law on this service, and its first practical steps in the tragic conditions of war in the North Caucasus do not just give me the right, but even, perhaps, impose the obligation to talk about it.

Human rights activists offer to change the norm on the replacement of a high position right on the eve of the election. Moreover, in favor of a person already holding this position, to whom the current law prohibits again to claim it. The arguments in favor of this proposal discouragingly frank - we want Vladimir Petrovich Lukin to remain an authorized person. So, the law is proposed personally for Lukin. Well, it seems like for Turkmenbashi. It is difficult to imagine something more cynical.
At first glance, the proposed bill does not contain anything wrong. For its first and second term, the Ombudsman is elected by the State Duma by a simple majority. And for the third term, authority can only be granted to him by a qualified majority of two -thirds of the vote. The proposed norm can (and should) would be meticulously and without a hurry to discuss - it is not at all impeccable. But only if it had not concerned the current authorized person, but was intended only to his future successors.

I do not understand what the grads of the human rights council are achieving. Drive the reputation of Vladimir Petrovich? Or a human rights community? And when the Ombudsman, unlike Lukin, will be bad, will we return to the previous norm? Or - why trifle - we will forbid him to run for a second term? The authors of the proposal are by no means newcomers in matters of law. It is impossible to believe that they do not understand such elementary requirements. Well, then this is a political intrigue. We survived. Human rights activists promote the attitude to the law as a breath. To make the status of an authorized manipulation subject is immoral and dangerous.
So far, there are no intelligible explanations on the part of the authors of an appeal to the president. Not to consider such an explanation the shy nonsense published by The New Times that the increase in the term of office of V.P. Lukin in excess of the law established by law will not entail corruption. And here are bribes? Is the change in constitutional officials is needed only to combat corruption?
So, to put it mildly, I do not find the features of my colleagues, mandatory for the publications of the human rights council - impeccable moral feeling and firmly following the principles of law. Ashamed.