| eng.kavkaz.memo.ru
Caucasian Knot 26/5/2004
Antiwar campaign continues in Ryazan
An action to protest against the war in Chechnya was carried out in Ryazan on May 24. It was arranged within the framework of the antiwar campaign "How Many?" waged by efforts of the Ryazan Human Rights Coalition, which includes the Ryazan human rights society Memorial, the Ryazan Committee of Soldier's Mothers, the Ryazan Human Rights School, and the Sasovo human rights center Choice of Conscience. From 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., full-length black-and-white pictures of ordinary people were on Pobedy Square. One man was missing in each picture. There were only black silhouettes instead of these people. They were those who went to war and did not retuned or people whose destiny is unknown. Dumb questions were in the air. How much does one human life cost? How many people are there who went away and never came back? How long will it last?
The campaign in Ryazan is unexampled. People who came to the square could address these questions to the President by signing a letter of inquiry prepared by lawyers of the Ryazan Memorial society and the Committee of Soldier's Mothers. In conformity with the Russian legislation, state agencies are to respond to every citizen's letter of inquiry in the time set by the law, regardless of the number of these letters. 124 letters were signed during the May 24 action. As of now, altogether over 300 letters have been collected. They all are sent to the presidential administration. The newspaper How Many will be an information basis for the coverage of the campaign and its results, said head of the Coalition's information service Konstantin Smirnov. Approximately 3,000 copies of this newspaper were distributed on May 24. It will be published until the end of the campaign. Author: Ksenia Ladygina Source: Our own correspondent
NGOs Warned They May Be Next By Francesca Mereu Staff Writer President Vladimir Putin issued a grim warning to nongovernmental organizations, accusing them of serving the interests of "dubious group and commercial interests" rather than those of the people. NGOs expressed fear that Putin, after seeing critical television stations closed and opposition-minded parties forced out of the State Duma in his first term, intends to use his second term to go after NGOs. They said Putin's remarks, made in the 15 minutes of Putin's state of the nation address devoted to democracy Wednesday, are a warning to NGOs to refrain from opposing the Kremlin and a signal to law enforcement to crack down on them.
While Putin did not name any NGOs, he made a clear reference to organizations like Open Russia, financed by jailed Yukos founder Mikhail Khodorkovsky, which the Kremlin complains criticizes its policy toward Yukos but turns a blind eye to government claims the company doesn't pay its taxes. "A different objective has been a priority for some of those organizations, namely, getting financing from influential foreign and domestic foundations, while others serve dubious group and commercial interests," Putin said. "But acute problems existing in the country and faced by its citizens go unnoticed. "Thousands of civil associations and unions have existed and work constructively in this country, but far from all of them are targeted at defending the real interests of the people," he said. The president said the voices of some human rights groups are often "unheard" when it comes to the violations of fundamental human rights and "infringements upon the real interests of the people." "Actually, there is nothing strange about that. They cannot bite the hand that feeds them," Putin said. Putin's comments represent a "worrisome trend or line that the Russian government is pursuing," said Anna Neistat, Moscow director for Human Rights Watch.
They could be interpreted as "a call for action" by law enforcement agencies or an order "maybe for tax inspectors to look closely at what is going on in NGOs," she said. Putin is warning NGOs not to play an opposition role to the government and is trying "to undermine the work of NGOs in the eyes of ordinary Russians," Neistat said.
Vladimir Ryzhkov, one of the few liberal deputies left in the Duma, said Putin's criticism raises red flags. "That sounded like a veiled threat," he told reporters.
Sergei Mitrokhin, a co-leader of the liberal Yabloko party, said Putin gave "a clear command" to crack down on NGOs. "This is an alarming signal. He gave an example of how to build a militarized civil society," he said. NGOs have accused Putin's administration in the past year of stifling media freedom, in particular limiting access to state-run television to opposition candidates during December's Duma elections and March's presidential vote. They harshly criticized the Kremlin earlier this year when a bill to ban most public demonstrations surfaced in the Duma.
Many NGOs have expressed concern that Putin's Russia is becoming increasingly undemocratic and say Khodorkovsky's detention is unfair and an example of selective prosecution. "What disturbs Putin the most is that all NGOs are on Khodorkovsky's side and against the Kremlin. In the eyes of the president, this means that they are corrupt, unpatriotic and antigovernment," said Alexei Makarkin, analyst with the Center for Political Technologies. But Putin stressed in his speech that his criticism did not apply to all civil groups. "Naturally, those examples do not give us cause to make accusations against all civil organizations, and I think that while the problems are inevitable, they are temporary," he said. Putin also urged political parties to "closely" cooperate with NGOs. "Close contacts with the people, with society, can help improve the quality of popular representation at all levels," he said. Putin also made cutting remarks about the West and its criticism of his presidency and his policy over Chechnya. He said some countries are trying to damage Russia's reputation by saying it is advancing toward authoritarianism.
"Far from everyone in the world wants to see an independent, strong and confident Russia. On the competitive global stage, all kinds of political, economic and informational pressure have been used. The strengthening of our statehood has intentionally been interpreted as authoritarianism," he said. Putin said he will not review any of his policies because the "adherence to democratic values has been dictated by the will of the people and strategic interests of the Russian Federation."
Chechen prosecutor rejects data on abductions.
Chechen Prosecutor Vladimir Ustinov complained on 25 May that media, political activists, and unnamed "incompetent people" routinely exaggerate the incidence of abductions and murders in Chechnya, Interfax reported. Specifically, Ustinov claimed that only 51 people have been abducted in Chechnya so far this year, which he said is one-fourth the figure for the corresponding period in 2003. Interfax, however, cited Chechen Interior Ministry data according to which 109 people were kidnapped during the first three months of 2004, of whom 41 are still missing. Dmitrii Grushkin of the Russian human rights group Memorial told Interfax on 21 May that 173 people have been abducted in Chechnya this year, of whom 89 were later released, 13 were found dead, and 71 are still unaccounted for. LF
Over two dozen arrested in special operation in Chernorechye
Ruslan Isayev, North Caucasus - Twenty-seven people were arrested Tuesday during a day-long Russian special operation in the village of Chernorechye on the outskirts of Grozny. Along the shore of a local dam, a group of armored vehicles were placed in a circle and all the detainees were made to stand in the middle of this barricade. None of their relatives were allowed to make any contact with them. As usual, the arrests were accompanied by human rights violations, e.g. doors smashed down, and severe beatings that resulted in a few broken ribs. And although none of the captives were charged with anything, their fate remains unknown.
However, two young people were released after being thoroughly interrogated. The alleged reason for this large-scale mopping up operation was that four Russian policemen’s dead bodies were discovered Monday night on the outskirts of Chernorechye.
Rights activists respond to president's statement
The Russian Movement for Human Rights has issued a statement in connection with the assessment of the activity of nonpolitical non-governmental organizations (NGOs) made by the president of the Russian Federation. It is noted in the statement that the president's words are directed against the human rights organizations first of all: "Only human rights and ecological NGOs in Russia can count on serious support from foreign foundations since Russian businessmen barely support activity aimed at human rights protection and conservancy. Everyone knows the destiny of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who launched a large program to support public associations through the Open Russia foundation. The fact that the getting of official grants by human rights and ecological organizations is equated to the maintenance of "dubious interests" gives away the way of thinking typical for the State Security Committee (KGB) when any connection with the West is taken as something illegal." The Movement for Human Rights calls attention to the fact that "in his speech, President Vladimir Putin repeated the insult against human rights activists hurled by General Valery Krayev three weeks ago. It is clear that the president's attack is not accidental. It can be connected with sharp criticism on the part of human rights activists concerning the violence in Chechnya, political persecution, wide use torture and abuse in the law enforcement and penitentiary systems, with protests against violations of the law in the Yukos case, and in the cases of Igor Sutyagin and Mikhail Trepashkin." The Movement for Human Rights says with confidence that after this speech delivered by the president "Russian human rights activists will much more vigorously and persistently fulfill "the president's wish" to concentrate on the most acute human rights problems in our country." Source: Social Information Agency
Trumped-up case press conference Organized by the Russian nationwide Movement for Human Rights, a press conference titled "Mikhail Trepashkin: a sentence with special cynicism" was held at the Independent press center in Moscow, Russia, on Monday, May 24. Mikhail Trepashkin, a former Federal Security Service (FSB) officer who is now a lawyer, was on May 19 sentenced to 4.6 years in a settlement. The time is counted from December 1, 2003, i.e. from the moment he was taken into custody. The case was heard by the Moscow district military court. Two actions were brought against Trepashkin: one on a charge of divulgence of a state secret and illegal storage of ammunition and another on a charge of illegal storage of arms (which is yet to be heard). In both cases, the charges were trumped up. The real aim was to suspend Mikhail Trepashkin from participation in the case of explosions on Gurianov St. in 1999 in which he acted as a lawyer on behalf of the victims. Amnesty International recognized Trepashkin as a political prisoner. The following people came to the Independent press center to meet the press: lawyers Elena Liptser, Valerii Glushenkov and Nikolai Gorokhov, Mikhail Trepashkin's wife Tatiana and Lev Ponomariov, chief executive of the Russian nationwide public movement For Human Rights. The press conference did not draw considerable attention from the media, so it was more like a private conversation. The interlocutors commented on the process and the sentence and said what steps they were going to take next. Lev Ponomariov: It was not by chance that Mikhail Trepashkin got behind bars. He challenged the system of authoritarian rule and the police regime established in Russia. He is a dissident inside the FSB. He cooperated with the public commission on the explosions chaired by Sergei Kovaliov and Sergei Yushenkov. And he found evidence that the FSB might have been involved in those explosions. As a lawyer, he began to express these ideas at the process, which cost him freedom. By the way, already behind bars, he dared to write a letter to the Prosecutor General's Office in which he demanded that legal action should be taken against Patrushev. Meanwhile, people are afraid to bring such charges even when they are not in prison. Everything Trepashkin is charged with is the security service's revenge and its wish to get a person threatening the system out of the way. Question: What can you say about the sentence?
Elena Liptser: I think the sentence very cynical. By ruling that Mikhail Ivanovich Trepashkin must serve his time in a settlement, the court admitted that he is not dangerous to society. However, they thought impossible to give him a suspended sentence, although the court had every reason to do so. In my entire practice I have never seen a real sentence given for storing cartridges to a person who goes on trial for the first time, has registration in Moscow, a family and positive references. Two out of the four years and a half of his time were given to Mikhail Ivanovich for storing cartridges. I can only explain this with fear that the other case which has presently been sent for trial will collapse. Question: What was Mikhail Trepashkin's reaction to the outcome of the trial? Valerii Glushenkov: Most likely, he had expected something of the kind. We know that he had had a talk with an investigation officer at the detention center awhile before the sentence was pronounced. The officer had told him frankly that appealing would be in vain, because everything had been decided by that time: four years in a settlement. In my opinion, this is a direct indication that the case was tailored. By the way, we are going to appeal against the sentence pronounced by the Moscow district court in a day or two and we will also appeal to the Supreme Court's military panel. We will appeal against it both under Article 222 (illegal storage, carrying and transportation of firearms and ammunition) and Article 283 (divulgence of a state secret). Question: To the best of my knowledge, you have addressed the European Court of Human Rights. How did it get on there? Elena Liptser: Yes, we addressed the European Court on November 19, 2003, with a complaint about some articles of the European Convention violated, in particular the article about the right to security of person. There were a lot of violations, actually. Firstly, the Criminal-Procedural Code was violated when Mikhail Ivanovich was taken into custody, because there is a special procedure to take legal action against a lawyer. Secondly, he was kept in inhuman conditions in the Matrosskaia Tishina prison. It went as far as simply preventing him from having enough sleep and taking a shower during a month. Thirdly, the very measure of restraint in the form of detention was assigned round the legal procedure. By the way, I believe Mikhail Ivanovich continues to be illegally kept in custody. So I wrote about all this in the European Court of Human Rights. I also lodged a complaint with the European Committee against Torture about the awful conditions under which convicts are convoyed. The committee is now preparing to file an address to Russia concerning that matter. Meanwhile, the European Court will hear Trepashkin's case as a priority. This is the first time such a decision is made with regard to Russian cases.
Question: What are the criteria for the court to hear a case as a priority and what advantages does that give? Lev Ponomariov: As a matter of fact, such decisions are made only in rare cases and this requires some special reasons. I believe the crucial point here was that the case was artificial and violated not only Russian legislation but also the Convention on Human Rights. First and foremost this goes for the detention conditions which I cannot describe in a way other than degrading. After all, we know that Mikhail Trepashkin was deliberately put into a foul, unfit room sized two square meters. Elena Liptser: First, this saves a lot of time. Inquiries have been made presently to the Russian government, and there are responses to them already, a so-called memorandum of the Russian Federation that has been submitted to the European Court and then forwarded for Mikhail Ivanovich and me to draw up objections. We must submit them until June 9, and our complaint will then be appointed for consideration. Question: What are your forecasts concerning the outcome of the second case? Valerii Glushenkov: Well, basically, we can count on a positive outcome. Aside from anything else, we have one very important trump card. The matter is the following became known about the origin of the gun planted on Trepashkin. A federal service man had lost it in Grozny, Chechnya, after which Mikhail Ivanovich came to possess it, according to the official version. However, we have evidence that the gun had not been lost, but seized by special services. And we will insist on interrogating the former owner of the gun, maybe even by Grozny's judiciary. The case can only be closed when this whole story is cleared up. There can be various assumptions. Nothing can be said accurately as yet. However, I will not be surprised if it didn't get by without the "assistance" of FSB officer Shebalin here who had a lot of reasons to get even with Trepashkin. Shebalin is known to have visited Chechnya many times, so he could offer his services himself. Author: Ksenia Ladygina Source: Our own correspondent.
|