| Wednesday, January 18, 2006. Issue 3333.
Page 3. Prosecutors: 2 Foreign NGOs Banned By Carl Schreck Staff Writer The Prosecutor General's Office has announced that two foreign NGOs providing humanitarian assistance to refugees in the North Caucasus have been banned from operating in Ingushetia, though judges from the republic's Supreme Court said Tuesday that only one had been shut down. A statement posted on the web site of the Ingush regional prosecutor's office on Jan. 10 said a British organization -- the Center for Peacekeeping and Community Development, or CPCD -- and a German organization, HELP/Hilfe zur Selbsthilfe, had been banned from working in Ingushetia after the republic's Supreme Court ruled that they were operating without proper authorization. The announcement came on the same day that President Vladimir Putin signed a bill imposing new restrictions on nongovernmental organizations. (See story, Page 1) The report attracted attention after it was posted on the Prosecutor General's Office's web site on Monday. Ingush Supreme Court Judge Khamzad Tsurov said by telephone from Nazran on Tuesday that he had ordered CPCD's Nazran branch to be shut down in December after it failed to renew its permit to operate in the republic, which expired in May. "The organization is accredited in Moscow, but it should have applied to have its accreditation for the Nazran branch three months before it expired," Tsurov said. Marina Baisangurova, director of CPCD's Moscow office, said the organization had been planning to shut down the Nazran branch anyway, due to sudden difficulties in renewing its accreditation, and had been putting its workers under the auspices of a CPCD-connected foundation registered as a Russian rather than a foreign entity. Meanwhile, another Ingush Supreme Court judge, Maria Korikova, said the announcement that HELP had been banned from working in Ingushetia was false and that regional prosecutors had dropped their investigation of the German NGO in November after it was established that its accreditation was valid. Ulrike Fromm, project coordinator for HELP's Nazran branch, said she was surprised by the report, as the organization's accreditation was valid through 2007 and it was continuing its work in the republic. "We certainly have no information" about a ban, Fromm said. The prosecutor's office announcement said one more NGO, the U.S.-based International Medical Corps, was under investigation. Korikova said she had no information about that investigation. A message left at IMC's London branch requesting comment went unreturned on Tuesday. BBC WORLD, Last Updated: Tuesday, 17 January 2006, 14:09 GMT Foreign NGOs banned near Chechnya A Russian court has ordered two foreign non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to stop working in Ingushetia, where they were helping Chechen refugees. The Ingush supreme court argued that the UK charity and a German humanitarian group called Help did not have the necessary authorisation. The Russian parliament recently passed a law tightening controls on NGOs. The UK charity concerned was named as the Centre for Peacemaking and Community Development (CPCD). An inquiry into another NGO, the US-based International Medical Corps, is continuing. The UK charity has been supporting schools attended by about 1,000 Chechen refugee children and has been helping to distribute UN humanitarian aid. Ingushetia borders on Chechnya, which has been devastated by years of war between Russian forces and separatist rebels. Human rights groups and Western politicians have criticised the new Russian law, which gives the state powers to oversee NGO funding and activities. It sets out stricter registration procedures for foreign and domestic NGOs and gives the state the power to close them down. The Russian authorities say the legislation is needed to prevent foreign governments and organisations from using NGOs to undermine Russia's security. "Amnesty" the magazine of Amnesty International - issue 135 January/February 2006 RUSSIAN FEDERATION: CHECHNYA Brothers "disappear" On 2 October 2000 Aiubkhan Magomadov was detained by Russian federal forces; he has not been seen since. His family searched for him throughout the Russian Federation, and eventually lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights in 2001. In autumn 2003 his brother, Yakub Magomadov, visited a prison in Russia's Rostov region after hearing that his brother might be there. As he left, he was pushed into a car by men in uniform who took his money, beat him and warned him that he would "disappear" if he continued to look for his brother. Yakub Magomadov told Amnesty International about this incident in March 2004. The next month, he left Chechnya for Moscow. His family never saw him again. On 16 May a member of the Chechen president's security guard told the family that Yakub Magomadov was held at the Russian federal forces headquarters in Khankala, Chechnya, and gave them a note written by Yakub and a copy of his passport photograph. The Russian authorities, however, deny detaining him. In September 2005 AI heard that Yakub Magomadov had been seen alive in August 2005 in detention at Khankala. Please write, calling on the authorities to fully investigate the "disappearance" of Yakub and Aiubkhan Magomadov. Call for their whereabouts to be made known, for them to be released or charged with a recognisably criminal offence and given access to their family and a lawyer of their choice. Urge the authorities to protect those who lodge a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights from harassment and further violations. Send appeals to: Procurator General Vladimir Ustinov General Procuracy of the Russian Federation Ul. B. Dimitrovka 15a 103793 Moskva K-31 Russian Federation Mr Yury Viktorovich Embassy of the Russian Federation 13 Kensington Palace Gardens London W8 4QX Fax: (020) 7727 8625 Open Letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Mr. S.V. Lavrov on Recent Amendments to Federal Laws of the Russian Federation Regarding Non-profit Organizations and Public Associations. Moscow, 26 December 2005 Dear Sergey Viktorovich! On 25 December 2005, in your interview in the âNews of the Weekâ program of Rossiya TV-Channel, when asked whether the issue of new amendments of the national legislation on the nongovernmental organizations affected relations between Russia and the West, you replied by saying that in this case you saw no cause for concern. You emphasized that âWhen this bill appeared in the State Duma, the Ministry of Justice on behalf the Russian Government sent it immediately to the Council of Europe where it passed an expertise. Briefly about the main point of this expertise. This main point is that this bill in its original form, I emphasize that, does not contradict the guiding principles the European Union on the status of nongovernmental organization elaborated by the European Union a couple of years ago. Nevertheless, as a result of some criticism from several deputies of the State Duma, from members of the Public chamber, and from abroad, the President tabled a proposal to change some positions of this bill, which were subsequently considered in the second reading of the draft law. Our lawyers of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirm, that our approach to the organization of activities of NGOs in Russia does not differ from those norms which are applied elsewhere, including in Western countries.â(1) Unfortunately, from our point of view, your comment serves to deluding the wide public domestically and internationally. The expertise of the Council of Europe, which you refer to, did not affirm the compliance of the said bill to the relevant European standards, and criticized numerous positions of the bill. The expertise specified for example, that âthe European Court of Human Rights has on numerous occasions affirmed âthe direct relationship between democracy, pluralism and the freedom of associationâ, thus justifying the limited margin of appreciation enjoyed by states and its rigorous supervision of all restrictions placed on this freeedom.â(2) Furthermore, the expertise underlined that the âregistration procedure of non-profit organisationsâ in the Russian Federation stipulated by the bill was âextensively regulatedâ.(3) Moreover, in the expertsâ opinion, âthe draft law seeks to establish a more cumbersome registration procedure than presently existsâ.(4) Sergey Viktorovich, in the interview to the âNews of the Weekâ program you specified inter alia that as a result of President Putinâs reaction to criticism from some State Duma deputies and the Public Chamber the bill has been substantially corrected. We underline that the changes made to the bill still have not reflected many essential recommendations of the Council of Europe. Our special concern relates to the fact that the third and last reading of the bill, which then was forwarded to the Council of the Russian Federation for their consideration, still stipulates direct and rigid interventions of the Federal Registration Service into the activity of international and foreign NGOs, that are not stipulated by clear legal provisions, the creation of a burdensome system of control, supervision and reporting, and also the inclusion of unreasonable criteria and reasons for the refusal of registration or the liquidation of noncommercial public organizations. We underline, that the given bill, in a lot of its positions, continues to contradict relevant international norms (including the European Convention for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and a number of laws of the Russian Federation. We are grateful for your time and effort and hope that you take our position into consideration. Yours truly, O. Orlov â Human Rights Center âMemorialâ T.Lokshina â Demos Center L.Alekseeva â Moscow Helsinki Group N.Taubina â âPublic Verdictâ Foundation E. Topoleva â Center for Civil Society International (ASI) V.Gefter â Human Rights Institute S.Gannushkina. â Human Rights Center âMemorialâ, Committee âCivil Assistanceâ Y.Djibladze â Center for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights Footnotes: (1) - http://vesti7.ru/news?id=7703 (2) - Para 5, âProvisional opinion on amendments to federal laws of the Russian Federation regarding non-profit organizations and public associations,â Strasbourg, 1 December 2005, PCRED/DGI/EXP(2005) 63. See: http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/Press/News/2005/20051206_opinion.asp (3) - Para 11. (4) - Para 16. *********************************************** Source: http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/Press/News/2005/20051206_opinion.asp Strasbourg, 1 December 2005 PCRED/DGI/EXP(2005) 63 Provisional opinion on amendments to federal laws of the Russian Federation regarding non-profit organisations and public associations by J. Tymen van der Ploeg, Professor of Private Law Faculty of Law, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam - The Netherlands in co-operation with the Secretariat General of the Council of Europe (DGI â DGII) I. Introduction 1. These comments are based on the English translation of the Russian original text which the Council of Europe translation services have prepared at very short notice. The expert is grateful for some linguistic clarifications given by the Russian experts and indeed for the explanations they have given him about certain aspects of the draft law. 2. These comments were prepared within a very short time and the expert wishes to underline that it has not been possible for him to assess to the full each and every implication of the draft law. 3. The purpose of the draft law is to contribute to the prevention of terrorist activities, in particular by ensuring that NGOs are not created or abused to facilitate the planning, organisation or financing of terrorist activities. 4. It would be important to specify this legitimate aim in the preamble of the draft law as it will give significant guidance to the authorities involved in its implementation. II. Freedom of association (Article 11 of the ECHR) 5. Freedom of association is of fundamental importance for a democratic society. The European Court of Human Rights has on numerous occasions affirmed âthe direct relationship between democracy, pluralism and the freedom of associationâ, thus justifying the limited margin of appreciation enjoyed by states and its rigorous supervision of all restrictions placed on this freedom.(FN1)1 The exceptions set out in Article 11 § 2 are to be strictly construed. Article 11 § 2 requires that any restrictions on freedom of association must be âprescribed by lawâ, meaning inter alia that they must have a legal basis that is sufficiently precise to avoid abuse. In addition, restrictions must serve one or more of the legitimate aims listed, and be ânecessary in a democratic societyâ. This latter requirement means that a restriction must not go beyond what is necessary and proportionate to achieve the legitimate aim pursued. Only convincing and compelling reasons can justify restrictions on freedom of association. In brief: the freedom to form and join associations must be the rule, restrictions on that freedom the exception. 6. A registration requirement is not inherently objectionable in terms of the freedom of association guaranteed under Article 11 of the ECHR. The legal criteria for any decision must be entirely compatible with this freedom. It is for the competent authorities to ensure that the process is not used in such a way as to prevent legitimate activities from being pursued by those belonging to the body concerned. 7. The following comments are made against this general background. III. General findings 8. It seems appropriate to make some general remarks on the law from the perspective of the standards of the Council of Europe, especially as regards human rights. i It can be concluded that the Russian Federation has the right to regulate its legislation as regards the issues of the creation and the functioning of NGOs on its territory. This should of course be carried out within the limits given in the ECHR. ii. The general concept of the law seems to be to give competences to the federal authorities to gain more control on NPOs/NGOs than at present. The purpose of combating money laundering and terrorism is undoubtedly a legitimate aim within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the ECHR. However, that provision places additional requirements on any restriction of freedom of association. Some regulations could be considered to be disproportionate and too restrictive towards bona fide organisations. See paragraphs 15 and 16. iii. In general, the registration of NPOs/NGOs is in conformity with European standards. Some of the proposed requirements for registration of NPOs/NGOs as legal persons raise concerns. See paragraphs 11 to 25 for more details. iv. As such a system of supervision regarding the activities of NPOs/NGOs is appropriate, including matters of its financing. However, the powers of the supervisory authorities appear to be too extensive. According to European standards, the supervisory powers should explicitly be restricted to balance sheets and annual reports. Only in case of serious doubt as to the legality of the activities of the NPO/NGO can access to these documents be given to the competent authority in conformity with criminal procedure. Some of the proposed grounds for dissolution (âliquidationâ) of NPOs/NGOs raise concerns. See paragraphs 26 to 45 for more details. v. The fact that NGOs/NPOs can find legal protection by appealing to court if decisions concerning them are taken by the competent authorities is in line with European standards. Hereafter the comments on this law are elaborated upon. IV. Preliminary observation 9. The law amends three laws, the Federal Law no. 7 (12 January 1996) on Nonprofit Organizations, the Federal law nr. 82 (19 May 1995) on Public Associations and the Law on closed administrative-territorial units (14 July 1992). 10. It is confusing that the first two laws regulate both non-governmental and non-profit organisations as no clear distinction is made between the respective scopes of both laws. It seems that some type of organisations (social organisations, and maybe funds and institutions) are covered by both laws. This is not new, but nevertheless causes uncertainty for establishers of non-profit /non-governmental organisations. V. Article 1. Amendments of the Law on nonprofit organisations. 11. (1) In the proposed art.13.1. a registration procedure for non-profit organisations is extensively regulated. 12. The relationship between the definition of a non-profit organisation (hereafter NPO) in art. 2 of the existing law, the rule in art. 3 of the existing law about receiving legal personality after registration and art. 13.1 in the draft law is not clear, at least not in the English translation, as art. 13.1 paragraph 1 reads: âA non-profit organisation shall be subject to state registration etc.â. 13. Should art. 13.1 be read in combination with art. 3, it is not a problem as such. Art. 13.1 par. 1 could however then better be formulated in the following manner: âThe registration of a non-profit organisation shall be in accordance with etc.â 14. It appeared from the Russian experts that the article should be read in this way (modification of the registration procedure not widening the circle of groups required to register) so presumably it should be possible to formulate this in an unequivocal way. It is also clear from the rest of the text of art. 13.1 that it deals with the registration of legal persons. 15. Should the registration apply to any, and even informal, groups (such as a club of people meeting regularly in a private home to play cards, music, discuss literature, etc.), it would constitute a disproportionate interference with the freedom of association. 16. The draft law seeks to establish a more cumbersome registration procedure than presently exists: i. the risk of re-registration of existing NPOs and the administrative burden entailed in this may have heavy consequences for - and even result in the closure of - many, in particular, smaller and financially vulnerable, NPOs. ii. According to the new Article 13.1 § 6, registration will require the payment of a âstate levyâ, the amount of which is not specified. It must be ensured that this does not frustrate the formation of associations. The sums payable must not be beyond the means of NPOs. iii. The participation of foreigners is regulated in a very restrictive way in Article 1 § 2. Article 11 ECHR guarantees freedom of association also in respect of non-citizens (see also the prohibition of discrimination set out in article 14 of the ECHR). While the requirement of âlegal residenceâ does not pose problems, to require, in addition, âpermanentâ residence appears to be excessive. 17. (2) In article 15 paragraph 1, âaged 18 years etc.â is inserted. One may wonder why such an age limit is proposed given that the freedom of association also applies to minors. (3) Article 17. paragraph 1 18. The draft proposal is to delete âsocial organisation (combination)â, but this paragraph as such does not seem logical. A non-profit organisation as such is not a legal form that can be established, and can therefore not be transformed. (5) Article 23.1 paragraph 1 19. Any restrictions of the freedom of association must be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision to refuse registration can be based only on available evidence, in particular the constituent documents. As the European Court of Human Rights made clear in United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v Turkey (30 January 1998), the principal basis for control over associations must be their deeds once they are registered. Respect for freedom of association thus requires that there be a presumption that whatever individuals collectively propose to do will be lawful unless it is clearly evident that there is a constitutional or legal defect in the constituent documents. The European Court of Human Rights has emphasised that the legality of registration will generally be a matter that can be determined only by reference to the information that is included in the application.(FN2)2 20. Judged against this background, some of the grounds for refusal need reconsideration. This applies in particular to the following requirements: - âIf the name of the non-profit organisation offends public decency or ethnic and religious feelingsâ. The wording used is rather vague, leaving too much discretion for the competent authorities. - âIf, in respect of a foreign national or stateless person founding/participating in the organisation, there is a decision stating that their presence on the territory of the Russian Federation is undesirable. - If the aims, tasks and forms of activity of the founder of the organisation are contrary to the Russian Federation Constitution, the present Federal law or other federal laws, including actions of the founder directed at the carrying out of extremist activity, or facilitate the legalisation of illegally obtained fundsâ. 21. The person, aims or activities of the founders should not be a valid ground for refusal of registration of the organisation. At the very least, there should, as the Russian experts agreed, be a link between the (illegal) activities of the founders and the aims of the organisation. The European Court of Human Rights, in the context of a dissolution of a political party, has made it clear that acts of the leaders and members of a party must be imputable to the party as a whole.(FN3)3 The notions quoted above lend themselves to subjective determinations and are so broad that they may easily be abused. In addition, they suggest a second-guessing or speculation about the true intentions of the founders of the organisation. In the aforementioned Sidiropoulos judgment, the Court clearly indicated that it is more appropriate to judge an association by its actions, which, if unlawful, can give rise to legal steps to dissolve it. In the light of all these considerations, it seems sufficient to reword slightly the very first ground for refusal mentioned in Article 1 § 5 ; âif the aims and activities set out in the organisationâs constituent documents are contrary to the Russian Federation ConstitutionâŚâ etc. 22. The last two grounds for refusal mentioned in Article 23.1 § 5 should thus be deleted. 23. The second and third ground for refusal should in fact be grounds for giving the founders opportunity to send correct documents and a new name. This possibility should be added to the law. 24. The time-scale for registration decisions will make it difficult to determine whether documents submitted contain âfalse informationâ and no refusal should be based merely on suspicion. In most instances this condition is something likely to be more appropriate as a basis for action against an association after registration, including its dissolution in serious cases. 25. The proposed Article 23.1 § 2 requires âan indication of which specific provisions of Russian Federation legislation have been breachedâ. At the time of registration, it is inappropriate to speak of âbreachesâ. Instead, there should be a clear and unambiguous requirement that âany refusal of registration must be reasonedâ. Otherwise the right of appeal, which is provided in § 3, would not satisfy the requirements of Article 13 of the ECHR. (6) Article 32 26. The powers of supervision appear to be excessive and it is necessary to circumscribe them more precisely. The competent authorities would be authorised to conduct an audit of activities and finances and request any financial, operational or other internal documents from an organisation at any time and without any limitations. It should be clearly stated that the exercise of supervisory powers, such as the request to provide documents and âchecksâ, may only be used if there are reasonable grounds to believe that an NPO has not complied with the legislation in force. Otherwise the use of these powers could conflict with the right to respect for private life and the home as guaranteed in Article 8 of ECHR. 27. Requiring a yearly report from NPOs appears to be unproblematic provided of course that this applies only to NPOs having legal personality (see also the comments on article 13.1 above). 28. Regarding art. 32 par. 4, it is important to lay down in a law or another federal regulation what exactly the financial/economic and management information that has to be presented should be. In such a regulation for example, the legitimate privacy of donors should be respected inter alia in order to avoid negative effect on the finances of bona fide organisations. In this connection, reference can be made to principle 63 of the Fundamental Principles on the Status of Non-governmental Organisations in Europe. 29. Unlimited power for state representatives to attend events interferes with the autonomy of NGOs. State intervention should be restricted to cases where there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that the legislation in force has been violated. 30. The notion of âchecksâ should be defined more clearly (unless this is done in the âprocedure laid down by the federal executive authority in the sphere of justiceâ to which the provision refers). If it implies searches on the NPO premises, a judicial warrant should be required. Article 33 31. Some of the grounds of dissolution (âliquidationâ) of non-profit organisations appear to be too broad and vague, giving too much discretion to the competent authorities (âextremist activityâ). It would be sufficient to simply have the general notion of âviolation of the Russian Federal Constitution, federal constitutional laws, federal laws or other legal actsâ . Any measures adopted must of course be proportionate. 32. Instead of using the rather broad notion of âfacilitating of the legalisation of illegally obtained fundsâ, the law should require that NPOs (or possibly their founders) have actually been convicted of money laundering offences related to the NPOâs activities. 33. NPOs cannot commit a âviolation of human and civil rights and freedomsâ. Technically speaking, it may be useful to recall that private persons, including legal persons such as NPOs, are neither bound directly by human rights law, nor are they able to violate it. Certain behaviour may constitute a criminal offence or tort under domestic law, but not a violation under international human rights law entailing direct international responsibility. Of course, NPOs may seek to destroy human rights and fundamental freedoms, but in such a case, it would seem that their activity would be contrary to the Constitution. 34. In the light of these comments, it is suggested that the first two grounds for dissolution (liquidation) be deleted and only the third ground kept in the draft law. If this is considered desirable, that third ground could mention âextremist activityâ and âdestruction of human rights and civil rights and freedomsâ as examples of activities contrary to the Constitution and other laws. VI. Article 2: Amendments of the Federal Law on public associations 35. In art. 2 a paragraph 3 is added with a description of a foreign NGO. From this law, as amended in this draft and the amendments of the Law on non-profit organisations, it is clear that foreign NGOs may not as such or through a branch according to the law of the home country of the foreign NGO operate in the Russian Federation. The foreign NGOs have to set up a public association or non-profit organisation according to Russian law. As such the Russian Federation is in a position to regulate this in this way. One can, however, not say that this is in the spirit of the European Convention on the Recognition of the Legal Personality of International NGOs (ETS 124). It should be recalled that the Russian Federation is not party to this convention. 36. Foreign citizens and persons without citizenship, if not permanently residing on the territory of the Russian Federation, would be prohibited from establishing publish associations and non-commercial organisations, or from becoming members or participants in such bodies (see the comment made above under âregistration procedureâ). 37. Foreign NGOs would be prohibited from opening representative offices or branches in the Russian Federation. It would seem that all existing representative offices and branches of foreign NGOs would be outlawed unless they acquire legal personality under this law. For smaller NGOs this may result in a disproportionate burden which might unduly restrict their freedom of association. Article 3 paragraph 5 38. The question arises as to the exact meaning of this text. Does this paragraph mean that foreign NGOs may not have any more informal branches in the Russian Federation as they are required to register as a legal person? What would this mean in practice if Russian citizens form an informal public association, relating themselves to a foreign NGO? Article 19 39. See comment on art. 13.1 Law on non-profit organisations on participation of foreigners (see paragraph 16.iii. above). Article 27 paragraph 2, subparagraph 1 40. In this paragraph, an element is introduced according to which public associations without legal personality need to notify the federal authority before they enjoy the right to present themselves in public. 41. However, concerns should be expressed about the consequences of non-notification. It is not in line with the ECHR to make the exercise of human rights such as the freedom of assembly and freedom of _expression dependent on prior notification, as is proposed in this provision. Article 38 paragraph 2 42. The required financial information should be regulated in more detail and respect the privacy. Compare the comment on art. 32 of the Law on non-profit organisations. 43. Art. 44 par. 3 deals i.a. with the dissolution of international public associations. It is not clear if this refers to Russian-type public associations or to a foreign NGO. A description can not be found in the present law. According to civil law and international private law the dissolution and liquidation of a foreign NGO would be impossible. Footnotes: FN1 - See, e.g., the Sidiropoulos v. Greece judgment, 10 July 1998, § 40. FN2 - See Sidiropoulos and others v Greece, 10 July 1998 FN3 - Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 13 February 2003, § 104. __________________________________________ Joachim Frank, Project Coordinator International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights Wickenburggasse 14/7 A-1080 Vienna Tel. +43-1-408 88 22 ext. 22 Fax: +43-1-408 88 22 ext. 50 Web: http://www.ihf-hr.org ______________________________________ Wednesday, January 18, 2006. Issue 3333. Page 3. Activists Criticize Trial of Chechen Journalist By Maria Danilova The Associated Press Leading human rights organizations on Tuesday condemned the trial of a journalist and Chechen rights activist as a government campaign to deprive citizens of one of the last remaining alternative sources of information on the brutal war in Chechnya. Stanislav Dmitriyevsky, the head of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society in Nizhny Novgorod, is being tried on charges of inciting ethnic hatred in connection with the publication by the group's newspaper of statements by Chechen separatist leaders. He faces up to five years in prison if convicted. Dmitriyevsky's trial comes at a time when President Vladimir Putin faces strong Western criticism for a restrictive law on nonprofit organizations, which he approved last week. (See story, Page 1) Rights activists said the law, which imposes strict control over NGOs, and Dmitriyevsky's trial were a state assault on civil society. "It is an attack on the human rights movement as a whole," Yury Dzhibladze, head of the Center for Human Rights and Democracy Development, told a news conference. Dzhibladze said Dmitriyevsky's trial would be used by authorities to discredit all rights organizations. The case against Dmitriyevsky is centered on two publications by the group's newspaper Pravozashchita, or Rights Defense, in March and April 2004. The paper ran statements by then-Chechen rebel leader Aslan Maskhadov -- who was killed last year in Chechnya -- urging the international community to help end the war in Chechnya, and by his envoy Akhmed Zakayev, calling on Russians not to vote for Putin and thus help end the conflict. Prosecutors argue the statements incite ethnic hatred. A court in Nizhny Novgorod is to hear closing arguments in the case on Wednesday. Dmitriyevsky's group is also being targeted by tax and justice authorities. Tax inspectors claim the foreign grants it is receiving amount to profit, and accuse it of tax evasion. Justice officials are seeking to close down the group, arguing it has failed to provide registration materials for inspection. Dmitriyevsky denies all the charges. Rights groups dismissed the prosecution of the group as the government's retaliation for its campaigning for the rights of Chechens, and for its newspaper and news agency reports on human rights abuses there. "Authorities ... are trying to shut off the only remaining alternative source of information on Chechnya," said Oleg Panfilov, director of the Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations. "They are telling us that freedom of speech is extremism, that there is no war in Chechnya, ... and that journalists are extremists," Dzhibladze said. Jan 20 2006 1:56PM UN representative in Russia: We will seek easier access for UN personnel to Chechnya Acting UN Resident Coordinator for Russia Ercan Murat offers his assessment of the situation in the North Caucasus and comments on UN plans to support development in the region in an interview with Interfax. The United Nation's danger rating for Chechnya may be lowered in the near future, Murat said. The UN office in Russia is seeking a revision of Chechnya's danger rating, which currently stands at 'Phase Five' - the highest level, Murat said. Lowering this rating is key to expanding the UN's presence in the region, making it easier for UN personnel to enter the region and enhancing the efficiency of their work there, he said. A decision on the issue is a matter for the UN Secretary General, Murat said, adding that he hopes that the UN Russian office's arguments in favor of the move will be taken into consideration. Commenting on the humanitarian situation in the North Caucasus, the official said that the region still needs aid. Its humanitarian needs remain high and the results of studies show that the humanitarian situation in the North Caucasus changed neither for better nor worse in 2005, Murat said. This year the UN will center on the North Caucasus's socioeconomic development and support for the local authorities, he said. Poverty rates in the North Caucasus remain high, which highlights the need for the region's socioeconomic development, Murat said. The UN and non-governmental organizations have drafted an action plan for the North Caucasus for 2006 and asked donors to provide $88 million for its implementation, he said. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour is due to pay an official visit to Russia in February, Murat said. Meetings will be held in Moscow which will address the observance of human rights in the North Caucasus, where Arbour also plans to visit during her trip to Russia, Murat said. Under agreements with the Russian government, a high-ranking representative of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights will work in Moscow starting from 2006, Murat said, expressing hope that such an official will begin working within the next few months. The office's Russian branch will help take a balanced approach to human rights problems, including human rights awareness-raising, laws, support for human rights protection mechanisms and social sector reforms, he said. In 2006, the UN plans to conduct awareness-raising campaigns among Russian teachers, doctors and social sector employees which will address human rights, human trafficking and justice for juveniles, Murat said. Opening Russia's branch of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights will give fresh impetus to such measures, he said. I - Report from Todays Hearing in the Criminal Case against Stas Dmitrievsky, Head of the Russian Chechen Friendship Society Debates between the sides took place today in Nizhny Novgorod in Dmitrievsky case 18.01.2006. Today in the criminal session in Dmitrievsky case that was held in Sovetsky district court of Nizhny Novgorod the debates between the sides took place. The side for persecution stated that Dmitrievsky has committed crimes of high public danger and asked the judge to convict him and to sentence to four years in a colony. In the beginning of the court session the side for the defense requested the judge to prolong the term of investigation and to attach a set of articles by Anna Politkovskaya on human rights violations perpetrated in Chechnya during mopping-up operations and armed actions. However, the side for persecution insisted on beginning the debates. The judge supported the prosecutor and refused to attach Politkovskaya's articles to the case. In the debates the state prosecutor Maslova, who is the deputy chief prosecutor of Sovetsky district, stated that Dmitrievsky is guilty of inciting to ethnic animosity. For instance, in the prosecutor's opinion, such charges are confirmed by the fact that Dmitrievsky published Zakaev's appeal with his own foreword in which he expressed his solidarity with the position of Maskhadov's envoy. She stated further that Dmitrievsky's speeches during the trial confirm that all his acts were deliberate as he was aware of his own impunity. The prosecutor thinks that Dmitrievsky is dangerous for the society and that all his actions can be regarded as extremist activities aimed at undermining the state security. The court expertise has supported the charges. Referring to the opinion of the expert Ms. Teslenko, the side for persecution declared that they consider Dmitrievsky's actions to be aimed at inciting to animosity with taking advantage of his official position. In the circumstances of the extremely tense situation in the country when accidents like the recent crime in a Moscow synagogue happen more and more often, it is necessary to be strictly within the boundaries of the freedom of _expression," the persecutor expressed her worry about. She then told, "That's why, publications that Dmitrievsky allowed are inadmissible. Dmitrievsky demonstrates his neglect of the state and society and uses the court room even as the tribune to disseminate his views". The 3rd class lawyer Maslova regards Dmitrievsky socially dangerous and demands a 4-year term for him. The judge refused to attach the alternative expertise conducted by Galina Vronskaya as it had been carried out not by the court's request and for money. Thus, the judge came to the opinion that the expertise was biased. The side for defense stated that there is no sign of any crime in the acts that Dmitrievsky exercised and asked the judge to acquit him of all the preferred charges. One of Dmitrievsky's lawyers, Yury Sidorov, stated in his speech that being the devoted internationalist the defendant could not have any intention to commit the crime. Another Dmitrievsky's lawyer Leyla Khamzaeva attracted the attention of the court to numerous breaches of law perpetrated by the prosecutor's office in the process of investigation and bringing charges against him. She pointed out that such cases have always been considered in civil legal proceedings, not in criminal ones before. There is a special list of documents that are regarded to be extremist and in case when they are published, a mass media venue receives a warning. In the RCFS case, it started immediately with preferring charges under Article 280 at first and then under Article 282. Thus, the lawyer thinks that there is a clear breach of the legal proceedings and Dmitrievsky has the right to demand to consider the charges against him in the civil legal proceedings. The defendant gave the detailed analysis of Ms. Teslenko's conclusions that are part of the criminal case and proved the expert's incompetence in answering the questions that were put by the investigator. Thus, the expert transgressed the limits of her professional knowledge and acted beyond her commission. The last court session is to take place on 3 February 2005. The defendant is going to make his last word and the court will pronounce the sentence on the case. (Oksana Chelysheva, editor, RCFS) II - Press Conferences Prior to the Hearing in the Criminal Case against Stas Dmitrievsky, Head of the Russian Chechen Friendship Society 17 January 2005. Today two press conferences were held regarding the criminal trial against Stas Dmitrievsky, one in Moscow and the other one in Nizhny Novgorod. In Nizhny Novgorod the participants were Svetlana Gannushkina, the head of the Civic Assistance Network and member of the Presidential Commission on the Development of the Civil Society, and Sergei Kovalyov, the former Russian Human Rights Ombudsman and Duma deputy, together with Stas Dmitrievsky. The participants of the press conference had different predictions with respect to the outcome of the trial. Dmitrievsky stated that he regards this criminal trial as part of the joint harassment campaign against the RCFS. In an ironic way he expressed his âcertaintyâ that the court will be independent and unbiased, while taking the decision on the verdict. Kovalyov said that he had the firm feeling that Stas will be convicted but he also expressed his conviction that the case finally will be won in Strasbourg. Gannushkina expressed her belief that Stas will be declared innocent of all the crimes. In a response to the press-conference the Nizhny Novgorod Telegraph Agency (NTA) also quoted some commentary to the criminal case from law-enforcement bodies. It cites a representative, whose name was not revealed, as stating that even the existence of the RCFS can be regarded a undermining of the constitutional order of the RF. Because, so the cited source, in its name Russia and Chechnya are presented as two equal subjects of the international law being in a state of conflict. Thus, the difference of interests of the Chechen and Russian peoples are emphasized in the name of the organization. The cited source also stated that the RCFS have provided informational support to Chechen armed groups by providing different mass paper and Internet media venues, including Russian ones, with information on Chechnya. Another press-conference took place in the Independent Press Center in Moscow with the following participants: Ludmila Alekseeva (Moscow Helsinki Group), Yuri Dzhibladze (Center on Promoting Democracy and Human Rights), Tatiana Lokshina (Demos Center), Natalia Taubina (âPublic Verdictâ Foundation), and Oleg Panfilov (Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations). Alekseeva stated that the case against Dmitrievsky is politically motivated. She expressed her firm belief that the real aim of those who are behind the charges against the editor of the anti-war newspaper is to close down the source of the information on Chechnya. She also told that she has known Dmitrievsky for many years as person who has always defended the right of people to live in peace. She pointed out that in their trips to Chechnya she saw Dmitrievsky trying to withstand the mistrust and defending the Russian people against the accusations of the common responsibility. Lokshina told that they had decided to hold the press-conference although there are no other developments of the criminal case. However, they have decided to express their solidarity with Dmitrievsky on the eve of another session of the criminal court. She also informed the journalists about another press-conference held in Nizhny Novgorod the same day in which Kovalyov and Gannushkina participated together with Dmitrievsky. Taubina described different forms of harassment the organization has been subjected to since January 2005. She also shared her impressions on the session of the criminal court of December 21, which she attended as an observer. In her opinion, the judge followed automatically the procedure of conducting the hearing and it was apparent that the decision has been prepared not by him. She stated that it is apparently not the judge who will make the final decision. Dzhibladze called the RCFS harassment an experiment aimed at destroying any non-governmental organization. He stated that RCFS case sets a precedent and thus he regards this case as a historic one no matter what its result is going to be. It is especially important in the context of the new law on NGOS signed by Putin on January 10, 2006. In case Dmitrievsky is convicted and even if the sentence will be suspended, he loses the right to establish or to be member of the executive board of any NGO, according to the requirements of the new law. Dzhibladze stated that in 90 days another HR defender Yury Samodurov is to lose the right to lead the Sakharov HR Center, according to the same law. Then Alexander Podrabinek, the chief editor of the Prima News Agency and Nikolay Khramov announced that they had launched their appeal to the Prosecutor General and published the appeals by Maskhadov and Zakaev on their Internet sites to express their solidarity with the RCFS. In conclusion Oleg Panfilov told about a campaign organized by the Center for Journalism in Extreme Situation in Dmitrievsky's support and asked to join it. (Oksana Chelysheva, editor, RCFS) *********************************************************** III - Complaint and open letter to the Prosecutor General about statements by the Regional Prosecutor, expressing his firm belief that Dmitrievsky will be found guilty http://www.ria.hrnnov.ru/eng/index.php - Russian-Chechen Information Agency Information Agency of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society Nizhny Novgorod, Report # 951 Dmitrievsky's lawyers are going to lodge a complaint to the Prosecutor General about the regional prosecutor's statements 12.01.2006. The lawyers of Stanislav Dmitrievsky in the criminal case are going to lodge a complaint about the statements that the prosecutor of Nizhny Novgorod Region Vladimir Demidov made yesterday in regard to the court proceedings against the chief editor of the âPravo-zaschitaâ newspaper Stanislav Dmitrievsky. The complaint will be sent to the Prosecutor General in the nearest days. Yury Sidorov defending Dmitrievsky in the criminal proceedings stated it in his conversation with a RCIA correspondent. In the lawyer's opinion, the fact that the prosecutor expressed his certainty about Dmitrievsky's conviction connected with his imprisonment can be regarded as imposing pressure upon the court. The court debates are to start on 18 January at 10 am in the building of Sovetsky district court of Nizhny Novgorod. We have to remind that Nizhny Novgorod Telegraph Agency (NTA) disseminated their report yesterday in concern with the statements made by the regional prosecutor Vladimir Demidov. The NTA journalist Lybov Kovalyova reports the regional prosecutor as stating, âWe are going to press for the measures of the criminal responsibility to be applied against Dmitirevsky. Stanislaw Dmitrievsky published his open letter addressed to Vladimir Demidov (see our previous report). The open letter was lodged to the prosecutor's office and registered at 3 pm today. Editor in Chief Stanislav Dmitrievsky. Editor of this release is Oksana Chelysheva. ***** Open Letter by Stanislav Dmitrievsky to the chief prosecutor of the Nizhny Novgorod Region Vladimir Demidov, 12 January 2006 According to the information disseminated by the Nizhny Novgorod Telegraph Agency, on 11 January 2006 the chief prosecutor of Nizhny Novgorod Region Vladimir Demidov expressed his firm belief that Mr. Stanislav Dmitrievsky was going to be found guilty, stating that âI am sure that Dmitrievsky will be put to prison and being the side that supports the accusation we are going to press for the measures of the criminal responsibility to be applied against himâ. He further went: âit is important for our multi-national society that supports and develops positive attitude towards all the nationalities that no calls made by bandits inciting to ethnic hatred are published in the newspaperâ, pointing out that âwe mustnât allow any attempts to destabilise the situationâ. We express our serious concern with the fact the chief prosecutor can make statements in which he feels it appropriate for him to express apriori his certainty both about the conviction of Stas Dmitrievsky and the inevitable term of imprisonment. We regard it as an attempt to impose pressure on the court which is absolutely inadmissible for the democratic society and the state with the rule of law. We also point out that on 11 January 2005 Mr. Demidov signed a ruling to commence a criminal case against this criminal case. His decision was based on the document that contained a number of xenophobic statements. This is the conclusion prepared by a professor of Nizhny Novgorod State University Olga Khokhlysheva after she had received a request signed by a prosecutor with the department on protecting constitutional rights and freedoms at the prosecutorâs office of Nizhny Novgorod region A.V. Malyugin â 7/2-31-04 from 29.12.2004 to conduct the expertise of the publications. In this document professor Khokhlysheva casts her doubts on the existence of the Chechen, Jewish and Arab nations. She also justifies the deportation of the Chechen people in 1944 on Stalinâs orders by motives of âthe political will of the authorities of the USSR of that timeâ and âthe historic circumstances and the objective necessity that had emerged by that timeâ. It is necessary to point out that these conclusions contradict with the Russian Law âOn Rehabilitation of the Repressed Peoplesâ N 1107-I from 26 April 1991 (with amendments from 1 July 1993) according to which Stalinâs repressive acts against different peoples of Russia, including their deportation, are âunlawful and criminalâ (Article 1). The law also defines these acts as cases of genocide (Article 2) and establishes criminal responsibility âfor agitation and propaganda aimed at preventing from rehabilitation of the repressed peoplesâ as well as for inciting to such actions (Article 4). In this connection we express our deep concern both with the attempt to impose pressure on the court undertaken by the prosecutorâs office and with the fact that criminal case against Dmitrievsky was commenced on the document that contains statements that violate the Russian law and humiliate dignity of people according to their nationality. ***** The Observatoryfor the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a joint programme of FIDH and OMCT Russian-Chechen Friendship Society (RCFS) PRESS RELEASE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Outrageous accusations by the Regional Prosecutor on the eve of Mr. Stanislav Dmitrievsky's trial Geneva-Paris, January 16, 2006 - The World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), in the framework of their joint programme, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, along with the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society (RCFS), wish to express their deep concern about the statement made by the Prosecutor of the Nizhny Novgorod Region with regards to the criminal trial against Mr. Stanislav Dmitrievsky, Executive Manager of RCFS and chief editor of the Pravozaschita newspaper, a joint publication by RCFS and the Nizhny Novgorod Society for Human Rights (NNSHR). According to the information received, on January 11, 2006, Mr. Vladimir Demidov, Prosecutor of the Nizhny Novgorod Region, expressed his firm belief that Mr. Stanislav Dmitrievsky was going to be found guilty, stating that âI am sure that Dmitrievsky will be put to prison and, being on the side that supports the accusation, we are going to press for the measures of the criminal responsibility to be applied against himâ. He further stated: âit is important for our multinational society, which supports a positive attitude towards all nationalities, that calls made by bandits inciting to ethnic hatred be not published by newspapersâ, pointing out that âwe mustnât allow any attempts to destabilise the situationâ. Mr. Stanislav Dmitrievskyâs lawyers intend to lodge a complaint to the Prosecutor General about the regional prosecutorâs statements in the coming days. On January 11, 2005, the prosecutorâs office of Nizhny Novgorod Region had initiated a case against Pravozaschita and Mr. Dmitrievsky, as chief editor of the newspaper, following the publication of statements by Messrs. Akhmed Zakaev and Aslan Maskhadov, two Chechen separatist leaders, calling for a peaceful end to the Russian - Chechen conflict. The criminal case was initiated on the grounds of the conclusions made by professor Khokhlysheva, who carried the expertise of the texts on the request from the prosecutorâs office, and according to which âthe publications in Pravozaschita can be regarded as serious violations of the Russian Criminal Code and undermining of the Constitutional orderâ. On September 2, 2005, Mr. Dmitrievsky was officially charged by the prosecutorâs office in relation to this case under part 1 of Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation referring to âactions aimed at inciting hatred or hostility and at disparagement of either an individual or a group of people according to their gender, race, nationality, background, religious beliefs as well as belonging to any social group that are committed publicly or through mass media outletsâ. This offence is liable to up to five years imprisonment. The Observatory and RCFS are concerned about this statement, which can be considered as contrary to the Guidelines on the role of Prosecutors adopted by the 8th United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in Cuba (1999), stating that âin the performance of their duties, prosecutors shall âperform their duties fairly, consistentlyâ, âcarry out their function impartiallyâ, and âact with objectivity, take proper account of the position of the suspect and the victim, and pay attention to all relevant circumstances, irrespective of whether they are to the advantage or disadvantage of the suspectâ. The debates before the Sovetsky district court of Nizhny Novgorod concerning Mr. Dmitrievskyâs trial are to start on January 18, 2006. The Observatory and RCFS recall the Russian Federation authoritiesâ duty to comply with the provisions of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted by the UN General Assembly on December, 9 1998, in particular its article 1 that states âeveryone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levelsâ, as well as article 12.2., which provides that âthe State shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the present Declarationâ. For more information, please contact : FIDH: 00 33 1 43 55 25 18 - OMCT: 00 41 22 809 49 39 __________________________________________ Joachim Frank, Project Coordinator International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights Wickenburggasse 14/7 A-1080 Vienna Tel. +43-1-408 88 22 ext. 22 Fax: +43-1-408 88 22 ext. 50 Web: http://www.ihf-hr.org ______________________________________ PRIMA News 18.1.2006 Publication to support Stanislav Dmitriyevsky RUSSIA, Moscow. On 17 January, Alexander Podrabinek, Editor-in-Chief of PRIMA-News Agency, and Nikolai Khramov, Editor-in-Chief of on-line publication Radicaly.ru, wrote to Russia's Prosecutor General, Vladimir Ustinov, in connection with the continuing trial over Stanislav Dmitriyevsky in Nizhny Novgorod. Dear Prosecutor General, On 18 January, in Nizhny Novgorod, trial will continue over Stanislav Dmitriyevsky, who is charged under Article 282 of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation. The criminal proceedings were instigated last January after Pravo-Zashchita newspaper had published addresses by Aslan Maskhadov and Akhmed Zakayev calling for peaceful resolution of Russian-Chechen conflict. Stanislav Dmitriyevsky is this newspaper's Editor-in-Chief. We believe that Dmitriyevsky's prosecution is an attempt to clamp down on freedom of press in Russia and we voice our solidarity with the accused. The actions of Prosecutor's Office are unconstitutional and contravene human rights conventions and other international standards safeguarding freedom of speech. To demonstrate our solidarity with Stanislav Dmitriyevsky and our commitment to freedom of speech in Russia, on 17 January we published the materials had that prompted criminal proceedings against Stanislav Dmitriyevsky on our websites. If the law has not been applied discriminately against Dmitriyevsky and today he is convicted for publishing these materials, Prosecutor's Office must also bring against us similar charges. We state that we are prepared to stand up for freedom of speech in a criminal court as did Dmitriyevsky. In the meantime, while his verdict is yet to be announced, we urge you to drop the charges brought against Stanislav Dmitriyevsky and not to bring back to Russia the shameful years of persecution against dissent and uncensored literature. Alexander Podrabinek, Editor-in-Chief, PRIMA-News Agency (www.prima-news.ru). Nikolai Khramov Editor-in-Chief, Radikaly.ru (www.radikaly.ru). Moscow, 17 January 2006. RCIA reports Moscow Report # 965 The Moscow-based human rights organizations held a press-conference in regard to the criminal case against Stas Dmitrievsky and the harassment campaign against the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society 17.01.2006 ?. several Moscow-based human rights organizations held a press-conference in the Independent Press Center (20 Tverskoy Boulevard) in regard to the criminal case against Stas Dmitrievsky and the harassment campaign against the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society. Ludmila Alekseeva (Moscow Helsinki Group), Yuri Jibladze (the Center on Promoting democracy and Human Rights), Tatiana Lokshina (the Demos center), Natalia Taubina (the director of the Public Verdict" Foundation), and Oleg Panfilov (the Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations) participated in the press-conference. Alekseeva stated that the case against Dmitrievsky is politically motivated. She expressed her firm belief that the real aim of those who are behind the charges against the editor of the anti-war newspaper is to close down the source of the information on Chechnya. She also told that she has known Dmitrievsky for many years as person who has always defended the right of people to live in peace. She pointed out that in their trips to Chechnya she saw Dmitrievsky trying to withstand the mistrust and defending the Russian people against the accusations of the common responsibility. Lokshina told that they had decided to hold the press-conference although there are no other developments of the criminal case. However, they have decided to express their solidarity with Dmitrievsky on the eve of another session of the criminal court. She also informed the journalists about another press-conference held in Nizhny Novgorod the same day in which Kovalyov and Gannushkina participated together with Dmitrievsky. Taubina described different forms of harassment the organization has been subjected top since January 2005. She also shared her impressions on the session of the criminal court of December 21 which she attended as an observer. In her opinion, the judge followed automatically the procedure of conducting the hearing and it was apparent that the decision has been prepared not by him. She stated that it is apparently not the judge who will make the final decision. Jibladze called the RCFS harassment an experiment aimed at destroying any non-governmental organization. He stated that RCFS case sets a precedent and thus he regards this case as a historic one no matter what its result is going to be. It is especially important in the context of the new law on NGOS signed by Putin on January 10, 2006. In case Dmitrievsky is convicted and even if the sentence will be suspended, he loses the right to establish or to be member of the executive board of any NGO, according to the requirements of the new law. Jibladze stated that in 90 days another HR defender Yury Samodurov is to lose the right to lead the Sakharov HR Center, according to the same law. Then Alexander Podrabinek, the chief editor of the Prima News Agency and Nikolay Khramov announced that they had launched their appeal to the Prosecutor General and published the appeals by Maskhadov and Zakaev on their Internet sites to express their solidarity with the RCFS. In conclusion Oleg Panfilov told the campaign organized by the Center for Journalism in Extreme Situation in Dmitrievsky's support asked to join it. (From our correspondent) Nizniy Novgorod Report # 964 Debates between the sides took place today in Nizhny Novgorod in Dmitrievsky case 18.01.2006. Today in the criminal session in Dmitrievsky case that was held in Sovetsky district court of Nizhny Novgorod the debates between the sides took place. The side for persecution stated that Dmitrievsky has committed crimes of high public danger and asked the judge to convict him and to sentence to four years in a colony. In the beginning of the court session the side for the defense requested the judge to prolong the term of investigation and to attach a set of articles by Anna Politkovskaya on human rights violations perpetrated in Chechnya during mopping-up operations and armed actions. However, the side for persecution insisted on beginning the debates. The judge supported the prosecutor and refused to attach Politkovskaya's articles to the case. In the debates the state prosecutor Maslova, who is the deputy chief prosecutor of Sovetsky district, stated that Dmitrievsky is guilty of inciting to ethnic animosity. For instance, in the prosecutor's opinion, such charges are confirmed by the fact that Dmitrievsky published Zakaev's appeal with his own foreword in which he expressed his solidarity with the position of Maskhadov's envoy. She stated further that Dmitrievsky's speeches during the trial confirm that all his acts were deliberate as he was aware of his own impunity. The prosecutor thinks that Dmitrievsky is dangerous for the society and that all his actions can be regarded as extremist activities aimed at undermining the state security. The court expertise has supported the charges. Referring to the opinion of the expert Ms. Teslenko, the side for persecution declared that they consider Dmitrievsky's actions to be aimed at inciting to animosity with taking advantage of his official position. In the circumstances of the extremely tense situation in the country when accidents like the recent crime in a Moscow synagogue happen more and more often, it is necessary to be strictly within the boundaries of the freedom of _expression, the persecutor expressed her worry about. She then told, That's why, publications that Dmitrievsky allowed are inadmissible. Dmitrievsky demonstrates his neglect of the state and society and uses the court room even as the tribune to disseminate his views. The 3rd class lawyer Maslova regards Dmitrievsky socially dangerous and demands a 4-year term for him. The judge refused to attach the alternative expertise conducted by Galina Vronskaya as it had been carried out not by the court's request and for money. Thus, the judge came to the opinion that the expertise was biased. The side for defense stated that there is no sign of any crime in the acts that Dmitrievsky exercised and asked the judge to acquit him of all the preferred charges. One of Dmitrievsky's lawyers, Yury Sidorov, stated in his speech that being the devoted internationalist the defendant could not have any intention to commit the crime. Another Dmitrievsky's lawyer Leyla Khamzaeva attracted the attention of the court to numerous breaches of law perpetrated by the prosecutor's office in the process of investigation and bringing charges against him. She pointed out that such cases have always been considered in civil legal proceedings, not in criminal ones before. There is a special list of documents that are regarded to be extremist and in case when they are published, a mass media venue receives a warning. In the RCFS case, it started immediately with preferring charges under Article 280 at first and then under Article 282. Thus, the lawyer thinks that there is a clear breach of the legal proceedings and Dmitrievsky has the right to demand to consider the charges against him in the civil legal proceedings. The defendant gave the detailed analysis of Ms. Teslenko's conclusions that are part of the criminal case and proved the expert's incompetence in answering the questions that were put by the investigator. Thus, the expert transgressed the limits of her professional knowledge and acted beyond her commission. The last court session is to take place on 3 February 2005. The defendant is going to make his last word and the court will pronounce the sentence on the case. (From our correspondent) Nizniy Novgorod Report # 962 The appeals incriminated to Stanislaw Dmitirevsky have been published by some other Internet sites as the sign of their solidarity with him On 17 January 2006 the Center for Journalism in Extreme Situation at the Russian Union of Journalists disseminated information that the chief editor of the Prima-news agency Alexander Podrabinek and the chief editor of the Radykaly.ru web page Nikoly Khramov lodged their joint appeal to the Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov in connection with the on-going criminal trial against the executive manager of the Nizhny Novgorod-based Russian-Chechen Friendship Society and the chief editor of the Pravo-Zaschita newspaper Stanislaw Dmitrievsky. To express their solidarity with Dmitrievsky, the authors of the appeal published the statements made by Maskhadov and Zakaev on their web sites today. These are the appeals for re-publication of which Dmitrievsky is being under legal proceedings. Their appeal to the Prosecutor General follows. (http://www.prima-news.ru/news/news/2006/1/17/34617.html) Mr. Prosecutor General! On 18 January the court proceedings against Stanislaw Dmitrievsky charged under Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are going to continue in Nizhny Novgorod. The criminal case was opened in January last year referring to the publication of appeals by Aslan Maskhadov and Akhmed Zakaev in Pravo-Zaschita newspaper (http://prima-news.ru/news/articles/2006/1/17/34616.html). Both appeals contained calls to peaceful reconciliation of the conflict. S. Dmitrievsky is the chief editor of this newspaper. We regard the criminal persecution of Dmitrievsky as encroachment on the freedom of speech in Russia and express our solidarity with the defendant. The acts of the prosecutor's are anti-Constitutional and contradict to all the conventions on human rights as well as to other international norms that protect the freedom of _expression. To demonstrate our solidarity with Dmitrievsky and our commitment to the freedom of _expression in Russia, on 17 January we published the appeals for which Dmitrievsky has been brought to the criminal accountability on our web sites. If the law isn't applied against Dmitrievsky only and he is really under legal proceedings for publication, the prosecutor's office has to prefer the same charges against us. We state that we are ready to stand upon the freedom of _expression in the criminal court together with Dmitrievsky. At the same time, we are calling to You to drop the charges against Stanislaw Dmitrievsky while the judge doesn't pass the sentence. We are calling to You as it depends on You now whether Russia will return to the discreditable times when dissidents and non-censored literature were persecuted. Alexander Podrabinek, the chief editor of the Information Agency ?????-News (www.prima-news.ru). Nikoly Khramov, the chief editor of the Radicaly.ru web site (www.radicaly.ru). Moscow, 17 January 2006 Grozny. Chechen Republic Report # 960 Two brothers are abducted in Chernorechye On 11 January 2006 seven unidentified armed people in camouflage drove away the Khamyskhanovs brothers - Salman Suleymanovich (born 1977) and Salauddin Suleymanovich (born 1985). The brothers were taken away from his house in the village of Chernorechye which is situated within the precincts of Grozny where they live at the address 24 Vyborgskaya Street. The details of the Khamyskhanovs' abduction are being established. (From our correspondent) Vedeno district. Chechen Republic Report # 959 Abduction of a resident of Tsa-Vedeno On 12 January 2006 a group of some ten unidentified armed people snatched away Baysultanov Bislan Vakhaevich from his house situated in the village of Tsa-Vedeno of the Chechen Vedeno district. As of the present moment, there has been no information about the whereabouts and destiny of the abducted person. (From our correspondent) Shelkovskoy district. Chechen Republic Report # 958 A female resident of Shelkovskaya settlement has been found dead in her house On 14 January 2006 residents Shelkovskoy district center of the Chechen Republic found a corpse of Vinogradskaya Raisa Sevastyanovna (born 1929) in her house situated at the address 13 Kosov Street. The corpse bore no signs of violent death. The information was obtained from a source within the Ministry of the Interior of the republic. Grozny. Chechen Republic Report # 957 A female corpse has been disclosed in Grozny On 12 January 2006 the law-enforcement agents disclosed a female corpse in a house situated in Tukhachevsky Street in Leninsky district of Grozny. The corpse was later identified as Savina Elene Avgen'evna (born 1986). As of the present moment, the post-mortem examination is being carried out to establish the course of the girl's death. (From our correspondent) Grozny. Chechen Republic Report # 956 Murder of a resident of Katayama village On 16 January 2006, the Nizhny Novgorod-based editorial office of Russian-Chechen Information Agency received information about the murder of Raisa Lechievna Juadaeva (born 1976), a resident of the Katayama settlement that is situated within the precincts of Staropromyslovsky district of Grozny. She lived at the address 44 Yaltinskaya Street. The corpse of the woman was found on 9 January 2006 not far from the mosque. According to several eye-witnesses, there was a bullet wound on the corpse. As of the present moment, the criminal case has been opened and the investigation is being conducted. (From our correspondent) http://www.ria.hrnnov.ru/eng/index.php |