(62nd session, March 2003)

Moscow

December 2002

This report includes an NGO alternative report to the CERD, an NGO comments on the Russian official report submitted to the CERD and three Annexes, describing in more details current Russian passport system and situation of two especially vulnerable ethnic groups: Meskhetian Turks in Krasnodar Krai of the Russian Federation and Chechens across Russia.

It was prepared by the Human Rights Centre 'Memorial' (Russia) in collaboration with the Russian NGOs Network against Racism and the International League for Human Rights. The report was endorsed by the Council of the Russian NGOs Network against Racism on 3 January 2003.

LIST OF RUSSIAN NGOs WHO HAVE ENDORSED THE REPORT

1. Center for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights (Moscow)
2. Center for Independent Social Research (St. Petersburg)
3. Center for Interethnic Cooperation (Moscow)
4. Center for Pontic and Caucasian Research (Krasnodar)
5. Citizens' Watch (St. Petersburg)
6. 'Civic Assistance' Committee (Moscow)
7. Civic Education Club of the Creative Union 'Southern Wave' (Krasnodar)
8. Commission on Human Rights under the President of the Chuvash Republic (Cheboksary)
9. Federal National-Cultural Autonomy of Roma (Moscow)
10. Forum of Migrants' Organizations (Moscow)
11. Foundation 'For Civil Society' (Moscow)
12. Foundation of Repressed Peoples and Citizens (Moscow)
13. Harold & Selma Light Center for Human Rights Advocacy (St. Petersburg)
14. Human Rights Committee of Republic of Tatarstan (Kazan)
15. Human Rights and Public Awareness Group 'Feedback' (Moscow)
16. Independent Commission on Human Rights under the Chuvash National Congress (Cheboksary)
17. Independent Human Rights Commission 'Sozidaniye' (Cheboksary)
18. Institute of Human Rights (Moscow)
19. International Society of Meskhetian Turks 'Vatan'
20. Minority Rights Group of St. Petersburg Union of Scientists (St. Petersburg)
21. Moscow Community of Crimean Tatars
22. Moscow Helsinki Group
23. Moscow Independent Public Library
24. Novorossiisk Human Rights Committee (Novorossiisk)
25. Pskov Regional NGO 'Pskov Faraway Province' (Pskov)
26. Public Foundation for the Support to Women Movement in the Republic of Tatarstan 'Siuyumbike' (Kazan)
27. Regional NGO 'Vatan'-Tajik community (Moscow)
28. Regional NGO 'Nur'-Tajik community (Moscow)
29. Regional NGO 'Pamir'-Tajik community (Moscow)
30. Regional NGO for Support of Refugees 'Inson' -Tajik community (Moscow)
31. 'Romano Kher' Society (Moscow)
32. Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East (Moscow)
33. Ryazan Human Rights Society 'Memorial'
34. Sasovo Human Rights and Public Awareness Center 'Choice of Conscience' (Ryazan oblast)
35. 'School of Peace' Foundation (Novorossisk)
36. SOVA Information and Analysis Center (Moscow)
37. 'Tadjikistan' Foundation (Moscow)
38. 'Tolerance' Foundation (Moscow)
39. 'Tomsk Regional Human Rights Commission' NGO (Tomsk)
40. Tomsk Regional Anti-Fascist Committee (Tomsk)
41. Union of the Internet Providers and Customers (Kazan)
42. Youth Center for Human Rights and Legal Culture (Moscow)

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RUSSIAN NGO ALTERNATIVE REPORT TO THE CERD
INTRODUCTION

PART I. GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND PRELIMINARY REMARKS
--ROLE OF THE FEDERATIVE SYSTEM
--PASSPORT SYSTEM AS THE BASIC INSTRUMENT OF DISCRIMINATION AND BASIC MECHANISM LEADING TO DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES
--THE STATE OF FORMER SOVIET NATIONALS AND THE NEW RUSSIAN LEGISLATION ON FOREIGNERS
--INFORMATION RELATING TO ARTICLE 1 OF THE ICERD
Article 1, par. 1
Article 1, par. 2
Article 1, par. 3
Article 1, par. 4

PART II. INFORMATION RELATING TO ARTICLES 2-7 OF THE ICERD
Article 2, PAR. 1
Article 2, PAR. 1 (A)
--Discriminatory activities of the law-enforcement agencies and officers
--Direct discrimination against Meskhetian Turks (Meskhetians) in Krasnodar Krai
--Persecutions of the Chechens outside Chechnia
--Privileges granted to member of the Cossack movement
--Discriminatory norms of the federal law on compatriots abroad
Article 2, PAR. 1 (B)
--Official support to the Cossack movement
--Obstruction by the para-military groups in The Republic of North Ossetia - Alania to the return of Ingush refugees to Prigorodnyi district of RNO-A, and connivance of the RNO-A authorities to these actions
Article 2, PAR. 1 (C)
--Official negligence towards the effects of passport system
--Official negligence towards discriminatory effects of the legislation of forced migrants and refugees
Article, PAR. 1 (D)
Article 2, PAR. 1 (E)
Article 2, PAR. 2
Article 3.
Article 4.
Article 4 (A)
Article 4 (B)
Article 4 (C)
Article 5 (A)
Article 5 (B)
--Violent actions of the law-enforcement staff
--Refusal of the law enforcement agencies to give equal protection to persons subjected to violence by extremist groups
Article 5 (C)
Article 5 (D)'I'
--Discrimination related to the restrictions on freedom of movement
--Discrimination based on restrictions of the right to free choice of residence
Article 5 (D) 'III'
--Non-recognition of Russian citizenship
Article 5 (D) 'IV', 'IX',
Article 5 (E) (I),(II),(III),(IV),(V)
Article 5 (F)
Article 6
Article 7

PART III. QUESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO THE RF GOVERNMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
--Discrimination-related legislation
--General policies
--Protection of certain groups
--Judiciary and law-enforcement agencies
--Education and training

ANNEX 1. COMMENTS ON THE RUSSIAN OFFICIAL REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE CERD

ANNEX 2. THE RUSSIAN PASSPORT SYSTEM AND ITS EFFECTS

ANNEX 3. THE SITUATION OF MESKHETIAN TURKS IN KRASNODAR KRAI OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

--Summary
--Historical Background
--The policies of the Soviet and Russian governments towards Meskhetians arriving in the Russian Federation in 1989-90
--Meskhetian Turks in Krasnodar Krai
--Evidence of racial discrimination
--Hate speech
--Recent developments in Krasnodar Krai
--The position of the federal government
--Judicial practice

ANNEX 4. THE SITUATION OF CHECHENS ACROSS RUSSIA
--Acquisition of the 'forced migrant' status
--Registration at a place of residence or stay
--Personal identity papers
--Employment, health care, education, social security
--Falsification of criminal cases
--Detentions, searches, unlawful requirements
--The situation after the hostage-taking on 23-26 October 2002 in Moscow


Executive summary

There are a number of mechanisms for combating racial discrimination and incitement of ethnic hatred in the Russian legal system. The 1993 Constitution guarantees the equality of rights and freedoms, and these guarantees are reproduced in the current legislation. The Constitution and laws guarantee judicial protection of human and civil rights. Actually the available legal remedies against discrimination and racist propaganda are weak and ineffective. The opportunity to employ them exists rather in theory than in established practice. This can be explained by different factors, including the disparity of substantive and procedural legal norms, drawbacks of the legislative acts in force, the lack of judicial and enforcement practice. One should also emphasise the lack of juridical and political will of the law enforcement agencies. Besides, the existent civil legislation provides for the defence of a definite violated right, but in practice discrimination as such is not being considered in court. Neither the Constitution nor the legislation contains any definition of discrimination. A significant factor is also the lack of official and public interest to the very issue of combating ethnic discrimination and the lack of public requirement for the corresponding legal mechanisms. The state prefers to address the problems in the terms of 'interethnic conflict', 'regulation of migration', 'tolerance' and 'fight against extremism', hence to neglect and hide the theme of discrimination.

In the recent years, there have been positive changes in the legislation and judicial practice. In particular, one should emphasise the new Labour Code of the Russian Federation, which took effect in February 2002. It establishes the remedies against discrimination on every stage of employment. The government undertakes some measures for the protection of vulnerable social categories. One should highlight in this respect the measures taken under the 1991 RF Law 'On the Rehabilitation of the Repressed Peoples' and the 1999 Federal Law 'On the Guarantees of the Rights of Small Indigenous Peoples'. The Federal Law 'On the Counteraction to Extremist Activities', adopted in July 2002, provides for the governmental bodies simple and strong remedies to suppress activities, which the state would consider 'extremist'. In 2002, the government demonstrated a willingness to actively combat extreme nationalist and racist organisations. Adoption of the federal programme on the promotion of tolerance and prevention of extremism for 2000-2005 also deserves a positive judgement.

Nevertheless, one can conclude that the state does not take sufficient efforts to effectively combat discrimination and to establish relevant remedies. On the contrary, governmental bodies systematically discriminate on ethnic ground against certain categories of population or encourage discrimination. The authorities of Krasnodar Krai with direct support of the federal government conduct the policies of persecution against the Meskhetian Turks and try to squeeze them out of Russia. Ethnic Chechens are systematically discriminated against and subjected to restriction of rights throughout the entire country; the deepest concern in this respect is caused by the fabrication of criminal accusation against people of Chechen origin. A significant problem is also discriminatory treatment of law-enforcement agencies towards ethnic minorities, first of all, people originating from the Caucasus and Central Asia as well as towards the Roma. The existing legislation on registration by place of residence and sojourn, on refugees and forced migrants encourages discriminatory behaviour of the enforcing agencies and officials. The government provides for direct support and a number of privileges to extreme nationalist organisations, which call themselves 'Cossacks', although these groups are responsible for some large violent actions against ethnic minorities.

One should state that the general situation is negatively affected by still unchanged fundament of the Soviet passport system. The latter remains the main tool of racial discrimination and a pre-requisite for most discriminatory practices. The change of regulations concerning the position of former Soviet nationals in Russia and later adoption of the new Federal Law 'On the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens in the Russian Federation' in July 2002 deprive most of the former citizens who reside in Russia lawfully of any legal status. Since most of them belong to ethnic minorities, this makes them victims of discriminatory treatment and the campaign of persecutions.

RUSSIAN NGO ALTERNATIVE REPORT TO THE CERD

Introduction

1. This report was compiled by the Human Rights Centre 'Memorial' (Moscow) in collaboration with the International League for Human Rights, Anti-Defamation League - Russia (Moscow), Centre for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights (Moscow), Centre for Pontic & Caucasian Research (Krasnodar), the 'Civic Assistance' Committee (Moscow), Federal National-Cultural Autonomy of Roma (Moscow), Information and Research Centre 'Panorama' (Moscow), International Society of the Meskhetian Turks 'Vatan' (Moscow - Krasnodar), the Moscow Helsinki Group, Novorossiisk Committee for Human Rights (Novorossiisk).

2. The report addresses the situation during 1996 - 2001, i.e. the period, covered by the Russian Federation's 15, 16 and 17 periodical reports (submitted to the CERD as a consolidated report), and also new developments in 2002. The authors of this NGO report welcome the official report and share many of its evaluations and conclusions. We agree that some positive changes in the national legislation have taken place within the recent years and that the government has started to combat extreme racist activities in a more active way. However, the given NGO report is alternative to the official one. We did not determine our objective as a confrontation with the official position or refutation of the governmental information or conclusions. The goal of the report was to present the views on the situation different from the official ones and to employ alternative sources of information. We also tried to avoid duplication of the data used in the official report.

3. Compiling the report, the authors employed the following sources of information: complaints of the people who considered themselves victims of racial discrimination and addressed human rights NGOs, judicial and administrative cases entailed from these complaints, regular monitoring data, analysis of the domestic legislation and judicial practice, official statistics (when available), official statements and responses to the parliament deputies and NGOs inquires, mass media publications . The available data enables us to state that the legislative, administrative and judicial mechanisms of combating racial discrimination in Russia are ineffective; in a number of situations the Russian Federation is egregiously violating its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). The Russian Federation is inadequately implementing ICERD, and is not taking the necessary measures envisioned in the Convention, which under current conditions could be implemented.
Part I. General background information and preliminary remarks.
Role of the federative system.

4. Russia consists of 89 constituent units (subjects of the federations, or, colloquially, regions). In accordance with the Constitution, they are equal in their relations with the federal government and exercise a certain degree of political, legislative and administrative autonomy. In real politics, some regions gain a higher degree of autonomy than it is envisaged in the Constitution, Legislative, executive and judicial bodies of the constituent units (subjects of the federation) systematically violate the Constitution, federal laws and international obligations of the country. Regional authorities often practise active promotion or toleration of blatant racial discrimination or instigation to violence and racial exclusion. The federal state government in practice neglects many opportunities of influencing the regions. However, the contradictions between the federal and regional governments in the area of human rights protection shall not be overestimated. In 2000-2001, the federal government conducted a campaign on bringing the regional laws and other legal acts in line with the RF Constitution and the federal legislation. Although, many regional laws have been changed, some legislative acts negatively affecting human rights and leading to racial discrimination remained untouched. For instance, the regional laws of Moscow and Moscow oblast (province), restricting the right to free choice of place of stay and residence, were gradually brought in line with the federal acts but later replaced by the new, also restrictive ones. The Rostov oblast (province), Krasnodar Krai (territory) and Kabardino-Balkarian Republic preserved their restrictive laws and regulation on residence registration. In 2002, Krasnodar and Stavropol Krais have adopted new laws, violating the right to free choice of the place of residence and stay.

5. In many cases the federal organs of state power not only neglect violations of the law by the regional authorities, but demonstrate solidarity with such actions as well. These manifestations of support have become more frequent in 1999-2002. In all cases of deliberate large-scale campaigns of persecutions against certain ethnic minorities (like the cases of Chechens and Meskhetian Turks), there have been no discord between the federal and regional governments.
Passport system as the basic instrument of discrimination and basic mechanism leading to discriminatory practices

6. The Russian passport system, a slightly modified Soviet passport system, is one of the major instruments of ethnic discrimination in public sphere and the source of the most acute problems in this area.

7. Russian nationals as well as foreigners are legally obliged to register themselves by the place of their permanent residence and temporary stay. Under the Russian federal law, the registration though being obligatory is of a notifying character. The latter results from Article 27 of the RF Constitution, which guarantees for everyone who stays legally in the Russian Federation the right to move freely and choose the place of residence and stay. Registration legally is not a circumstance that creates rights or duties under the legislation in force; that means that registration or its absence may not constitute either a restriction or precondition for exercise of the rights and freedoms. Absence of registration constitutes an administrative infringement with no other legal consequences for a person.

8. In reality the system of registration functions in a different way, creating prerequisites for human and civil rights violations (for more details see Annex 2). In practice, residence and sojourn registration restricts the right to freedom of movement and choice of place of residence. There are a number of formal and informal restrictions on the both types of registration, created by direct official prescriptions or by technical limitations. Registration actually becomes a precondition for exercise of the basic rights and freedoms. The system also requires an active repressive system of police control, and it contributes to human rights violations as well.

9. In practice, the institution of registration technically becomes a condition for the citizens to enjoy their rights: acquisition of the citizenship and formalities in this connection; employment; marriage registration; participation in elections; medical care; higher and occasionally even secondary education; pensions and allowances. A citizen cannot receive a passport without a registration either when he or she reaches the age of 14 years, or in case of loss or damage, cannot pay taxes, register a vehicle, obtain drivers licence, etc. As a common practice, a person cannot bring an action before a court of justice if he/she has no passport. Often judges refuse to process a lawsuit if the plaintiff has no residence registration.

10. The institution of registration by place of stay may function only on condition of support from a strict police control system and severe sanctions for the absence of registration, since there is, in principle, no other motivation but the punishment for a citizen to get a registration. 'Controlling the fulfilment of the requirements of the 'passport (registration) regime' has become one of the main goals and main activities of the police. Respective measures include checking up personal identity papers and registration certificates and searching the premises, where unregistered persons might live.

11. All these kinds of restrictions and control to a substantial degree are targeting ethnic minorities originating from Central Asia and the Caucasus, both from the North Caucasus within the RF and from the independent states of the South Caucasus, as well as the Roma people.

12. The institution of residence and sojourn registration is conductive to ethnic discrimination of three types:
1) The system provides for a series of distinct and concealed pretexts to deny the registration both by the place of residence and stay. Under certain circumstances the local authorities may refuse to register the persons of one ethnic group and to give advantages in the registration to the persons of another ethnic group, restricting the registration for the others.
2) Absence of registration is used as a pretext for the restriction of certain civil rights, and sometimes those restrictions are of a selective character and are based on ethnicity.
3) The control of the registration regime may be, and as a rule is, of a selective character too. In particular, as a rule, passports of those people who are physically different from the majority are checked up in the streets more frequently than of the others.

13. Though in 2000-2001 the legislation of many Russian regions has been brought in line with the federal laws, the practice of registration and control over registration remain discriminatory and repressive and even become stricter.

14. Besides, strict police control and official statements against so-called 'illegal migrants' (i.e. people without registration) entail other forms of everyday discrimination and exclusion. People avoid contacts with those who are supposed to be a target for police and administrative checks, primarily with people originating from the Caucasus and with the Roma. They are often denied housing and other services, they are less likely to be hired and more likely to be fired.
The state of former Soviet nationals and the new Russian legislation on foreigners

15. The situation with ethnic discrimination and hate speech in Russia to a significant degree is determined by the state of former Soviet nationals who actually reside in the RF.

16. After the Soviet Union's breakdown, the USSR Law 'On the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens in the USSR' of 1981 could not be automatically extended onto the former Soviet nationals who stayed in Russia but were not Russian citizens. It was not applied to the CIS nationals and citizens of the former USSR (stateless persons). Then, their status remained unclear until adoption of the Federal Law 'On the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens in the Russian Federation' of July 2002 (went into force on 1 November 2002).

17. The CIS nationals and former Soviet citizens (except for citizens of the Baltic States, since 1999 Turkmenistan and since 2001 Georgia) enjoy the right of free entry into the RF territory without visas or any other permissions. Until 2001, the term of stay in Russia was not also restricted for them. The same rules of registration by place of residence and stay were applicable to them as to Russian citizens.

18. According to Article 62, par. 3 of the RF Constitution, foreign citizens and stateless persons in the Russian Federation enjoy rights and bear responsibilities on an equal basis with the citizens of the Russian Federation, except for cases established by federal law or an international treaty. Consequently, the lack of legislative restrictions mean that former Soviet nationals in the RF had to enjoy basic rights civil and social rights on equal footing with Russian citizens. Until adoption of the new law on foreigners in 2002, no one law in the RF contained a general restriction of foreigners' labour rights. There is the President's Decree on licensing employment of foreigners from 16 December 1993. The Decree determines the order, but not the legal ground for permission-based employment. However, human and civil rights (including labour rights) can be restricted in accordance with the RF Constitution (Art. 55, part 3) only by a federal law. The 1981 Soviet law on foreigners did not limit foreigners' labour rights. Besides, the President's Decree of 16 December 1993 lost effect when the Constitution took effect on 25 December 1993.

19. Since 2000, substantial and drastic changes have been taking place in the Russia's migration policies. In 2000, visa regime was introduced for citizens of the former USSR who resided in Latvia and Estonia, in March 2001 - for nationals of Georgia. On 31 December 2000, item 'd' of Article 18 of the Russian citizenship law expired and citizens of the former USSR lost the right to acquire Russian citizenship under a simplified procedure. At the same time, the Ministry of Internal Affairs announced that the status of 'citizen of the former USSR' was nullified.

20. CIS nationals and citizens of the former Soviet Union were equated with visitors from outside the CIS by the unpublished Ministry of Internal Affairs Instruction No. 1/15651 of 22 August 2000 'On issuing residence permits'. These people were obliged to apply for residence permits. Those who have already lived in Russia can acquire residence permits only they had residence registration. CIS nationals with Russian residence registration were entitled to residence permits for the term of 5 years and stateless former Soviet nationals - for 3 years. However, the latter in fact are required to prove that they don't belong to citizenship of the country where they possessed the last propiska. Most former Soviet nationals live in the country under a temporary registration or even without registration. It is not their fault - they cannot objectively comply with the passport system requirements or were arbitrarily denied registration.

21. Criteria and procedures for obtaining residence permits for the newcomers were not established. In 2001-2002, residence registration was given only to holders of residence permits, but residence registration was not a sufficient precondition for getting a residence permit. Consequently, most ex-Soviet nationals who actually resided in Russia were unable to get residence permits in 2001-2002. At the same time, the term of temporary stay for the people arriving in the country without visas and special invitations was limited to one month. That was done under the unpublished and secret Order No. 076 of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs from 5 March 1986. The term of validity for old-style internal passports of the USSR, which identify stateless ex-Soviet nationals, was reduced till the end of 2003 (instead of 2005, as had been declared before).

22. The 2002 RF law on foreigners does not distinguish between the foreigners who already live in the country and who arriving in Russia anew. It also does not envisage any period of transition. The people who are not Russian nationals and who are living in the country may apply for temporary or permanent residence permit on equal footing with the newcomers. However, without employment permission or residence permit they loose the right to employment or running any business on 1 November 2002. Without a lawful source of income and residence registration they have little chances in getting temporary and permanent residence permits.

23. Consequently, a large category of the outlawed people is emerging. Hundreds of thousands or millions former Soviet nationals who permanently live in the country (there are no reliable figures so far) do not have Russian citizenship or are not recognised as Russian citizens in direct violation of the law or have lost a status of legal residents. The bulk of them have already lost links with the countries of their origin. Currently, a nation-wide campaign against 'illegal migrants' has been launched in the country. The authorities mean by 'illegal migrants' primarily former Soviet nationals who live without propiska. However, residence or sojourn registration bears the same legal meaning for Russian citizens and foreigners. Lack of registration constitutes an administrative misdemeanour resulting in equal consequences for citizens and non-citizens unless the law envisages otherwise; it cannot determine legality or illegality of stay in the country. Almost nobody pays attention to the fact that these people have not violated any law. Remarkably, that some official statements and mass media publications emphasise ethnic and cultural 'alienation' of the so-called 'illegal migrants'; the campaign targets primarily ethnic minorities.
Information relating to Article 1 of the ICERD
Article 1, par. 1

'In this Convention, the term 'racial discrimination' shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.'

24. According to Article 6, part 2 of the RF Constitution, 'every citizen of the Russian Federation has all the rights and liberties on its territory and bear equal duties, stipulated by the Constitution of the Russian Federation'. Article 19, part 1 stipulates that 'all people are equal before the law and in the court of law'. Article 19, part 2 states that 'the state guarantees the equality of human and civil rights and liberties regardless of sex, race, nationality [that is ethnic affiliation], language, origin, property and employment status, residence, attitude to religion, convictions, membership of public associations and any other circumstances. Any restrictions of the rights of citizens rights on social, racial, national [i.e. ethnic], linguistic or religious grounds are forbidden'. According to Article 19, part 3, 'man and woman have equal rights and liberties and equal opportunities for their pursuit'.

25. Therefore, Article 19 does not offer any clear definition of discrimination, and the contents of Articles 6, part 2 and 19 can be interpreted in different ways. The first sentence of part 2 of Article 19 hardly implies either a clear prohibition of any encroachment on equality of rights and freedoms or the state's obligation to eradicate violation of equality. The second sentence of the same part imposes a ban only on 'restriction of rights', only on the closed list of five grounds and only (as well as Article 6, part 2) with regard to 'citizens'. The Russian legislation and judicial practice does not provide for a clear interpretation of the term 'restriction of rights'. Moreover, Article 19, part 3 and the 2001 Labour Code also introduce the concept of 'equal opportunities for pursuit of rights and freedoms'.

26. Article 37, part 3 of the Constitution stipulates that 'everyone has the right to… remuneration for work without any discrimination …'. Though the article introduces the very term 'discrimination' (diskriminatsiya), it does not offer any definition. Possible grounds of discrimination in this context are not specified. The term 'discrimination' is also used in the 2001 Labour Code, but without a definition and interpretation as well.

27. There is no anti-discriminatory legislation in the country. There are no other legislative acts that contain a clear definition of direct or indirect discrimination. The drafting and adoption of anti-discriminatory legislation was not planned by the RF State Duma (the Parliament) of the 2-nd (1996-1999) and 3-rd convocations (2000-2003).

28. Therefore, the notions of 'discrimination', 'restrictions of rights', 'legitimate or illegitimate distinction' remain unclear for the professional lawyers and for the general public. There are no official explanations on this matter issued by the Supreme Court and no definite position of the legislative power and the law-enforcement agencies. The 'Concept of the State Nationalities Policy of the Russian Federation', adopted by the President's Decree No. 909 of 15 June 1996, addresses discrimination as the issue of direct restriction of citizens' rights. The 1993 RF Law 'On Lawsuits Against Actions and Decisions Violating Citizens' Rights' and respective provisions of the Civil Procedural Code entitle the people to bring complaints to a court in cases when personal rights and freedoms are violated. The law equates by default with violation of rights also creation of an obstacle to enjoyment of rights and freedom or illegal imposition of a duty or responsibility. However, a similar term 'restriction of rights' us being understood in juridical practice predominantly as a direct and overt limitation of certain rights of certain individuals or social categories. Illegitimate distinction, resulting in a negative effect for an individual or people concerned, that cannot be clearly determined as direct 'restriction of rights' (for instance, in cases of official control or supervision), is usually not perceived as 'discrimination'.

29. A significant problem for Russia is hidden or multiple forms of discrimination. These kinds of distinction, exclusion or preference may be practised on the basis of other criteria - as a rule, related to the present and former places of residence, kin ties in certain regions. Overt restrictions on these grounds may be really aimed at persons who belong to racial (or ethnic) minorities. Restrictions against definite social categories in practice may be applied selectively, on the ground of personal ethnic affiliation.
Article 1, par. 2

'This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens.'

Article 1, par. 3

'Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as affecting in any way the legal provisions of States Parties concerning nationality, citizenship or naturalization, provided that such provisions do not discriminate against any particular nationality.'

30. The federal government and regional authorities contrary to the RF Law 'On Citizenship of the Russian Federation' of 1991 have arbitrarily refused to recognise Russian citizenship for several categories of the former citizens of the USSR. Notably, these people differ ethnically from the majority of RF population (see below the section devoted to Article5, par. (d) 'iii').
Article 1, par. 4

'Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.'

31. In the political and academic discourse of Russia, the term 'small indigenous peoples' (Art. 69 of the Constitution), which is close to the concept of indigenous populations, is used to describe a category entitled to special protective measures. The definition 'small indigenous peoples' is given by the respective federal law (see the part relating to Article 2, par. 2). The constitutional term 'small ethnic communities' (Art. 72, par. 'm' of the Constitution) is not defined anyhow either in law or in theoretical debates. Though present in the Constitution (Art. 71, par. 'c'), there is no definition of the notion 'national minorities' in the federal legislation. Specific compensation measures are discussed in respect of 'repressed' or 'formerly deported' peoples, i.e. ethnic groups that were forcibly displaced in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1991, the respective federal law and legislative acts on separate ethnic groups were adopted, certain measures were taken to give compensation to the victims of deportations and their descendants. There is no discussion of the issue of the protective measures in respect of the categories of the population who have become victims of the racial discrimination under other circumstances (internally displaced persons, certain national minorities).

Part II. Information relating to Articles 2-7 of the ICERD

Article 2, par. 1

'States Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races, and, to this end:'

32. The equal rights provisions of the RF Constitution is reproduced in a number of legislative acts: the 1994 Civil Code (general equality of persons participating in civil relations); the 1964 Civil Procedural Code (equality of citizens before the law and court); the Family Code of 1995 (the ban on restrictions of rights related to marriage and family life on the grounds of social, racial, national [ethnic], linguistic and religious belonging); the 1996 Criminal Code (equality before the law); the RF Law 'On Citizenship of the Russian Federation' of 1991 (equal access to citizenship); the RF Laws 'Basis of Legislation of the Russian Federation on Health Protection' of 1993 and 'On Medical Insurance of Citizens in the Russian Federation' of 1991 (equal access to health care); the RF Law 'On Forced Migrants' of 1993 (equal access to the respective protective mechanism) and 'On Refugees' of 1993 (equal access to the respective protective mechanism); 'On the Basis of Civil Service of the Russian Federation' of 1995 (equal access to civil service); 'On the Basis of Municipal Service of the Russian Federation' of 1998 (equal access to municipal service); the RF Law 'On Militia' [On the police] of 1991 (the principle of equal protection of human and civil rights).

33. Regretfully, the RF Law 'On Education' of 1992 enshrines equal access to education, but not a guarantee of equal treatment within educational institutions. Also the Federal Law 'On Citizenship of the Russian Federation' of 2002 provides only for equal rights of RF citizens, but not equal access to citizenship regardless of race or ethnicity. A number of relevant legislative acts do not contain any provisions on equal rights and non-discrimination. Among them are: the 1983 Housing Code; the RF Law 'On the Basis of Federal Housing Policies' of 1992, the Federal Law 'On the Basis of the Federal Policies in the Area of Labour Protection' of 1999 (addresses only the issues of physical security), the RF Law 'On the Protection of Consumers' Rights' of 1992.

34. Adoption of the new Labour Code in 2001 (took effect on 1 February 2002) means a remarkable positives shift in the Russian legislation. The previous 'Code of Laws on Labour' of 1974 contained substantially limited guarantees of non-discrimination. Its Article 2 provided for equal remuneration for equal labour without any discrimination, but did not specify the grounds of discrimination. Article 16 devoted to the general principles of hiring stipulated that there were not allowed 'direct or indirect restriction of rights or creation of direct or indirect advantages on the grounds of sex, race, nationality [ethnicity], language, social origin, property, place of residence, attitude towards religion, convictions, membership of public associations and also other circumstances, not relating to the employee's business characteristics'. Therefore, the ban on discrimination did not cover treatment at a job place and firing. The new Code prohibits any kind of discrimination at any stage of employment and provides for preventive and recourse mechanisms. An employee id entitled to bring an action on discriminatory treatment before a court. The independent Federal Inspection of Labour has the right to supervise hiring policies and treatment at job places; labour inspectors have the right to bring obligatory prescriptions before employers, to bring complaints to public prosecutor office or they can bring an action before a court. However, these mechanisms have not been employed so far, and one can't make judgements on their effectiveness.

35. Most of the discrimination-related legal norms in Russia are substantive norms, and the legislation is obviously lacking sufficient procedural guarantees against discrimination. There are some judicial, criminal and administrative remedies for prevention and ceasing discriminatory practices, but they are ineffective and applicable rather in theory than in practice (for more information see the section pertaining to Article 2, par. 1(d)).

36. No one legislative act in the Russian Federation explicitly envisages special disciplinary responsibility of governmental officials for discriminatory behaviour or racist speech. Article 14 of the 1995 framework Federal Law 'On the Basic Principles of Civil Service of the Russian Federation' envisages general disciplinary responsibility of a civil servant for improper exercise of his/her duties and contains a general reference to the 'responsibility under federal law' for violation of rights and freedoms of citizens. In theory, this provision can be used in a case of racist behaviour or speech. However, there is no evidence that this opportunity has even been used in the RF. The same situation can be witnessed in the areas of militarised (armed forces, security service, police) and municipal services.

37. Meanwhile, the state not only fails to undertake adequate measure to combat discrimination, but also in many cases practises, sponsors or tolerates systematic and massive discrimination itself. Of a deep concern is a fact that discriminatory actions often take place in the form of co-ordinated repressive campaigns targeted at certain ethnic or racial groups. Federal and regional authorities, municipal bodies, as well as their officials take part in these campaigns, sometimes supported by some public associations and mass media. One shall mention the campaign against migrants from the Caucasian region, initiated by the Moscow and Moscow regional authorities in September 1999; the campaign against Chechens, started 1999 across the country, as well as the campaign against the Meskhetian Turks, residing in Krasnodar Krai. Different state and non-state actors simultaneously use variable limitations that restrict the rights of the persons, belonging to the discriminated groups. This is the reason, why peculiarities of the discriminating campaigns against separate groups and general problems will be described separately; though general problems concern many categories of the population, they may be traced in separate campaigns as well.
Article 2, par. 1 (a)

'Each State Party undertakes to engage in no act or practice of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions and to ensure that all public authorities and public institutions, national and local, shall act in conformity with this obligation;'
Discriminatory activities of the law-enforcement agencies and officers

38. 1) Racially selective inspections and identity checks. Racial profiling in this area manifests itself in selective and disproportionately frequent stops and detentions of persons belonging to the so-called 'visual' minorities (that is, persons with a distinctive physical appearance, easily identifiable as natives of the Caucasus and Central Asia and as Roma), unlawful and unprovoked use of violence toward detainees, extortion of money, frivolous and disproportionately frequent searches of residential premises occupied by members of these minorities or offices of companies owned by them, arbitrary seizure of their personal property or goods in which they trade. In the course of check-ups and detentions, such persons are often treated in a manner humiliating to their human and ethnic dignity.

39. This practice is directly caused by the system of the registration by the place of residence and stay, that was described in Part I 'General background information and preliminary remarks', item 2. The disproportionate attention paid to the minorities and discriminatory behaviour towards them is often provoked by the idea that the natives of the Caucasian region and the Roma are crime-prone; this idea is circulated on the initiative of the regional authorities and heads of the bodies under the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

40. 2) Racially selective large-scale policing campaigns. The largest campaign of identity checks and searches in dwellings took place in Moscow, the Moscow oblast and in some other neighbouring provinces after two apartment bombings in Moscow on 9 and 13 September. The Moscow city and regional authorities imposed new restrictions upon newcomers to Moscow and undertook a series of repressive measures against 'migrants' from the Caucasus. In September 1999, those people who didn't have a registration by their places of residence in Moscow, were obliged to re-register themselves in the police within one week. In accordance with the official data, around 105,000 people applied for re-registration by 26 September, and more than 20,000 of them were refused. 'Newcomers' were registered selectively, with almost all Russians receiving registration, while many Azeris, Armenians, Georgians and others arriving from the South Caucasian states and Russian Northern Caucasus were refused. Almost all Chechens got negative responses, even if they had a complete set of documents required for registration. Those who were refused received written orders to leave the city.

41. During check-ups in streets and dwellings the police personnel detained and brought to police stations persons of the 'Caucasian' origin, primarily Chechens, Daghestanis, and Azeris. In accordance with some mass media publications, around 20,000 persons were detained during the first two weeks of September 1999. During the detention, police officers usually annulled the certificates of temporary registration by a place of stay. In some cases during the checks in private apartments passports were withdrawn from the detainees. In some cases the police staff forced their way into dwellings without any sanction of a public procurator and against the will of the people who lived there. Primarily, the apartments where Chechens and Daghestanis lived were subjected to such checks. In a number of cases, persons who lived there were detained and given written orders to leave Moscow and their apartments were sealed up. According to unofficial admittance of some police officers, including those working in the patrol service and passport and visa departments, they were given verbal orders based on a directive of the Chief of the Head Department of Internal Affairs of Moscow to detain and not to re-register Caucasians, and primarily Chechens.

42. The campaign against 'migrants' and 'Caucasians' was repeatedly mounted within the next 3 years; the largest operations took place in August 2000 and October-December 2002.

43. 3) Special treatment of the Roma people. Roma people like other visual minorities are subjected to impromptu identity checks at the street and in dwellings. Besides, the Ministry of Internal Affairs periodically conducts allegedly anti-crime campaigns in a number of Russian regions under the slogan 'Tabor' (the name for a Romani encampment). These campaigns commonly entail checking the documents of people identified as Roma and displacing them to whatever part of the Russian Federation in which they were last registered. For example, these campaigns took part in spring of 2002 in Moscow and Moscow region, Samara and Tomsk oblasts. In July-August 2002, the operation was conducted throughout the entire country. On 16 October 2001, the local police deported about 100 Roma people from Krasnodar to the Voronezh oblast, the place where they had the last residence registration.
Direct discrimination against Meskhetian Turks (Meskhetians) in Krasnodar Krai

44. Meskhetian Turks, or Meskhetians are a Turkish-speaking Muslim ethnic group deported in 1944 from Southern Georgia to Central Asia; about 290,000 Meskhetians live within the former USSR. From 1989-90 onwards, after ethnic clashes, about 90,000 Meskhetians were forced to leave Uzbekistan. About 60,000 of them sought refuge in the Russian Federation (at that time, one of the Union republics), and of these, more than 13,000 fled to Krasnodar Krai, a southern region of RF.

45. The regional authorities of Krasnodar Krai refused to grant to the Turks 'propiska', or registration by place of residence. Krasnodar Krai is the only one region of Russia where the Turks are deprived residence registration en masse. The residence restrictions were applied selectively, almost exclusively against Crimean Tatars and Turks. Out of 19,897 people (including the Turks) who applied to the passport and visa service of the Krymsk district of Krasnodar Krai (the district where approximately 60% of the local Meskhetians are living) from 1 January of 1989 until 1 October 1994, 11,001 obtained a propiska. Out of 8,479 Turks who applied for a propiska within that period, only 14 persons received it. In other words, Turks made up 92.5% of all people who were refused propiska in the Krymsk district. The same situation existed in the Abinsk district: in 1989-94, out of all the people considered by local police as 'forced migrants', only Turks were refused a propiska .

46. Respectively, the Turks have been deprived of the basic civil, political and social rights (for more information see Annex 3). Sales of dwellings, which the Meskhetians had purchased after coming to the Krasnodar Krai in 1989-90, haven't been officially authorised because of a special ban. As a result Meskhetians, like other persons who do not have residence registration, are not officially recognised as Russian citizens in direct violation of the Russian Citizenship Law of 1991. Neither the law itself nor the respective by-laws equate permanent residence with residence registration while the Meskhetians permanently and legally resided on the Russian territory at the dissolution of the Soviet Union and did not decline Russian citizenship afterwards. Permanent employment is not allowed to them. They actually cannot receive or restore (in case of loss or damage) personal documents (like passports or drivers licences). Their marriages are not being officially registered and recognised. The Meskhetians are completely deprived of any access to the system of social security and public medical service. They are not allowed to get education higher than of the secondary level.

47. The regional authorities since 1992 formally single out the Meskhetians as a distinct ethnic category, subjected to special discriminatory treatment. On 24 April 1996, the Legislative Assembly of the Krasnodar Krai adopted the Resolution No.291-P, according to which adult Meskhetians were obliged to pass every three months through a special registration procedure and to receive residence certificates. Since then, there were several other regional acts on special registration requirements for the Turks; in practice that meant that this ethnic group was denied access to normal residence registration. However, the Meskhetians who have acquired Russian citizenship and propiska outside Krasnodar Krai, but actually live in region, are subjected to the same treatment as those who cannot provide documentary evidence of their citizenship.

48. The Meskhetians are regularly checked and fined by police and even by the traffic police for the lack of registration. Massive checks of the 'passport regime' including searches of dwellings are also take place periodically. There are a few cases of detentions and short-term imprisonment of the Turks, living in Krymsk district.

49. The pressure upon the Turks has increased since winter of 2001/2002. Senior officials of Krasnodar Krai often make public statements that they will create unbearable living conditions for the Turks and other 'illegal migrants' to force them to leave the region. Regardless of their actual propiska status, a number of Meskhetians in the western part of the region were denied the right to lease plots of land from local agricultural enterprises. The Meskhetian Turks are also barred from selling vegetables even from plots of land attached to their own houses. The local authorities refuse to give them papers certifying that they possess these plots of land, and tax inspection imposes fines for 'illegal' commerce. The Meskhetians are also penalised for 'unlawful' occupation of the land and houses, which were purchased 12-13 years ago. They cannot pay the administrative fines, and the local courts have already seized the property (including livestock, food, and cutlery) of dozens of families. New developments of the anti-Meskhetian campaign are also the recent refusals in access to health care and to pre-school educational institutions. The Turks are systematically denied access to justice: the local judges refuse to commence Meskhetian lawsuits under various arbitrary pretexts.

50. The federal authorities have overtly supported the policies towards the Meskhetian Turks in Krasnodar Krai (for more information see Annex 3). The federal Presidency, government and public prosecutor's office did not reacted anyhow to the anti-minorities statements as well as to the unlawful actions of the Krasnodar government. Moreover, representatives of the President's Administration repeatedly stated that there were no disagreement between the federal and the Krasnodar authorities with regard to migration and ethnic policies. The Federation Council (the upper chamber of the Russian parliament) on 10 July 2002 adopted a statement regarding the migration and ethnic situation in Krasnodar Krai. The statement contains a call for massive deportation of non-nationals without local registration, for resettlement of the Meskhetian Turks to Georgia and for displacement of some of the ethnic minorities to the central and northern regions of the country. The policies towards the Meskhetians are usually justified by the fact that these people were deported from Georgia and many Meskhetians would like to return back to this country. However, any resettlement to Georgia can be only of a voluntary character; the Meskhetians are not obliged to move anywhere. The perspectives of their 'repatriation' to Georgia look vague because of economic devastation and political instability in this country.

Persecutions of the Chechens outside Chechnya

51. The Russian federal government did not control Chechnya in 1991-94. In 1994-96 a large-scale warfare against separatist forces took place; the federal troops were defeated and withdrawn. In 1997-99, this territory was not controlled by the federal government, and the government of self-proclaimed 'independent Chechnya' was unable to maintain any kind of public order and to secure rule of law and even physical safety of the inhabitants of Chechnya and neighbouring regions. The Russian federal troops entered Chechnya for the second time in October 1999, since then, the federal government has been trying to regain control over the region. In 1991-94, during the both warfare campaigns and between them many inhabitants of Chechnya, including Chechens tried to flee the republic and to seek shelter in other regions of Russia. Besides, many ethnic Chechens have lived across Russia for decades. In the recent years, comers from Chechnya and ethnic Chechens have been subjected to different kinds of discriminatory treatment and harassment. Since summer 1999, these activities have rapidly evolved into a state-sponsored large-scale co-ordinated campaign. During 2000, spread over most of the Russian regions (for details see Annex 4). The authorities demonstrated their intention to make by all means the life of the Chechen population unbearable and to 'squeeze' the Chechens to Chechnya. The pressure on the Chechens has been made in the following forms.

52. 1) Expulsion. On 18-20 June 1999, the authorities of Stavropol Krai presumably with the help of the Cossack units deported 62 Chechen peasant families from the area near the boundary with Chechnya to the Chechen Republic. Later the houses with the remaining property of Chechens were burnt. The regional authorities virtually approved the deportation, and the Prosecutor Office of the Kurskaya district of Stavropol Krai refused to open the criminal case, expressing doubts on the very fact of violent eviction.

53. 2) Arbitrary passport and identity checks, forcible entrance into premises, searches, detentions and beatings. Such actions repeatedly take place in different regions. From September 1999 onwards, the police control over the Chechens' movement and stay has become routine and spread over most of the Russian regions. The Chechens suffered to a greater degree in June-December 1999 in Stavropol Krai, from August till December 1999 in the city of Moscow, Moscow oblast, Volgograd and Nizhny Novgorod oblasts. From September till December 1999 in the Tomsk oblast (Southern Siberia) the Chechen males - refugees from Chechnya, were put into 'reception and distribution centres' (prisons for administrative arrests) without any explanations for as long as 10 days, and without any explanations were then released. By the order dated 29 October1999 and issued by N.M. Mamontov, temporary holding office of the Head of the Stavropol regional Department of Internal Affairs, the police authorities in the krai were obliged to supervise the persons who had come from Chechnya since 1992 to control their actual whereabouts and behaviour, and to demand from them to come to the police stations, nearest to their residence or stay, twice a week. In reality this control was mostly targeting the Chechens.

54. Two large-scale massive campaigns of checking and detaining the Chechen also took place in Moscow in August 2000 and in November-December 2002, after the hostage taking in a Moscow theatre on 23-26 October. In Autumn 1999, actually all Chechens living in Moscow (including higher school students, post graduate students and doctoral candidates of educational and academic institutes) were obliged not only to apply for re-registration, but to leave their finger- and palm prints, photographs and specimens of their handwriting in the Service of Criminal Militia (criminal police units). A similar operation was repeated in November 2002.

55. The police and taxation services also systematically check the firms owned by ethnic Chechens. These checks, seizure of business documentation and unofficial threats to the Chechens' contracting parties bring substantial losses to the Chechen middle and petty business; many small firms were bankrupted.

56. Police 'checks' often include beating and other forms of degrading treatment. In some cases, beatings were of massive character. On 27-28 March 2001, at night, a police detachment belonging to the 9th Division of the Moscow Regional Department for combat organised crime (RUBOP) penetrated the student hostel in town of Khimki (a Moscow suburb) where Chechen students and teachers of the State University of Culture lived. 25 students invited by the Russian Ministry of Culture from Chechen refugee camps comprised an experimental Chechen youth theatre 'Nakhi'. The students and their teachers were heavily beaten, their rooms were searched and some property stolen or destroyed. A police officer tried to plant a pistol of one of the students. The students were detained and taken to a police station but later released without any explanations and formal accusations.

57. 3) Fabrication of criminal accusations. In July-November 1999, a number of Chechens and a few Ingushes were detained and charged under article 222 (illegal acquisition, transfer, sale, storage, transportation or carrying of weapons, ammunition, explosives and explosive devices) and 228 (illegal manufacturing, acquisition, storage, dispatching or sale of drugs and psychotropic substances) of the RF Criminal Code. In the mid-September the Chechnya President's Representative in the Russian Federation informed about 150 Chechens who were arrested under this pretext in the previous month while the figures, given by the Moscow-based Chechen public associations, exceeded 500 people. The Memorial Human Rights Centre and the 'Civil Assistance' Committee made up their own list, where there were 51 names by the end of 1999. The arrested people, their relatives and acquaintances witnessing the arrests, state that the drugs and ammunition were intentionally planted on the accused during either detention, or personal search in the street or at home, or at the police stations by the police officers. There are enough evidences to suspect mass fabrication of these accusations. The same practice restarted in Moscow and the Moscow oblast in March 2000. Since then, this practice has become a routine. After the hostage taking in Moscow, there was a new wave of fabrications: the Memorial and the 'Civic Assistance' Committee traced at least 20 cases. The Chechen NGOs and State Duma deputies reported about several hundred cases.

58. There are several circumstances testifying to the mass fabrication of the accusations:
a) The available information enables to speak of the targeted mass campaign: before July 1999 and between November 1999 and March 2000 there were no complaints of drugs and ammunition having been intentionally planted on the Chechens.
b) Special attention attracts the fact, that in some operations officers from the departments for combat against organised crime (RUBOP) took part, while almost all the individuals brought to the trial were accused for the first time and were not repeated offenders or participants of the organised criminal groups.
c) The motivation of the alleged crimes is also doubtful: in most cases the accused are the people of a stable social status, with a permanent income who haven't not observed either as having criminal ties or in drug abuse.
d) There are contradictions both in the accusations and circumstances of the detention: in some cases drugs were found on them, when the persons voluntary came to the militia station having been summoned there, or after their detention during the second or third, but not the first personal search.
e) Threats of 'planting drugs' were widely spread in the second half of 1999; many police officers and representatives of the procurator's offices do not deny in private talks with representatives of human rights organisations the fact of mass fabrication of evidence.

59. Since February- March 2000, fabrication of criminal accusations against Chechens, as well as Azeris, Tadjiks, Armenians and Roma restarted in Moscow, the Moscow and Tver province and some other regions. The human rights organisations, including Memorial, possess information about several dozens of people (concrete estimates are varying) who are arrested under allegedly fabricated accusations upon Articles 222 and 228 of the Criminal Code. As a rule, most of the arrested are found guilty in the courts.

60. 4) Refusal in granting the status of forced migrants. The Chechens who fled Chechnya are en masse refused the status of forced migrants in all Russian regions. Such refusals also affect people of another ethnic origin who left Chechnya, but they are selective and not total (see the paragraphs relating to Art. 2, par. 1(c)).

61. 5) Dismissals. In autumn 1999, several Chechens were fired from their jobs in schools and health care institutions in Moscow. In two cases the dismissal was motivated by the Order No. 567 'On Strengthening Security in Schools' dated 21 September 1999 issued by the Education Committee of Moscow. After the hostage taking in Moscow, at least 15 Chechens have reported to the Memorial and 'Civic Assistance' Committee in Moscow that they were fired with a direct reference to these people's ethnicity as the reason for firing. Chechens are systematically denied employment primarily in large cities.

62. 6) Denied access to education. In autumn 1999 and in November-December 2002, administration of some schools in Moscow ceased admittance to the Chechen pupils under the pretext that their parents did not have a local registration. This requirement was addressed only to Chechens.

63. 7) Violation of the right to the freedom of movement and choice of the place of residence. In most of the regions (Moscow city, Moscow, Tver, Vologda, Nizhny Novgorod, Volgograd oblasts, Stavropol Krai), the local authorities systematically refuse to register the Chechens by place of residence and by place of stay. Within 1999, officials of Stavropol Krai, Republics of North Ossetia - Alania, Kabardin-Balkarian Republic several times prohibited entry of ethnic Chechens to their territories. (For details see the section, relating to the Article 5 (d) 'i').
Privileges granted to member of the Cossack movement

64. The Cossack movement advocates revival of the specific militarised corporation that existed before 1917, and claims special and group rights for its participants. The Cossack organisations represent themselves in different ways: as a specific 'ethno-cultural community', a component part of Russians, a public movement, a corporation with a special semi-official status. The Cossack movement was granted by the government with several privileges for themselves and their members. Meanwhile, entry to the Cossack movement membership is not free. Only people of Orthodox faith and loyal to the ideology of Cossackhood are admitted. Descendants of the pre-1917 Cossacks have advantages in joining the movement, the rest are discouraged from this. Therefore, one can talk about a descent-based discrimination.

65. The 1991 RSFSR Law 'On the Rehabilitation of the Repressed Peoples' determined the Cossacks as a 'cultural ethnic entity' and equated them with ethnic groups repressed in the Soviet period. Presidential Decree No.835 'On the Governmental Register of Cossack Communities in the Russian Federation' of 1995 approved the semi-official status of Cossack organisations, although none of the federal laws directly confirms it. The President's Decree No.67 of 1996 created Chief Directorate of Cossack Troops within the President's Administration. The President's Decree No.563 and No.882 of 1996 granted to members of the Cossack communities special privileged access to governmental and other kinds of public service. The Decree No. 564 of 1996 provides for agricultural land allocation to Cossack societies. The Decrees No.95 - 97, 611 - 613 of 1997 and some others included a number of regional Cossack societies into the official register and thus gave them an official status. The Federal Programme for support of the Cossack Societies for 1999-2001, adopted by the RF Government Resolution No. 839 of 1999, reaffirmed the previous official policies aimed at integration of the Cossack units into power structures and at providing them privileges concerning civil service, local self-government and economic activities.

66. Cossack organisations in receive direct and indirect financial support from governmental agencies. Cossackhood has become a special mechanism of recruitment to civil and military service. The Cossacks benefit from special access to all kinds of public service (governmental, including militarised, and municipal). The Cossack societies, which are included in the register may conclude special agreements with the authorities on the service and offer their candidates. Meanwhile, the Constitution and the legislation of all levels envisage equal access to all kind of services regardless of origin and membership in any associations.
Discriminatory norms of the federal law on compatriots abroad

67. The Federal Law 'On State Policy of the Russian Federation towards Compatriots Abroad' of 24 May 1999 introduces a special legal status of 'compatriots abroad', applied both to the Russian citizens and certain categories of foreign citizens and stateless persons. The law guarantees support of the Russian Federation to 'compatriots' in enjoyment of certain rights as well as certain privileges in maintaining relations with the Russian Federation. Article 1 of the Law introduces a restriction on ethnic ground. Descendants of Russian citizens, citizens of the former USSR, as well as emigrants from the Russian Empire/the USSR/the Russian Federation, relating to 'the titular nations of foreign states' cannot claim the compatriot status. Article 2 defines 'titular nation' as an ethnic category, or 'a part of the population of a state whose nationality defines the name of a state'. The status of 'compatriots abroad' is not connected either with the citizenship or naturalisation procedures; it is directly related to exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms. As it is formulated in the law, it does not allow to qualify 'compatriots' as racial and ethnic groups requiring protection, and it does not justify the exemption on ethnic ground.

Article 2, par. 1 (b)

'Each State Party undertakes not to sponsor, defend or support racial discrimination by any persons or organisations;'

Official support of the Cossack movement

68. In 1991-97 the bulk, and in 1998-2002 a significant part of incidents involving violence and harassment against minorities was carried out by the organised groups which identified themselves as 'Cossacks'. In Krasnodar and Stavropol Krais, Rostov and Volgograd oblasts, the Cossacks are pressing upon the regional authorities to restrict the rights of the persons of Caucasian origin or to deport them. Cossack units (both separately and together with police) conduct identity checks at private dwellings and in the streets and markets, search private apartments and motor vehicles and detain people. Despite the extremist and nationalist sentiments of many leaders and rank-and-file members of Cossack units and their extremist activities, federal and regional authorities have provided various kinds of support to them. Moreover, the authorities have been granted to the Cossack organisations some official functions and competence. Ministry of Internal Affairs Directive No.1/2899 of 28 June 1994 'On the Participation of the Cossacks in Maintaining Public Order' and a Joint Directive of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Chief Directorate of the Cossack Troops under the RF President dated 5 January 1997, No.1/127 'On the Interaction of Members of Cossack Communities, Included in the State Register of Cossack Communities in the RF, with Ministry of Internal Affairs Structures', served as the formal basis for employing members of the Cossack organisations as an auxiliary police force. In a number of regions, Cossack organisations have been granted the right to conduct joint operations with law-enforcement agencies also on the basis of regional regulations.

69. The mostly significant case is the entry of the All-Kuban Cossack Army (AKCA) under the title of the Kuban Cossack Army Society to the State Register by the RF President's Decree No. 448 from 24 April 1998. Earlier AKCA was known as the most radical nationalistic organisation, directly responsible for a series of violent actions on ethnic ground in Krasnodar Krai and the one that has been demanding from the local authorities to aggravate the discrimination against national minorities. Representatives of the Kuban Cossack Army Society are present in the Krasnodar Krai administration.
Obstruction by the para-military groups in The Republic of North Ossetia - Alania to the return of Ingush refugees to Prigorodnyi district of RNO-A, and connivance of the RNO-A authorities to these actions

70. Since the armed clashes between Ingushs and Ossetians within Prigorodnyi district of North Ossetia broke out in October-November 1992, the issue of Ingush forced migrants still remains unresolved. A significant progress in voluntary return of the refugee took place in 1998-2001. The number of returnees increased, governments of the Republic of North-Ossetia - Alania and the Republic of Ingushetia have established a durable process of negotiations, a substantial amount of firearms was confiscated from the gangs operating in North Ossetia. However, authorities of the Republic of North Ossetia - Alania pay insufficient attention for securing public order and preventing ethnic discrimination, segregation and violent actions in the places where the Ingushs live. The authorities in fact oppose the return of those Ingushs who try to do so at their own risk, alleging they are unable to guarantee their safety. The republican government declared a number of settlements completely closed for trespassing and residence of the Ingushs. The RNO-A authorities directly connived at mass-scale actions aimed at blocking the roads to prevent forced migrants' return to their homes. In a few settlements, where Ingushs had stayed or to which they later returned, unbearable conditions, namely artificial unemployment, firings and blockade are being created for them. They are also regularly threatened and terrorised by arsons. As a result, many Ingush families were forced to leave the territory of Prigorodnyi district twice.

71. According to the official data, more than 21,000 but actually about 12,000 Ingushs have returned back to the Prigorodnyi district. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority actually resides in the settlement Mayskoye, which is situated at the borderland with Ingushetia and really remains under control of the Ingush administration. A significant number of people there are still deprived of permanent dwelling and employment. The general official figures, which concern the returned Ingushs, also include more than 1000 people who have official residence registration in the settlement of Kartsa, but actually do not reside there. The real process of return concerns only the settlements of Chermen and Dachnoye, but the Ingushs live there in blockade and without any stable guarantees of security.

Article 2, par. 1 (c)

'Each State Party shall take effective measures to review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists;'

72. In all the situations enumerated above in the section related to pars. 1(a) and 1(b) of Article 2 of ICERD, the federal governmental agencies do not take the necessary steps to review all laws or regulations, which may create or perpetuate racial discrimination.

Official negligence towards the effects of passport system

73. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in a number of cases qualified as unconstitutional the restrictions upon registration by a place of residence and place of sojourn, established by the Government Resolution No.713 of 17 July 1995 and by the respective regional regulations. Though the Constitutional Court decision on the Government Resolution No. 713 was issued on 2 February 1998, the Resolution was brought in line with it only in August 2002. However, neither the court's decision nor amendment to the Government Resolution changed the existing practice. The Presidential Administration, the RF Government, the Prosecutor General's Office and the RF Ministry of Justice did not take sufficient measures to abolish regional regulations establishing illegal restrictions on residence registration. Such acts are still in force in Krasnodar and Stavropol Krais, Rostov oblast, Kabardino-Balkarian Republic. The Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Prosecutor General's Office and the Federal Migration Service do not take steps to make their territorial branches observe the provisions of federal law rather than regional acts contradicting the Constitution and federal legislation.
Official negligence towards discriminatory effects of the legislation of forced migrants and refugees

74. The RF Law 'On Refugees' of 1993 (with further amendments) is designed in general accordance with the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. The RF Law 'On Forced Migrants', adopted at the same time, (with further amendments) rests on the same concept. The term forced migrant' bears a narrower meaning that the term 'internally displaced person'. 'Forced migrants' are RF nationals who had to leave their places of residence either within Russian or abroad under the expectations of persecution on ethnic, social, political and religious ground and who seek shelter within the country. Foreigners who reside in Russia and were forced to leave a certain territory in Russia under the same fear are also entitled to apply for the status. The status of 'forced migrant' is vitally important for coerced migrants since in the framework of the passport system it is a precondition for exercise of some basic rights. Besides, there are no other mechanisms for applying for aid from the government for those who were deprived of their dwelling and property in armed conflict zones. Actually only forced migrants can get temporary dwelling and can be registered as unemployed. The status of forced migrant also provides for residence registration.

75. Article 1 of the Law on forced migrants is formulated in an unclear way that provides for two different interpretations . One enables to consider 'mass disorders' as a separate legitimate ground for claiming the status, the other one rests on the assumption that 'mass disorders' are mentioned in the law only as an additional component of persecutions. Usually, the people who just escape from 'simple' disorders or from warfare cannot obtain the status unless they prove that they were at risk of persecutions on ethnic, religious or similar grounds. Besides, the vague criteria of 'persecutions' provide for officials' freedom of discretion. Consequently, the system creates thresholds of different height for different ethnic groups. Moreover, potential applicants are often orally denied access to the very submission of written applications for the status. Besides, some regional normative acts (in Moscow and Moscow oblast, Krasnodar Krai) conditioned granting the status by availability of registration by a place of sojourn, kin ties within the respective territory or other additional circumstances. These restrictions became a ground for abuses and unmotivated refusals in granting the status.

76. When the first armed conflict in Chechnya broke out in December 1994, the migration service with a three months delay started to grant the status to the people fleeing the region. The warfare itself was considered a sufficient reason for granting the status to Chechens, Russians and people of other ethnic backgrounds. The Chechens who fled Chechnya between the two wars (1996-1999) and during the second war (1999 - until present) as a rule do not receive the status of forced migrants. The migration service asks them to provide documentary proofs of the persecutions against them, and only few Chechen can fulfil this requirement. The Federal Migration Service reported that about 568,000 people had left Chechnya by October 2001; of them 12,500 people were granted the status of forced migrants. The Federal Migration Service overtly recognised that there were only few ethnic Chechens among them, since ethnic Chechens did not comply with the Law 'On Forced Migrants' . The people of other ethnic origins from Chechnya (mostly Russians) got the status (though with strict limitations) since the migration service agrees as a default that the Russians are persecuted on ethnic ground in Chechnya.

77. Granting the status of refugee is also often ethnically selective . Several dozen thousand people who fled Tadjikistan during the civil war of 1992-95 and subsequent armed clashes were granted the status of 'forced migrants' or refugees in Russia. The total number of ethnic Tadjiks within Russia who acquired a status is estimated by the Foundation 'Tadjikistan' and other human rights NGOs between 30 and 40 people, although the Tadjiks and non-Tadjiks were suffering from the war, and primarily Tadjiks were persecuted on political ground or the ground of place of birth or residence. Most of several thousand Tadjiks who applied for the status got oral refusals even before the submission of applications.

78. Ethnic preferences were also obvious in the case of refugees from Abkhazia. Abkhazia is an autonomous region of Georgia, the zone of armed conflict since 1992, which is not under control of the Georgia government. According to some estimates, there are approximately 60,000 refugees from Abkhazia in Russia, the most of them are ethnic Georgians. By 1997, 21,000 migrants from Abkhazia were granted the official status, and of them only 4,000 were Georgians, while among the persons of another ethnic origin the share of those who were granted the status and registration by a place of residence was much higher. Refugees from Abkhazia have found themselves in the most vulnerable position in Krasnodar Krai. In autumn 1992, as a result of fighting in Abkhazia, at least 30,000 people were forced to fled this republic directly to Krasnodar Krai. Later, in October 1993, up to 5,000 persons were also evacuated from Sukhumi, the administrative centre of Abkhazia. Russia was for them the first safe territory and the country of first refuge. While most ethnic Russians and Abkhazians obtained the status of forced migrants, the majority of Armenians and virtually all ethnic Georgians were refused it. At the present time, according to various estimates, there are between 12,000 to 15,000 ethnic Georgians in Krasnodar Krai who were forced to flee Abkhazia, of these, up to 11,000 who went to Sochi (the Black Sea coast area). According to the data provided by the local migration service around 2,000 forced migrants from Abkhazia were granted the respective official status , by the beginning of 1998. Among them were only 121 ethnic Georgians and 598 Armenians, and by the end of 2002 no one else from these groups got the status. Formally, these persons were denied the forced migrant or refugee status under the pretext that they didn't have any close relatives within the region. Actually, there was a selective approach on ethnic criteria, since most of the Georgian and Armenian refugees who had relatives in Krasnodar Krai, were refused the status. As a result, most of the refugees from Abkhazia have been also denied registration by places of residence, and consequently, all fundamental civil and social rights. These people are not being given the opportunity to obtain legal status not only in Krasnodar Krai, but also in other major cities and regional centres, although they are not able to return to the places of their former residence.

Article 2, par. 1 (d)

Each State Party shall prohibit and bring to an end, by all appropriate means, including legislation as required by circumstances, racial discrimination by any persons, group or organization;

79. In theory, non-material wealth, including rights and freedoms and personal dignity can be defended in court by civil litigation (for more details see the section relating to Article 6 of the ICERD). The law protects non-material wealth including personal dignity, the right to free movement, inviolability of the person and family (Articles 21, 22, 23, 27 of the Constitution, Article 150 of the Civil Code).

80. The Criminal Code contains Article 136 'Violation of equality of human and civil rights and freedoms' which envisages criminal liability for 'violation of equality of human and civil rights' on the basis of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official position, place of residence, attitude towards religion, convictions, membership of public associations which inflicted damage on citizens' rights and lawful interests'. Part 1 of the Article envisages punishment varying from the penalty fare of 200 minimal wages to the 2 years imprisonment. Part 2 concerns the same crime committed by the abuse of official position and envisages punishment up to 5 years imprisonment. Article 136 is not an article of private accusation, therefore a criminal proceeding can be commenced only by a public prosecutor or by the police. Article 136 determines the crime exclusively in substantive, but not in formal sense. Thus, only actual damage to a victim must be available for criminal liability of the perpetrator; instructions to discriminate or instigation to discrimination if they are not public, are not punishable. Article 136 is being used only in rare occasions. According to the data provided by the Ministry of Internal Affairs , there were 3 criminal cases on Article 136 commenced in 1997, 4 in 1998, 5 in 1999, 1 in 2000. 3 people were accused in 1997, respectively 2 in 1998, 3 in 1999, 3 in 2000. No official statistics on the court trials and their outcome have been made public so far.

81. The Federal Inspection of Labour (established in 1994) has the competence of general supervision of labour conditions. Until 2000, the FIL was within the Ministry of Labour and Social Development, and later it has become an independent centralised service. Labour inspectors in case of violations of the labour legislation have the right to make obligatory prescriptions to employers or to bring complaints to public prosecutor office or to litigate. There is no information that this discretion has been ever used for prevention or eradication of discrimination. The State Housing Inspection (established in 1994) has the task to supervise the exercise of rights and lawful interests of citizens and the state in the sphere of housing. Actually, the SHI controls only physical state of dwellings and their compliance with the governmental technical standards. The Ministry of Education has the supervisory service that is only in charge of attestation of educational units; the governmental and municipal educational bodies are not explicitly obliged to tackle discrimination.

82. In the Russian Federation, Public Prosecutor Office constitutes a separate system of state organs. Among the tasks of public prosecutors are: a) general supervision over the compliance of governmental and non-governmental bodies with the Constitution and federal laws; b) general supervision over the state of rights and freedoms of citizens; c) public persecution and investigation. There is no information confirming the Public Prosecutor Office's interference in cases of ethnic or racial discrimination. As a rule, the Public Prosecutor Office demonstrates reluctance to commence proceedings and investigate cases under Articles 136 (discrimination) and 282 (hate speech) of the Criminal Code.

83. There are no special agencies in the Russian Federation, either at the federal level or at the regional level, which are in charge of prevention and elimination of discrimination. In theory, the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Russian Federation has the competence to examine any complaint to human rights violations in the cases when all the other remedies available are exhausted or to address the cases of mass and systematic violations. There is no evidence that the Ombudsman has been involved in the cases of racial or ethnic discrimination. The Ombudsman's Office has not demonstrated a specific and sufficient interest to this area so far. The Ministry on Federative, Nationalities and Migration Affairs did not address the issues of discrimination at all, nor did analogous local offices of the subjects of federation. However, the Ministry was dissolved by the President's Decree of 16 October 2001. The new State Minister on Nationalities Affairs does not address the issues of discrimination.

84. The country is lacking a special anti-discriminatory legislation. Formally, the USSR Law 'On Reinforcement of the Liability for Encroachment on National Equality of Citizens and for Violent Acts Aimed at Violation of the USSR's Territorial Integrity' of 1990 is still in force. It is not implemented since its provisions, which envisaged criminal, administrative and civil liability of people, and public associations were overcome and replaced by the later legislation. There are no special anti-discriminatory programs or programs in the field of providing equal opportunities in the country. The state occasionally declares its willingness to provide for equal rights of citizens, but these declarations are seldom if compared with the statements on 'regulation of interethnic relations', 'prevention of conflicts', 'promotion of tolerance' and 'combat against extremism'.

Article 2, par. 1 (e)

Each State Party undertakes to encourage, where appropriate, integrationist
multiracial organizations and movements and other means of eliminating barriers between races, and to discourage anything which tends to strengthen racial division.

85. The Russian society at large is not ethnically or racially segregated and the general public does not perceive elimination of social barriers between ethnic groups as an important issue on the agenda. Mono-ethnic organisation or organisations based on exclusively ethnic membership are seldom in comparison with multi-ethnic ones. Ethnically based public associations of minorities, as a rule, co-operate among themselves and with non-ethnic NGOs. However, there are substantial problems of social barriers on ethnic lines. One should mentions in this respect the cases of Chechens across the country, Roma across the country, Ingushs in the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, the Meskhetian Turks in Krasnodar Krai (the relevant information is provided above, in the sections pertaining to Article 2, par. 1 (a) and (b)). Social barriers are created and reproduced to a significant degree by the passport system, related practices and public campaigns targeted at 'migrants'. The state does not pay any attention to this area.

86. Organised political activities on ethnic ground (as well as religious and professional) are actually not allowed in Russia. The Federal Law 'On Political Parties' of 2001 envisages that among public associations only political parties can take part in political activities, namely in referenda, elections and electoral campaigns. Political parties can be only federal, inter-regional or regional parties are not allowed. Political parties cannot be established on the grounds professional, racial, ethnic and religious belonging (Art. 9, part 3). Such grounds are understood as any indication in the organisation's charted or programme on the protection or expression of the respective professional, ethnic etc. interests. To compare - the 1995 law on public association prohibited political public associations on these grounds but determined the latter as blatant membership restrictions. The 2001 law on political parties obviously imposes restrictions on the freedom of association and on the right to participate in governance; it actually prohibits any minority activism with a political component. This kind of integrationist measures shall be considered excessive and disproportionate.

87. There is also the problem of hate speech in public sphere. The government addresses this issue and reinterprets it as 'promotion of tolerance' and 'fight against political extremism'. The basis assumptions of this approach and its effects are currently controversial in Russia (for more information see the sections related to Articles 4 and 7 of the ICERD).
Article 2, par. 2

'States Parties shall, when the circumstances so warrant, take, in the social, economic, cultural and other fields, special and concrete measures to ensure the adequate development and protection of certain racial groups or individuals belonging to them, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. These measures shall in no case entail as a con sequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.'

88. Article 69 of the Constitution of Russian Federation guarantees the rights of small indigenous peoples, Article 71, par. 'c' puts 'regulation and protection of the rights of national minorities' under the competence of the federation. Article 72, par. 'b' imposes jointly on the federation and its subjects (constituent units) obligations regarding the 'protection of national minorities', and par. 'm' - the 'defence of the traditional habitats and traditional way of life of small ethnic communities'. On the basis of Article 69 there was adopted the Federal Law 'On the Guarantees of the Rights of Numerically Small Indigenous Peoples' of 1999. It envisages some privileges in employment, land possession, exploitation of natural resources, taxation, local self-government for the persons, belonging to aboriginal peoples and carrying out traditional economic activities, as well as the right of the regions to adopt additional protective measures in favour of these people. The legislation of some Russian regions (Buryatia, Yakutia-Sakha, the Tyumen oblast, Khabarovsk Krai) admits special rights of the aboriginal groups to using and disposing of land and natural resources.

89. The State Duma suspended its work on the draft law on national minorities in 1997. The mechanism of minority protection, resting on the federative structure, governmental and educational and cultural institutions and so called 'national-cultural' (i.e. exterritorial) autonomy, actually exists (for more details see Annex 1), although it is not effective and sufficiently funded.

90. The federal authorities have not taken any measures to redress the violated rights and to improve the situation with those categories, which had become the victims of racial discrimination and mass infringement of the human rights. Among them are citizens of the former USSR who have not been acknowledged the citizens of the Russian Federation contrary to the law, forced migrants from Chechnya and several regions of the former USSR and refugees from outside the former Soviet Union who were denied relevant status and protection.

Article 3

'State Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction.'

91. The Russian legislation does not contain either any notion of segregation or provisions, which would provide for its prohibition.

92. Involuntary separation of pupils and classes on ethnic ground has started is the recent years in Krasnodar Krai. Children of Turks, Armenians, Kurds or Assyrians are placed in classes and courses separate from ethnic Russians. This practice was first introduced in school No.2 of the Krymsk district (the town of Krymsk). Within the recent 2 years, the division of students into 'Slavic' and 'non-Slavic' (or 'Turkish') classes has been established also in the settlement Nizhnebakanski (the Krymsk district), the settlement Kholmski (the Abinsk district), the village Kubanskaya (the Apsheronsk district) as well as in the Belorechensk district . The school administrations justify this selection by the argument that ethnic minorities need special treatment because of their poor command of Russian language. However, the separation is compulsory, the ethnic minority kids are sent to the 'non-Slavic' classes regardless of their real fluency in Russian, and they receive lower quality education than other students. Several schools are segregated on ethnic lines between Ossetians and Ingushs in the Prigorodny district of North Ossetia.

93. One can also employ the terms 'the crime of apartheid', 'similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination' and 'systematic oppression' introduced in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid' of 30 November 1973. They cover 'denial of the liberty of person', 'infliction of serious bodily or mental harm, infringement of freedom or dignity, subjection to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment', 'arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups' (Article 2 clause 'a'); 'measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country..., in particular by denying ... basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work..., the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence' (Article 2 clause 'c'). Persecutions of the Chechens across the Russian Federation and of the Meskhetian Turks in Krasnodar Krai fall within these definitions. Actions against Chechens and Meskhetians include frivolous detentions and arrests, refusals to register by at the place of residence or stay, threats to oust the people from the places of their residence, preventing the people from crossing an administrative border, fabrications of criminal cases, firings and refusals in employment, refusals to admit to schools, colleges and universities, refusals to draw up passport and other personal papers, non-recognition of Russian citizenship with regard to Meskhetian Turks.

Article 4

'States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organisations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:'

94. The issue addressed by Article 4 of the ICERD constitutes one of the mostly important problems for the Russian Federation. Extreme nationalist organisations produce and disseminate racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Moslem printed stuff, audio- and video-materials. Some mass media, especially regional newspapers, publish materials blaming certain ethnic groups, mainly natives of the Caucasus and Roma, for deterioration of criminal and economic situation and demanding to restrict their rights. Within 2001-02, the Russian federal mainstream media (ORT TV channel, 'Komsomolskaya Pravda', 'Moskovski Komsomolets', Literaturnaya Gazeta' newspapers) started to broadcast and publish overtly racist materials and appeals. Racist statements of governmental officials and parliamentary deputies have become frequent. Organised violent attacks on the minorities, especially on people of Asian and African origin, have become common. Mass violations of public order including racist mob violence have taken place in Moscow and other large cities.

95. The principles enshrined in Article 4 of the ICERD are partially implemented in the Russian legislation. Moreover, the new legislation on fight against 'extremism', adopted in 2002, enables the government to effectively suppress any public activity, which could be interpreted as 'extremist'. Meanwhile, the government does not undertake sufficiently to eradicate and prevent organised racist activities and hate speech. Moreover, it supports, finances, and integrates into the official structure paramilitary formations which identify themselves as Cossacks, while these formations are as a rule demonstrate hostility towards many non-Russian ethnic groups and commit racially motivated violent actions.

Article 4 (a)

'Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;'

96. Article 13, par.5 of the RF Constitution prohibits the establishment and activities of public associations whose goals and activities are targeted, among the rest, at 'inciting social, racial, national and religious hostility'. Article 29 also contains a ban of 'propaganda or agitation inciting social, racial, national or religious hatred and enmity'.

97. Article 63, part 1, par. 'e' of the 1996 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation acknowledges the motive of ethnic, racial or religious hate or enmity as an aggravating circumstance for the qualification of a crime. There is no statistical data on this article's application in criminal accusations and juridical proceedings.

98. Article 282 of the Criminal Code envisages criminal liability for 'actions aimed at inciting national, racial or religious enmity, humiliation of national dignity, and also propaganda of exceptionalism, superiority or inferiority of people on the ground of their attitude toward religion, or their national or racial affiliation if these actions are committed publicly or with the use of mass media'. Part 1 establishes punishment varying from penalty fare of 500 minimal wages to 4 years imprisonment. Part 2, which concerns the same deeds committed with violence or threat of violence, abuse of the official position or by an organised group, envisages from 3 to 5 years imprisonment. Article 282 is an article of public and not of private accusation, that is a criminal investigation can be filed exclusively by a public law-enforcement authority.

99. Article 282 in practice is applicable only to a limited degree. The main reasons are the lack of will of public prosecutors and a relatively unclear definition of the criminal offence. The obvious drawback of Article 282 is that it combines at least three different kinds of crimes varying by the degree of their potential threat to public order. Consequently, the exceedingly broad scope of the article results in its wittingly selective utilisation. The law-enforcement agencies must look upon the article as a tool used on a special occasion. Besides, the police, public prosecutors and judges interpret the formulation 'actions aimed at inciting…' in the way that only direct intention must be among elements constituting a crime in terms of Article 282. 'Absence of evidence of direct intention to incite enmity' is the main pretext of the Russian law-enforcement bodies for not instituting criminal investigation on hate speech.

100. As a common practice, police units do not persecute the people, distributing racist papers, books and leaflets. Public prosecutors, as a rule, refuse to start criminal investigations even in the cases of public appeals to ethnic violence. When the law-enforcement agencies take action against extreme nationalist and/or racist groups, they demonstrate reluctance to employ Article 282. Usually, in these rare cases when the criminal investigations were initiated, police or public prosecutors employed different articles like 'hooliganism' or 'bodily injury' and did not recognise racist components of the certain crimes.

101. According to the data provided by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, there were 12 criminal cases on Article 282 commenced in 1997 (among them 12 new cases for this year), 16 in 1998 (16 new), 29 in 1999 (25 new) and 24 in 2000 (17 new). Respectively, 6, 8, 14 and 8 investigations were closed or ended within each calendar year. 1 person was accused in 1997, respectively 9 people in 1998, 11 in 1999, 8 in 2000. There is no official information on the court trials and their outcome so far. According to an unofficial information from the RF Supreme Court (dated February 2002), no one was found guilty in court under Article 282 in 1997, 1 person was sentenced in 1998, 4 in 1999, 10 in 2000 and 3 people in the first half of 2001. As a rule, those few persons who had been sentenced to a short-term or conditional imprisonment were released either under an amnesty or because the punishment had been covered by the duration of the pre-trial custody.

102. Until August 2002 (when the Federal Law 'On Counteraction to Extremist Activities' took effect), assistance to racist activities was not a crime under the Russian legislation.

103. The 1995 Federal Law 'On Immortalisation of the Victory of the Soviet People in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-45' prohibits the use of Nazi symbols in any way and proclaims fight against fascist organisation on the RF territory a priority for the governmental internal policies. In 1997, the regional legislative assemblies in Moscow and Saint Petersburg introduced administrative liability for distribution of Nazi or similar logos and symbols; in practice the norm remains actually inapplicable. The new RF Code on Administrative Violations, adopted in 2001 (went into force on 1 July 2002), also envisages (Article 20.3) administrative liability for the propaganda and demonstration of Nazi and similar symbols. The previously adopted regional legislation on Nazi symbols obviously contradicts the federal Code, and it is still unclear how the regional laws would be brought in line with the federal one and what the practice of implementation would be.

104. The limits of freedom of speech consistent with the constitutional norms are stipulated in the RF Law 'On Mass Media' of 1991 (with subsequent amendments). For violation of the existing regulations offenders are subject to civil and administrative liability, and, besides, to criminal liability, established by the Criminal Code.

105. Article 4 of law on mass media prohibits 'abuse of the freedom of speech', i.e. propaganda of violence, incitement of enmity and similar things. Article 16 prescribes the mechanism for making sanctions against a periodical, which violates Article 4. Issue of a periodical or broadcasting can be stopped against the will of its founder only by a court decision. The 'registering agency' (i.e. the Ministry of Mass Media, Information and Communications and its territorial branches) can officially submit an official written warning to a periodical or a broadcasting company, which violates Article 4. The 'registering agency' has the right to bring a suit before a court on closing a periodical or a broadcasting company only after repeated violation of Article 4 within 12 months after at least two official warnings. Each warning can be contested in court. As a rule, the Ministry of Mass Media and its territorial branches demonstrate reluctance to employ the existing mechanisms and use official warnings and actions before a court only in rare cases. Besides, civil process in Russia gives the defendants unlimited opportunities to drag out the hearings, and the extreme nationalist newspapers as a rule use them.

106. Only public authorities can defend public interest and file suits before a court in case of racist publications; the purpose of the litigation with respect to mass media can be only its closure, but not a penalty. Citizens or civil associations are not entitled to litigate against a periodical or a broadcasting company unless a publication encroaches on dignity or business reputation of the respective physical or legal person. In other words, if public hate speech was not directed against a certain person, it is not interpreted as a moral damage by the courts.

107. Administrative penalties for racist publications as such are not envisaged.

108. The situation has changed when the Federal Law 'On the Counteraction to Extremist Activities' took effect in August 2002. The law determines the term 'extremist activities' broadly, as violent actions against the state and any kind of actions aimed at inciting national, racial, religious and social enmity in connection with violence or threats of violence; humiliation of national dignity; vandalism and mass disorders; propaganda of exceptionalism, superiority or inferiority of people on the ground of their social, racial, religious, national and linguistic belonging; propaganda and public demonstration of Nazi or similar symbols. The definition also covers public appeals as well as financing and any other support to all these kinds of activities. The law gives public prosecutors, the Ministry of Mass Media and its territorial departments the right to submit official warnings to the periodicals and broadcasting companies, which disseminate extremist materials. If the periodical or broadcasting company does not bring its activities in line with the official warning, the respective public prosecutor or registering organ must file a suit before a court on the issue of liquidation of the respective periodical. The issuance of the periodical or broadcasting may be suspended for the term of proceeding (the latter is a new legislative element if to compare with the previous legislation). A court may also determine certain printed or other materials 'extremist' and ban their dissemination in Russia; the Ministry of Justice is obliged to maintain the list of banned materials (this is also a new element).

Article 4 (b)

Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law.

109. There are dozens of active extremist nationalist groups and organisations, which preach ethnic superiority and xenophobia, especially towards Jews and people who ethnically originate from the Caucasus and Central Asia. Propaganda of racist and extreme nationalist kind has been typical for such organisations as Russian National Unity (RNU), the National-Bolshevik Party (NBP), the Russian Party and many others. Members of some of these organisations in individual cases were involved in acts of violence against ethnic minorities. In 2000-01, there was an obvious decrease in these groups' activities. The RNU got into internal crisis and split into three parts. The NBP leader has been on trial on the accusation of 'terrorism' and of illegal arms possession. The politicised extreme nationalist political groups and parties like the RNU and NBP have been to a significant degree replaced by less politicised but more active and massive neo-Nazi or non-ideological 'skinhead' youth gangs, which are now present in almost all large cities. The number of unmotivated violent crimes against 'visual' minorities has drastically increased within the recent 4 years .

110. Article 239 of the Criminal Code envisages criminal liability for 'foundation of an association encroaching on citizens' personality and rights. Part 1 establishes punishment for 'creation of a religious or civic association, the activities of which are connected with violence towards individuals or other harm to their health or with instigation to refusal from civil duties or to other unlawful deeds as well as the leadership in such association' varying from penalty of 200 minimal wages up to 3 years imprisonment. Part 2 makes punishable membership in such association or propaganda and establishes sanctions from penalty fare of 100 minimal wages to 2 years imprisonment. Until August 2002, participation in a prohibited racist organisation as such was not a criminal offence. Only if an association of this kind made physical and moral harm directly to an individual or tried to violate directly certain people's rights, Article 239 can be employed. Under Article 208 of the Criminal Code, citizens of the RF can be prosecuted for participating in an 'illegal armed formation'; however, the concept of 'illegal armed formation' appears to be non-functional.

111. The investigators usually refrain from acknowledging the organised character of the hate crimes and their link with the extreme nationalist or racist activities. Article 239 of the Criminal Code ('Foundation of an association encroaching on citizens' personality and rights') is being also used occasionally. According to the data of Ministry of Internal Affairs, there were 4 criminal cases on Article 239 commenced in 1997 (2 new), 6 in 1998 (5 new), 6 in 1999 (5 new) and 8 in 2000 (8 new). 1, 4, 1 and 3 investigations were closed or ended within each of these 4 calendar years. 1 person was accused in 1997, 2 in 1998, 2 in 1999, 2 in 2000. There is no official information on the court trials and their outcome so far. Article 208 is used exclusively in Chechnya during the armed conflict.

112. Article 23 of the Federal Law 'On Public Associations' of 1995 states that if a group's charter violates the Constitution and the law on public associations, there are possible grounds for the governmental organ to refuse registration of this group as a legal person. Many years of practice have clearly shown that no public association includes in its charter forms of activity prohibited by the RF Constitution and federal laws. That of course does not prevent such groups from participating in such activities anyway. Articles 41-45 of the same law envisage responsibility of civic organisations for violating the RF laws. Possible sanctions include suspending an association's activities or disbanding it. Both suspending and disbanding a group can be conducted only by a judicial procedure after two repeated written warnings, 'if these warnings were not contested in court through the established legal procedure or not declared unsubstantiated under the law by court'. Only the Ministry of Justice, its regional departments and public prosecutors are entitled to file civil suits before a court against public associations. Citizens or public associations do not have the rights to litigate against a public association promoting or propagating racist ideas.

113. Federal and regional authorities took certain measures against extreme nationalist or racist organisations, however, those actions were sporadic, inconsistent, sometimes of an arbitrary character and contradicting the law. They seldom achieved the goals they were aimed at. In 1997, the RF Ministry of Justice refused registration to the party Russian National Unity and several other similar associations. Several regional Departments of Justice issued analogous refusals. Nevertheless, many extreme nationalist organisations got official registration, and many others have operated de facto without registration.

114. In November 1998 the Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov declared that he would not let the RNU Congress be held, though the Mayor was not entitled to ban public meetings; and the RNU Congress did not take place. The General Procurator's Office together with the Federal Security Service has distributed methodological guidelines and recommendations on investigation of the cases of hate speech; although there is no information of how those instructions are applied in practice. On 25 November 1999, the RF Central Electoral Committee refused to register the list of candidates submitted by the electoral bloc 'Spas' (that was formed on the basis of RNU), which was to participate in the elections to the RF State Duma. The legal reasoning was based on incompatibility of the declared and actual activities of the organisation.

115. In 2002, the government significantly intensified combat against extreme nationalist groups. Several nationalist editions got official warnings or/and were liquidated. 6 regional branches of the former RNU were denied official registration. The police started to form special units for combating extremist gangs.

116. The 2002 Federal Law 'On the Counteraction to Extremist Activities' gives public prosecutors, the Ministry of Justice and its territorial departments the right to submit official warnings to a public association, which is involved in extremist activities. If the respective public association does not bring its activities in line with the official warning, the public prosecutor or registering organ must file a suit before a court. The court may liquidate this public association (if it is a legal person) and impose a ban on its activities (if it does not have official registration). A public prosecutor or an organ of the Ministry of Justice up to 6 months can also suspend a public association's activities after commencing the lawsuit on the issue of liquidation (the latter is a new legislative element if to compare with the previous legislation). The law also establishes denial or restriction of access to public service and to some professions by a court decision as a new type of responsibility for person involved in extremist activities.

117. In July 2002, there were also amended the Criminal Code and a number of laws. Article 282.1 of the Criminal Code establishes liability for organisation of or participation in an 'extremist group', i.e. a group organised by committing crimes motivated by ethnic, racial and other kinds of hatred. Article 282.2 envisages liability for organisation of or participation in an 'extremist organisation', i.e. an association disbanded and banned by a court.

118. The enforcement practice regarding the extremist law is still missing, so one can't make judgement on to what extent the mechanism is actually effective. Most Russian human rights NGOs consider the law, especially the broad definition of 'extremist activities' creates prerequisites for abuse of power. Administrative suspension of a periodical or a public association (with can be endlessly repeated) without a judicial decision may mean actual liquidation of any organisation disliked by the government. Under Article 15 of the law on extremist activities establishes the duty of a public association publicly express disagreement with a statement of its leader or member within 5 days afterwards if this statement can be considered 'extremist'. Otherwise, the lack of statement of disagreement must be regarded as an element of extremist activity. Meanwhile, Article 29, part 3 of the RF Constitution stipulates that 'no one may be coerced into expressing one's views and convictions or into renouncing them'. The term of 5 days for expressing public disagreement is unreasonable, besides, this norm makes public associations vulnerable to provocations. The new version of Article 280 of the Criminal Code establishes responsibility for 'public appeals to extremist activities', although not all kinds of these 'activities' are subject to criminal liability.

119. Besides, the broad definitions of the new pieces of legislation are conductive to selective and, consequently, arbitrary enforcement. The previous legislation, though relatively effective, was not enforced properly and actively; there are no guarantees that the new one will be applied in a better way. Previously, the law enforcement agencies justified their reluctance to persecute hate crimes and hate speech by the alleged lack of legal definition of 'extremism'. Currently, the new legislation on combating 'extremism' contains the same formulations as the former provisions; consequently, it is not obvious that the new norms can encourage new enforcement policies.

Article 4 (c)

'Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.'

120. As stated above, the Russian legislation does not also explicitly ban racial harassment by civil or municipal servants. It is also missing any norms concerning disciplinary liability of elected public officials and of civil and municipal servants for racist speech as such. The 2002 law 'On the Counteraction to Extremist Activities' (Article 14) prohibits 'extremist speech' and appeals to 'extremist activities' for governmental (both civil and militarised) and municipal servants. On the matter of their liability, it contains a general reference to the federal legislation, which is lacking any definite norms and sanctions directly related to racist activities. The 'General Principles of Official Conduct of Civil Servants', adopted by the President's Decree No. 885 of 12 August 2002, declare that a governmental official 'shall demonstrate tolerance and respect towards customs and traditions of the peoples of Russian Federation, take into account cultural and other features of different ethnic, social groups and confessions, support interethnic and inter-confessional dialog'. This Decree is, however, is a mere declaration, it does establish any mechanism of implementation and control or any sanctions for violations.

121. In a number of cases, high-ranked governmental officials and parliamentarians made overly racist statements. A matter of deep concern is the fact that the federal Presidency and Government as well as the chairpersons of the Federal Assembly chambers never condemn or refute them. The mostly radical nationalist rhetoric aimed at ethnic minorities, especially Jews and peoples of 'Caucasian' origin (Armenians and Turks) is used by the authorities of Krasnodar Krai, and, in particular, its governors for Nikolai Kondratenko (1996-2000), Alexander Tkachev and some other regional officials (for more details see Annex 3). In October 2000, the formal head of the major pro-governmental political party 'Yedinstvo' Sergei Shoigu publicly and clearly expressed his regret on Kondratenko's refusal to be balloted for the second term as a Krasnodar governor and his desire to leave the politics. In May 2002, the deputy head of the President's Administration Vladislav Surkov, several times publicly stated that there were no discord between the federal government and the regional administration on the migration and ethnic issues. Alexander Mikhailov, the newly elected head of the regional executive in the Kursk oblast, made blatantly anti-Semitic statements on his coming to office in November 2000.

Article 5 (a)

'In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in Article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights:

(a) The right to equal treatment before the tribunals and all other organs administering justice;'

122. In many cases there are grounds to state, that Krasnodar Krai courts were biased in relation to the Meskhetian Turks who filed the claims against the local police in connection with the refusals to register Turks by the place of residence. In many cases the court decisions were not in plaintiffs' favour and ignored the requirements of the law. Because of the somehow political dimension attached to Meskhetians' litigation cases, there have been some instances where the courts did not register or did not process claims submitted by Meskhetians. In 1999-2002, about 30 Meskhetians in Krasnodar Krai tried to assert the legal fact of their residence in Russia in 1992 by a juridical decision and thus to make the authorities recognise their Russian citizenship. In some cases, the judges under various pretexts did not commence the suits of this kind. For instance, in March 2001, the judge of the Krymsk district court refused to accept the suits on assertion of permanent residence in Russia of Zuhra and Mustafa Eminovs on the date the Russian citizenship law had taken effect. The main pretext was following: the Meskhetian Turks are temporary residents in Krasnodar Krai and in Russia, they cannot claim Russian citizenship, and their status must be determined separately. After the same refusal of the Krasnodar regional court of June 2001 to commence the suit, the Eminovs whose access to justice was denied, brought an action before the European Court on Human Rights under articles 6(1), 13 and 14 of the ECHR and are awaiting a decision.

123. Some judges in Moscow demonstrated a similar biased attitude towards the Armenians who had to flee Azerbaijan in 1988-91 and tried to assert their Russian citizenship in court.

124. As a rule, the courts in Moscow and the Moscow oblast ignored contradictions in accusations and evidence provided by the police and public prosecutors against the Chechens charged of illegal possession of drugs and ammunition. Although there were clear indications that the evidence had been falsified, the judged found these people guilty (see the section pertaining to Article 2, paragraph 1 'a').

125. According to the data, collected by the Legal Advocacy Center of the Federal National-Cultural Autonomy of Roma, public prosecutors and judges always use arrest by warrant and never safe-pledge deposit in the cases of criminal accusation of a Roma. The courts sentence Roma convicts to maximal punishment envisages by the respective provisions of the Criminal Code.

Article 5 (b)

'The right to security of person and protection by the State against violence or bodily harm, whether inflicted by government officials or by any individual group or institution;'
Violent actions of the law-enforcement staff

126. Racially motivated violence of police officers towards ethnic minorities is course of identity checks, searches and detentions is systematically recorded by human rights organisations and reported by minority associations .

127. In some cases police detachments (usually belonging to special units) sporadically beat up and insult large groups of people belonging to ethnic minorities of Caucasian and Central-Asian origin and to the Roma.

128. On 26-28 February 1999, a special police unit subjected to the Stavropol Regional Directorate of Internal Affairs chased across the city of Stavropol the people who were looking like natives of the Caucasus. About 30 Daghestanis, Chechens and Armenians were detained, taken to a police station, beaten up and then released. The policemen explained as a 'revenge', because some of their colleagues had been either wounded or murdered by unidentified 'Caucasian criminals'. The local public prosecutor refused to process a criminal investigation, and the Regional Directorate of Internal Affairs denied the fact of beatings and explained the incident as a routine checking-up operation .

129. On 5 November 1999, in the morning, eight people, allegedly officers of the criminal investigation department, entered the building of the State Management Academy (Moscow) and checked up the students' Ids. All students, ethnically originating from the Caucasus, were gathered in the canteen, and their papers were taken away from them. Later 15 policemen, wearing the uniform and armed with automatic rifles, joined the first group of officers. Having gathered 25 young men, 3 girls and the father of one of the students, they convoyed them to the police station No. 44. Several people were beaten up there, all the detainees were searched, their fingerprints were taken, and their photographs in three foreshortening were taken. Afterwards, the detainees were released without any explanation .

130. On 29 March 2001, armed and masked policemen belonging to a special detachment conducted a 'mop-up' operation in the Romani settlement Dorozhnyi (Guryevski district of the Kaliningrad oblast). The policemen checked several houses and beat up dozens of Roma, including women and children. A few men, but later released without any explanations or apologies .

131. On 3 November 2001, about midnight 8 policemen gathered and lined up 60 Tadjik migrant workers at the Cherkizovski market in Moscow. The police searched these people, took away the money that were on them. 20 Tadjiks were beaten up. The convoyed all Tadjiks to the 51st police station of Moscow, and kept them there until morning, and released them after taking away there passports. Most passports were given back in a few days, but some were lost .

132. On 23 September 2002, around 9 p.m. a special police detachment rushed into the student campus of the Moscow University of Forestry (the town Mytischi, the Moscow oblast). A large group of students originating from the Caucasus were gathered, beaten up and delivered to the 1st police station of Mytischi. In some rooms, furniture and doors were damaged. The policemen photographed the students and took their fingerprints, then released them without any explanations. Three students were heavily injured. The police threatened the students and demanded from them not to apply to a public prosecutor. Later, until 1 October, checks and searches took place every night. Students of 'Caucasian' origin were chased over the campus. A number of students had their money and valuables like mobile phones stolen by the police. A State Duma deputy Vyacheslav Igrunov visited the campus and talked to the deputy head of the police station. The officer insisted that the police had checked 'passport regimen' and acted lawfully without any abuse of power .

133. In all incidents of this kind, high-ranked police officials and public prosecutors refuse to process investigation and characterise the police actions as lawful.
Refusal of the law enforcement agencies to give equal protection to persons subjected to violence by extremist groups

134. Most of acts of violence against persons, belonging to ethnic minorities, in the Southern regions of RF (Krasnodar and Stavropol Krais, Rostov and Volgograd oblasts) are committed by members of organisations that refer to themselves as Cossacks. The law enforcement bodies refrained from penalising the perpetrators. In July 1997, two Crimean Tatar and Azeri boys of 10 and 11 years old were charged with homosexual lechery against the other children at khutor (village) Vinogradny, the Krymsk district, Krasnodar Krai. On 29 July, the Cossacks from Krymsk summoned 'a meeting of citizens' in the village. Representatives of the settlement and district administrations as well as the police officers from Krymsk police attended the meeting and did not try to prevent or contest it. The meeting sentenced the families of those teenagers to move out of the village. Four families under threat of violence from the Cossack and under pressure from local authorities left the district. Temur Aliev, the head of one of these families was beaten; his house was robbed and then blown up by the Cossacks (that was directly acknowledged by the local Cossack newspaper) . On 16 April 2001, a large group of the Cossacks beat up more than 30 Turks in the village of Novoukrainskaya (Krasnodar Krai); a hand grenade was thrown into a shop run by a local Turk . On 30 November 2001, 6 Turks were beaten up and heavily injured in the village of Shkolny in Krymsk district (Krasnodar Krai). In April and May 2002, the Cossack chieftains of the Rostov oblast publicly threatened to expel the Meskhetian Turks and other Muslim groups out of the region. They started patrolling railway and bus stations to prevent Meskhetian Turks and Kurds who were at that time to be deported from neighbouring Krasnodar Krai from arriving to the Rostov oblast.

135. The police did not try to prevent mass assaults to the shops owned by the persons of Caucasian (Azeri, Armenian and Chechen) origin, pogroms and arsons committed by a crowd of aggressive youth in the town of Udomlya (the Tver oblast, the Central Russia) on 9 and 10 May 1998. The local and regional authorities interpreted this incident as a 'spontaneous interethnic conflict'; deputies of the town council supported the hooligans overtly. None of those who participated in the pogrom was officially prosecuted.

136. Since spring 1998, there has been a rapid rise in the number of assaults against the people with a dark skin or looking like Roma or natives of the Caucasus and Central Asia in Moscow and other large cities. Since 2000, assaults on foreigners have become an everyday routine in Moscow. Most of these crimes are committed supposedly by neo-Nazi or 'skinhead' gangs. In most cases, the police did not take measures to investigate the cases. When the criminal investigation was processed, the police qualified the incidents as pure 'hooliganism' and not crimes on racist grounds. Most of the perpetrators remain unidentified and unpunished. There have been only few exceptions. A skinhead leader Semion Tokmakov was accused in May 1998 of beating a US Moscow Embassy guard officer and sentenced to a short-term imprisonment. Tokmakov was released in 1999 in the court building, since his pre-trial custody covered the sentence.

137. On 7 May 1998, members of a supposedly neo-Nazi group killed one young retailer of Azeri origin at the 'Luzhniki' market in Moscow. The police witnessed the murder, but didn't try to interfere. Later a spontaneous demonstration of Azeri retailers who protested against racist violence was forcibly dispersed and many people were severely beaten.

138. On 17 September 2000, a group of approximately 15 youngsters wearing black uniform attacked the Jewish Sunday school in Ryazan. They damaged the furniture in the lobby, broke telephones and destroyed the exhibition of children pictures. The local police incited a criminal case under Article 213 of the Criminal Code ('Hooliganism') and shortly determined 4 persons who had taken part in the attack, but did not detain them. Later on, the criminal investigation was closed under the pretext that the police was unable to find out any proof of guilt.

139. On 21 April 2001, between 160 and 200 youngsters looking like 'skinheads' attacked the Yasenevo market in Moscow. They beat the vendors who were looking like people from the Caucasus and destroyed property; 15 people were injured. The police did not prevent the pogrom and did not interfere, but detained 53 persons later. Later on, 6 people were accused of 'hooliganism' and 'incitement of ethnic hatred'. 5 of them were found guilty in 2002.

140. On 30 October 2001, between 200 and 300 young people looking like 'skinheads' beat people looking like non-Russians, at the South of Moscow (near the Tsaritsyno underground station and other places). 39 people were injured and hospitalised; 3 people were killed or died from wounds. The police did not cease the pogrom, but detained 26 youngster right after it. The day after the police prevented a similar clash in the other part of the city. Subsequently, 5 people were accused of murder and hooliganism and found guilty in December 2002. There is no information whether the law-enforcement agencies tried to find out the organisers of the pogrom.

141. A pogrom targeting Armenians took place in the town Krasnoarmeisk (the Moscow oblast) on 11 July 2002. Several dozens of people were beaten up, but the police did not proceed any investigation.

Article 5 (c)

'Political rights, in particular the right to participate in elections - to vote and to stand for election-on the basis of universal and equal suffrage, to take part in the Government as well as in the conduct of public affairs at any level and to have equal access to public service;'

142. In some republics within the Russian Federation, just as in other unit of the federation, there are regimes with authoritarian tendencies, under which the selection and appointment of top officials are the privilege of a small group of people at the apex of the executive system. These same people control the elections, including the system for nominating candidates and guaranteeing candidates access to the mass media. The ruling elite in these republics uses as a basis for their own legitimacy the ideas of 'national (ethnic) statehood' and 'republican sovereignty'. Candidates to the official positions are selected on the basis of loyalty to the guiding ideas and personally to the top leaders. Moreover, the people are selected on the grounds of whether they are relatives or originate from the same area at the higher officials. That leads to a drastic reduction in opportunities for people who are not members of the 'titular' nationalities, so that they are barred from taking prestigious or responsible positions. For example, ethnic Adygeis make up around than 20% of the population of the Republic of Adygeia, but totally make up more than 70% of the members of the republican parliament and government. In the Republic of Bashkortostan, ethnic Bashkirs make up 22% of the population, but about half of the members of parliament and a majority of the member of government.

Article 5 (d)'i'

'Other civil rights, in particular:
(i) The right to freedom of movement and residence within the border of the State;'

Discrimination related to the restrictions on freedom of movement

143. The following are the main discriminative restrictions of freedom of movement.

144. 1) Ban on crossing the administrative border of a subject of federation for persons of a certain ethnic origin and compulsory ousting back those of them who try to enter the territory of a given region. Starting from March 1999, this restriction was periodically imposed by Stavropol regional authorities on the Chechens willing to cross the Krai's administrative border from the Chechen Republic, the Republic of North Ossetia - Alania and the Kabardin-Balkarian Republic. From August 1999 till January 2002, authorities of the Republic of North Ossetia - Alania and the Kabardin-Balkarian Republic prohibited entry to all Chechens, irrespective of the region of their registration by place of residence. The prohibition was maintained by the overall checks of the motor and railway vehicles and of personal documents; the Chechens were identified either by the 'nationality' entry, if they held the old-type Soviet passports, or by their personal names and physical appearance.

145. 2) Refusals to register by place of stay. In the first half of 1999, several Chechens were refused registration by their places of stay in Moscow. Personnel of the passport offices openly explained their refusal by referring to the applicants' ethnic affiliation. After the apartment bombings in Moscow on 9 and 13 September 1999 during the compulsory re-registration of all 'newcomers' around 20,000 people were refused; many of them obtained written orders to leave Moscow. Later on, refusals to register the Chechens and Ingushes became massive, though not total. Police officers check up the premises where Chechens are registered, and if they do not find the registered Chechens there, they cancel registration (see the section pertaining to the Article 2, clause 1 'a'). Since 2000, the Chechens systematically are not registered by place of stay in many Russian regions.

Discrimination based on restrictions of the right to free choice of residence

146. 1) Direct restriction on registration at the place of residence of the people belonging to certain ethnic groups, overtly stipulated by certain legislative acts. This is the case of Meskhetian Turks in Krasnodar Krai (see the section pertaining to Article 2, par. 1 'a').

147. 2) Advantages given under the regional legislative acts to certain ethnic groups in registration at the place of residence. Authorities of some North Caucasian regions give privileges in authorising permanent residence to 'newcomers' who belong to so-called titular nationalities (i.e. ethnic groups mentioned in the name of the region), but limit this right for the people of other ethnic origins. The normative acts of these regions define the privileged categories as 'compatriots' or 'repatriates', and in practice their identification is entirely based on ethnic criteria. In 2000-2001, these acts were amended or abrogated in the Republic of Adygeia and the Republic of North Ossetia - Alania. However, the practice has remained unchanged. In the Kabardin-Balkarian Republic, the limitations on the right to permanent residence, introduced by the Parliament Resolution 'On Some Measures Aimed at Regulating Migration in the Kabardin-Balkarian Republic' No.17-P-P of 5 May 1994 do not extend to the 'compatriots' who are regarded as persons belonging to the 'titular' nationalities. The Parliament Resolution No.17-P-P was confirmed by the additional Resolution No. 61-P-P of 27 June 1995 and reproduced by the new Resolution of the KBR Parliament No. 410 from 22 November 2001.

148. 3) Systematic refusals to register persons belonging to certain ethnic groups by places of residence. Officials who do this exercise their discretionary power under existing federal or regional norms or the established practice. The following groups are the victims of such mass refusals:
a. Chechens across the country, starting from August 1999 (earlier refusals were seldom and sporadic);
b. the Georgian refugees from Abkhazia in Moscow and Krasnodar Krai;
c. Kurds in Krasnodar Krai, the Republic of Adygeia, the Nizhny Novgorod oblast;
d. the Nogais - forced migrants from Chechnya - since 1999 in Stavropol Krai;
e. the Meskhetian Turks - forced migrants from Chechnya in Stavropol Krai (in Budionovsk, Kirovsk and Kursk districts).

149. In 1996 and 1997, according to the official figures available, total of 49,551 people applied to the Commissions on Migration Control in 32 municipal units of the Krasnodar krai. Of those applicants, 37,872, or 76.4%, received positive decisions. Among Russians (38,110 persons, or 76.9%) 81.1% received positive answers, among Armenians (3,876, or 7.9%) - 41.0%. The share of positive decisions among East Slavic peoples (Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians) was 80.8%, among natives of the South Caucasus (Abkhazians, Azerbaijanis, Armenians and Georgians) - 43.4%, among persons belonging to peoples of the South and North Caucasus or those who came from the former USSR (including Kurds and Turks, but not Greeks) - 45.0%, and among the rest - 70.4%. Answers from separate municipal units also contain information on how many people were sent to the Regional Migration Commission and how many people received final rejection at the city and district level. In 1996-97, in Belorechensk the following applicants to the Commission on Migration Control were rejected: Russians - 5.2%, Armenians - 45.2%, in Anapa - 21.8% and 50.7%, respectively, in Armavir - 5.0% and 41.0%, in Pavlovsky district - 5.9% and 29.3%, in Kutshevsky district - 1.7% and 23.4%.

150. In 1996, in the city of Zheleznovodsk of Stavropol Krai 23 % of the applicants for a registration received negative answers: 16.7 % of the Russian applicants; 29.2 % of the Greeks, 21.9 % of the Ukrainians, 53.6 % of the Georgians; 78.3 % of the Armenians. In 1997, the average percentage of refusals was 23.1: 16.6 % for the Russians; 31.6 % for the Greeks; 37.5 % for the Ukrainians; 84 % for the Armenians; 88.1 % for the Georgians. From 1994 till 1997 the Registration Committee in the Predgorny district considered 6,959 applications for the registration, 5,297 applications were satisfied; the average percentage of refusals was 23.9: 14 % for the Russians; 42.8 % for the Greeks; 47.5 % for the Armenians; 56.4 % for other ethnic groups. The average percentage of refusals in Shpakovsky district in 1996 was 34.7 % of all the applicants: but 27.8 % of the Russians, 2/3 of the Armenians and 2/3 of the Georgians. In 1997, in the same region the average percentage of refusals was 17: 8.3 % of the Russians, 34.8 % of the Armenians, and 2/3 of the Ukrainians. From 1996 till 1997 in the Sovetskiy district the average percentage of refusals was 7.4: 6.3 % for the Russians, 5.6 % for the Ukrainians, 16.7 % for the Georgians, 18 % for the Armenians, 20.5 % for the Gypsies, 40 % for the Chechens. The same period and the same information from the Kirovsk district: the average percentage of refusals was 3.8: 0.8 % for the Russians, 15 % for the Georgians, 25 % for the Turks, 25.4 % for the Armenians. There have been no changes in the work of those structures in Krasnodar Krai. In Stavropol Krai, most of these commissions were abandoned in 2000-2001, and the discretionary power has shifted to the police and local administrations.

Article 5 (d) 'iii'

(iii) The right to nationality;

Non-recognition of Russian citizenship

151. The non-recognition of citizenship does not fit the exception containing in Article 1, par. 3 of the ICERD, because it is not a matter of legislative or any other lawful distinction or requirement, which concerns nationality, citizenship, or naturalisation, but of arbitrary selective approach to different ethnic groups.

152. The problem concerns several groups of citizens of the former USSR distinguishable on ethnic ground. They arrived at the territory of Russia, mainly involuntarily, before the collapse of the Soviet Union. They have not received residence registration in Russia, as a rule because of arbitrary refusals. In certain cases the refusals were caused by discriminatory motives. As a result, these have not been officially recognised as citizens of the Russian Federation. Under Article 13, part 1 of the RF Law 'On Citizenship of the Russian Federation' of 1991, former Soviet citizens who permanently resided in the RSFSR on the date the law entered into force (6 February 1992) and who did not decline their Russian citizenship within one year afterwards, were deemed Russian citizens (so-called acquisition of Russian citizenship 'by recognition'). Coming to Russia, these people travelled within a single country and their stay in the RSFSR cannot be interpreted as 'illegal'. Russian officials have systematically interpreted the term 'permanent residence' (which concept is not defined by law) in a restrictive manner, as meaning possession of propiska. This approach is widely spread although it is completely arbitrary and is not based on the law. Neither the citizenship law, nor the regulations, which determined the procedure for obtaining and registering Russian citizenship , equated 'permanent residence' with availability of propiska or registration by place of residence. According to the civil and administrative legislation, the place of residence is the place of actual residence, that is, where a person permanently or predominantly resides. Nevertheless, government agencies, primarily the Ministry of Internal Affairs, de facto equate 'permanent residence' with 'the presence of registration at the place of residence. The absence of residence registration was the basis for non-recognition of Russian citizenship, and non-recognition of citizenship is used as a pretext to refuse registration by place of residence. The attempts to ascertain Russian citizenship in court or by administrative procedures as a rule were unsuccessful.

153. The following groups are affected by this arbitrary non-recognition of citizenship.

1. Meskhetian Turks (Meskhetians) who were forced to migrate from Uzbekistan in 1989-90 to Krasnodar Krai. Their number is more than 10,000 people, the refusals are obviously racially motivated.
2. Some of the Kurds from Armenia and Azerbaijan who sought refuge in Krasnodar Krai, Republic of Adygeia and Nizhny Novgorod oblast in 1988-91. The estimated number is 2,000 - 4,000 people, the refusals are obviously racially motivated.
3. A part of Armenians and Russians who fled Azerbaijan in 1988-91 to Moscow, Moscow oblast, Krasnodar and Stavropol Krais and Rostov oblast. The number in Moscow and Moscow oblast is approximately 2,000 (the refusals are unlikely rather socially than racially motivated). The number of Armenians in Krasnodar Krai is estimated between 3,000 and 5,000 (the refusals are obviously racially motivated). The exact number in Stavropol and Rostov regions is unknown as well as the authorities' motives.

154. Discriminative restrictions in registration at the place of residence (see the section concerning Article 5 'd') limited the opportunities to obtain Russian citizenship by the way of registration. The latter term means a simplified procedure for the citizens of the former USSR, envisaged by the 1991 citizenship law and valid until 31 December 2000. The reason is that in practice access to this procedure requires registration by a place of residence.

Article 5 (d) 'iv', 'ix',

(iv) 'The right to marriage and choice of spouse;'

155. Marriages of persons who have no local registration by place of residence or stay, in contravention of the law, are not registered officially within the respective region. The state does not undertake to put an end to this practice.

(ix) The right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;

156. In general, this right is being secured legislatively and in practice. A single exception is the pressure on the 'Vatan' ('Homeland') Society of the Meskhetian Turks, which defends the rights of Meskhetians in Krasnodar branch. The Krasnodar regional branch of the International Society of the Meskhetian Turks 'Vatan' was liquidated by a court decision on 24 July 2002. The action was brought by the regional Department of the RF Ministry of Justice, which accused the 'Vatan' of the activities contradicting its own Charter. The reasoning was that the 'Vatan' society defended the rights of the Turks in Krasnodar Krai and therefore was working for their 'sedentary residence' in the region, while the organisation's Charter allegedly envisaged resettlement of the Turks to Georgia; the latter obviously was not true. The 'Vatan' representative was not properly informed about the hearings, and was not able to participate in the process. The court did not examine the actual activities of the 'Vatan', it just stated that the organisation had got official warnings of the Department of Justice twice, but had not brought its activities in line with the official prescriptions.

Article 5 (e) (i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

(e)'Economic, social and cultural rights, in particular:
(i) The rights to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favourable remuneration;
(ii) The right to form and join trade unions;
(iii) The right to housing;
(iv) The right to public health, medical care, social security and social services;
(v) The right to education and training;

157. In theory, exercise of all rights cannot be conditioned by residence or sojourn registration and no one right can be limited on the pretext that a registration is lacking. In practice, only citizens of the Russian Federation who have registration by a place of residence have access to the rights to work, social security, and social services. The rights to housing, medical care, joining trade unions, education and training are substantially limited for a person who does not have a residence registration. Since in a number of instances (see the section on Article 2, par. 1 (a)) refusal to register a person's residence is discriminatory on the basis of ethnicity, the same can be said about the restriction of rights.

158. Besides, economic and social rights in individual cases are restricted or denied exclusively on ethnic ground. This affects the Chechens across the country, Meskhetian Turks in Krasnodar Krai (regardless of their residence registration and recognised citizenship), Ingushes in the Republic of North Ossetia - Alania. The state does not undertake to stop or prevent this practice. For example, in 1997-98 and in spring 2002, massive firings affected exclusively the Turks who were temporarily employed at various enterprises in Krasnodar Krai. In May - June 2002, police patrols swept through the crop fields in the western part of Krasnodar Krai detained any Turks who have tried to start planting. In May 2002, 18 Turkish children were expelled from the municipal kindergarten in the village of Novoukrainskaya of the Krymsk district. In May and June 2002, the municipal health clinics in the Krymsk district blatantly refused to grant even paid health care to patients of Turkish origin.

Article 5 (f)

'The right of access to any place or service intended for use by the general public, such as transport, hotels, restaurants, cafes, theatres and parks.'

159. From September 1999 till February 2000, the Chechens en masse were refused accommodation in hotels in Moscow city and in the Moscow oblast. Later on, these refusals became sporadic. For example, on 14 April 2002, Umar Javtaev, a chairperson of a charitable and human rights NGO ('SOS-Spasenie') in Khasaviurt (Daghestan) and a Chechen by origin, came to Moscow on business. He was refused accommodation in the Vega Hotel and was told to go to a police office to get permission. The reception clerk demonstrated a certain police instruction but refused to give Javtaev a copy. The local authorities do not combat, but rather encourage this practice.

Article 6

'States Parties shall assure to everyone within their jurisdiction effective protection and remedies, through the competent national tribunals and other State institutions, against any acts of racial discrimination which violate his human rights and fundamental freedoms contrary to this Convention, as well as the right to seek from such tribunals just and adequate reparation or satisfaction for any damage suffered as a result of such discrimination.'

160. In theory, rights and freedoms can be defended in court (Article 46 of the Constitution; Article 11 of the Civil Code), in particular by the ways of recognition of a right, restoration of a violated right, recognition of an act issued by a state body or by local self-government as contradicting the law. The law protects non-material wealth including personal dignity, the right to free movement, inviolability of the person and family (Articles 21, 22, 23, 27 of the Constitution, Article 150 of the Civil Code). Article 1065 of the Civil Code stipulates that an activity bearing a risk of making damage in future may be banned by a court decision. There are no examples that this mechanism has been employed with regard to discrimination.

161. The 1993 Law 'On Lawsuits Against Actions and Decisions Violating Citizens' Rights' and respective provisions of the Civil Procedural Code provide for the right to bring a complaint to court against an action or inaction of state organs, public associations and officials. This can be done in cases when 1) personal rights and freedoms are violated; 2) an obstacle to enjoyment of rights and freedom are created; 3) a duty or responsibility is unlawfully imposed on a person. A plaintiff has to bring primary evidence of the violation and the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant's side.

162. There are a number of cases when people defended and redressed their rights, which had been actually violated on a discriminatory basis. This kind of cases usually concern illegal firing or refusals in registration by a place of residence, in granting the status of refugee or forced migrant. The subjects of the suits were merely violation of the respective rights. The issue of discrimination as such plays no role in these situations as such and was not examined as a separate subject by a court. There have been no lawsuits and juridical decisions, when certain regulation, requirement, action or omission was found illegal not because it violated or restricted certain rights, but due to it discriminatory nature.

163. Article 426 of the Civil Code related to the institution of 'common contract', i.e. offer of a good or service by a commercial organisation to an unidentified circle of consumers, establishes the duty of a seller not to distinguish between consumers and provides for juridical remedies in case of violation. There are no examples on this article's application in cases of ethnic or racial discrimination.

164. In theory, a court may directly use the constitutional anti-discriminatory provisions and must, respectively, apply on the issue to the Constitutional Court. In a few individual cases, the RF Supreme Court referred to the anti-discriminatory provisions of the 1974 Code of the Laws on Labour and overturned the decisions of the lower courts concerning labour disputes. These cases concerned, however, not ethnic or racial discrimination, but discrimination on the grounds of age.

165. Article 15, part 4 of the Constitution stipulates that ratified international treaties constitute an integral part of the Russian legal system. In theory, international treaties may be applied directly in court. There is no judicial practice of this kind relating to anti-discriminatory provisions of the international human rights instruments.

166. The Constitution stipulates that (Article 52) 'the rights of the victims of crimes or of abuses of power are protected by law. The state guarantees the victims' access to justice and to compensation for damage caused.' Article 53 states that 'each person has the right to compensation from the state for damage caused by the unlawful actions (or inaction) of bodies of state power or their officials'. The current legislation, however, does not envisage special guarantees of this kind. Direct or indirect damage can be redressed on the general basis of civil legislation. The legislation in force does not envisage juridical redress or compensation for discriminatory treatment as such.

167. Moral damage can be compensated monetarily under a court decision (Article 151 of the Civil Code). In practice, this mechanism is not being used in cases of discrimination or ethnic harassment.

168. The RF Supreme Court Plenary, which observes and analyses judicial practice, has never addressed the issues relating to racial or ethnic discrimination or incitement of racial hatred.

169. Administrative remedies for individual protection and compensation are not envisaged.

Article 7

'States Parties undertake to adopt immediate and effective measures, particularly in the fields of teaching, education, culture and information, with a view to combating prejudices which lead to racial discrimination and to promoting understanding, tolerance and friendship among nations and racial or ethnical groups, as well as to propagating the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and this Convention.'

170. The need for such measures is declared at various levels and remarkable steps have been taken, but the real progress cannot be considered as sufficient.

171. In December 1999, the RF Government adopted the interdepartmental programme on the promotion of tolerance and prevention of extremism and envisaged 25 million roubles (app. 900,000 USD) budgetary support. In March 2000, the project was reshaped into the Federal Programme for 2001-05 and adopted by the RF Government Resolution No. 629 of 25 August 2001. The Programme envisages public funding at the amount of 397.7 million RUR (Apr. 13.3 million USD). Within 2001-02, the programme supported exclusively research projects conducted primarily by governmental institutes.

172. There are special courses on 'basic principles of official ethnic policies' arranged in the Academy of State Service under the RF President (which provides for professional re-training of governmental officials) and in its regional branches. These courses primarily address such themes as federalism and conflict management, but prevention and elimination of discrimination as well as minority protection are scarcely taught upon. Besides there are a couple of pilot courses for sociologists and journalists on multiculturalism and tolerance in the entire country, namely in the Moscow State University and the non-governmental the Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences.

173. Since 1997, the secondary school curricular includes the obligatory 'national [i.e. ethnic] and regional component'. As a rule, the programmes on regional history and geography include data concerning the main ethnic groups of the given region. Meanwhile, studying human rights, including the issues of combating racial discrimination and intolerance, remains optional. Only a limited number of schools teach these issues at the initiative of their schoolmasters. Though the need for promotion of multicultural education and ethnic tolerance in secondary schools is unanimously accepted, the country is still missing respective teaching methods and textbooks.

174. Broadcasting of the nation-wide (federal) as well as the regional television companies in general does not reflect multi-racial and multi-ethnic nature of the Russian society. TV companies of the republics within the RF have broadcasting programmes in languages of their 'titular nationalities'. Broadcasting companies of some other regions (the Samara, Tyumen, Orenburg oblasts) broadcast for a limited time (as a rule, a few hours a week) in the languages of the largest national minorities.

Part III. Questions and recommendations

Questions addressed to the RF government

175. Why does the RF government neglect the discriminatory effects of the passport system, particularly of residence and sojourn registration and of the police control over the 'passport regimen'? Why it does not acknowledge the problem and undertake to change it?

176. Why does the RF government neglect the emergence of outlawed ethnically based underclass as a result of de-legalising the former Soviet citizens in the Russian Federation after adoption of the new legislation on citizenship and on the status of foreigners?

177. Why does the RF government connive at the systematic discrimination of the Chechens in Russia and why does not undertake to defend them from persecutions and harassment?

178. Why does the RF government publicly support the systematic pressure of the Krasnodar Krai authorities upon the Meskhetian Turks and their policies to drive this group out of Russia? Why does the Russian authorities seek the 'solution' in resettling the Meskhetians to Georgia though this resettlement, if even happens, can be only voluntary?

179. What are the purposes of official support to the para-military Cossack movement and of granting it special status and privileges including special access to public service?

180. Why did the Russian authorities employ two different interpretations of the RF Law 'On Forced Migrants' during the first and second warfare campaigns in Chechnya so that the Chechens were entitled the forced migrant status in 1994-96 but have been denied it since 1999 till present?

181. Why does not the Russian government address the issues of abuse of power, violent crimes and racial harassment systematically practised by the police?

182. Why does the Russian government interpret the problems of ethnic relations as the issues of 'conflicts', 'extremism' and 'tolerance', but not as ethnic discrimination and hate speech? Why does not it undertake to the respective training of governmental officials to prevent discriminatory conduct?

183. What are the guarantees of effective suppression of racist activities under the 2002 Federal Law 'On the Counteraction to Extremist Activities', while the law reproduces the definitions of the previous legislation?
Recommendations.

184. The Russian Federation should undertake the following measures.

Discrimination-related legislation

185. Examine the national legislation with the aim of ensuring prohibition, elimination and sanctioning of a broader range of prohibited discrimination, and inter alia introduce the definitions of direct and indirect discrimination as well as segregation, incitement to discrimination, instructions to discriminate and support to discrimination. Overtly prohibit discrimination and segregation in such areas as housing and all stages of education.

186. Amend the Civil Procedural Code and the 1993 Law 'On Lawsuits Against Actions and Decisions Violating Citizens' Rights' in a way that it would entitle people to bring actions against any kind (not necessary including restriction of rights) of direct and indirect discrimination as well as segregation.

187. Consider enacting procedural amendments to permit public organisations to bring actions concerning discrimination and incitement of ethnic hatred on behalf of groups/categories of people.

188. Consider amending Articles 136, 239 and 282 of the Criminal Code to further define its scope, in line with the terms of Articles 1, par. 1; 2, par. 1 and 4 of the ICERD.

189. Amend the 2002 Federal Law 'On Counteraction to Extremist Activities' to avoid abuse of power against freedom of speech and public associations.

General policies

190. Assert Russian citizenship of the former Soviet nationals who are entitled to Russian citizenship under Article 13, part 1 of the 1991 Citizenship Law, particularly members of ethnic minorities discriminated against (Meskhetians, Kurds, Armenians). Amend the 2002 citizenship law to make access to Russian citizenship easier for the former Soviet nationals.

191. Grant legal status (residence permits) in a way of group status recognition to the former Soviet citizens who were actually residing in Russia on the date the 2002 Federal Law 'On the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens in the Russian Federation' went into force. Amend the 2002 law on the status of foreign citizens, abolish its discriminatory and excessively restrictive provisions, and introduce transitional provisions enabling legalisation of the former Soviet citizens actually residing in Russia.

192. Undertake to replace the passport system by another system of personal documentation and identification not based on a uniform personal identity document and not bond with a person's place of residence. Before a fundamental reform in this area revise all laws and regulations establishing the passport system. In particular, eliminate the institution of mandatory sojourn registration, eliminate any provisions, which impede the right of freedom of movement and choice of place of residence, eliminate all provisions and practices, which condition exercise of rights and duties by the availability of passport and residence registration, end the system of police performance targets based on reporting of administrative violations.

193. Amend the 1993 RF Law 'On Forced Migrants' and the respective governmental policies to effectively entitle all people suffering within the country from discrimination, persecutions, public disorders and warfare to seek the forced migrant status without any discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity and place of residence.

194. Revise the policies towards the Cossack movement, deprive the Cossack organisations of their privileged status.

Protection of certain groups

195. Stop the countrywide campaign of persecutions against the Chechens and punish its perpetrators. Safeguard the rights and freedoms of the people belonging to Chechen minority, in particular, the right to freedom of movement and choice of residence, the right to employment and to education. Stop attempts to forcibly return or exert undue pressure to return the Chechens to Chechnya and to place obstacles in receiving personal documents. Take urgent measures to address widespread sentiments of hostility and prejudices against ethnic Chechens.

196. Stop the campaign of persecutions against the Meskhetian Turks in Krasnodar Krai and punish its perpetrators. Ensure accelerated and simplified procedure of securing legal status and rights of the people belonging to this group. This group legalisation shall include 1) recognition and redress of their property rights (registration of real estate purchases), 2) their recognition as Russian nationals in accordance with Article 13, part 1 of the 1991 Citizenship Law, 3) registration at the places of residence.
Judiciary and law-enforcement agencies

197. In the context of persistent allegations that criminal cases have been fabricated against members of ethnic and racial minorities conduct a review of disputed cases brought under Criminal Code articles 222 (illegal weapons) and 228 (illegal drugs). Release or rehabilitate those arrested and convicted on fabricated charges, compensate them for damage suffered, prosecute officials who are responsible for such fabrications.

198. Promptly investigate all allegations of torture, ill-treatment and other race-related abuses by agents of the state and ensure protection against any form of intimidation, harassment or abuse. Consider establishing a commission of inquiry into cases and patterns of race-related ill-treatment.

199. Ensure that state statistical reports include data on the number and results of hearings in civil, as well as administrative and criminal cases arising in relation to discrimination and incitement to racial, national or religious hatred.

Education and training

200. To review curricula and teaching methods in order to eliminate prejudices and racist attitudes, and negative stereotyping.

201. Include cross-cultural awareness and anti-racism programs for the selection, training and monitoring of justice officials. Institute comprehensive training and performance monitoring programmes to ensure that all officials, including law enforcement officers, do not act in a discriminatory way.


ANNEX 1. COMMENTS ON THE RUSSIAN OFFICIAL REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE CERD

The objective of these comments is not to express disagreement with the report submitted by the Russian Federation. Certainly, the alternative report, drafted by the Memorial Human Rights Centre and other Russian NGOs, offers partly a different view on the situation in the Russian Federation. Therefore, reading and comparing two reports must sufficiently provide for understanding the essence and key points of controversies. Commenting the official report on, we are just trying to explain or highlight the things that might not be clear enough for the people who are familiar with peculiarities of the Russian politics and public discourse.

The comments below correspond to some selected paragraphs of the official report and to its annexes.

To paragraph 3. The RF Constitution (Article 19, part 2, sentence 2) prohibits not 'racial discrimination', but 'restrictions of rights on social, racial, ethnic, linguistic or religious grounds', that is a more narrow notion than the definition of discrimination enshrined in Article 1., par. 1 of the ICERD. It is unclear whether the formulation 'the state guarantees equality of rights and freedoms' (Article 19, part 2, sentence 1) can be interpreted as a clear prohibition of discrimination on different grounds. Anyhow, the existing juridical practice does not enable us to understand this provision in a straightforward way. It is also unclear whether an understanding of 'discrimination' deriving from Article 19 can be applicable in cases when a person or an official body exercises discretionary power or in cases of official control or supervision. Thus, one can hardly insist that the relevant constitutional provisions are 'fully consistent with Russia's international obligations'.

To paragraph 12. The separate indication in 5 articles of the Criminal Code onto 'motives of national [ethnic], racial or religious hatred or enmity' as an aggravating circumstance of a crime does not bear any additional or specific juridical sense. That means just a mechanical transfer of the provision of Article 63, part 1, paragraph 'e' belonging to the General Part of the Code to 5 articles of the Special Part, which is devoted to definite crimes. Article 63, part 1, paragraph 'e' is applicable to all articles of the Special Part except for the 5 articles mentioned afore, which contain the same provision.

Besides, the content of Article 117 of the Criminal Code is interpreted in the official report in not a completely correct way. The Russian word 'istyazaniya', of course, can be literally translated as 'torture', but, more precisely, it means infliction of physical torment. Unfortunately, torture in the term of international instruments (the Convention against Torture and others) is penalised neither Article 117 nor in the Russian legislation at large.

To paragraph 22. It is a matter of common knowledge and a thing directly acknowledged even by staff of the President's Administration, that the President's Decree No. 310 of 23 March 1995 on the combat against 'extremism' played no role in internal policies and was forgotten shortly after its adoption. The same is true for the Commission to counter political extremism, established by the Decree No.1143 of 27 October 1997. No one can say anything about the results of its work.

To paragraph 26. The Russian migration policy except for the passport system rests on the following simple thing. Within 10 years after the Soviet Union's breakdown, the Russian authorities neither extended the Soviet legislation on foreigners onto the former Soviet nationals nor introduced any special regulations regarding the people who were Soviet citizens. The Russian government was pretending to ignore these people. There were neither legal nor however else expressed restriction on their entrance into Russia, stay, residence and enjoyment of rights in the country. Afterwards, in 2000, the Russian government extended a part of the Soviet Union's regulations regarding foreigners onto the ex-Soviet citizens living in Russia. The new federal law on the status of foreigners, adopted in 2002, does not distinguish between the people already resident in Russia and those who are coming anew. In practice, that means de-legalisation of most ex-Soviet nationals who reside in Russia and do not have acknowledged Russian citizenship, since they are objectively unable to comply with the new requirements.

Treating a part of the permanent population as 'illegal migrants', the Ministry of Internal Affairs and other governmental bodies refer to residence registration as criteria for determining whether a residence id lawful or not. Requirements of the passport system concerning residence and sojourn registration cannot be a substitution to regulations determining foreigners' status. The registration rules are applicable on equal footing to Russian citizens and non-citizens, so they have not more in common with the foreigners' legal regimen that the traffic regulation. According to the legislation in force, registration or its absence is not a legal circumstance that creates any rights or duties.

The de-legalisation of ex-Soviet nationals in Russia is formally ethnically neutral, but the new control mechanism and sanctions target primarily ethnic and racial, primarily 'visible' minorities.

The RF Law 'On Refugees' is basically in conformity with the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Some differences should be also taken into consideration. A person who is seeking asylum and who is forced to cross the Russian border illegally is entitled to apply for the status only within 24 hours after crossing the border. A person who already lives in Russia can apply for the status only if he/she resided in the country 'on legal ground'. These requirements effectively bar asylum-seekers from applying for the status. Besides, the people seeking a status of refugee or forced migrant are often denied access to the respective procedures orally without a written refusal that can be contested in a court. Consequently, the total number of people who have come from outside of the former Soviet Union and have been granted refugee status was approximately 530 persons by December 2002. The refugee status has not been granted to ex-Soviet nationals since 1998. The number of those former Soviet citizens who had got the status before is gradually declining because of term of status expiry. By the beginning of 2002, their number was 17,000, by July 2002 it declined to 11,000. Most of them are the people who fled the Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

To paragraph 28. One shouldn't overestimate effectiveness of the State Duma's Committee on Nationalities. During the 2-nd (1996-99) and 3-rd (2000-2003) convocations of the State Duma, the Nationalities Committee has managed to draft the laws on 'national-cultural autonomy' and regarding the small indigenous peoples. The committee has failed to draft the laws on rehabilitation concerning individual formerly repressed people (that is envisaged by the 1991 RF Law on the repressed peoples) and the law on national minorities. The amendments and additions to the laws in force, which are elaborated in the committee, basically envisage restrictions of the existing guarantees. Particularly, the amendments to the law on 'national-cultural autonomies' envisage limitation of the right to association and further mandatory centralisation of the existing structures.

To paragraph 46. The Conception of the Nationalities Policy in the Russian Federation (translated in the official report as the Outline of Russian State Policy on Nationalities) cannot anyhow be 'one of the core documents regulating nationality relations in Russia'. Legal content of the President's Decree No. 909 of 15 June 1996, which approved the Concept, was approval of the Concept; but nobody knows what the legal force and content of a conception is. It does not bind any legislative body, it is not mandatory for the executive, and its provisions cannot be defended in a court. Besides, the principles and concepts of the Conception are too vague to be implemented directly, so the document can hardly be called 'outline'.

To paragraph 47. Paragraph 47 is a good specimen of wording used by Russian official bodies. Really, ethnic issues are primarily perceived and interpreted as 'relations between nationalities and socio-economic and national-cultural development of the peoples of Russia', but not as prevention and elimination of discrimination and as minority protection.

To paragraph 49. Really, more than 60 regions of the Russian Federation have adopted regional programmes for 'national-cultural development of peoples and ethnic groups'. The basic trouble of all these programmes is their insufficient funding. For example, the Perm oblast (province), situated in the Urals, a relatively prosperous and stable region, has adopted 3 regional programmes namely for 1993 - 1995, 1996 - 1998 and 1999 - 2004. The first one was eventually funded for 1.5% of the initially planned amount, the second one was not funded at all . The third one was funded in 1999 for 6.5% of the total amount envisaged by the programme. The programme for national-cultural development, adopted by the Administration of Stavropol Krai for 2000-2005, has not got any public funding so far.

About 80 minority languages are either taught or used as means of instruction in public primary and secondary schools throughout the country. Basically, this has nothing in common with the regional programmes. Most newspapers and broadcasting programmes in minority languages are private and they do without any public funding.

To paragraph 50. Consultative bodies for ethnic affairs exist in less than half of the regions of Russian Federation. The Assembly of Peoples of Russia is a name of a voluntary association, which does not have any special status and capacities. Telephone hotline in Moscow for the people who have been discriminated against was established in Moscow in November 1999. It was open by the Moscow government after an unprecedented flow of complaints caused by the purges against 'migrants' following the apartment bombings in Moscow in September 1999. Since then, the hotline has appeared to be completely ineffective. Its staff was unwilling and unable to help the people suffering from the new large-scale purges in August 2000 and November-December 2002.

To paragraphs 51-54. Basically, public (governmental and municipal) support to educational and cultural institutions serving ethnic minorities rests on two mechanisms. One is educational and cultural institutions, owned and run by the state or municipalities. The other one is 'national-cultural autonomies'.

Governmental or municipal schools, theatres, museums, folklore bands etc., whose work is aiming at ethnic minorities, are relatively well developed in the republics and autonomous districts of the Russian Federation. They serve primarily the so-called 'titular' ethnic groups (like Tatars in Tatarstan, Bashkirs in Bashkortostan) of these regions. However, while ethnic minorities (i.e., non-Russians) constituted approximately 18.5% of the country's population in 1989, 'titular' groups of the republics and autonomous districts constituted only 6.7%. An advantage of the republics in this area is their constitutional right to establish their own official languages (Article 68, part 2 of the RF Constitution, the 1991 RF Law 'On Languages of the Peoples of Russian Federation') and, respectively, special institutional guarantees . The opportunities provided for the rest are substantially less (also look at the comments to Paragraph 132 below). The main drawback of this mechanism is the absence of any particular status and guarantees for the public institutions serving minority languages and minorities as such. Nobody knows, under what circumstances and after what kind of public requests the authorities are obliged to establish new schools. Minority schools are not protected from a frivolous closure or reorganisation. They do not enjoy any additional opportunities of self-government.

According to the 1996 Federal Law 'On National-Cultural Autonomies', national-cultural autonomies are voluntary non-governmental non-profit organisations established by ethnically based public associations. 'Autonomies' do not have individual membership, they can be of local, regional and federal level. Each autonomy is to serve a separate ethnic group and to promote its culture and language. In theory, 'autonomies' are entitled to public funding for their individual projects and to consultative functions before federal and regional executive.

The mechanism of 'national-cultural autonomies' has several obvious drawbacks. The 1996 reduces the opportunities of public funding and support in comparison with the 1995 Federal Law 'On Public Associations'. The state may fund the autonomies' activities, but not obliged to do this. The government or municipal authorities have the right to finance separate projects, but not an autonomy or an institution as such. In accordance with Article 78 of the RF Budgetary Code of 1998, public finances can be allocated to non-governmental organisations only under a federal or regional law or a federal, regional or municipal programme. That means that only short-term projects can be funded, but established long-term non-governmental institutions cannot actually get budgetary financing since relevant laws are lacking. Besides, neither the law nor any by-law envisages who and how distributes public funds allocated for 'national-cultural autonomies'.

In practice, with minor exceptions 'national-cultural autonomies' do not get funding. Consultative bodies for national-cultural autonomies, envisaged by the 1996 law, have not been established in the regions under the regional executive. The federal advisory council of 'national-cultural autonomies under the RF Government was founded in 1999, but it is virtually not active.

To paragraph 59. The Government of Moscow may review the chances to co-operate with NGOs for preventing discrimination. However, there is no evidence of this in reality. Moreover, none of the regional governments acknowledges and addresses the issue of discrimination. The best variant for the moment is regional authorities' involvement in the 'promotion of tolerance'. The Government of Moscow did not ever acknowledge the very issue of discrimination in the city and hasn't demonstrated any willingness to undertake for prevention of discrimination. A single exception was the meeting of the Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov with activists of ethnic associations in October 1999 after the large-scale campaign of persecutions against migrants and minorities. The mayor and other officials interpreted the problem as misconduct of individual police officers. Anyway, that did not cause any practical outcome.

To paragraph 62. Though the content of Paragraph 62 is unclear, the wording of this paragraph is very typical for the Russian authorities. Some incident, where the police (Ministry of Internal Affairs) was involved, id interpreted as a 'conflict' which should be resolved, but not as a matter of human rights or obedience of the law.

To paragraph 80. Paragraph 80 is a good sample of excuse utilised by the Russian law-enforcement authorities. They justify their inaction to suppress and punish racial discrimination and hate speech by references to the legislation, which "'does not, however, provide legal definitions of 'fascism' or 'political extremism' ". It is not clear whether the notions of 'fascism' and 'political extremism' could be accurately defined in legal terms, why racial discrimination and incitement of racial hatred must be re-interpreted as 'extremism' and 'fascism' and why the existing legal provisions concerning racism and hate speech could not be applied. Since 2002, Russia has a specific legislation concerning fight against 'extremism'. It reproduces the preceding formulations of the Criminal Code. One may wonder whether it changes anything.

To paragraphs 99-104. The federal Ombudsman (Commissioner for Human Rights) is really a significant institution of human rights protection in the country. It contributes to the awareness raising of the country's authorities and the population and undertakes to defend the rights of many vulnerable social categories. Of particular importance the Ombudsman's reports on the problems of residence registration and of torture practised by the police. However, the Ombudsman does not address the issues of discrimination, minority protection and hate speech. He also did not anyhow react to the situations of systematic persecutions of certain ethnic groups like Meskhetian Turks or Chechens. The Ombudsman tried to establish within his apparatus a unit in charge of religious and ethnic affairs, but virtually failed.

To paragraphs 113-115. There is no information that the existence of ethnically based criminal groups has ever been a subject of any accurate sociological research. No reliable data on the very existence, scope and kind of activities of these groups has been ever made public. Meanwhile, the police and other law-enforcement agencies usually speculate upon the issue of 'ethnic criminality'. These speculations are often used to justify police brutality and racial profiling. Paragraphs 113-115 are a good specimen of this.

To paragraph 132. The official report refers to Stavropol Krai, a southern region of Russia as an example of regional policies for the support of minority languages and cultures. This is actually good, because the situation in Stavropol Krai is really typical for the country at large. The programme for the support of 'national-cultural development' was adopted indeed in the region in December 1999 for the years of 2000-2005. The programme was not 'ratified' since it's an act of the regional governor. The programme has not been funded so far, and it has nothing in common with study of minority languages. There are really about 24 municipal schools where 5 minority languages are taught, namely Nogai, Turkmen, Tatar, Greek and Armenian. The secondary school in the settlement Gornozavodskoye (the Kirovski district), where a small Georgian minority lives, repeatedly tries to launch an optional programme for the study of Georgian. Yiddish is not studied at all, two non-governmental Sunday schools run by religious communities teach Hebrew. Teaching of the Nogai and Turkmen languages is relatively developed. The Nogais (0,8% of the regional population) and Turkmen (0,5%) are Turkic ethnic groups who are natives in the region and whose languages have been promoted in the krai by the government since late 1980s. For the 1998/99 academic year, approximately 60% of the pupils of Nogai origin in Stavropol Krai had the opportunity to study the Nogai language and 41% of the Turkmen pupils - to study the Turkmen language. The respective percentage for the Tatars was 9%, Greeks - 6% and Armenians (the largest minority, about 5% of the population) - 3% . Minorities' languages are not taught in higher educational establishments of Stavropol Krai.

To Annex II on the people who fled Chechnya.

Regretfully, Annex II completely ignores such issues as nationwide systematic discrimination of Chechens and the 2002 campaign on squeezing the Chechen forced migrants from Ingushetia back to Chechnya.

To Annex III on the Roma.

Regretfully, the official report and Annex III reduce the issue of Roma people in Russia to the questions of their 'ethno-cultural development'. Annex III totally ignores such issues as police brutality and fabrication of criminal accusations against Roma, refusals in residence registration, racist assaults, systematic hate speech in mass media.

To paragraphs 17, 47, 59. The Krasnodar Krai authorities have not adopted an act on regional 'nationalities policies', however, they do not address ethnic issues in terms of ethnic discrimination and its prevention. The Krasnodar regional administration has not provided any special support to Roma; moreover, the largest violent expulsion of Roma in the recent years took place in Krasnodar Krai. The police deported about 100 Roma from Krasnodar to Voronezh oblast on 16 October 2001.

To Annex IV on the Meskhetian Turks.

In June 1990, the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs reported about 89,700 Meskhetians who had fled Uzbekistan , and on that time their outflow was going on. About half of the Meskhetian Turks were arriving in the Russian Federation and approximately 10,000 Meskhetians had already lived in Russia by 1989. Therefore, the total number of Meskhetian Turks in Russia is estimated between 50,000 and 70,000.

Resolution No. 503 of the USSR Council of Ministers of 1989 and Resolution No. 220 of the RSFSR Council of Ministers of 1989 did not envisage any 'resettlement' of the Meskhetians in Russia. They were devoted to the measures to ease economic and social adaptation of the Turks who were coming to the Central Russia. No kind of 'Jewish pale' was established for the Turks, and even if the Soviet authorities had done so, that would not have any legal importance. Resolution No. 220 listed only 6, but not 27 regions where the public funds were allocated to. The allowances and the social aid envisaged by the governmental resolutions were insufficient for the adaptation of the Meskhetians. The Meskhetians were really granted 500 roubles per person and 2,000 roubles per family, while the average monthly wage for the USSR in 1989 was 190 roubles.

Most Turks who were coming to Russia were not covered by the 1989 Resolutions. They were even unaware of these acts and had to solve their problems on their own. A minority of the newcomers (approximately 13,000) arrived in Krasnodar Krai; to compare, 14,000 (and not 1447) people came to Rostov oblast.

Krasnodar Krai is the only one region of Russia where the Meskhetian Turks en masse have been denied residence registration and recognition of Russian citizenship (for more see Annex 3 to the NGOs alternative report). The authorities interpret the problem of Meskhetian Turks in Krasnodar as an issue of ethnic tensions or ethnic conflict. The situation can be hardly explained by the current processes of migration. Two million migrants who have arrived in the Russian South (not solely Krasnodar Krai) are the people who have been coming within the recent 12 years and not exclusively from armed conflict zones, but from different places across Russia and the former Soviet Union. This volume of in-migration is comparable with the previous decades. The overwhelming majority of newcomer to Krasnodar Krai are ethnic Russians, the population of Krasnodar Krai is decreasing in number since 1998 despite of migration. However, Meskhetian Turks who came in the region in 1989-90 and constitute 0.3% of the population, have little in common with the current migration. One may ask why this 'problem' exists only in Krasnodar Krai where the Turks are discriminated against, but not the other regions where a significant number of the Meskhetians also reside.

References to a possible 'repatriation' of the Meskhetians to Georgia are irrelevant. Anyway, any resettlement can be arranged only on a voluntary basis. The perspectives of the Meskhetian movement to Georgia are vague. Drafting of the Georgian law on 'repatriation' is still in progress in the Georgian Ministry on Justice and the outcome is unclear. Georgia's obligations regarding the Meskhetians before the Council of Europe are not fulfilled. In November 2002, the Georgian Directorate of Intelligence publicised a report on the Meskhetians and insisted that their immigration would be a threat to national security.


ANNEX 2. THE RUSSIAN PASSPORT SYSTEM AND ITS EFFECTS

The Russian passport system, a slightly modified Soviet passport system, is one of the major instruments of ethnic discrimination in public sphere and the source of the most acute problems in this area.

The Russian passport system shall not be confused with or reduced to Soviet institution of authorised domicile, or permission-registration at the place of residence, colloquially known as propiska. The passport system includes different institutions: internal passports and citizens' duty to possess them, official recognition of only internal passports (with minor exclusions) as papers identifying personality, obligatory registration by place of residence and stay and the duty to stay or live at the place of registration, administrative (police) control over registration. The passport system is closely linked with the other register systems: taxation, social security, military enlistment, penitentiary etc.

The RF Constitution (Article 27, part 1) guarantees for everyone, who stays legally in the Russian Federation (nationals and non-nationals), the right to move freely and choose the place of residence and stay. Under the RF Law 'On the right of citizens of the Russian Federation to freedom of movement, choice of place of stay and residence within the Russian Federation' of 1993, residence and sojourn registration though being obligatory is of a notifying character, while the Soviet propiska was permission-based. Registration legally is not a circumstance that creates rights or duties under the legislation in force; that means that registration or its absence may not constitute either a restriction or precondition for exercise of the rights and freedoms. Absence of registration constitutes an administrative infringement with no other legal consequences for a person.

The 1993 RF Law 'On the Right of Citizens to Freedom of Movement and Choice of Place of Residence within the Russian Federation' establishes two types of mandatory registration, namely registration at the place of residence and registration at the place of temporary stay. A citizen may be registered at one and only one place of his (her) residence, while he (she) may be registered by the place of stay (a temporary stay is implied here) without cancelling permanent registration by the place of residence.

The 1993 law directly pertains to Russian citizens. Under the RF Constitution, foreign citizens and stateless persons fall under the national regime, i.e. they exercise the rights and bear responsibilities on equal footing with citizens of the Russian Federation with the exemption of the cases stipulated by a federal law or an international treaty. Until 2002, there were neither federal laws, nor international treaties, which restricted the freedom of movement or a choice of a residence in the country for foreign nationals except for the acts which closed several territories for foreign visitors. The USSR Law 'On Legal Status of Foreign Citizens in the USSR' of 24 June 1981 and the related legislative acts were applied only to citizens of the countries outside the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Therefore, until 1 November 2002 (the date, the new RF Law 'On Legal Status of Foreign Citizens in the Russian Federation' took effect) the procedure of registration of Russian nationals was applicable to the people coming from the CIS countries.

In reality the system of registration functions in a different way. In practice, registration by a place of residence or stay restricts the right to freedom of movement and choice of place of residence. Registration actually becomes a precondition for exercise of the basic rights and freedoms. The system also requires an active repressive system of police control, and it contributes to human rights violations as well.

Until August 2002, resolutions of the RF Government and instructions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, formally based on the 1993 law, introduced restrictions and additional conditions for registration, not envisaged by the law, such as restrictions by the size of the residential space per person, including the persons applying for registration; restriction on the term of stay; the requirement of de-registration at the previous place of residence, the requirement of the preliminary military enlistment registration. The Constitutional Court Decision No.4 of 2 February 1998 abolished a bulk of these restrictions (restrictions on the term of temporary stay and on living space); the registration-related resolution of the RF Government was brought in line with this decision in August 2002. Basically, the situation has not changed.

Many regions (units of the federation) have introduced additional local conditions for registration, and among them: availability of kin ties in the given region, residence registration within the region (different requirements to the people, already registered in the region and to the outsiders), citizenship, status of dwelling (in some places there is a direct prohibition to register and to have the real estate deals attested to by a Notary Public to the persons without a local registration, while incomplete formalities with the real estate result in the refusal to register); special registration levies; social position and profession.

Even the current stay of the federal passport and registration regulations secures a substantial discretionary power for the enforcement officials. This freedom of choice is usually utilised not in favour of applicants. There is still a set of stable administrative customs: the linkage between registration and civil, housing and family legislation, the requirement of de-registration from the previous place of residence addressed to a person him/herself, interpretation of registration as a precondition for enjoyment of rights (this is directly prohibited by the law) etc.

The system has some intrinsic drawbacks; the main one is the linkage between personal identification, registration and certain dwelling. The passport system itself matched well the country with closed borders, plan economy (and planned distribution of manpower), state ownership of almost all wealth (including most dwellings) as well as with unlimited capacities of police and special services. The system cannot work properly under the new conditions. That means that notwithstanding anybody's desire or abuse there appear hundreds of thousands or millions of people who cannot objectively comply with the system's requirements. They are the people who lost their identity paper at the moment they did not have a registration. They are also the people who arrived from the former Soviet republics or zones of armed conflicts within the Russian Federation and who were not able to process residence and military de-registration at their previous place of living. As a rule, the latter may be technically not feasible or dangerous. The former Soviet nationals without Russian citizenship (or who are not recognised as Russian nationals) are in the mostly vulnerable position, because the newly independent states have established the new systems and procedures of population registers, new forms of identity papers etc.

The dwelling market and the market of related services (renting and leasing) are gradually taking shape in the country. A person who possesses a permanent registration (propiska) at a certain dwelling enjoys rights of exploiting this dwelling. His/her eviction and de-registration against his/her will according to establish administrative practices turn out to be difficult, even impossible. Since that limits the rights of owners or holders, they are usually reluctant to give permission to permanent registration. A person with temporary registration as a rule finds his/her rights and social opportunities restricted.

Formal and informal conditions and restrictions introduced both at the federal and regional levels are such, that many of those willing to be registered at a new place of residence or stay, do not meet the requirements for certain. In practice, the institution of registration technically becomes a condition for the citizens to enjoy their rights: acceptance of a citizenship and formalities in this connection; employment; marriage registration; participation in elections; medical care; secondary school and higher school education; pensions and allowances. A citizen formally could not receive a passport without a registration until 1999 and actually cannot do this afterwards, cannot pay taxes, register a vehicle, obtain driver's licence, etc.

Mandatory registration at place of stay (sojourn) means that the people, who come on a visit to a certain place for a short period of time, are obliged to inform the police of their whereabouts and apply for certificate of sojourn. The period for which a temporary registration is required under the federal law is ten days and more, but for Moscow, the Moscow oblast (province) and many other regions it is three days. This practice brings about inconveniences for the population and provokes abuse of power. First, the registration procedure, determined by the federal rules, is inconvenient and time-consuming, while the regional requirements make it still more complicated. Secondly, regional authorities introduce additional formal and informal requirements. Consequently, many comers cannot get a registration through no fault of theirs in due time. Thirdly, the mechanism of registration by place of stay may function only under the condition of a strict police control and severe sanctions for the absence of registration, since there is, in principle, no other motivation but the punishment for a citizen to get a registration.

'Controlling the fulfilment of the requirements of the 'passport (registration) regime' has become one of the main goals and main activities of the police. Respective measures include checking up personal identity papers and registration certificates and searching the premises, where unregistered persons might live. No doubt, a stimulus for such checks up is bribery and screwing money out of the detainees. Regional authorities set up arbitrary sanctions for the violation of the registration regime; in practice an enforcing officer decides how much to charge, he or she is actually not obliged to give a receipt when the penalty is paid, and that provokes bribery and extortion. There is also a widely spread practice to confiscate a passport as a pledge for the payment of a penalty, and passports are often lost at militia (police) stations.

All these kinds of restrictions and control are primarily targeting ethnic minorities originating from the Caucasus, both from the North Caucasus within the RF and from the independent states of the South Caucasus.

The institution of a registration is conductive to ethnic discrimination of three types.

1) The system provides for a series of distinct and concealed chances to deny the registration both by the place of residence and stay. Under certain circumstances the local authorities may refuse to register the persons of one ethnic group and to give advantages in the registration to the persons of another ethnic group, restricting the registration for the others.

2) Absence of registration is used as a pretext for the restriction of certain civil rights, and sometimes those restrictions are of a selective character and are based on ethnicity.

3) Control of the registration regime may be, and as a rule is, of a selective character too. In particular, as a rule, passports of those people, who are anthropologically different from the majority, are checked up in the streets more frequently than of the others.

Besides, strict police control and official statements against so-called 'illegal migrants' (i.e. people without registration) entail everyday discrimination and exclusion. People avoid contacts with those who are supposed to be a target for police and administrative checks, primarily with people originating from the Caucasus. They are often denied housing and other services and are less likely to be hired and more likely to be fired.


ANNEX 3. THE SITUATION OF MESKHETIAN TURKS IN KRASNODAR KRAI OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Summary

The Meskhetian Turks, or Meskhetians, are an ethnic minority of the Russian Federation.
In recent months, the Turks in Krasnodar Krai [Territory], a southern region of Russia, have been facing an unprecedented campaign of harassment and persecution launched by the regional government and supported by federal authorities. The escalation of this organised, direct discrimination against the Meskhetians as a distinct ethnic group; the systematic local media incitement of hatred against the Meskhetians; and the massive involvement in the reprisals against them of the extreme nationalist paramilitary units known as 'Cossacks' have pushed the situation to the brink of possible massive violence.

The Meskhetian Turks were Soviet citizens and came to the Russian Federation before the break-up of the Soviet Union. Krasnodar Krai is the only region of Russia where the Meskhetians have been arbitrarily denied registration at their place of residence (propiska), a legal requirement in Russia, then as now, upon which hinge social services, health care, education, property ownership, etc. As a result, they are denied enjoyment of their basic human and civil rights. Contrary to Russian law, they are not officially recognised as Russian nationals. This is the root of their current problem, and the other issues of their possible return someday to their previous homeland in Georgia or to other parts of the former Soviet Union where they formerly resided such as Uzbekistan, should not be allowed to distract from this central issue of citizenship and enjoyment of rights.

Historical Background

The Meskhetians, or Meskhetian Turks, are Muslims who speak the Turkish language. They traditionally inhabited a borderland region of South Georgia, part of the historical province of Meskheti, hence their name. In November 1944, Stalin ordered the deportation of approximately 90,000 Meskhetians to Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan - they were on the list of other "punished peoples" such as Crimean Tatars and Chechens who were viewed as unreliable during wartime. Most Meskhetians identify themselves as Turks; a small number consider themselves as 'Georgian Muslims'. To date, Meskhetians have not been able to return en masse to the places where they had originally been deported from or to Georgia in general.

In June 1989, Meskhetians living in the Ferghana oblast (province) of Uzbekistan (then a part of the Soviet Union, now an independent state) became the victims of massive violent clashes in that region. All Turks living in Ferghana (approximately 17,000 people) were evacuated to Central Russia by order of the Soviet government. The movement of Turks to the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic (RSFSR) was approved by Resolution No. 503 of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of 26 June 1989 and by Resolution No. 220 of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR of 13 July 1989. In the following year and a half, more than 70,000 Meskhetians were forced to leave other regions of Uzbekistan, fearing for their safety during continued ethnic tensions in the region. The Meskhetians spontaneously began moving mainly to Russia and Azerbaijan; a small number migrated to Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

Currently, there are an estimated 270-290,000 Meskhetian Turks living within the former USSR. There are 80-100,000 Turks in Kazakhstan; 50-70,000 in Russia (40-60,000 of them are among the original forced migrants of 1989-90 from Uzbekistan), 40-60,000 in Azerbaijan, 25-30,000 in Kyrgyzstan, 15-20,000 in Uzbekistan, 5-10,000 in Ukraine, and about 600 in Georgia. In all these countries, Meskhetian Turks are almost exclusively a rural, agricultural population. In the recent years, the Meskhetians have also been immigrating to Turkey.

The policies of the Soviet and Russian governments towards Meskhetians arriving in the Russian Federation in 1989-90.

There was no special long-term program for the integration of Meskhetians resettled to the RSFSR from Uzbekistan. The Meskhetians' displacement to the RSFSR was approved by Resolution No 503 of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of 26 June 1989 and by Resolution No 220 of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR of 13 July 1989. The both acts envisaged the distribution of small allowances among the Meskhetians resettled to rural areas of Central Russia and some measures to ease their economic and social adaptation. The RSFSR Council of Ministers Resolution No 220 listed six oblasts where these measures were to be undertaken (namely, Belgorod, Kursk, Oryol, Tver (at that time - Kalinin), Smolensk and Voronezh oblasts, the places where the Meskhetians had been evacuated previously), did not contain any instructions for the Meskhetians to settle exclusively in these regions. The Meskhetians who were resettled there or arrived on their own were granted propiska automatically if they had arrived in rural areas.

The Meskhetians, who arrived in the other regions of Russia in 1989-1991, as a rule also acquired propiska as most of the common Soviet citizens travelling within the USSR used to do. In particular, the Meskhetians who came to the Republics of Kalmykia and Checheno-Ingushetia, Stavropol Krai, Astrakhan, Orenburg, Rostov, Saratov and Volgograd oblasts, (i.e. all regions not mentioned in the RSFSR Council of Ministers Resolution No 220) were granted propiska. In general, the local authorities did not obstruct the Meskhetians from getting propiska. Some minor exceptions were in Stavropol Krai and Kabardino-Balkarian Republic where small groups of the Meskhetians were denied propiska; however, these people were gradually registered at their places of residence in 1990s. Krasnodar Krai remains the only one region of Russia where the Meskhetians have been deprived of residence registration.

Allowances granted to the Meskhetians coming to six regions of the Central Russia were several times less than the cost of their properties lost in Uzbekistan. The Meskhetians were scattered in small groups over the most remote and economically disadvantaged areas of these provinces; those who tried to find dwellings and jobs in the local urban centers were denied propiska. Single payments and the social aid envisaged by the governmental resolutions turned out to insufficient for the adaptation of the Meskhetians. More than 2/3 of the Turks, who arrived in six regions of Central Russia in 1989, still remain there; many of them constitute a low-income and socially marginalized segment of the local population. The major trouble is housing conditions, since many dwellings occupied by the Meskhetians in 1989, still belong to the local agricultural enterprises, and the Meskhetians cannot sell or rebuild them .

Meskhetian Turks in Krasnodar Krai

Currently, of 50-70,000 Meskhetians residing in Russia, approximately 15-18,000 people live in Krasnodar Krai. More than 13,000 Turks have arrived specifically in the region since 1989; 3,000 lived in Krasnodar Krai before 1989. The total number constitutes approximately 0.3% of the Krai's 5-million population. The overwhelming majority of Meskhetians reside in rural areas. They cultivate vegetables on leased lands or on the plots of land attached to their houses and operate small-scale wholesale or retail businesses, or work as temporary manual labourers.

Since 1989, most of the Turks who have come to Krasnodar Krai (between 10-13,000) have been refused a propiska. Krasnodar Krai is the only one region of Russia where the Turks are deprived residence registration en masse. The lack of a propiska results in denial or restriction of almost all civil, political and social rights. For example, Meskhetian Turks have found that their marriages are not registered and paternity is not officially recognized because they lack the propiska. In the cases, when the Meskhetian mothers do not have passports, local registrars refuse to make official records of the births of Meskhetian children and to issue birth certificates. The regional authorities have imposed a ban on official registration of ownership rights to the houses and plots of land purchased by people without a local propiska, including the Meskhetians. Accordingly, their rights to own and dispense with their dwellings and plots of land are restricted. The Turks cannot acquire land or other real estate, and can only sell their houses and the plots of land attached to them under extreme circumstances, after receiving special permission from local authorities and only if they are leaving the region. They are not allowed to construct anything on their properties. Officially, they cannot sell or purchase cars or other motor vehicles. They cannot receive or restore personal identity papers including internal and foreign passports.

Thus, the Turks are deprived of the right to freedom of movement and the right to choose a place of residence. They cannot travel outside Russia unless they leave it for another place of permanent residence and it is difficult to conceive of which neighbouring state might welcome them at this time. They are deprived of the right to receive or restore drivers' licences. The Turks cannot be hired for most jobs and cannot work on a permanent basis. Therefore, they receive less compensation for equal labour compared with those who have the propiska. They are also deprived of the right to paid leave. All of these restrictions create a situation where Meskhetian Turks are set up to be banned, and then criminalized for attempting to engage in the routine activities of daily life to in order to survive.

Meskhetians without a propiska or registration permit do not receive pensions, benefits, or any social allowances. They do not have access to the system of medical insurance and have to pay all medical services at full cost. Turkish children have been accepted at secondary schools without exceptions, but they cannot receive education at any higher level.

The authorities do not treat Meskhetians as citizens of the Russian Federation; they treat them as illegal aliens, who were tolerated for a time but are no longer. Yet they must be regarded as citizens under Article 13, part 1 of the 1991 Russian Federation Citizenship Law. Article 13 stipulates that former Soviet nationals who permanently resided in the RSFSR on the date the law went into effect (6 February 1992) and who did not renounce their Russian citizenship within one year of that date qualify as Russian citizens. The Meskhetian Turks were permanently residing in the RSFSR (subsequently made the Russian Federation) on 6 February 1992, did not renounce their citizenship, and therefore by law qualify for Russian citizenship. Their presence in the RF was further legalized by the Council of Ministers resolutions bringing them there in the first place back at the time of unrest in Uzbekistan.

Without citizenship papers, the Turks cannot participate in elections and referenda on any level, cannot participate in local self-government and cannot work as civil or municipal servants and therefore are deprived of the ability of representing their people's plight through local governance.

The Meskhetians are regularly searched and fined by police for the lack of registration permits. Since 1997, many Meskhetians who were stopped by the police and did not possess a passport on their persons were subject to administrative jail terms of up to 10 days. The Meskhetians have also constantly suffered 'inspections', which are really unlawful searches and seizures, where they are subject to violence and harassment by the extreme nationalist paramilitary units known as the Cossacks. On 16 April 2001, for example, a large group of the Cossacks beat up more than 30 Turks in the village of Novoukrainskaya; a hand grenade was thrown into a shop run by a local Turk . On 30 November 2001, 6 Turks were beaten up and heavily injured in the village of Shkolny in Krymsk the Krymsk district. Cossacks have also intimidated Meskhetians and human rights activists who have become involved in attempting to protect them.

Evidence of racial discrimination

The Turks in Krasnodar Krai are subjected to discriminatory treatment and campaigns of persecution.

The USSR Council of Ministers Resolution No 1476 of 24 December 1987 on the limitation of propiska in the Crimean oblast of Ukraine and in Krasnodar Krai was applied selectively, almost exclusively against Crimean Tatars and Turks. Out of 19,897 people (including the Turks) who applied to the passport and visa service of the Krymsk district from 1 January of 1989 until 1 October 1994, 11,001 obtained a propiska. Out of 8,479 Turks who applied for a propiska within that period, only 14 persons received it. In other words, Turks made up 92.5% of all people who were refused propiska in the Krymsk district. The same situation existed in the Abinsk district: in 1989-94, out of all the people considered by local police as 'forced migrants', only Turks were refused a propiska .

The regional authorities in Krasnodar Krai repeatedly single out the Meskhetian Turks through special regulations citing their ethnicity as a distinct category and subjecting them to special regime of personal registration. On 12 February 1992, the Minor Council (the presidium of the regional legislature) of Krasnodar Krai issued Decision No. 97 which subjected Meskhetians to a certain provisional restrictive regimen . On 24 April 1996, the Legislative Assembly of the Krasnodar Krai adopted Resolution No. 291-P, according to which adult Meskhetians were obliged to pass every three months through a specific registration procedure and to receive residence certificates paying a fee . Those certificates allowed Meskhetians to re-register their vehicles for the corresponding period and to be employed on a short-term basis (for not more than 2 months). From June 1997, the regional authorities started to register Meskhetians for the term of 45 days only, as if they were persons coming from abroad for a short stay, and to levy a revenue for one registration at an amount of $33.00 USD per person. Only in January 2000, the term of temporary registration for the Turks was extended by a special governor's decree to 8 months. Later, in August 2000, the Turks were re-registered for another 5 months. The resolution of the Krasnodar governor of 12 March 2001 permitted the Turks to get temporary registration by place of stay for the term of 1 year. Temporary registration certificates do not provide for any social rights, they usually only temporarily protected the people from fines for 'violation of the passport regimen' and did not grant them permanent work papers.

On 20 February 2002, the regional Legislative Assembly adopted a new Decree No 1363-P, 'On Additional Measures to Decrease Tensions in Interethnic Relations in the Areas of Compact Settlement of Meskhetian Turks Temporarily Residing on the Territory of Krasnodar Krai' which confirmed a special status of the Meskhetians as such. It bans any means of residence registration for 'stateless persons' (in theory, the permission could be given by the regional commission of migration control), envisages more intensive passport and residence checks, and requires strict administrative control over the issue of papers certifying land possession in the places of 'compact settlement of ethnic groups'. This document like all the previous regulatory acts directed at the Turks is being clearly perceived and interpreted in the way that the Meskhetians as such are a population 'in transit' excluded from the Russian legislation and subjected to a special regimen. The Decree was abrogated when the 2002 Federal Law 'On the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens in the Russian Federation' went into force and established new, more severe restrictions on the people considered non-nationals in Russia.

The local authorities are clearly selective in their review of the Turks' claims for residence registration: the Turks are denied a propiska unlike people of other ethnic origins who have suffered less from registration restrictions. In 1997-98, massive firings affected exclusively the Turks who were temporarily employed at various enterprises in the Krymsk and Abinsk districts. In March and April 2002, the Turks were fired en masse at the enterprises of Temryuk and Anapa districts and of the city of Novorossiisk . The house-to-house 'passport checks' and fining for the lack of registration, fining for 'illegal commerce' and 'illegal occupation of land', seizures of private property for non-payment of fines have been used exclusively against the Meskhetian Turks and Kurds in Krymsk, Abinsk and Anapa districts . In May - June 2002, police patrols swept through the crop fields of Krymsk, Abinsk, Anapa, Temryuk districts and in Novorossiisk and have been detaining any Turks who have tried to start planting. For example, on 23 May 2002, dozens of Turks were detained at the fields in Anapa district and Novorossiisk and taken into custody . In May 2002, 18 Turkish children were expelled from the municipal kindergarten in the village of Novoukrainskaya of the Krymsk district . In May and June 2002, the municipal health clinics in the Krymsk district blatantly refused to grant health care to patients of Turkish origin .

The Krasnodar regional branch of the International Society of the Meskhetian Turks 'Vatan' was liquidated by a court decision on 24 July 2002. The action was brought by the regional Department of the RF Ministry of Justice, which accused the 'Vatan' of the activities contradicting its own Charter goals. The reasoning was that the 'Vatan' society defended the rights of the Turks in Krasnodar Krai and therefore was working for their 'sedentary residence' in the region, while the 'Vatan' Charter envisaged the resettlement of the Turks to Georgia; the latter obviously was not true. The 'Vatan' representative was not properly informed about the hearings, and was not able to participate in the process. The court did not examine the actual activities of the 'Vatan', it just stated that the organization had got official warnings of the Department of Justice twice but had not brought its activities in line with the official prescriptions.

The Cossacks paramilitary units repeatedly launch massive house-to-house 'passport checks' exclusively against the Turks. They usually threaten the Meskhetians and commit acts of violence. On 31 March 2002, 150 Cossacks tried to evict 2 Meskhetian families from the settlement Nizhnebakanski (the Krymsk district), but were stopped by the local Turks . On 28 June 2002, a group of approximately 200 Cossacks arrived in Kievskoye village where the Meskhetians went on hunger strike. Many Meskhetian Turks also came from other localities to support their fellows, and clashes nearly broke out, prevented only by intervention of local human rights groups and citizens trying to prevent conflict.

Hate speech

Senior officials of Krasnodar Krai often make public statements that they will create unbearable living conditions for the Turks to force them the leave the region. At a meeting on migration issues March 18 in Abinsk for officials of regional and district levels, the Krasnodar Krai governor Alexander Tkachev said: 'We must protect our land and the native population… When we have several thousands Kurds, several thousands Turks who inhabit in compact communities the Krymsk and Abinsk Districts and the Krai in general … As a result of our leniency a different ethnographic situation might arise in the Krai in 10 years… This is Cossack land and everyone must know this … Here are our rules of the game…' Regarding the Meskhetian Turks, Tkachev said: 'According to various estimates, from 15 to 20 thousand Turks are residing in the Krai, and that is a very serious problem. I say addressing them: don't forget that you are guests on our land. Sooner or later we'll have to say good-bye to them… Some 'guests' engage in theft, drugs… Most of the Meskhetian Turks do not want to get out of our territory. I think all available mechanisms of pressure and persuasion will be employed to make the number of leaving 'guests' rise. Furthermore, we should decrease the number of people coming in as well, not only Turks, but Azeris, Kurds and others also…' 'There is an international agreement on the displacement of Turks to Georgia, to their historic homeland. The point is, they don't want to return there. We are willing to defend Kuban from those who have forgot that they are guests here and that they must behave correspondingly and not abuse hospitality.'

The regional and local media entirely controlled by the government clearly supports the views and policies of the Krasnodar administration regarding migrants, ethnic minorities and the Meskhetian Turks as a specific group. The Meskhetians are described as a population in transit or as 'illegal immigrants', a group whose presence is socially harmful for the region. The local media portray the Meskhetians as a 'criminal' minority and a 'fifth column' of foreign intelligence services.

Below are a couple of typical mass-media judgements regarding the Meskhetians.

'The re-settlers are not integrated socially, two thirds of them reside in the Krai without any legal ground and are involved in illegal business. In accordance with the Head Directorate of Internal Affairs, in those places where the Meskhetian Turks live, illegal drugs and arms trade has increased sharply. Theft from the fields has become a real disaster. Even more fearful crimes take place, like murders, rape of children and elder people. The Turkish population contributes almost nothing to the budgets of the Krai and raions… The situation is aggravated by the Turks-Meskhetians aggressive claims for electoral rights on equal ground with the local population. The leaders of the Turkish society 'Vatan' apply to all international organizations and demand to give them the right to take part in elections and to abolish registration on the territory of Krasnodar Krai to enable the Turks live in any settlement of the Kuban without restrictions…

'Not for the first time we are addressing the residence of stateless people - Turks-Meskhetians, Armenians, Azeris etc. Keeping silence this time means to imply that many newspapers support demands of those who live in the Krai illegally and commit disgraceful things. It is just enough to talk to any inhabitant of the Krymsk raion to understand that this place is like on a volcano, and the volcano's crater is getting wider day by day and is sucking new victims. Usually the victims are Russian people. The people who not just gave shelter to refugees from the former USSR, but who also share the them the last piece of bread and bedding. Well, the former refugees have grown stronger, took roots, and we saw who they are for ourselves. No! They didn't thank the Russians, nor did they have such a desire. They have had one aspiration - to sit on our neck and to become real master of the other people's land. As early as 10 years ago only several hundreds Turks-Meskhetians lived on the Kuban. Now their number is 25,000, according to the official data. Nobody known, how numerous they are really. The quantity of Armenians, Azeris, Chechens has grown significantly as well… Understanding quite well, that there won't be a better place for them, our 'guests' start to urge and rather, more often, to demand; besides, their demands become more pressing every year. Well, when nothing mend matters and the Krai's administration conduct a harsh policies towards those who live on the Kuban illegally, then political means are employed like the hunger strike in Kiyevskoye village of the Krymsk raion. … Now what the 'Vatan' society leaders want. First of all - to live on the territory of Krasnodar Krai, not in a god-forsaken place, but exactly in the Krymsk raion, better - at the Black Sea coast. If we are not allowed this, then we'll notify the whole world that the policies of ethnic cleansing are pursued at the Kuban (remember Kosovo, everything there has got started from the same)' .

Recent developments in Krasnodar Krai

The pressure upon the Turks has been increased since winter of 2001/2002. The regional authorities have imposed new restrictions on their freedom of movement and choice of residence and have launched a campaign against the residents who do not possess residence registration who are stigmatised as 'illegal migrants'. The new law of Krasnodar Krai 'On Stay and Residence on the Territory of Krasnodar Krai' No 460 of 11 April 2002 provides for a restrictive and permission-based procedure for issuing residence and or temporary stay registration.

Senior officials of Krasnodar Krai often make public statements that they will create unbearable living conditions for the Turks and other 'illegal migrants' to force them to leave the region. Regardless of their actual propiska status, a number of Meskhetians in the western part of the region were denied the right to lease plots of land from local agricultural enterprises. The Meskhetian Turks are also barred from selling vegetables even from plots of land attached to their own houses. The local authorities refuse to give them papers certifying that they possess these plots of land, and tax inspection imposes fines for 'illegal' commerce. The Meskhetians are also penalised for 'unlawful' occupation of the land and houses, which were purchased 12-13 years ago. They cannot pay the administrative fines, and the local courts have already seized the property (including livestock, food, and cutlery) of dozens of families. New developments of the anti-Meskhetian campaign are also the recent refusals in access to health care and to pre-school educational institutions.

The Turks are systematically denied access to justice: the local judges refuse to commence Meskhetian lawsuits under various arbitrary pretexts.

In March and June 2002, the Krai's governor announced campaigns of mass expulsion of 'illegal migrants', and at least 2 Kurdish families were deported to the neighboring region of Rostov in April. The authorities have mobilised the Cossack ultra-nationalist paramilitary units as an auxiliary police force. The Meskhetians are repeatedly subjected to house-to-house passport checks and fines . The police are working together with the Cossacks, and the Cossacks also carry out anti-Meskhetian 'inspections' on their own.

In a sign of mounting desperation, a group of Meskhetian Turks who reside in Kievskoye village went on hunger strike on 22 June protesting against such persecution and harassment. The strike was suspended on 1 July. The regional officials placed enormous pressure on the people participating in the action and threatened to punish them. Extreme nationalist paramilitary units of Cossacks threatened the Turks with violence.

In summer 2002, the Meskhetians were entitled to a temporary sojourn registration for 3 month. When it expired in November, no new registration was envisaged. Since then, the Turks have been once more targeted by massive police checks of 'passport regime'. Many people were fined and detained.

Position of the federal government

Mounting discrimination and the harassment of the Meskhetian Turks sponsored and carried out by the regional authorities in Krasnodar Krai have been completely neglected by the federal government. The federal authorities have announced their willingness to drive the Turks out of Russia. The Krasnodar governor Aleksandr Tkachev repeatedly said that his plans to get rid of 'migrants' have been supported by President Vladimir Putin. The Kremlin has neither clearly confirmed nor denied these statements. While in Krasnodar in late May 2002, the deputy head of the President's Administration, several times publicly stated that there were no discord between the federal government and the regional administration on the migration issues. The Federation Council (the upper chamber of the Russian parliament) on 10 July 2002 adopted a statement regarding the migration and ethnic situation in Krasnodar Krai. The statement contains a call for massive deportation of non-nationals without local registration, for resettlement of the Meskhetian Turks to Georgia and for displacement of some of the ethnic minorities to the central and northern regions of the country.

However, the Russian government has officially acknowledged that the Meskhetians in Krasnodar Krai were subjected to discriminatory treatment. The Report of the Russian Federation on the implementation of provisions of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (March 2000) contains the following paragraph : 'In 1998-1999 representatives of the regional branch of the interethnic society of the Meskhetian Turks "Vatan" addressed repeatedly the public prosecutor's office of the Krasnodarsky Krai asking it to determine finally the status of this ethnic group members inhabiting Kuban. More than once the regional legislative authorities adopted normative acts aimed at limiting the rights of the Meskhetian Turks who migrated to Russia from Kyrgyzstan, as regards their registration at the place of residence and acquisition of dwelling. As a result of the prosecutor's intervention all these anti-constitutional acts were brought in conformity with the federal legislation.'

Judicial practice

The Meskhetians' actions before the court in Krasnodar Krai within the last 13 years have not been of a massive and organized nature; their total number probably does not exceed 200. The Meskhetians won several dozens cases on three issues, namely, on recognition of their property rights and on residence registration. However, this has not had a positive impact on the situation as they are not enforced, and are not available as a remedy to an entire class or group of people and are evidently not a legal percent in the Russian non-precedent legal system which can function to provide remedies to the class. The Turks are for the most part barred from litigation by their social conditions, since they live in remote rural areas, many of them have poor command of the Russian language, the court filing fees are relatively high for them. The local authorities by various means discourage the Turks from bringing actions before the courts and discourage local lawyers from representing the Turks in court. In recent years, the judges also refuse under various arbitrary pretexts to commence the lawsuits. For example, a judge of the Krymsk Court, T. Litvinenko, in 1999 suspended a suit lodged by R.Tashtanov concerning recognition of his property rights to a house. The pretext was the 'absence of proof that the seller refrained from validation of the bargain' although Tashtanov produced the police certificate proving that the seller had left the Krai long ago. In 2000, the Krymsk district court did not accept for review a complaint lodged by H. Umarov. He filed a complaint against the Krymsk passport and visa service which had refused to register his wife and son at his house even while his Russian citizenship and ownership rights to the dwelling were officially recognized.

Since 1997, the local courts have often ruled against plaintiffs, citing regional legislation although they had are obliged to implement federal laws. Hatice and Abdulkerim Ahmedov who lived in Abinsk complained before the district court against the passport and visa services' refusal to register them in their own house. On 22 May 1997, the district court declined the complaint, citing the regional law on residence registration and pronouncing the Ahmedovs as non-nationals, since the regional law restricts registration of people without Russian citizenship. It has taken the Ahmedovs' case two years to reach the RF Supreme Court. The Court's Board on Civil Cases, in its capacity as a supervisory instance, considered a new complaint and ruled that the decision had not been based on the law and that the Ahmedovs' status of Russian nationality had not been examined by the court of first instance. On 20 June 2000, the Abinsk district court re-addressed the Ahmedovs' case and ruled that their complaint must be satisfied. The Krai Court on 10 August 2000 confirmed this decision. So, one individual case involving the Supreme Court took 37.5 months because of the resistance of regional judiciary and this has had no positive effect for the situation at large.

In some cases, court decisions affecting primarily residence registration are not implemented by the police. For instance, the Krymsk district court on 23 February 1998 ordered the passport and visa service to register Farman Pashaev (who lived in the village Adagum of the Krymsk district from 1990), but the passport and visa service has not fulfilled the court decision to this day.

Within recent years, some Turks tried to confirm the legal fact of their residence in Russia in 1992 through obtaining a judicial decision and thus force the passport and visa services to recognise their Russian citizenship. Usually the judges decline the actions under formal pretexts at the pre-trial stage. For instance, in March 2001, the judge of the Krymsk district court refused to accept the suits confirming possession of Russian citizenship brought by Zuhra and Mustafa Eminovs. The pretexts were following: the plaintiffs did not provide any evidence of their residence in Russia before 1992 (although that should not have been a legitimate subject of the trial), and the Meskhetian Turks were temporary residents in Krasnodar Krai, so their status must be determined separately. After the same refusal of the regional court of June 2001 to consider the suit, the Eminovs, given that their access to justice was denied in Russia, brought an action before the European Court on Human Rights under articles 6(1), 13 and 14 of the ECHR and are awaiting a decision. Meanwhile, the Meskhetians by August 2002 won 26 cases on recognition of the judicial fact of permanent residence in Russia on 6 February 1992. Passport and visa services of the Krymsk district have already refused to issue a Russian passport to one of these 26 people, Lachin Aydinov. Lachin Aydinov brought the complaint before the district court, but the court declined it on 6 May 2002. The regional court confirmed this decision a month later.


ANNEX 4. THE SITUATION OF CHECHENS ACROSS RUSSIA

The given explanatory note is prepared on the basis of information compiled by the lawyers - members of the countrywide Network 'Migration and Law' (further - Network) who participate in the project of the Human Rights Centre 'Memorial' and provide for legal assistance to all kinds of migrants within 46 regions of the Russian Federation. Most of the data given below has been already published in the report 'The Internally Displaced Persons from Chechnya in the Russian Federation' compiled in May 2002 by Svetlana Gannushkina . The note contains several mostly typical cases selected from the Network database.

Acquisition of the 'forced migrant' status

Acquisition of the 'forced migrants' status is one of the crucial problems for the people leaving Chechnya (further - 'internally displaced persons', IDPs). First, the forced migrant status is the only hope for the people fleeing Chechnya to get a minimal support from the state and a minimal guarantee of social rights. It should be mentioned here, that there haven't been adopted any federal programmes or normative acts for support to the victims of the second military campaign in Chechnya. Secondly, the police persecute those who have the status on a lesser scale. It is much easier for them to register themselves in new places, that is, to legalise their presence if this term can be applied to the citizens of Russia who have never left the country of their citizenship.

Between 1991 and 1996, that is before and during the first war in Chechnya about 150 thousand people from the republic got the forced migrant status. From October 1999 until late 2001, only 12,464 people who had left the republic got the status. Meanwhile, 568,449 people were registered under so called 'Form No.7', that is a form used by the immigration service to register people leaving their places of residence in a situation of emergency. In particular, only 89 persons received the status in the Republic of Ingushetia while the total number of IDPs from Chechnya now living there is comparable to its own population strength. 7,710 people (3,398 families) were registered from September 1999 till April 2002 in the Republic of North Ossetia - Alania according to 'form No. 7' (arrived because of the state of emergency); 9 of them got the status, none of them are ethnic Chechens. In Moscow, that attracts most Chechens who collaborated with the federal government, only 157 people were granted the status. Over a quarter of all those who got the status throughout the country received it in the Stavropol region (3250 people).

The Ministry of Federation, Nationalities and Migration Policies has admitted that 'The majority of those who got the status did not belong to the titular nationality' ; that means they were not ethnic Chechens. They are refused the status on the ground that "there are no evidences and circumstances envisaged by Art. 1 of the Law of the RF 'On Forced Migrants'." Consequently, today the authorities interpret the concept of 'forced migrant' in a way different than in 1996 when 'mass disorders' were often recognised as a sufficient ground for granting the status. In some cases migration service officials directly admitted that they had been instructed not to give the Chechens the forced migrant status since they were not victims of ethnic, confessional or political discrimination. In certain regions, the members of ethnically mixed families or those Chechens who can supply documentary proof of their loyalty to the Russian authorities and their direct co-operation with them under pro-Moscow Zavgaev administration of Chechnya in 1994-96 or of being persecuted by Muslim fundamentalists and bandits are lucky exceptions.

Tatiana Zharova, a Network lawyer from Astrakhan, reported that the family of M. Matsasev and I. Akhmetkhanova and their four minor children who had left Chechnya in July 2000 did not receive the status. Their application was registered by the migration service only in March 2001. The application indicated the following reasons for leaving Chechnya: threats of fundamentalist Wahhabi militants, rejection of the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam and their way of life, enforcement to collaborate with bandits. On 21 June 2001, the migration service refused to grant the status because it found that the reasons for leaving the previous place of residence did not satisfy the requirements of the Law 'On Forced Migrants'. This case is not a unique one: Chechens insist that they were persecuted by separatist militants on social and confessional grounds, but their testimonies are not taken into account and considered to be a fraud.

The family of T.Makaeva and Kh. Iasaev with three small children had to flee Chechnya for Ingushetia in November 1999 during the bombardments of Grozny. Later they were sent by the migration service to the Voronezh province. There they were denied the forced migrant status; they lodged a complaint before a court, but also unsuccessfully.

During the hearings, it turned out that the migration service of the Voronezh Region were guiding themselves by the letter of the Ministry of Federation, Nationalities and Migration Policies of 23.05.2001 (No. 08-3757). The letter said in particular: "The law does not envisage granting the forced migrant status in connection with the threat caused by the anti-terrorist operations in the Chechen Republic and by mass disorders without taking into account the above mentioned circumstances of leaving the places of permanent domicile. In these cases the status should not be granted. Besides, the counter-terrorist operation cannot be regarded as a mass violation of public order because it is aimed at restoring public order." Protocol No. 2 attached to the Makaeva's file showed that among those who had left Chechnya and had applied for the status only the Chechens did not get it.

The family of Gichibaevs lives in the Centre for Temporary Accommodation Serebrianiki (the Tver province). Their father was a Chechen while mother was Russian. The parents registered the sons as Chechens and daughters as Russians. As a result, the female members got the status, while the male members did not. A Network lawyer Nikolai Trofimov reported a similar fact from Taganrog. In an ethnically mixed family, Russian mother and minor daughter got the status after a lot of trouble while the father, a Chechen, was denied it. According to Zhanna Buriukova and Valentina Molokova who work in a relatively loyal to migrants Saratov province all Russians who arrived from Chechnya during the second campaign got the status while the Chechen families of Kahadisovs, Taisumovs, Shamilovs, Iunusovs, Iakhtiaevs, and others got a refusal from the Territorial Office of the Ministry of Federation. The court considered the complaints against this decision and confirmed it.

According to a Network lawyer Nina Efremova from the Pensa province, herself a forced migrant from Chechnya who got the status in 1995 and now heads a large and active migrant organization, about 500 ethnic Chechens who arrived early in 2001 were denied the status. Her colleagues and her own attempts, to defend their interests in court proved futile.

It is quite often that the migration structures refuse to register applications, that is, rejections occur at the first stage, even before the applications are considered on the merits. There are numerous facts of applications remaining unregistered and rejected outright. This means that the procedure does not start at all. According to information from a Network lawyer Svetlana Tarasova and head of a local migrants organization Lydia Naumova, there were over 5,000 IDPs from Chechnya in the Volgograd province. A considerable number of them arrived in 2001; twelve were admitted to apply for the forced migrant status, only nine people were granted it.

Bringing an action before a court provides for a positive outcome only in exceptional individual cases.

According to a Network lawyer Tatiana Lyndrik, the courts of Vologda province overruled the complaints on the refusal to grant the forced status of all those who came from Chechnya in 1999-2002. The case of Malika Tagaeva is one of the most graphic examples. Her application for the status for herself and her five small children (aged between 2 and 10) was not registered by the regional migration service. She applied before the Federal Migration Service, but the FMS confirmed the initial negative decision. The court declined her complaint and refused to take into account that her house had been destroyed and that there was a threat of persecution on ethnic and confessional grounds.

Valentina Shaysipova, a Network lawyer from the Tambov Region, reported that since January 2001 the IDPs from Chechnya (except for one person) have received the forced migrant status by a court decision. Complaints of S. Astaev, S. Baysangurov, S. Iaskaev who proved that they were not able to stay in the Chechen Republic for fear of death were declined. The cassation instance did not alter the initial decisions. Irina Nekrasova, a Network lawyer from Ekaterinburg, also reports that the courts refuse to satisfy complaints of ethnic Chechens about denials of the status. For instance, Natalia Estimirova, a activist of the regional human rights centre, could not get the status through the court although she was supported by an experienced lawyer and was willing to defend her right. In the Kurgan province, a well-known lawyer Sergei Salasiuk who worked with the Network, failed to get in court satisfaction of the complaint about the refusal to grant the status lodged by Buvadi Nutsulkhanov and other Chechens.

Sometimes courts decide in favour of claimants, but territorial migration structures do not hasten to obey. For example, Nurbika Magomadova arrived at the Saratov province in August 1999. The territorial agency refused to grant her the status. For over two years her case was put before court three times, and eventually the decision was in her favour. But N.Magomadova got the certificate of a forced migrant only at the end of 2001.

A similar thing happened to the family of Zeinap Baisaeva in Moscow. Her house in the settlement of Samashki was destroyed by a direct hit. Several members of her family were killed or heavily wounded. She and her niece Madina who had lost an eye and needed permanent medical help in the Gelmgolts Institute of Ophthalmology (Moscow) were denied the forced migrant status and applied before a court. They have passed three rounds in courts. The court of the first instance passes a positive decision, but it was contested in the second instance by the Moscow migration service. The case was returned back for reconsideration, another positive decision was passed and appealed against once more and once again returned back. Meanwhile, the Moscow City Court, i.e. the court of the second instance can consider the case and pass a decision itself, but preferred to start another round along the same route.

Each positive court decision is a result of hard work of lawyers, NGOs, and migrants who have to queue for hours to hand in their documents, to waste time waiting for their turn, to be humiliated in migration services and even in courts. For example, Ms. Makarova, federal judge of the Meshchansky Court in Moscow, called those present "persons of Caucasian extraction" and added that she 'could not tolerate more than four of them in the courtroom'. People from Chechnya all the time hear that 'they have come in great numbers," that "they kill our sons in Chechnya' etc.

This shows that to get the status by a court decision is the only one way but a poor chance to get it at all. In Moscow and the Moscow province, there were several positive court decisions. In the Briansk province, where the migration service denies all Chechen families of the forced migrant status the families of Khasnevs, Inderbievs, Gudievs, and Didaevs managed to get their application registered through a court. From September 1999 to this day 496 people arrived to the Kurgan province from Chechnya; 46 of them got the status only after a court decision.

Registration in place of residence or stay

If a Russian citizen comes from one region of Russia to another one and does not has a residence or sojourn registration, he or she appears in a situation similar to a state of an illegal migrant in a foreign country.

Contrary to the federal legislation, restrictive regulations of registration are still in force in Moscow and the Moscow province. Besides, there is a tacit agreement about a special registration order applied to the Chechens in order to make registration for them as difficult as possible. The police or house management offices usually reject applications for registration orally. As a rule people do not come back - they go to dealers or firms that have made registration their business. This business is illegal yet it is flourishing for everybody to see; the firms run adverts in the press and the Internet and are never persecuted. At the same time those who buy registration documents (more often than not they are false) from them run a risk of punishment for the use of false documents or their manufacture.

In many cases precinct police officers often intimidate those Moscow people who want to rent out their flats to Chechens or are willing to register them. In violation of the registration rules they put their visas on applications for registration. Malkan Avturkhanova, a Chechen refugee and a cancer patient who undergoes chemotherapy in Moscow, demonstrated to the 'Civic Assistance' Committee her application on which a precinct police officer had written "Shall be rejected" without any explanations. While her compliant was being considered in the Main City Administration of the Interior the owner of the flat became too frightened to register Malkan.

Precinct officers are obliged to visit the homes where people are registered to check whether they live there indeed. If they find that the registered do not live by the address they are registered at they may insist in the registration annulment. This happened to a student from Chechnya who during holidays left the dormitory she was registered in to live with her mother who arrived to Moscow to see her daughter in a rented flat.

Precinct officers also make rounds of the flats where, according to their information, unregistered Chechens are living. They either regularly return for bribes or intimidate them with threats of forced evictions. Sometimes they come together with two or three armed police officers and behave aggressively. This happened quite often in fall 1999 and winter 2000 and turned into a nightmare of many Chechen families. Early in 2002 police officers of the 'Sokolinaia Gora' police department (Moscow) tried to evict Baret Suleimanova and her three small children, one of them a baby, from a factory hostel without any legal grounds. She has a permission of the hostel room owner but the factory administration refused to register her.

Even if Chechens' registration is processed they are subjected to various humiliations that include: getting permission from the chief, checking their past with an aim of detecting criminal behaviour, compulsory finger printing, rough treatment, insults and accusations of murders of Russian soldiers and of terrorism. Khava Torshkhoeva who works at the 'Civic Assistance' Committee was photographed en face, in profile, in three quarters and full length in the 'Zhulebino' police department where they compiled a list of her distinguishing features. On the initiative of the Civic Assistance Committee, a State Duma deputy Viacheslav Igrunov asked the police department for the relevant documents allowing them to behave in this way. The department refused because, the police chief explained, the instructions of the Head Department of the Interior of Moscow of how to treat migrants from the North Caucasus were designed for internal use only.

Similar information comes from other regions. The Network lawyer from Chuvashia reports that the passport sections of the Interior Ministry were instructed, in a secret way, to deny registration to the Chechens under any pretext, even to those who want to live in remote villages. Even there the structures of the Ministry of Internal Affairs intimidate dwelling owners to limit registration for people from Chechnya.

The governor of the Vologda province issued an instruction (No. 616 of 17.09.99) of temporary registration of those who come to the region. People seeking registration in Vologda should first obtain a permission of the chief of the city Department of Interior. Chechens are no longer registered there. The RF Ministry of Internal Affairs answered to the inquiry of a State Duma deputy that this act had not been applied for some time. Nevertheless, the newcomers still have to get permission from police officers, in particular, from the precinct policemen.

Malika Tagaeva who had come to Belozersk in the Vologda province from Grozny, was denied the status in all instances. She and her family could not register by the address they were living at for varied reasons: too small living space and an absence of discontinuation of registration in Chechnya. The court accused her of absence of registration that she simply could not get. Being unregistered she was not eligible to child allowances.

Sabigula Dzhabrailov who had been living in Vologda for eleven years had to give shelter to 12 relatives who escaped from Grozny. None of them was registered at the place of residence or stay though all had the necessary documents.

According to Rasiat Iasieva, the Network lawyer in Khasaviurt, the Government of Daghestan issued Instruction No. 257-P of 29.06.1999 according to which registration of people coming to Khasavuirt from Chechnya was suspended. The Daghestanis that used to live in Chechnya and who come back home to Khasaviurt that since times immemorial has been hometown for the Chechens have to go through a humiliating procedure of explanations why they returned to Daghestan. They have to provide documents and write an application to chiefs of the City Department of Interior or of district departments of the interior. The chiefs send the materials with their visas to the passport and visa service. If the latter agrees the person can finally register in his or her own home.

Magomed Aliev from Chechnya who came to Volsk (Saratov province) complained to the Saratov Network office that the local passport and visa service refused to register him in his own flat. He was offered only a sojourn but not residence registration. The refusal was explained by the reference a local instruction not to register Chechens at the places of permanent residence.

Ms. Ukhmaeva with a child came to the Rostov province from Chechnya. For a long time she was denied even temporary registration and had to live secretly with a friend in a social shelter. The child was deprived of medical assistance and baby food.

The Gaitarov family of 11 came to Tambov in August 2000. The passport and visa service of the October District Department of the Interior refused to register them by place of sojourn on the ground that the territorial migration service did not give an agreement to this. They got sojourn registration after a court decision. According to lawyers from St. Petersburg Olga Osipova and Tamara Ter-Karapetiants, the police refused to register by the place of sojourn Birlant Nogamurzaeva and her five small children. She was required to confirm her Russian citizenship. After numerous complaints lodged by the Network lawyers she got the sticker confirming her Russian citizenship to her passport of a Soviet citizen. After that the family was registered.

The law-enforcement bodies, on the one hand, prevent registration at the places of residence or stay. On the other hand, the same structures persecute people for living without registration, impose administrative penalties, and detain the people. All this is accompanied with threats to deport the Chechens as if they were not Russian citizens.

In fact, a genuine registration document cannot protect its holder. On 21 March 2002, Akhmed Arsamakov got a yearlong registration at the flat of Elena Burtina who worked in the 'Civic Assistance' Committee. There are no doubts that the document is genuine yet on 31 March, he was detained by police officers of the 'Golitsyno' police department (the Moscow province) where he went in search of work. Despite his protests he was taken to the precinct where his registration document was declared to be false. They called the Central Address Bureau of the Head Department of the Interior of Moscow, which denied
any information about his registration. Akhmed called Burtina, she called the Central Address Bureau where Ms. Savina, who worked there, explained that information flow was great while the staff was too small to promptly process it. The time lag was nearly six months. This says that lack of information about registration does not prove that the document is false. Savina said that police officers were well aware of this. The chief of the passport and visa service of the 'Preobrazhenskoe' police department who had drawn up the document confirmed this. Still, an absence of information about registration in the Central Address Bureau is frequently used for extortions and persecutions.

Personal identity papers

Everywhere in the Russian Federation they cannot get either internal or foreign passports; in many places they cannot get birth certificates for their newly born children.

When the "anti-terrorist campaign" just started in September 1999, the Ministry of Internal Affairs issued an order that banned to issue passports to people arriving from Chechnya. In spring 2000, the ban was lifted in relation to foreign passports; the Chechens were allowed to get passports outside Chechnya at the places of their temporary registration. Few people have been able to use this opportunity so far: before issuing a passport the passport and visa services have to inquire in Chechnya whether the particular person can be allowed to go abroad. Quite often such inquiries remain unanswered.

The passport and visa services regularly refuse, without any legal grounds, to issue foreign passports to those who came from Chechnya. In Chuvashia, for example, Iakubov and Mairukaeva for a long time were denied issuance of foreign passports; they got them only when Peter Ayvenov, the Network lawyer interfered. People working in the passport and visa services and in the regional Ministry of Internal Affairs directly acknowledged to Ayvenov that their superiors had ordered them not to issue any papers to Chechens under any pretext.

From 2001 onwards the structures of the interior flatly refuse to issue internal passport to the IDPs from Chechnya. The Passport and Visa Department of the RF Ministry of Internal Affairs explained that since passport service had started functioning in the Chechen Republic people should go there for getting identity papers. They deliberately ignore the risk of death for those resolved to get passports there. The threat of death is not the only obstacle: Chechens, mainly men, have little chance to go far in the republic without documents. They are stopped at checkpoints. What is more, they are detained and sent to filtration camps from which not all of them will return.

There are numerous cases when IDPs from Chechnya could not get their passports for lack of registration.

A. Nogomerzaeva who reached the age of 14, applied to the PVS of the Central Administration of the Interior of St. Petersburg for a passport. She was refused on the ground that she had no registration at the place of her factual residence and was told to go to Chechnya to get a passport. In the Rostov province, Batukaev, who was a Chechen, could not replace his lost passport - he was offered a temporary document issued on a condition that he would spent 15 days under arrest while his identity would be verified. Amazingly, he carried a similar expired document issued under a similar procedure: the police wanted to identify his personality once more.

The refusals to issue passports to Chechens who reached the age of 14 under the pretexts that these people were nor registered at the places of their actual residence and had formal registration at the places of residence in Chechnya took place in St. Petersburg, Tambov, the Ryazan and Kurgan provinces.

Employment, health care, education, social security

Realisation of the social rights in Russia to a great extent depends on whether people are registered in places of their residence without which it is next to impossible to be employed, to admitted to educational establishments, register with an outpatient clinic, get pensions and child allowances.

The right to work

Contrary to the Labour Code absence of local residence registration is an insurmountable obstacle in employment. According to the Moscow registration regulations, employment of people without registration by enterprises of all property forms (!) incurs large penalties.

In Tver IDPs from the Chechen Republic are not employed because of their ethnicity. They are thus deprived of any source of income. The same applies to Briansk where Network lawyer Nikolai Poliakov who tried to find employment for Chechens was refused on the ground of their nationality. Bureaucrats explained that they could not trust them and added: 'You should better help the Russians who suffered in Chechnya, not those…' Khadshit Khatueva arrived to Izhevsk from Nazran in 1999 where she had come from Chechnya. She managed to get registration and get the forced migrant status yet she could not find work because she had no work-record book.

It is quite often that officials of the interior structures bring pressure against those businessmen who were going to hire Chechens. In Cheboksary, for example, the head of an enterprise that employed Chechens in 2001 was invited to the Regional Department for Combat against Organised Crime and ordered to sack them. The head of the Migration Service of Chuvashia whom Peter Ayvenov, a Network lawyer, asked for help stubbornly insisted that the only thing he could do for the Chechens was to help them buy tickets back to Chechnya.

On 22 March 2001, Aslanbek Beyters applied to the Moscow reception office of the Legal Assistance Network of the Migration Rights at the Memorial Human Rights Centre, because he had been unlawfully fired. In Moscow he got a job of a freight handler at Vnukovo airport. On 19 March he tried to find a job there for his younger brother Ramzan. Having finished their business in the personnel department the brothers went to get passes to the airport. When the security learned that the brothers were Chechens they were told that they were no longer employed. The personnel department returned them their work-record book: because of the family name not typical among the Chechens they had not been identified as Chechens.

Health care

In Moscow medical insurance is issued to those who are registered for the period of over 6 months while the police, in violation of the changed rules, register for the period of not more than 6 months. The Moscow City Court ruled that it was illegal to tie together medical insurance and the registration term yet the Moscow City Medical Insurance Fund ignores the court ruling.

According to the rules of compulsory medical insurance in the Volgograd province adopted by the administration head on 26 June 2001 (Order No. 542) those who have no registration cannot get free medical insurance or even buy one.

Education

Starting with the first war in Chechnya the Moscow schools stopped admitting children from other cities whose parents have no registration. In March 1999 the Government of Moscow made the ban part of its new registration rules enacted by Decision No. 241-28 as point 5. It was followed by Order No. 567 of 21.09.99 'On the Reinforcement of Security at Educational Institutions'; its item 1.1 said: 'Children from other cities can be admitted to schools only if their parents have registration.' In December 2000 the court
overruled point 5 of the registration instruction as contradicting the law. In September 2001 NGOs in an effort to translate the court decision into practice demanded that the Moscow Committee for Education informed all school directors about it. The committee sent a circular letter of 12.10.2001 (No. 2-13-15/20) that informed the directors that registration was no longer needed and instructed them to inform the police about parents without registration.

Contrary to the court decision and the circular letter, heads of educational institutions still ask parents to present registration documents. The following children were asked for registration documents in Moscow: in September 2001 - Akhmed Mukuev and Liza Satueva whose parents fled Chechnya because of military actions; in December 2001 - Malika Tashtieva (b. 1988) who arrived from the zone of military actions; in December 2001 - Magomet and Fatima Eltuev (b.1992 and 1993). Zalina Abdurzakova with hypoacusis, daughter of Aminat from Chechnya, was not admitted into a specialized school for children with hypoacusis while there are no similar schools in Chechnya.

The family of Magomed Aydamirov, a son of a prominent Chechen writer A.Aydamirov that their home in Chechnya as a result of the military actions, and lives in Moscow. There are two children in the family. The 6-year-old daughter is seriously ill and needs to be regularly taken to a clinic for treatment. The mother has nobody to leave the younger boy with while she is absent. Kindergartens refuse to admit him. On 18 December 2001, in reply to the request of admittance in one of the pre-school institutions the
South-eastern District Department of the Moscow Committee for Education answered: 'The child can be admitted only if his parents have documents to confirm the family status (refugees or temporary migrants) and Moscow registration.'

The situation in Kabardino-Balkaria is even worse. The Chechen children who came to schools in Nalchik on 1 September 2001, carrying, according to tradition, flowers were stopped at the door. The crowd of parents and children watched with amazement how weeping children were taken out of school the by teachers and given back to their parents. Later, in an attempt to justify this behaviour and in response to a deputy inquiry the officials said that the parents did not want to register in the republic. The explanation
did not hold water: first, it was unlawful to keep children out of school because of their parents were lacking registration, secondly, people from Chechnya were denied registration in Kabardino-Balkaria in an attempt to force them back.

Falsification of criminal cases

Chechens are framed-up en masse and this is the most cruel and cynical form of discrimination. Between autumn 1999 and spring 2000 there was a veritable campaign of falsification that engulfed the country. The wave returned, on a lesser scale, in August 2000 after a blast in the passage under the Pushkin Square in Moscow. It has not yet subsided. The pattern was more or less the same: the police planted drugs, shells, hand grenades or explosives during personal searches of Chechens or searches in their flats. The victims were taken to precincts to extort confessions from them. This was a crude work yet none of the accused was acquitted. At best defence lawyers managed to insist on further investigation or suspended sentence. Light or suspended sentences are sort of an admission that the accusations were false. Still, some of the accused were sentenced to 7 to 10 years in prison.

M. Batyrov in September 2001 was put in Investigatory Isolation Ward No. 1 of Nalchik where he was placed on a false (as he claimed) accusation of keeping firearms at home (parts of a pistol and hand grenades). This is one of the circumstances, which may confirm innocence of M.Batyrov. There is no sense in keeping this sorts of things, but such accusations are rubber-stamped in huge numbers throughout the country.

There were cases when arms and drugs were planted at flats of those who had already been victims of criminal persecution of Chechens in 1999-2000. In September 1999, drugs were planted on Sayd-Emin Ismailov who lived in Moscow. He was persuaded to admit that the drugs belonged to him. The police convinced his wife Tatiana that possession of drugs was a much lighter crime than possession of explosives. In 2000 he was forced to bribe officials to clear himself of an accusation of forging the sticker to his passport confirming Russian citizenship (Indeed, does a Russian citizen need a to forge this sticker?) Early in September 2001 he was invited to the police station for an identification procedure in a criminal case connected with trade in stolen cars. The victim did not identify Ismailov as the crime perpetrator. Anyway, the officers kept him under lock in the precinct for three days, then he was handcuffed, and drugs were planted in his pockets (though his wife had wisely turned them out) and called attesting witnesses.
Having registered the crime they let him go under recognisance not to leave. Later on the same day Sayd-Emin and his wife learned from TV program 'Petrovka 38' that a certain Chechen had been detained in the street without documents and registration and heroin was found on him. The police officers were sure that the detainee was involved in grave crimes in Moscow and the Moscow Region. The viewers were invited to identify him and call certain phone numbers. This program saved Sayd-Emin: D. Lomakin, a Network lawyer, got the tape from people in TV who helped willingly. The lie was exposed and the criminal case closed. None of the officers was punished.

Marat Galaev (born in 1976 in Grozny) worked in Moscow and lived in a hostel at Miklukho-Maklay Street. On 2 August 2001, he was stopped at the hostel by the police officers from the 'Konkovo' police department. Having checked the documents and having found no registration they took him to the precinct. On the way there they tried to plant drugs on him-Marat got rid of the small plastic packet. In the office on the second floor the officers tried the same trick again with the same result. Then they announced that his nails should be clipped to be checked for drug traces. Being sure that there were no drug traces Galaev agreed. The nail clippings were taken away unsealed. Some time later the officers returned with two attesting witnesses who were shown two sealed envelopes and told that one of them contained the nail clippings, the other drugs carried by Galaev. Then he was offered a glass of water. Having drunk is he felt dizziness and nausea. Medical examiners found him under effect of drugs. Galaev was charged and put into the Butyrka prison where he spent 8 months.

Late in December 2001, Khabibula Minazov, 22 years old, a Moscow student convicted under a fabricated accusation, died in prison in the Tver province.

Detentions, searches, unlawful requirements

In many all regions of Russia the police practices unlawful searches, checks and detentions of Chechens. At best they are fingerprinted, at worst they are beaten and locked up. In Daghestan the special task police detachments regularly raids the villages and districts populated by the Chechens who are harassed and subjected to violence. In the Kaliningrad Region all Chechens, including women and children, are subjected to forced fingerprinting in violation of the document 'On State Fingerprinting in the Russian Federation.' The same practice is widely spread in Moscow.

In the city of Cheboksary, local police officers of the district department of interior without a court decision forced R. Mairukaeva to vacate the flat she was living in with her 12-month-old baby within in hour an winter. This occurred after she had complained to the police about a fraud of which she was a victim.

In the Pskov province, the head of the local Chechen Diaspora Sharip Okunchaev and his relatives are persecuted by the structures of the Ministry of the Interior, the Federal Security Service and tax police. He sent an open letter to President Putin in which he offered his plan of peace settlement in Chechnya. People from the Federal Security Service warned him that continued efforts in this direction would bring troubles to him and his relatives. They also tried to persuade his commercial partners to disrupt business and personal contacts with him. S. Okunchaev also publicly addressed via mass media the population of the Pskov region to help those who had to leave Chechnya. He was then summoned to the tax police, accused of collecting money for Chechen fighters and warned that he would be brought to criminal responsibility.

In the Tver province, Musa Dadaev was detained without legal reasons at a petrol station, beaten up and locked up for 24 hours in Torzhok. On 29 May 2001, a group of investigators of the public prosecutor office together with the local Department for Combat against Organised Crime (about 150 people in all) searched nine houses where the Chechens who fled from the war were living in the Lukhovitsy area (Staritsa district, Tver province). One of the officers threw a boy of 12 on the floor and pretended firing at him. His mother rushed to him and was hit with a rifle butt. This was an action of intimidation caused by an application of one of the villagers about a theft of a sewing machine.

A small group of Chechens settled in an abandoned village of Spirovo (Vyshni Volochek district, the Tver province) where they tilled land and used the forest. Still, the local police refuses to register the group by the places of residence or stay. From time to time, the police detain some of the Chechens, beat them up, threaten and extort money.

The 'Civic Assistance' Committee has a copy of sojourn registration certificate issued to Roza Azieva who was living with her friends. The document is marked with "Chechen" written on top of it for each and everyone to see and act as they see it fit. She runs the risk of being brought to police offices, locked up for hours or be subjected to extortion.

The situation after the hostage-taking on 23-26 October 2002 in Moscow

From 24 October onwards, the number of Chechen appeals to the human rights NGOs has increased significantly.

The main reasons of appeals

1. Police checks of dwellings where Chechen families live permanently or temporarily. Searches of living premises. The demands of written explanations concerning the reasons for living in Moscow (even if permanent registration was available) and the whereabouts during the terrorist act. Harassment, humiliations. Threats to evict from Moscow.

2. Detentions, forced conveying to police stations, dactylography, taking photographs en face and in profile. Sometimes measuring of weight and height.

IDPs from Chechnya Elita and Khava have been living in Moscow with their children for several years. Elita has four minor children. On 24 October, in the afternoon, the policemen came from the nearest station and took Elita, Khava and four boys. The police took fingerprints, measured weight and height and made them write explanatory notes on who they were, why they had come to Moscow, what their occupation and income were etc. They were kept in the police station for 4 hours and then released without any claims or accusations.

Two IDPs from Chechnya Isita Chirgizova and Natasha Umatgerieva who live in the Center of Temporary Accommodation 'Serebrianiki' (the Tver province) were detained on 13 November near the 'Novoslobodskaya' underground station in Moscow. After the interference of the 'Civil Assistance' Committee and journalists, the women were released but forced to leave written explanatory notes and fingerprints. There were no reasons for this detention except for the ethnicity of the detainees.

On 20 November, Makka Tagaeva and Zura Pashaeva who had an appointment for that date at the Network consultative office called to the 'Civic Assistance' Committee. They told that they were detained at the 'Vodny Stadion' underground station (the 2nd Police Department of the Moscow Underground). Police senior lieutenant Zhukova who took the telephone during the call from the Committee told that she was not able to do anything since there was an instruction to detain all Chechens, both men and women, regardless of registration. Zhukova said that she was conveying them to the city Police watch department. Later, the women were released from the watch department after their fingerprints and explanatory notes had been taken from them.

Adam Ustarkhanov, 30 years old, was killed in the 'Tsritsino' police department at night of 22/23 November. Late in the evening Adam went by his car to buy some food. His was found severely beaten and with handcuff traces near that police department and was brought to the city hospital No.7 where he died soon.

3. Criminal frame-ups on fabricated accusations of drugs and arms possession or support to terrorists. At best - threats to plant drugs and demands to confess guilt.

Islam Gadaev was detained at the 'North Chertanovo' police department on 27 October about 2.00. p.m. A small packet with drugs was allegedly found in a pocket of his jacket. He went to the police station on the precinct officer's request from his home, he put his cloths without any hurry and got to the police station on his car. Apparently, he wouldn't have taken drugs to the police on himself.

Aslan Kurbanov (born 1980) was arrested on 28 October. In the mid-day, two police officers of a criminal investigation service came to his flat from the police station No. 172. They checked his passport and certificate of sojourn registration and offered him to come to the police station for taking fingerprints. In 3 hours his aunt also came to the station and was told that her nephew had been detained for drug possession. Aslan told later that the policemen had taken a packet from a drawer and said: 'That will be yours'. He did not touch the packet himself, but was forced to sign a sheet of paper. There was nothing about drugs on that paper, the words about drugs must have been signed in later.

On 6 November, Khusein Ibragimov (born 1973) who had permanent residence registration in Moscow was detained at approximately 6.00 p.m. by the policemen from the 'Danilovski' police department. Policemen from the 'Danilovski' department came to his flat and offered him to go to the police station for a procedure of personal identification. That was his second identification procedure since he had already passed through the same check with taking fingerprints, photographs and interrogation before, on 23 October. After the procedure he was released but stopped again on his way home by policemen from the same station and asked for his identity papers. Khusein said that he was going was the police department and moved his hand toward a pocket to withdraw his passport. The policemen stopped him said that they would take the papers themselves. A policeman searched his pockets, and at that moment Khusein felt that something was put in. Then a policeman brought him to barber shop nearby, invited witnesses and pulled everything out from Khusein's pockets. Among the extracted items was a packet with an unknown substance, which did not belong to Khusein. Khusein was brought back to the police department, and the criminal case under Article 228, part 1 of the Criminal Code (drugs possession) was opened.

On 25 November Khadisht Khasbulatova addressed the 'Civic Assistance' Committee. She told that her brother Imran Khasbulatov (born 1977) had come from Chechnya to Moscow on 23 October for medical treatment. He has bronchial asthma, that's why he stayed at home for almost a month. He left for the first time on 21 November and was detained about 7.00 p.m. together with his nephew Aslan Kagirov, a Moscow higher school student, near the 'Vykhino' underground station. The policemen conveyed to the police station No. 44, searched and photographed there and took their fingerprints. They released Aslan who had a registration soon and offered him to call for Imran the next day. Hadisht came to the police station at 3.00 a.m., but was told that there was not and had not ever been that person. She did not leave, and then she was told that Imran had been taken to the Regional Department for Combat against Organized Crime (RUBOP) at Volzhski drive. She called to the RUBOP in the morning but was told that there was not such person there. Later she called her relative, and he learned at least that Imran was at the RUBOP and that he was accused of drugs possession. The judge ordered arrest by warrant because Imran did not have a registration. Imran has married recently, at that time his son was one month old.

On 2 December, Zara Tataeva addressed the 'Civic Assistance' Committee and told that her brother Bogdan Tataev had been arrested on 29 November (born 1962). He has permanent residence registration in Grozny, but has actually resided in Moscow in a hostel with his wife and 12-years old daughter for 12 years. Because the Chechens were chased throughout Moscow, an acquainted policeman advised him to stay in another place for some time. On 29 November, he came to call up on his wife and daughter. When he came to a shop on his way back, policemen arrested and started to beat him up there, in the shop. The neighbours saw this and told his wife. He was brought to the 'Khamovniki' police department, his family and relatives started to call there but the department's police staff denied that they kept Bogdan. On 30 November, already being in the Butyrskaya prison, Bogdan called from someone's mobile phone and told that he had been severely beaten, that's why he had signed a confession that he had possessed a pistol with a silencer.

4. Refusals in registration at the place of sojourn to the people coming from Chechnya, total denial in some police stations and denial for the term more than 10 days in the others.

A staff member of the 'Civic Assistance' Committee Khava Torshkhoeva whose registration expired was refused to be registered for more than 10 days in two police departments of Moscow.

On 6 November, an IDP from Chechnya Luiza Makhmudova who lived together with her husband and three kids in the village Rogachevo (Dmitrov district, the Moscow province) called to the 'Civic Assistance' Committee. She told that she had addressed the passport division of the Dmitrov district department of the interior on the registration issue. The head of the passport division refused in a humiliating way and said that he would launch criminal proceeding against the owners of their house who had rented it to the Chechens. She also told the 'Civic Assistance' Committee on 13 November that the police insisted that her family must go to Chechnya in 10 days.

On 11 November, the head of the 'Akademicheski' police department refused to register Zarema Dadaeva with her three kids and two nephews. Zarema has lived in Moscow for 2 years and repeatedly prolonged temporary registration. Apparently, her ethnicity was the reason.

5. Refusals in admittance to school and sending Chechen pupils away from classes.

On 28 October, the director of the school No.266 (Moscow) demanded the registration certificate from the children of the Turluevs family as a condition for continuing their education.

The 10-year-old daughter and the 11-year-old son of Maret Saralieva, an IDP from Chechnya, study in school No. 1191 (Moscow). On 25 October, the class teacher invited Maret to the school and informed her that if she doesn't bring a sojourn registration certificate, her children will be dismissed. She also took a receipt that Maret was warned about this.

6. Firings.

A Chechen lady who called herself Zara came to the 'Civic Assistance' on 1 November and told that she had worked as a vendor at a vegetable market near the 'Rechnoi Vokzal' underground station. The owner of the market did not have any grudge against her. On 25 October he came to her and said that she was fired from the next day. Since then she was seeking a job, all employers were asking about her ethnicity and refused when heard that she was a Chechen. Zara has to keep the family of five people (her husband who is a tubercular patient and three kids) all by herself.

Makka Shidaeva addressed the 'Civic Assistance' on 4 November. Her daughter, Aelita Shidaeva (born 1970) worked in a cafe in a trade center near the 'Maryino' underground station (Moscow). On 30 October at 4.00 p.m. 15 policemen from the 'Maryinski Park' police department (including the local precinct officer V. Vasiyev) rushed into the trade center. They lined all the people including the customers along a wall and forced them keep their hands up. The police detained Aelita and was looking for another employee of the center, also a Chechen, but she did not work on that day. Aelita was brought to the 'Maryinski Park' police department where 7 or 8 officers in turn headed by the chief of the operative division Kulikov interrogated her. They demanded to confess that she was acquainted with members of the terrorist group which had stormed the theatre on Melnikov Street and that they called on her cafe. (The cafe is situated near the police department, and many officers come there and know Aelita in person). They intimidated Aelita and said that if she does not acknowledge her ties with the terrorists they will plant drugs and arms upon her. Aelita refused to slander herself. The director of the trade center was told that if Aelita and the second Chechen girl work any more the center would be closed.