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.

It must be noted that "racial discrimination" in the sense of Art. 1, part. 1 of CERD is understood as direct discrimination, that is, the result of making distinctions on the basis of race, ethnicity, or origin. However, for Russia, even more significant are actual or potential situations of deliberate exclusion or restriction aimed against persons who belong to racial (or ethnic) minorities, but a discrimination that is practiced on the basis of other distinctions -- as a rule, related to place of residence and language. We will leave aside in this instance the problems of so-called "structural inequality," or unintentional institutionalized discrimination, and wish to note that "deliberate indirect discrimination," practiced in certain instances by government agencies, creates the very problems that CERD was designed to resolve.

It is necessary to note the severe problems created by the arbitrary refusal of the executive agencies of government, contrary to the federal Law On Citizenship in the Russian Federation of 1991, to recognize Russian citizenship for several categories of former citizens of the USSR, who, on the basis of race, are distinct from the ethnic majority of the Russian population (see below).

The following point is also significant: according to Art. 62, par. 3 of the Russian Federation Constitution, foreign citizens and persons without citizenship 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. Meanwhile in some respects (right to free travel and free choice of place of residence, employment) there have not been adopted any respective federal laws, and restrictions of the rights of freedoms of aliens, who legally stay and reside within the country, are being established contrary to the Constitution by the Decrees of the President, Acts of the Government and by regional authorities. This uncertainty concerning exceptions creates in practice a premise for discriminatory behavior by government officials, who restrict the rights of certain persons on the basis of their race.

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.

In the political and academic discourse of Russia, the terms literally translated as "indigenous peoples who are small in number" (which is close to the concept of an aboriginal population) and the term literally translated as "minor ethnic communities"

(a concept not clearly defined either in law or in theoretical debates) are used to describe categories of persons who require special protective measures.

Several groups of citizens of the former USSR who are clearly distinguishable on the basis of ethnicity, who were forced migrants to the territory of Russia before the collapse of the Soviet Union, due to the arbitrary refusal of regional authorities, have not received registration permits known in Russian as propiski (registration by place of residence), and consequently are not recognized by the authorities as citizens of the Russian Federation (RF). According to Art. 13, part 1, of the 1991 RF Law On Citizenship in the Russian Federation of 1991 "citizens of the Russian Federation are recognized as all citizens of the former USSR who permanently resided on the territory of the Russian Federation on the day this Law goes into effect, if, in the course of one year after this date they do not state their intention to refuse citizenship in the Russian Federation." Neither the Law of the RF "On Citizenship in the Russian Federation," nor regulations which determine the procedure for obtaining and registering Russian citizenship (Decrees of the RF President No. 386 of April 10, 1991 and No. 2299 of December 12, 1993, and the Interior Ministry Order No. 330 of June 30, 1994) equate "permanent residence" with the presence of a "permanent registration permit" or "registration by place of residence." According to Art. 20 of the RF Civil Code, the place of permanent residence is the place of actual residence, that is, where a person permanently or primarily resides. Nevertheless, in their operations, government agencies, primarily the Interior Ministry offices, de facto equate the concepts of "permanent residence" with "the presence of registration by place of residence"; moreover, the granting of such registration is virtually, contrary to federal law, a matter of official discretion. The situation is a vicious circle: the absence of a propiska (a residence permit) is the basis for non-recognition of Russian citizenship, and the non-recognition of citizenship is used as a pretext to refuse residential registration (essentially permission to reside in a given place), upon which is predicated the opportunity to enjoy the majority of rights and liberties in practice.

The regional authorities of the Krasnodar Territory and KBR refused to grant the Turks residence permission (propiska in the Soviet period, or permanent registration since 1993) and deprived them of basic civil, political and social rights. Dwellings, which they had purchased after coming to the Krasnodar Territory in 1989-1990, haven't been officially approved because of a special ban. Consequently, the Meskhetians, like other persons who do not have permanent registration are not officially recognized as Russian citizens contrary to the Russian Law on Citizenship of 1991, which does not equate permanent residence with permanent 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. They are not allowed to be employed on a permanent basis. They actually cannot receive or restore (in case of loss or damage) personal documents (like passports or drivers licenses). Their marriages are not being officially registered and recognized. The Meskhetians are completely deprived of any access to the system of social security and public medical service. They cannot get education higher than the secondary level.

Since the armed clashes between Ingushs and Ossetians within the Prigorodny region of North Ossetia that took place in October-November 1992, there have been no serious advances in dealing with the issue of Ingush forced migrants. The authorities of Alania have not provided the required conditions for more than 40,000 Ingush forced migrants' return to the places of their former residence and in fact opposed the return of those who tried to do so at their own risk, alleging they were unable to guarantee these people's safety. The authorities of the republic directly connived at mass-scale actions to block the roads so as to prevent forced migrants' return to their old homes. In the few towns in which Ingushs had stayed or to which they later returned, life was made hard for them: they have found themselves jobless, and have had to exist in conditions of blockade. They have been shot at, and their homes have been set on fire. As a result, Ingush families have been forced to leave the territory of Prigorodnyi Raion for a second time.

The data disposed in the Fourteenth periodic report of the Russian Federation addressed to CERD dated 22 April 1997 (CERD/C/299/Add.15, 28 July 1997), in Article 52, par. iii does not reflect the real situation. As mentioned in this document, more than 10,000 Ingushs have returned to settlements in the Progoroodny district, while the overwhelming majority actually reside on the territory of the settlement Mayskoye, which is situated on the borderland with Ingushetia and really under control of the Ingush administration. These persons are still deprived of permanent dwelling and employment. The general official figure of 10,413 returned Ingushs also includes more than 1000 persons 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 there the Ingushs live under the conditions of blockade and without any stable guarantees of security.

Art. 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Adygeia gives the right of return to the "historical motherland" to representatives of the Adyg diaspora, natives of Adygeia and their descendants, and emigrants from Adygeia regardless of their ethnic origin. Under the President's Decree #100 of June 17, 1996, in the case of return, aliens and stateless persons of Adyg ethnic origin have a number of privileges. The Law "On Repatriation of Members of the Adyg Diaspora" is being drafted.

In the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, the limitations on the right to permanent residence there introduced by the Parliament Resolution #17-Ï-Ï of May 5, 1994 (see above) do not extend to the "compatriots", who are regarded as persons belonging to the "titular nationalities."

The Law "On Migration" of the Republic of North Ossetia - Alania of November 10, 1996 introduces the concept of "compatriots" and gives this category of persons a number of privileges.

In the fall of 1992, as a result of fighting in Abkhazia, at least 30,000 people were forced to leave this republic. Up to 5,000 persons were also evacuated from Sukhumi in October 1993. Russia was for them the country of first refuge. If Russians and Abkhazians virtually all obtained the status of forced migrants, the majority of Armenians and virtually all ethnic Georgians were refused this status. At the present time, according to various estimates, there are 17,000 to 21,000 ethnic Georgians in the Krasnodar Territory who were forced to flee Abkhazia; of these, up to 11,000 went to Sochi. With the exception of a few dozen people, they are denied any legal status or registration by place 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 the Krasnodar Territory but in other major cities and regional centers.

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

The bulk of the incidents involving violence against minorities or humiliating behavior towards them is associated with the activities of organizations which refer to themselves as "Cossacks." These organizations are advocating the revival of the social group that existed before 1917, and are pressing for special and group rights for the members of this movement. In a number of regions, Cossacks have been granted the right to take part in actions undertaken by the law enforcement bodies, and their representatives have been introduced into the power structures. Cossack organizations managed to get their representatives elected to the legislative assemblies of the Krasnodar and Stavropol territories. There and in the Rostov Region, encouraged by the regional and federal authorities, Cossacks set up armed formations and appropriate some powers. They usually advocate radical nationalistic views and voice hostility towards many minorities, above all, natives of the Transcaucasus and the North Caucasus. In Krasnodar and Stavropol Territories, Cossacks are demanding that the regional authorities restrict these persons' rights or deport them. Cossack units conduct (both together with the police and separately) searches and check-ups of documents at people's homes and in the streets and markets, detain people in the streets, search cars. These actions are often accompanied by threats and violence against persons belonging to a minority.

In a number of cases, violence on the basis of ethnic origins assumed a mass scale. Since 1991, Cossack organizations of Rostov and Volgograd oblasts and Krasnodar and Stavropol krais have undertaken attempts to force dozens of Armenian, Turkish and Chechen households from these territories. In early July 1994, a Cossack skhod (meeting) in the village of Krasnyi Kut (Veselovo Raion, Rostov Region), passed a decision on the banishment of Meskhetian Turks, and 21 families were forced to temporarily leave the village. In June 1995, after a terrorist act staged by Shamil Basaev in Budennovsk a residents' meeting convened by Cossacks passed a decision to banish 36 Chechen families to the Chechen Republic. On November 12, 1995, at Homestead Armyanskii (Armenian) 12 men (Kurds and Turks) were publicly flogged, and one house was raided. On July 29, 1997, a village meeting in Vinogradny (the Krymsk Raion in the Krasnodar Territory) passed a decision to evict two households (Jemilovs and Alievs, Moslems but not Meskhetian Turks). In February 1997, on the decision of a Cossack meeting, four Avar families were forcibly evicted from their homes in the Izobilny district, Stavropol Territory. Acts of violence against Armenians were undertaken in July and August 1997 in a number of towns and raions of the Krasnodar Territory.

Despite the extremist and nationalist sentiments of many leaders and rank-and-file members of the Cossack formations, and despite the frequency of their extremist actions, federal and regional authorities have provided various support for them, have turned over to them various functions of authority and are trying to integrate them into the system of the government. Presidential Decree No. 835, "On the Government Registry of Cossack Communities in the Russian Federation," dated August 9, 1995, approved an official registry of Cossack organizations which have obtained semi-governmental status. By Presidential Decree No. 67 dated January 20, 1996, a Chief Directorate of Cossack Troops was created in the Administration of the President, that is, under the President of the Russian Federation. By Presidential Decrees Nos. 563 and 564 of April 16, 1996 and No. 667 of June 8, 1996, members of the Cossack communities were granted a number of privileges. A number of regional formations of Cossacks were legalized by Presidential Decrees No. 95-97 from February 12, 1997, Nos. 611-613 of June 17, 1997. The President's representative in the State Duma of the RF (the parliament) in the spring and summer of 1997 supported the passage of a Law on Cossacks, which would legalize the self-organized militarized formations of the Cossacks (the Law was passed by the State Duma in June 1997, but rejected by the Soviet of the Federation, the upper house). Cossack organizations in a number of regions receive direct and indirect financial support from government agencies. Interior Ministry Directive No. 1/2899 of June 28, 1994, "On the Participation of the Cossacks in Maintaining Public Order" and a joint directive of the Interior Ministry and the Chief Directorate of the Cossack Troops under the RF President dated January 5, 1997, No. 1/127 "On the Interaction of Members of Cossack Communities, Included in the State Registry of Cossack Communities in the RF, With Interior Ministry Agencies," served as the formal basis for recruiting members of Cossack organizations into the police force. In a number of regions, Cossack organizations have obtained the right to conduct joint operations with law-enforcement agencies also on the basis of regional governmental regulations (for example, see the Resolutions of the Chief of Administration of the Krasnodar Territory No. 220, "On Extreme Measures to Combat Crime," dated April 19, 1994).

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;

In all the situations enumerated in the section of the report related to pars. 1(a) and 1(b) of Art. 2 of CERD, federal government agencies do not take the necessary measures to review all laws or regulations which could cause racial discrimination or make it permanent. Although the Russian Federation Constitutional Court, in a number of instances, has challenged the discretionary nature of registration by the place of residence and place of settlement, established by Government Resolution No. 713 of July 17, 1995 and other regional regulations, this did not lead to a change in the existing practice. The Presidential Administration, the RF Government, the Prosecutor General's Office and the RF Ministry of Justice do not take measures to abolish regional regulations creating the situations described in the sections related to pars. 1(a) and 1(b) of Article 2. The Interior Ministry, the Prosecutor General's Office and the Federal Migration have not taken measures ensuring that their territorial subdivisions are governed by the statutes of federal law, instead of regional acts contradicting the Constitution and federal law. Federal agencies have not taken the initiative to abolish the institution of "registration by place of temporary stay" provoking discriminatory behavior by law-enforcement agents.

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 consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.

Article 69 of the Russian Federation Constitution guarantees the right of indigenous small-in-number peoples, and Article 72, par. "m" imposes jointly on the federation and its subjects [components] obligations to "defend the traditional habitats and traditional way of life of the minor ethnic communities." In the legal and practical sense, these questions are really not regulated at the federal level. A draft federal law on the bases for a legal status for the indigenous minority peoples was four times approved from 1993-1997 by the highest legislative body of the land, but not signed by the President. At the present time the draft is being worked on in the Committee on Nationalities Affairs in the State Duma. Further drafting of a federal law on minority ethnic communities is not planned.

Some of them (Party of Russian National Unity, etc.) set up armed formations. There is information about the participation of the members of these organizations in distinct acts of violence against minorities. In particular, in early June 1997 in Moscow, members of an unidentified extremist organization attacked a tent camp of Central Asian Roma, as a result of which a child was killed, and several people sustained severe bodily injuries. A criminal case opened on the basis of the attack was twice closed (the second time by the Moscow City Prosecutor's Office due to the failure to identify persons who could be prosecuted for the crime.) In 1997, three members of the RNE murdered an Armenian, and all three were released on their own recognizance with a signed statement that they would not leave the city (Diagnos, 1997, #2, November, p.4).

Organized radical nationalistic groups distribute racist, anti-Semite and anti-Caucasian printed matters. Some mass media outlets, especially regional newspapers published in the south of Russia, print materials holding individual population groups, especially natives of the Caucasus, collectively guilty of the growth of crime and deterioration of the economic situation, and demanding that their rights be limited.

The weakness of Russia's own law is one of the main reasons for the lax resistance to extremism in Russia. The Law on Mass Media, Article 4, prohibits "abuse of the freedom of speech," that is, propaganda of these very ideas of violence, the incitement of enmity and so on. Article 16 prescribes a mechanism for making sanctions against publications which violate the requirements of Article 4. Stopping the operation of a mass media outlet against the will of its founder is possible only through a judicial procedure. The "registrating agency" can appeal to the court with a suit only after repeated violation by a publication of Article 4 of the Law on the Media in the course of 12 months, for which at least two written warnings have been made. As a rule, the publication so charged then contests each of these warnings in court; consequently, until a decision is made on these disputes a suit about closing a publication cannot be reviewed. But even when, finally, it would seem, a suit can be reviewed, new problems suddenly arise. For example, it turns out that the respondent no longer exists, that is, a newspaper starts coming out under a different name, although it has the same editorial board and founders, the same address, and the same journalists writing the same kind of articles. Once there was a newspaper called Den' [Day], then it changed its name to Zavtra [Tomorrow]. Once there was Otechestvo, then there was Nashe Otechestvo.

But even in those rare cases when the case finally does come to court, the civil procedure in Russia gives respondents unlimited opportunities to drag out the review of the suit, by refusing to appear in court, or making frivolous petitions demanding new evidence, and so on.

There are even more greater obstacles to shutting down extremist civic groups. Articles 41-45 of chapter V of the Law on Civic Associations regulates the activity of civic organizations for violating the law of the Russian Federation, including halting the activity of an association and disbanding it. Both suspending a group and disbanding it are only conducted through a judicial procedure after repeated written warnings, "if these warnings were not contested in court through the established legal procedure and not declared unsubstantiated under the law by a court." Article 23 of the same law states that if a group's charter violates the Constitution and the statutes in Article 16 of the Law on Civic Associations, there are possible grounds for the state to refuse to register the organization as a civic organization. Many years of practice have shown that no civic association has tried to include in its charter forms of activity prohibited by the RF Constitution and federal laws, which of course did not prevent such groups from engaging in such activity anyway.

See sections regarding Article 2, par. 1(b) and Article 4(c).

Neither the federal nor the regional authorities view the issue of preventing discrimination as a priority. The philosophy of the "nationalities policy" rests on the concept of a "regulation of ethnic relations," that is, the main reference point is administrative expediency. The chief objects of the "nationalities policy" are ethnic groups and population categories. The regulation of relations among these groups, with a view to preventing conflicts, is seen as the primary target.

The anti-discriminatory statute Article 19, par. 2 of the Constitution is reproduced in local legislation but only at the level of general declarations. There is no special anti-discriminatory legislation in the country, nor acts that contain any definition of direct or indirect discrimination and a list of measures which could be taken under court order to restore the violated rights of citizens.

Theoretically, civil rights can be protected by court (Arts. 11 of the Civil Code), in particular by the ways of recognition of a right, restoration of a violated right, recognition of an act issues by a state body or by local self-government contradicting the law, etc. The law protects non-material wealth including personal dignity, right to free move, habeas corpus (Art. 150 of the Civil Code). Arts. 151-152 of the Code envisage the possibility of obtaining compensation for moral damage and protecting human honor and dignity. RF citizens may use the 1993 Law on complaints against unlawful actions on the part of officials and bodies of authority, and, in theory, can get their rights restored in cases of "isolated" discrimination. But actually this mechanism for preventing or stopping discrimination is hardly ever used, particularly because of the lack of anti-discriminatory legislation.

The country has no special anti-discriminatory law, anti-discriminatory programs, or programs in the field of providing equal opportunities. The drafting and adoption of anti-discriminatory law is not planned by the RF State Duma of the 2^nd convocation (1996 - 1999). On March 23, 1995, the RF President signed a decree "On Measures to Ensure Coordinated Actions of State Authority Bodies in the Struggle Against the Manifestations of Fascism and Other Forms of Political Extremism in the Russian Federation," but it was never enforced. The analogous law has not been adopted by the State Duma.

There are no special agencies, either at the federal level, nor at the level of the subjects of the federation, which can address the problems of preventing discrimination. In principle, the Ministry of Nationalities and Federative Relations does not become involved in matters of discrimination, nor do analogous local offices at the level of the subjects of the federation.

The need for such measures are declared at various levels, but to date, no substantive steps have been taken. It must be noted that broadcasting of the national or federal television stations as well as the regional stations do not reflect the multi-racial and multi-ethnic nature of society.