HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONSIDERS REPORT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

The Human Rights Committee has considered the sixth periodic report of the Russian Federation on measures undertaken to implement the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Presenting the report, Georgy Matyushkin, Deputy Minister at the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, said that the Russian Federation continued to abide by the moratorium on the death penalty although the public at large had a negative view on the abolition of the death penalty. The Committee was also informed that this year the President of the Russian Federation had created the position of the ombudsman working on the rights of the child. Further, to ensure liberalization of the legislation governing activities of non-governmental organizations, amendments were introduced so as to reduce the grounds and frequency of inspections of non-profit organizations.

Other members of the delegation of the Russian Federation further said that the system of the body of the prosecutor’s office had seen a reform in 2007. A whole set of measures were being carried out with respect to preventing crimes of an extremist nature and a special department aimed at combating terrorist activities had been created. As for the fight against corruption, the President of the Russian Federation had approved last year a national plan to combat corruption and a federal law had been adopted in this regard. The Russian Federation also paid great attention to observance of the rights of people in detention and a federal law monitoring human rights of persons in places of detention was adopted in 2008. As for persons awaiting deportation, some specialized centres had been established in this regard. The Russian Federation had also adopted a broad range of measures to prevent violence against women.

Over the course of three meetings, the delegation of the Russian Federation answered questions by Committee members relating to a number of issues, including the temporarily limitation of civil rights of suspected terrorists; freedom of expression and the media; reforms within the judiciary; violence against women; the moratorium and the abolition of the death penalty; conditions of persons deprived of their liberty; measures taken against prejudices regarding sexual minorities as well as the existence of mass graves.

Experts particularly highlighted that there were reports that authorities had fostered a climate of growing suspicion against human rights defenders in the Caucus region. It further appeared that legislation on freedom of opinion and expression was restrictive. As to compensating victims of counter-terrorist operations, this was no substitute for preventing and ending impunity. It also seemed that the resources allocated to trafficking in human beings were inadequate in view of the scale of this issue in the Russian Federation. Moreover, the word extremism was enormously vague, and letting this become a legal category was very troubling. Committee members also said that knowing that any category of persons were exempt from the law was worrying.

The delegation of the Russian Federation also included members of the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Health and Social Development, Ministry of Regional Development, Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Education and Science, Office of the Prosecutor General, Federal Migration Service, Federal Service of Penalty Execution, Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations Office at Geneva and of the Supreme Court.

When the Committee resumes its work on Monday, 19 October at 3 p.m., it will start its review of the fourth periodic report of Cameroon (CCPR/C/CMR/4).

Report of the Russian Federation

The sixth periodic report of the Russian Federation (CCPR/C/RUS/6) notes, with regard to freedom of opinion and expression, that in the Russian Federation there are no restrictions on searching for, receiving, producing or circulating information, nor on the establishment, possession, use or control of a media outlet, with some exceptions established by law. The Constitution prohibits censorship, thereby ensuring freedom of the press. At the same time, the Constitution prohibits abuse of freedom of expression if it involves the violation of other people’s rights. In addition, it is prohibited for journalists to take advantage of their rights in order to conceal or falsify information of public significance, disseminate rumours under the guise of reliable information or collect information for the benefit of a third party or a non-media. The Board of the Social Forum, operational since 2004, has set up the Media Commission which, among other tasks, has been given powers to monitor the situation with regard to freedom of expression in the media. Further, the overwhelming majority of printed and electronic media registered in the Russian Federation are not controlled by the State. The available material relating to the cassation and oversight practices of the Supreme Court, and to its review practices when acting as a court of first instance, shows conclusively that the activities of media outlets have been terminated by the courts only where there existed sufficient grounds to do so.

With regard to prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the report notes that between 2003 and 2006, the Russian courts convicted 9,957 persons of cruel treatment, including 3,481 of aggravated cruel treatment. As to the concluding observations of the Committee on the Russian Federation’s last periodic report, the current report notes that the Code of Criminal Procedure, and other provisions of criminal-procedure law, govern the procedure for detaining and questioning suspects. The law prohibits any kind of informal questioning which involves the use of torture or cruel treatment. The Office of the Procurator-General is taking steps to ensure that all reports of crimes, including reports of the obtaining of evidence from suspects or accused persons through the use of torture or cruel treatment, are logged and properly investigated. In cases of exceeding official powers, abuse of authority or unlawful use of physical force, criminal proceedings are opened and the alleged perpetrators prosecuted. Pursuant to procuratorial recommendations made in the light of both routine monitoring and investigations into specific complaints, 2,110 prison officers were disciplined in 2006, including 105 who were dismissed. In the same year, 109 prison officers were found guilty of offences committed while on duty.

Presentation of the Report

GEORGY MATYUSHKIN, Deputy Minister at the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, introducing the report, said that the Russian Federation continued to abide by the moratorium on the death penalty although the public at large had negative views on the abolition of the death penalty. This year the President of the Russian Federation had created the position of the ombudsman working on the rights of children. The authorities of the Russian Federation understood the importance of the mass media in the creation of a democratic society and were continuing their work in this area. An active dialogue was continued with civil society on issues such as fighting corruption, reforms in armed services as well as on legal and social problems. Further, in order to ensure liberalization of the legislation governing activities of non-governmental organizations, amendments were introduced, reducing for example the grounds and frequency of inspections of non-profit organizations. Further, the authorities of the Russian Federation were fully responsive to dealing with individual complaints regarding the guarantees of the Optional Protocol of the Covenant. Authorities also treated very seriously all communications from the Committee, even if they differed from the Russian Federation’s own approach. The Office of the Prosecutor General had informed prosecutors on the use of the Covenant in their work and the decisions of the Committee were published periodically and judges were informed of the Committee’s work. Information on the application and implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was published in quarterly reviews of legislation and legal practice.

The delegation of the Russian Federation said that the system of the body of the prosecutor’s office had seen a reform in 2007. The necessary balance of prerogatives ensuring the quality of investigating crimes and the adequate defense in the pre-trial phase had also been created. Military courts had considered 135 cases and 166 army personnel had been punished when cases of violence, torture and other forbidden acts had been committed against suspects.

On the need to create an independent body to examine violations of the rights of civilians, the delegation said that examination of these crimes had been carried out by specialized offices and there was no need for the creation of a body for the investigation of these crimes. Ensuring and protecting the most important rights and freedoms of citizens were a fundamental principle in the Russian Federation’s fight against terrorism.

Focusing on the protection of victims and witnesses, among others, the delegation said that the legislation of the Russian Federation regulated the reasons and grounds for providing assistance to such persons. During recent years, State authorities had also been focusing on the prevention of terrorist and extremist activities, paying special attention to combating all forms of discrimination on any grounds. Programmes were implemented at federal and regional level to foster tolerance. To prevent commitment of crimes of an extremist nature, law enforcement agencies had been carrying out public awareness events and a whole set of measures were being carried out to discourage participation in extremist activities. A special department aimed at combating terrorist activities had also been created. Last year, more than 1,000 offences of an extremist nature had been committed and the activities of 18 terrorist organizations had been prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation.

The delegation of the Russian Federation also said that the Constitution was the highest legal document in the Russian Federation and constitutional provisions had been reflected in the various branches of the legislation that regulated relations. Furthermore, important international documents, such as the Covenant were also applied directly by courts. The Russian Federation had provided detailed information relating to the measures taken in light of the comments of the Committee after consideration of the complaints of citizens of the Russian Federation. All events that related to violations of the provisions of the Covenant took place during the period when the criminal procedural code of 1960 was enforced. The new procedural law regulated in great detail the conditions of detention of individuals and ensured the necessary means for legal protection in cases where the State did not provide such support for crimes committed.

The comments of the Committee and its legal position-taking were widely discussed by judges in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The right to a fair trial would be illusionary in absence of an objective and independent court and the Committee members therefore rightly took a particular interest in the relevant programme of the Russian Federation, particularly in the anti-corruption part of that programme. Last year, the President of the Russian Federation had approved a national plan to combat corruption and a federal law had been adopted in this regard. Additional requirements had been revised for the position of judges; for example, there was now a mandatory declaration of judges regarding their income. This information could be published in the media on request of the media themselves. A federal law on the access to information on the activities of national courts was also adopted. Further, a law limiting the immunity of judges was adopted in 2009. As to the procedure for appointing judges, the delegation said that 24,000 judges were appointed by the President of the Russian Federation which in itself was a sufficient guarantee of their independence. Other judges were appointed by parliament or elected by voting.

On the death penalty, the delegation said that that sentence for particularly serious crimes had not been executed since 1997 and had been replaced by, among others, life imprisonment. In 1999, a moratorium on the death penalty was enacted. A draft law on the abolition of the death penalty was, among others, also introduced. In the Russian Federation the legislative, executive and judiciary acted independently from each other. For the time being, most Russians were not willing to accept the abolition of the death penalty; this abolition should be preceded by lengthy preparatory work, but the abolition of the death penalty was simply a matter of time.

The delegation also said that the federal law on detention of suspects and defendants contained provisions on the rights of the person being detained. The Russian Federation gave great attention to observance of the rights of people in detention. For the activities of law enforcements agencies, there was an independent office of the procurator for this purpose. Fundamentally new was the adoption of the federal law of 2008 on monitoring human rights of persons in places of detention. An important role in monitoring places of detention was also given to non-governmental organizations and the media, among others.

As for persons awaiting deportation, the legislation of the Russian Federation established guarantees for their protection. In 2008, about 20,000 persons were expelled. At present, there was the problem of detaining foreign citizens and some specialized centers had been established in this regard. To ensure the rights of foreign citizens the Russian Federation had intensified its work to create a sufficient number of centers to detain foreign citizens. Every year, Russia received about 4,000 requests for extradition. Foreign citizens awaiting extradition and being detained on the territory of the Russian Federation enjoyed equal rights as citizens of the Russian Federation and in accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Russian Federation had also adopted a broad range of measures to prevent violence against women. To ensure compliance with this constitutional standard, provisions were included in the criminal code of conduct, among others, so as to avoid discrimination on the basis of gender. In recent years, the number of registered cases in this regard had not been very large which was also due to the lack of desire of victims themselves to accuse the perpetrator. As for sexual violence, these crimes were 0.4 per cent of crimes. An important role in the prevention of violence against women was played by social and rehabilitation services. Several specialized institutions had been set up and per year about 50,000 women received assistance in crises centers. For every announcement of violation of rights an appropriate investigation was opened. Russian legislation also provided for cases where citizens estimated that public officials had violated their rights and, among others, conferences were held to prevent abuses by law enforcement agents. In solving such problems, the Russian Federation was following a comprehensive approach.

Oral Questions by Committee Members

An Expert said that the Committee noted with satisfaction that the delegation of the Russian Federation included a large number of senior officials. As for the replies given, comparing the original questions and the answers, the replies were silent on some views and the Committee would appreciate having additional information on the implementation of the issues that had not been discussed. The Expert would also appreciate if the Russian Federation could describe how persons who were suspected and convicted of crimes were expected to inform courts about their conditions of detention.

The Committee member also said that the response of the Russian Federation seemed to suggest that the civil rights of suspected terrorists could be limited temporarily, and that this was in accordance with the Covenant – what rights could be limited and under what conditions? Further, as to the law of 30 December 2008, what modification had been made to the existing law, and how did these amendments ensure that the Covenant rights of suspects remained protected?

Moreover, when the prosecutor made a request to the court that an organization be classified as terrorist or extremist, were such requests automatically approved or what was the threshold for such proceedings?

The Expert also asked under what conditions an investigator may open a case on terrorist charges. Could the suspected person or persons be deprived of any privileges before charges had been laid?

Moreover, non-governmental organizations had reported that in the Caucus region authorities had fostered a climate of growing suspicion of human rights defenders – how did the State party respond to such concerns and ensure that local authorities behaved appropriately towards civil society?

What was the State party doing to ensure that law enforcement agents were well informed about the rights of asylum-seekers and refugees so that the latter were not inappropriately threatened by expulsion.

A member of the Committee also said that it seemed that the information the general public outside the Russian Federation received was that all was not well regarding the freedom of expression and the media in the Russian Federation. Further, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists had an impunity index and it was sad to note that the Russian Federation was on that list; the Russian Federation could do much better than that.

As for reforms within the judiciary, the number of judges in the Russian Federation stood at 31,000. To what extent had there been an impact on the culture of the judiciary by the reforms, and did judges look favorably at the reform? As for disciplinary measures, where did the main body of power in this regard lie in the Russian Federation? Who appointed the qualification commission?

As to the Council for Human Rights, what was its relationship to the ombudsman? And regarding the ombudsman, could he bring a legal action? As for the number of cases brought to the human rights ombudsman, how were the numbers of complaints broken down and in how many cases had there been action taken by the ombudsman? To what extent did the opinion of the ombudsman have to be followed by the respective enforcing agencies? Could more information be provided on the practical cases regarding deportation and extradition?

Another Expert said, regarding violence against women, that there remained problems that the Russian Federation had not replied to, particularly regarding homes provided to women who were victims of violence. Also, how did the Russian Federation intend to take more measures to help these victims? How would these victims of violence be compensated?

As to recent measures taken by the police against violence and hatred, and acts conducted by organized bands, the question of reparations had not been covered by the reply of the Russian Federation. Further, the Expert would like to know whether the Russian Federation had seen results from the new education for tolerance conducted among law enforcement agents.

On minorities, some minorities had been subject to discrimination and violence coming from both the State and the population. While the police had been given training for tolerance, how were such negative attitudes among the population being tackled?

Concerning the moratorium on the death penalty, another member of the Committee said that he was not aware that any country had abolished the death penalty based on public opinion. It was however reassuring to hear that the moratorium would continue. Did the same follow for judicial decisions – would death sentences not be pronounced? Could the Russian Federation give an idea how long it would take for the formal abolition?

On the conditions of persons deprived of their liberty, there were tremendously positive changes since the 1990s. The access of people in detention to lawyers was also an achievement. As to the cases transmitted to courts, information on convictions and sentences were missing.

With regard to references to the investigation committee, was it correct that many of the issues were up for re-investigation by the new investigation committee, and if so, which? And how independent were the investigators of the investigating committee?

Another member of the Committee said that he would like to better understand the legal framework the Russian Federation used to tackle the problem of terrorism and extremism.

Another Expert also said that there was a concern regarding the situation of homosexual persons and sexual minorities in the Russian Federation – did the delegation consider that the existing Constitution sufficiently protected against discrimination for them? Further, workers in public service reportedly felt discriminated against due to their sexual orientation; was the delegation aware of such practices and, if so, what was done in this regard? The conditions under which people were held following police raids on gay social venues were also of concern. The Committee member would be grateful for the view of the delegation on the adequacy of the law with regard to the protection of people with specific sexual orientation, as well as for information on what measures the State party intended to take to combat prejudice.

A Committee member further asked whether the State party had studied its legislation in light of international laws regarding physically and mentally handicapped persons – what were the guarantees of the existing legal procedures in this regard?

An Expert said that there had been a deterioration of certain political and civil rights as provided for by the Covenant and that there was a concern regarding the impunity for human rights violations in anti-terrorist actions in North Caucasus. Further, were those responsible for the reported cases of kidnapping held accountable?

A member of the Committee also said that she would like to draw the Committee’s attention to a particularly grave case of the violation of human rights of women: eight women had been shot dead and public officials stated that they were rightfully shot due to their loose morals.

Answers by the Delegation

Answering these and other questions, the delegation of the Russian Federation said that the questions that Committee members had put yesterday demonstrated not only their competence but also their genuine desire to understand the situation in the Russian Federation.

On the judicial system in the Russian Federation, the delegation said that there was a mechanism to react to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

The delegation said that there was no legislation for the compensation of victims of violations of human rights; to receive compensation, victims of violations of the provisions of the Covenant must address a court. As for one particular criminal case raised yesterday, there was indeed a violation of the Covenant’s provisions. This was dealt with by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, but the citizen in question was sentenced for other offences as well. The Committee had expressed a very interesting legal position, namely that the falsification of documents, among others, could have had an impact on the judgment – the legislation of the Russian Federation did not agree with that opinion.

As for the opinion of the Committee regarding the interpretation of the Covenant, the position of the Committee was a kind of indicator for law enforcement agencies and for legislators in the Russian Federation. The delegation also wished to remind the Committee that the draft criminal procedural code, before being adopted, had been examined and praised by members of the Council of Europe. The delegation was firmly convinced that the criminal procedural code which had come into force was a step towards turning around a sorry page in the history of the Russian Federation.

As for a Committee member’s remark that Russia should not take into consideration public opinion regarding the death penalty, the delegation said that the authorities should not provoke a social conflict. Further, the delegation could not say exactly when the abolition could take place. However, the Russian Federation had adopted the Additional Protocol five years ago and had a moratorium on the death penalty since ten years and courts had not sentenced anyone to the death penalty during this time.

Turning to the reform of the judicial community, the delegation said that the Russian Federation did not see any force today which would be against the reform. The Committee was also reminded that the plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation had the right to conduct such initiatives. As for the law on the status of judges, the delegation said that this law guaranteed the independence of judges. The body of judges had also been strengthened. There was a considerable increase of cases brought by citizens. In 2009, amendments to legislation were made and a military tribunal system was organized. It was also planned to shortly reform second instance courts for civil and criminal cases. In the Russian Federation practical access to judges was not restricted in any way; citizens could directly address the Supreme Court for reviews of processes.

On juvenile justice, the delegation said that a pilot project had been implemented and three model juvenile courts had been established in 1994 and 1995 and in the following years their experiences were further spread in the Russian Federation. In November there would be a parliamentary hearing on juvenile justice.

Responding to another question, the delegation explained that the proportion of acquittals was sometimes interpreted incorrectly. This figure needed to be compared with other factors and familiarity with the justice system of the Russian Federation was needed. Further, in hearing criminal cases with the participation of juries, the acquittals approached up to twenty per cent and not all cases had sentences imposed. The procedural functions of the defense and prosecution were provided by the law.

As to questions concerning the material and technical capacity of courts, the delegation said that there was a specific body that provided financing and material equipment for courts from the federal budget.

As to procedures of disciplinary liability of judges, in the reform of the judicial system in the 1990s informing the judicial community had been the first thing that was done. The law of the Russian Federation also provided for warning of judges and early termination of their period in office. As to the decisions of the higher qualification college regarding early termination, the delegation said that these could be appealed to the Supreme Court. The law adopted this year provided for establishing six judges deciding on complaints of judges whose terms had been terminated early.

As for the federal law to combat terrorism, the delegation, responding to the question on which rights could be restricted in accordance with this law, said that the legislation of the Russian Federation allowed for checking of identity documents, towing of vehicles, strengthening of guarding of facilities, introducing monitoring of telephone conversations and searches of electronic communication channels, among others.

As to the question on the federal law of December 2008 with regard to amendments of legislative acts on combating terrorism, the delegation said that this law provided for liability and responsibility for concealing offenses as seizure of hostages, hijacking of ships or airplanes or trains, as well as other vehicles of transport. These amendments had closed a gap but the adoption of the federal law did not require any changes to other federal acts.

Concerning another question on legislation on combating terrorism, especially terrorist and extremist acts, the delegation said, with regard to administrative offenses, that for the production and dissemination of extremist materials, sanctions and arrest of up to 15 days were provided for. As for investigations of criminal cases of an extremist nature, the delegation said that if investigative agencies considered a person guilty and sent the person to court, the final decision was always made by the court and if the citizen disagreed with the decision he could appeal it and the legality of the decision would be verified by judicial bodies.

Regarding the declaration of an organization as a terrorist organization, the delegation explained that all evidence of the prosecutor was considered by the court and the decision could be appealed to higher courts. As to a question concerning the prosecution of religious organizations, among others, in the North Caucuses, the delegation said that it did not have any such information. The Russian Federation also had a federal law on combating terrorism and a federal law on combating extremist activities, with the latter providing for criminal, administrative and civil legal liability.

On the question regarding the murder of individuals in the Northern Caucasus, there was no distinction made regarding nationality – any crime was investigated, and if it was a nationally motivated crime, investigations were conducted even more intensively.

As for the new investigative commission, the delegation said that investigators were independent. Their main task was to investigate criminal cases, and in doing so, investigators had the right to decide how they would operate. Investigators working in the North Caucasus were the most experienced investigators. A procedural control body had been established very recently with a view to improving the effectiveness of this work. The experience of investigators from the United Kingdom had been studied as would the experiences of the city of Belfast.

The delegation said, with regard to efforts to prevent violence against women, that this problem required a comprehensive solution. The problem was under particular supervision by the President and Government of the Russian Federation and much had already been done. The necessary assistance to victims of trafficking and violence was also provided. In a number of crisis centers aimed at providing women with economic assistance, women were further able to gain additional proficiencies. Women’s non-governmental organizations had also created 50 crisis centers and operated in close collaboration with the Government.

On measures taken to prevent discrimination against ethnic minorities, the delegation said that the legislation of the Russian Federation did not contain any restrictions on the rights of national minorities. Criminal legislation further provided for a special norm according to which those liable for such offences would be sentenced to prison for up to five years. However, in 2008 only three such cases had been registered.

As to sexual minorities, legislation guaranteed equal rights and freedoms to all without any discrimination. However, this category was not considered a vulnerable group requiring special measures to protect their freedoms.

On torture, the delegation said that there was a fairly effective system of imposing criminal liability on persons for their use of authority if this led to ill-treatment for purposes of obtaining information.

As for extradition, the Russian Federation did not refuse to extradite persons for further prosecution if the offense was not prosecutable in the Russian Federation. Sometimes such decisions had been related to appeals by such persons to the European Court. As for the 13 citizens of Uzbekistan, the European court had decided in 2008 against the Russian Federation and had declared the extradition illegal.

With regards to the competence and activities of the human rights ombudsman, the delegation said that the ombudsman could in fact directly reply to courts. As for the reduction of the number of complaints to the ombudsman, this was because living conditions in the Russian Federation had improved over the last few years and therefore there was a low number of complaints regarding social and economic rights. People also often went to courts rather than to the ombudsman.

As for the role of civil society in the promotion of human rights, the delegation said that the Council was not a new body – it was created by former President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin in 2004.

Concerning the steps taken to improve tolerance in the Russian Federation, the delegation said there was a state federal programme underway in this regard. The content of that programme allowed for teaching programmes and methodological and normative bases to be developed to ensure training and re-training of teachers. The next stage of the federal programme ensured the continuation of the work on these tasks, and measures to foster religious harmony and conduct professional training for state officials and administrative agencies as well as the media had been taken. Active work on new educational standards for every level of education in the Russian Federation had also been underway in the last three years. There had further been a successful experiment for a new general model in school over the last five years and it had been decided after evaluation of this experiment to begin a major experimental, pluri-cultural educational programme.

As for the rights of persons with limited capacities, the delegation said that significant progress had been made in this area and the Ministry of Justice was working on a draft law with a view to incorporating the necessary amendments to criminal procedural law, among others.

On the events of August last year, the delegation of the Russian Federation said that these were in general dramatic for the citizens of the Russian Federation, Georgia and South-Ossetia. At the international level it had been acknowledged that in August last year an aggression had been carried out against Russian peacekeepers. Peacekeepers in South-Ossetia had pursued an international mandate, but many of them were killed and the Russian Federation had moved in to defend them, guiding itself absolutely by the then accepted norms of international law. The details were very important: the delegation would like to remind that the attack had occurred at night, and it was an attack of a whole unit, not a selective attack. The units of the military of the Russian Federation were about the same size as the Georgian units, and once the troops had come into conflict, the hostilities did not stop for one second. The individual cases of alleged human rights violations that the military of the Russian Federation faced had been identified and handed over to the authorities of South-Ossetia. On violations carried out by Georgian units, the delegation said that there were thousands of victim statements. As for the alleged violations committed by para-military groups, this fell under the jurisdiction of the authorities of South-Ossetia. Concerning the right of South-Ossetians to self-determination, the Russian Federation had always acknowledged the rights of refugees and the right to return - this return however needed to be voluntarily, free from danger and returnees’ dignity needed to be provided for. To meet these criteria, the Geneva consultations were being held with all interested parties. Despite the tragic events, ethnic Georgians in the Russian Federation had played and would continue to play an important role in many spheres of life and there were no acts of discrimination. At the same time, the Russian Federation would need years and years to mend the wounds which had been caused.

Oral Questions by Committee Members

Asking further questions, an Expert said that he was heartened to learn that the disciplinary issues were dealt with in a collegial way and with the participation of the public. But could the number of disciplinary actions taken in the described format be given?

On the investigative committee, a Committee member asked whether the concern regarding the absence of a special mechanism dealing with allegations of torture could be clarified, also asking, with regard to the human rights ombudsman, what the effects of the complaints were, and whether light could be shed on the fact that the ombudsman was not allowed to speak in the Duma (lower house of parliament).

On extraditions, an Expert said that there were issues of who would be responsible for dealing with potential violations of the Covenant which agents of regional partners could commit on the territory of the Russian Federation.

As for the abolition of the death penalty, another Committee member said that the delegation had said that public opinion needed to be taken into account – but would it be anti-democratic for the State to be a pre-cursor of public opinion and not just follow it? The Expert did not think that it was undemocratic to be a fore-runner of public opinion. What measures and initiatives had been taken by the Russian Federation to prepare for this change in public opinion, and what was being done in schools and in the media? The Committee member further asked whether the State had initiated any proposals on this matter, also asking whether it could not be said that the non-use of the death sentence in legal terms had led to the death penalty being no longer relevant.

Concerning persons belonging to sexual minorities, given the fact that there was a problem of prejudice against sexual minorities, why could these groups not benefit from the relevant articles of the criminal code providing for protection against incitement to hatred?

As for the systemic prohibition of gay pride demonstrations, a Committee member was also struck by the fact that not a single request had been approved in the last four years. Further, what account should be taken of the fact that the Mayor of Moscow had repeatedly been quoted in the media that he would never allow such events?

On terrorism, a Committee member asked how long, in terms of time, the measures cited by the delegation regarding the question on anti-terrorism measures could be applied? Further, concerning federal law combating extremism, the group of relevant experts played an imminent role in this law, but how could their impartiality be ensured? And concerning the notion of “social groups”, there was no clear definition of this term which however was crucial in the law of the Russian Federation.

Another Expert said that he did not hear any response to the question on mass graves. The Expert also raised the matter of allegations of collective punishments of people who were relatives of suspected terrorists. Moreover, to what extent was it possible to ensure, and what procedures were in place to this end, that people were not summarily removed from the territory?

An Expert asked whether the delegation was of the view that the question of domestic violence should be a priority at this point in time for the Russian Federation. Were there effective remedies for the victims of crimes against some minorities? The Expert had not seen this aspect answered for victims more generally, including for ethnic groups or women.

Answers by the Delegation

Responding to these and other questions, Mr. Matyushkin said with regard to discrimination that decisions by local authorities not to give permission to hold gay parades were determined by the attitudes existing in society and were also taken to ensure the safety of participants in such parades. As for an Expert’s statement according to which there had not been a gay parade in the Russian Federation in recent years, this was not true; there had been a gay parade held in St. Petersburg recently.

On the number of journalists and public figures who had been killed, the delegation said that the Committee was undoubtedly aware of the reaction of the President of the Russian Federation when such events were first announced. This was a very emotional reaction and instructions had been given to law enforcement agencies.

With regard to the topic of Georgia, the delegation said that this was discussed because it was a war where there were people who were at fault. However, today it was premature to discuss these issues in greater detail.

The delegation, on the issue of the death penalty, noted that it had not said that the abolition of the death penalty was anti-democratic if public opinion was opposed to this. It had only said that this undertaking needed to be done in a way that avoided social conflict. Young people in the Russian Federation had courses on legal knowledge at school and studied human rights and international human rights law and it would thus only be a matter of time before the death penalty would be abolished. This would not be in the distant future.

As for combating corruption in the judicial system, the Russian Federation had in place the federal target programme which included a series of regulatory measures aimed at combating corruption. Substantial changes had also been made to the law and there were stringent requirements to ensure that judges showed full integrity.

Concerning disciplinary measures against judges, the delegation said that 350 judges were found liable in the Russian Federation and 56 judges were removed because their activities were considered incompatible with their role as a judge. There were however appeals to the Supreme Court and some judges had requested to be re-instated.

As to the question on counter-terrorist operations, the delegation said that measures to combat terrorism were quite stringent ones. However, they were necessary in this situation and did not contravene the Covenant in any way.

On the question on crimes of an extremist nature and extremist publications and the guarantees that experts’ opinions were not biased, the delegation said that the legislation had sufficient measures to prevent experts’ bias. Further, there were barriers which made it difficult to use falsified evidence.

On extradition, this was a decision taken by the general prosecutor and no unofficial relationship existed between the general prosecutor and other countries’ organizations. The general prosecutor looked at the legality of the request for extradition, guided by international law and the Minsk Convention. A decision on extradition could also be appealed and the extradition would not take place until the Supreme Court had ruled.

Concerning criminal cases related to torture, the delegation said that at present such cases were examined by the investigative committee. The State party was concerned that all rights were protected and that the investigation was objective. This was also ensured by the possibility that investigators could declare themselves not to be independent enough. The victims had the right at any point in time to appeal to the court. The delegation was of the view that there was no trend that investigations into these criminal cases were not objective ones.

On the effectiveness of the complaints before the ombudsman, as well as their nature, the only official source of information on the activities of the ombudsman was his annual report. There were approximately 30,000 complaints a year. The ombudsman regularly met with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, among others, and the interest of the Committee in the ombudsman would be discussed at the next meeting. The ombudsman would also be informed that the Human Rights Committee would appreciate more detailed statistical information on his work.

As to the question on whether violence against women was on the agenda of the Government of the Russian Federation, the delegation said that women were very active in the economy of the Russian Federation. There were also three women occupying ministerial posts. Russian women did not live in a constant state of fear. Regarding violations of the rights of women in the family, the delegation said that the family and its socio-economic situation were a priority for the leadership of the Russian Federation. That preventing violence against women in the family was a priority was also highlighted by the visit of the relevant Special Rapporteur in 2007 – this visit was considered a priority visit and the recommendations of the report of the Special Rapporteur were put in practice.

Concerning questions relating to problems with the South-Ossetian Republic, the delegation said that a Working Group headed by the Ministry of Justice was preparing a draft law to compensate citizens harmed during the military operation in the South-Ossetian Republic.

As for mass burials, the investigative committee had checked two communications on mass graves – these communications turned out to be false.

As for the question regarding the comment of 23 May 2009, the delegation said that in the Northern Caucus region the term “Wahabi” was not used to refer to Muslims but to “terrorists with weapons in their hands”.

Concerning the question relating to a specific judge deprived of her office by a decision of the judges’ society of the Russian Federation, and who had appealed that decision to the European Human Rights Court, the delegation said that the decision of the European Human Rights Court stated that the punishment of depriving the concerned judge of her Office was too strict but this was a decision of the judges’ society.

As for access to lawyers, according to legislation such access was very broad. From the moment a criminal case was opened the concerned person could resort to the services of a lawyer. There were however problems regarding the extent to which the provisions of this law could be put into practice, but this was not of a systemic nature.

Concerning the question on whether lawyers had been murdered in the Russian Federation, the delegation said that there were unfortunately several such cases and there probably was some relationship between their death and their professional activities.

As to the events of the Dubrovka theatre, more than 40 terrorists had taken control of the theatre and more than 1,000 spectators in the audience who were held over several days in an awful situation. The terrorists also continuously made threats and for three days required the State to meet certain demands. The State therefore took measures to free the victims but unfortunately some people who were in the theatre had also been killed. There were however no findings that there had been wrong decisions taken.

With regard to prevention of trafficking in human beings, the delegation said that the legislation of the Russian Federation was fully in conformity with the legal provisions that called upon Russia to combat trafficking. A dozen criminal groups involved in human trafficking had also been brought to trial. The Russian Federation was working with the competent authorities of many States with a view to combating trafficking in human beings. The work of the Russian Federation also had an impact on the activities of criminal groups; there was a tendency of falling numbers regarding crimes in human trafficking.

Concerning questions on the conditions in detention centers, the penal correction system of the Russian Federation had recently seen some changes. A drop of the penitentiary population and of that in pre-trial detention centers was also observed, allowing improving conditions, and 3,500 additional places were created in pre-detention cells in 2007. There were certain regions where overcrowding in detention centers still existed, but the Russian Federation had been able to increase the sizes of cells in most regions. Complaints from citizens were sent to the Office of the Prosecutor as well as to the human rights ombudsman, among others.

On disabled persons, today there were about 25,000 disabled detainees in the Russian Federation. There was an early release programme for seriously ill disabled detainees and more than 500 such persons had had their sentences suspended this year. There were also particular workshops for labour orientation of such people. In addition, such persons received medicine, pension and assistance.

As for federal law guaranteeing the rights of minorities, the delegation said that a number of legislative measures had been taken in this regard. In 2009, a norm was also introduced to defend the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples. Subsidies would also be presented to finance the social and economic development of indigenous peoples of the north of the Russian Federation.

Oral Questions by Committee Members

Asking further questions to the delegation, Experts said, with regard to trafficking in human beings, that it seemed that the resources allocated for this issue were inadequate in view of the scale of this issue in the Russian Federation – would more resources be allocated to this end? Further, he also stated that there was a discrepancy between the duration of civil and military service in the Russian Federation and in other countries – how could the Russian Federation bring this in line with other countries?

As for the lawyers who were murdered, one feature was striking among the cases of 2005, 2006 and 2007; this was the high number of cases qualified as having nothing to do with the professional activity of the victims. How did the State party find out that this was not related? The Expert further wished to know why the murder of Ms. Politoskaia was considered before a military and not a civil court, also asking for the reasons for long delays in laying charges.

The Committee member also wished to know how burdensome the reporting requirements were for non-governmental organizations having connections with foreign countries.

An Expert said that the delegation of the Russian Federation had explained that it was difficult to honour the right to access to a lawyer– but what were the difficulties? As for the delegation’s assertion that there were no systemic problem regarding the ability of people to access lawyers, the Committee member said that there seemed to be legislation which undermined this; this would in fact be a systematic problem.

Another Expert wished to know, regarding the protection of journalists, how the profession of journalists was defined, and by whom journalists must be accredited? And if there was the need for accreditation this should certainly be dealt with by the profession itself. As for the tragic and long list of murders of journalists in the Russian Federation, was there any way of having further information on the level of investigation, indictment and conviction in cases involving murdered journalists compared to general murders? Were such murders investigated as vigorously as other murders?

Concerning criminal defamation, the Russian Federation would be wise to follow the trend of decriminalizing defamation. As to civil lawsuits, there seemed to be a high number of such cases per year. Could clarification on the exact number in this regard be given. As for criminal defamation cases, public officials were given a high degree of protection. A better way would be that public officials had not more but less protection – what was the delegation’s view on this? As to certain instances where reporters were harassed by police, what measures were taken by the authorities to ensure that reporters following public events could do their job?

On the issue of administrative arrest and detention, another Committee member said that if a judge’s decision was needed this was administrative arrest. But in case of police or military detention, the judge only interfered afterwards – could the delegation confirm that this kind of arrest and detention was really administrative so that a judge did not need to intervene? As for those civil servants who could not be subjected to detention – these people seemed to enjoy a preferential protection. Another Committee member said that knowing that any category of persons were exempt from the law was worrying.

Further, non-governmental organizations were essential as a feedback loop to know what was going wrong. Procedures in the Russian Federation in this regard were nowadays very restrictive.

On stateless persons, something needed to be done to the law in a technical manner to enable this category of people to become citizens of the Russian Federation or have permanent residency permits.

As to instigating speech and activity, the word extremism was enormously vague, and letting this become a legal category was very troubling. It would be preferable to adhere to act-based jurisdiction.

Concerning progress made in improving conditions of detention in remand and penal centers, could any statistics of the prison population be provided compared to the capacity of such centres?

As to fair trials, many people had been convicted for terrorist crimes. Did the State party see a possibility for review in this regard?

With regard to compensating victims of counter-terrorist operations, an Expert also said that this was no substitute for prevention and ending of impunity. Further, what did the notion of “criminal arbitration court” imply?

Reports also revealed that a high percentage of judicial decisions were not implemented – what was the situation in this regard?

On freedom of opinion and expression, it appeared that legislation in the Russian Federation was restrictive, including accreditation rules and warnings of closing media organizations. The main concern was that editors and journalists then turned to self-censorship. Did the Government of the Russian Federation intend to amend its legislation to conform with international standards in this regard?

Answers by the Delegation

Responding to these and other questions, the delegation from the Russian Federation said that this year the legislation of the Russian Federation had been amended with the purpose of focusing the legislation on simplifying registration for non-governmental organizations. The law on non-governmental organizations was also amended. It was also prohibited to require additional documents which were not requested by the comprehensive list included in the respective legislation. Great attention was further given to ensuring the openness of the activities of non-governmental organizations. The monitoring had shown that the forms of reporting were complicated for submission and a Working Group had instructed the Ministry of Justice to simplify the forms of registration. As of 2010, there would therefore also be the possibility that non-governmental organizations were not required to submit reports in paper form but could do so in an electronic form.

As to the question on whether there were restrictions on non-governmental organizations receiving grants from abroad, the delegation said that such restrictions did not apply. Over the last three years, the President of the Russian Federation had been allocating additional funds to finance projects of non-governmental organizations. These funds were not distributed by state agencies but by non-governmental organizations themselves on a competitive basis. In 2008, five billion Rubles had been allocated to this purpose.

With regard to state registration of non-governmental organizations, the delegation said that in the year 2007, 221,000 non-governmental organizations had been registered. All State procedures for non-governmental organizations were strictly regulated by administrative rules and adoption of these rules had been done by taking into account the views of non-governmental organizations.

As for the questions on access to lawyers and others, the delegation said that national legislation did not provide for any rights of the agencies of justice to monitor activities of lawyers or to deny persons the right of access to a lawyer. The agencies of justice did not have standards or norms to require any information from a lawyer; this could only be required by the lawyer’s chamber itself and was regulated by the law.

Concerning the number of places existing in remand or detention centers, the delegation said that there were 104 centers containing 130,000 centers. The limit was 145,000. These detention centers were however filled unequally, and overcrowding still existed in several institutions. Therefore, the problem did exist and Russia planned to resolve this problem. The broad-based programme of reforms was announced a few months ago by the Minister of Justice and in general it was intended to change the whole approach to the penitentiary system with the objective of eliminating the existence of corrective labour institutions.

With regard to the question on resources dedicated to trafficking in human beings, the Russian Federation was fully aware of the seriousness of this threat. While it was difficult to give exact figures, it could be said that trafficking in persons was not an extremely urgent problem in the Russian Federation. Nevertheless, funds for concerned persons were allocated and would continue to be allocated.

Concluding Remarks

Mr. Matyushkin said that the delegation of the Russian Federation would like to thank the Committee for the atmosphere of genuine interest in the situation in the Russian Federation that had prevailed. There was also no doubt that the procedure of submitting and discussing periodic reports on civil and political rights was an important tool of assessment and improvement of the situation in the Russian Federation. The subsequent concluding remarks would serve the purpose of developing and implementing legislation in the Russian Federation.

In concluding, the Chairman said that the Committee and the Russian Federation had held nine hours of rich discussions and constructive dialogue. He hoped that the comments made and the concluding observations would be of assistance to improve the human rights situation in the Russian Federation.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CT09017E