|
Welcome to this page containing translations of publications by HRO.org.
Readers are recommended to visit the website of HRO.org (Human Rights in Russia).
Since its inception, Rights in Russia has by agreement translated materials first published in Russian on HRO.org. |
HRO.org in English
Pichugin
 By Vera Vasilieva Source: HRO.org (info)  As Radio Svoboda (RFE/RL) reported, a protest took place in Munich on 15 June in support of the convicted former member of Yukos staff who is serving a life sentence in the 'Black Dolphin' penal colony. The protest was organised by civic activist Madina Magomedova who has protested in support of Russian political prisoners several times previously, particularly in support of Aleksei Pichugin and Ildar Dadin. The protesters held placards with Pichugin's photograph on them, as well as calls written in several languages for Pichugin, the former head of Yukos' department for internal economic security, to be released. Madina Magomedova, who lives in Germany, considers Aleksei Pichugin to be a brave and honest person. She calls on all her fellow Russians who live abroad to show solidarity with Pichugin, who was the first person to be arrested and sentenced in the case of the oil company owned by Mikhail Khodorovsky. Pichugin is still in the prison colony, having been convicted of crimes although no Russian court ever proved that he was involved. On 17 June a protest was held in Frankfurt-am-Main outside the Consulate General of the Russian Federation to demand the release of Aleksei Pichugin, who, the protesters believe, was sentenced on the basis of a fabricated criminal case. This event too was timed to commemorate the 13th anniversary of Pichugin’s arrest. As the protesters emphasised, despite the European Court of Human Rights' decision, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has not initiated a retrial and Aleksei is still being held in one of the harshest prisons for life prisoners. "Of course, the fact that we have been asked to move to the courtyard behind the Russian consulate didn't please us at all. The courtyard behind adjoins a street which cars go down and very few passers-by walk along, unlike the street where the consulate entrance is located," organiser Maria Kosova commented on her Facebook page.  The member of Russian consulate staff who came out of the building, on the other hand, showed a different kind of interest in the protesters. He asked whether the protesters had official permission to gather, then took a photograph of the authorisation document in question as well as photographing the protesters themselves. The young man also took away one of the civic activists' flyers. Maria Kosova commented, "This is the third year running that we have held a picket here. In the past, consulate staff showed no interest in our demonstration, so we were pleased to have been noticed. "Unfortunately, nothing much has changed in Aleksei's situation and the demands we have been making since our first protest are as relevant as ever. All that has changed is the number of years which Aleksei Pichugin has spent behind bars. When you put these dates on [to banners], it’s always a weird feeling", she admitted. On 19 June Facebook users organised a flashmob in support of Pichugin. On their own Facebook pages they published selfies of themselves holding placards in support of Pichugin, giving them the hashtag #FreePichugin. According to the event's organisers, anyone can join in and all the photos will be sent to Pichugin in the 'Black Dolphin' prison. Meanwhile, regarding Pichugin's first trial, the European Court of Human Rights' decision, which specified that the trial must be reviewed, has still not been implemented. Regarding his second trial, the application has so far only been communicated, and it is not known when the hearing will take place.  Aleksei Pichugin informed his lawyer, Kseniya Kostromina, that his request for pardon had been rejected during their meeting on 7 June. As Kseniya Kostromina told Kommersant newspaper, "Aleksei has no illusions about his possible release and reacted to this refusal in his usual stoical way". However, Yury Berg himself denied having rejected Pichugin's appeal for pardon and stressed that only the President of the Russian Federation has the right to decide such questions. But the President's press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, had previously announced that Pichugin's request for clemency did not reach Putin. Aleksei Pichugin has maintained his innocence of all charges against him. Translated by Suzanne Eade Roberts |
Memorial Anti-discrimination Centre speaks in Strasbourg about pressure on NGOs
 Source: HRO.org (info) Memorial Anti-discrimination Centre represented the International Human Rights Federation at a Council of Europe conference for NGOs: “Only politics? Civil society, money and political activities.” The discussion was dedicated to discussing the limitations and also the repressions, which NGOs, human rights advocates, lawyers, journalists and civil activists are subject to in the Council of Europe’s member states. Participants in the conference greeted Azeri lawyer and human rights advocate Intigam Aliyev, recently released from prison. In his opening speech he thanked all the representatives of international organisations and human rights advocates who had fought for his release. Olga Abramenko, an expert of the Memorial Anti-discrimination Centre, highlighted in her address that the repression of NGOs in Russia had entered a new phase: in addition to NGOs being fined for alleged “violations”, which has already become routine, the leaders of NGOs are now at risk of being prosecuted. Aside from this, repressive legislation and practices have spread over a vast territory: from annexed Crimea, where a public authority consisting of Crimean Tartars was banned, to Kyrgyzstan, where attempts are being made to adopt a law similar to the Russian law, and where human rights advocates are subject to harassment initiated by government officials. In territories under the control of Russia, but not recognized as such, there are practically no opportunities to carry out independent human rights activities – in Transdniestria, a criminal case was opened against members of the NGO PromoLex; in the so-called Luhansk People’s Republic and Donetsk People’s Republic public space has been completely “cleaned out”, according to human rights advocates. The circle of repression continues to draw in more and more new groups, including civil society activists, journalists and lawyers. Translated by Kate Goodby |
Human rights defenders report on discrimination against LGBT people in Crimea and Donbass
 Source: HRO.org (info) Memorial Anti-discrimination Centre and the Centre for Civil Liberties report that “LGBT teenagers, families with children, and transgender people are the most vulnerable.” An equality march took place in Kiev on 12 June 2016, which was a peaceful demonstration in defence of the rights of LGBT people in Ukraine. Participants demanded equal rights, benefits, and freedoms for all living in the country, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Welcoming the declaration of the Ukrainian activists, the Memorial Anti-discrimination Centre and the Centre for Civil Liberties consider it appropriate to remember on this day that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity is still widespread, and that in some parts of Ukraine, which are under Russian authority, homophobia takes on even more severe forms, threatening the lives and safety of residents. A new human-rights report, prepared by the Memorial Anti-discrimination Centre with the support of the Centre for Civil Liberties, is dedicated precisely to this problem. It is titled “Violations of the rights of LGBT people in Crimea and Donbass: The problem of homophobia in territories not under Ukrainian control.” While working on this report, dozens of eyewitnesses of the events that have taken place in Crimea and eastern Ukraine in the past few years were interviewed. Many of them described the persecution of sexual and gender minorities; they described an atmosphere of fear, secrecy, and insecurity; they described the impossibility for people to come out even to close friends and the inability to trust even their own community. In a region stricken by war, people’s lives are in constant danger, and for LGBT people this danger is multiplied due to openly homophobic armed people, decrees and regulations passed by local “authorities,” the influence of Russian laws restricting the rights of minorities, and the prohibition of “propaganda of nontraditional sexual orientations.” The report analyzes the current laws regarding family rights, labour rights, and other rights of minorities - both Ukrainian and Russian (de-facto imposed in a seized Crimea) - as well as newly emerging “legislation” of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Lugansk People’s Republic. The human rights defenders’ conclusion is that the position of LGBT people in Crimea and eastern Ukraine has deteriorated greatly in the past two years, and activists of the movement have been forced to leave or abandon their work in organizing the community. Members of sexual and gender minorities who remain are subject to constant discrimination, danger of exposure, persecution, isolation, stigma, and even criminalization. The most vulnerable are LGBT teens, families with children, and transgender people. Memorial and the Centre for Civil Liberties strongly recommend that all sides of the conflict take decisive measures to improve the position of LGBT people: to stop persecution and harassment, to effectively investigate all hate crimes on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, and to end impunity for these crimes. It is essential to provide the LGBT community the full ability to exercise the rights and freedoms guaranteed by Ukrainian and international law. Please note that international organizations have a special responsibility to monitor the rights of minorities and vulnerable groups. Crimea and parts of Donbass not under the control of the Ukrainian government should not be perceived as “grey zones of the law”; their citizens need help exercising their rights, ensuring freedom, equality, and dignity for all. Read the report: ‘СViolation of the rights of LGBT people in Crimea and Donbass: the problem of homophobia in territories not under Ukrainian control’ |
Aleksei Pichugin's appeal for pardon did not reach the President
 Source: HRO.org By Vera Vasilieva On 9 June 2016 it was announced that Aleksei Pichugin's appeal for pardon has been refused. Pichugin is a former employee of Yukos' security team who has been declared a political prisonerby Memorial Human Rights Centre (Moscow). The refusal letter was signed by Yury Berg, governor of Orenburg region. Aleksei Pichugin told his lawyer, Kseniya Kostromina, that his request for pardon had been rejected during their meeting on 7 June. As Kseniya Kostromina told Kommersant newspaper, "Aleksei has no illusions about his possible release and reacted to this refusal in his usual stoical way". Pichugin had written to ask Vladimir Putin to pardon him in the second half of November 2015, following his conversation in September 2015 with Mikhail Fedotov, chairman of the Presidential Human Rights Council (HRC), and Andrei Babushkin, a member of the HRC, during their visit to the 'Black Dolphin' penal colony. At the time, the HRO.org website reported on this visit, during which Pichugin sought clarification from the human rights defenders as to whether submitting a request for clemency would be tantamount to an admission of guilt. Babushkin said "I advised Aleksei Pichugin to write an appeal for pardon, making it clear that this did not mean that he was admitting guilt. We are prepared to support his request". According to Babushkin, he told Aleksei Piguchin at the end of their meeting that he shook his hand symbolically. Some time after the activists' response that an appeal would not amount to admitting guilt, Pichugin, with the help of his lawyers, submitted an appeal to Putin. He did not declare himself guilty of any of the charges against him. While a Pardon Commission functioned effectively under Boris Yeltsin, it has now been replaced by a complex hierarchical bureaucratic structure. An appeal is transferred by the prison colony's administration to the local branch of the Federal Prison Authority (FSIN), then to the regional governor, and so on. Only after this lengthy process does an appeal arrive on the Russian President's desk, or, as in Pichugin's case, fail to get that far. So while Pichugin addressed his request to Putin, it was Yury Berg who wrote back. Pichugin will only have the right to make a fresh appeal in three years' time, despite the fact that on 23 March 2015 the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg communicated an application by Pichugin concerning his second prosecution. Regarding information they had received from Pichugin's lawyers, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe decided at their session which ended on 9 June to ask the Russian authorities to provide additional information. There is little doubt that the Committee of Ministers will have to return to Pichugin's case in future and reach appropriate conclusions, which will not be favourable to Russia. On 19 June Aleksei Pichugin will have been imprisoned, unjustly, for 13 years. Translated by Suzanne Eade Roberts |
Memorial Human Rights Centre recognises Astrakhan resident Igor Stenin as political prisoner
 Source: HRO.org (info) On 16 May 2016 resident of Astrakhan Igor Stenin, who is a Russian nationalist of oppositionist views, was sentenced to two years in a low-security penal colony for public incitement to extremist activity using the Internet (Article 280, Part 2, of the Russian Criminal Code). Stenin appealed against his conviction and remains at liberty, under travel restrictions, until the sentence enters into legal force. If the judgment is upheld, Stenin will have to travel to the place where he is to serve his sentence himself. Stenin is accused of posting on the ‘Russian Astrakhans’ community page on Vkontakte a short message calling for the annihilation of ‘Kremlin occupiers,’ and reposting a message by a user going by the pseudonym ‘Sergei Romanov,’ beginning with the words ‘the situation in the ATO (Anti-Terrorist Operation) zone is changing very rapidly’ (in fact this was a commentary placed by ‘Romanov’ under the post by Stenin). The accusation that Stenin reposted material urging extremist action is absurd. It is obvious to any person, even vaguely conversant with the principles of the way the social network Vkontakte works, that the text beginning with the words ‘the situation in the ATO zone is changing very rapidly is a comment from the user ‘Sergei Romanov’ to Stenin’s post. Both Stenin’s post and the comment from ‘Sergei Romanov’ can be separately ‘liked,’ which would be impossible if this was a case of reposting. The fact that the user ‘Sergei Romanov’ commented on the post of Stenin was indicated in the initial report by an FSB official of 28 August 2014. We consider that the conviction of an internet user for a commentary posted under their own message on a social networking site is a dangerous precedent (moreover, we note that the commentary itself is a quotation from a post on Facebook by the Ukrainian journalist, Peter Shuklinov which, in our opinion, does not constitute incitement to extremist action). It is obvious that, in the case of Stenin, the investigation, the prosecution and the court demonstrated an extreme degree of partiality and subjectivity, related to the political motivation of the criminal case. The partiality manifested itself in manifold procedural violations in the course of the trial. For example, the trial was unlawfully held in camera, and the judge did not allow the defence to call a specialist who would have explained how the social network Vkontakte works. During the trial, at the request of the prosecutor, a group of second year students from the law faculty of Astrakhan Technical University was summoned and questioned. They gave uniform evidence against Stenin, which we consider the court accepted in an insufficiently critical manner. We demand that the criminal proceedings against Igor Stenin be terminated. The recognition of a person as a political prisoner or as someone prosecuted for political motives does not mean that Memorial Human Rights Centre agrees with that person’s views or statements, nor supports that person’s statements or actions. Translated by Frances Robson |
Public Verdict Foundation staff detained in Cherkessk
 On 5 June 2016 Asmik Novikova, who heads the research programme at the Public Verdict Foundation, and Ksenia Gagai, a documentary film producer who works as a volunteer at the Foundation, were detained by armed police and escorted to the Centre for Combating Extremism [Centre E] of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Cherkessk. Their detention was made on the basis of a briefing put out by the Investigative Committee to search for someone of ‘an extremist appearance’ similar to Novikova and Gagai. The head and deputy head of Centre E, an officer from the criminal investigation department, and an investigator from the Investigative Committee came to question the detainees. Novikova and Gagai had come to Cherkessk to make a documentary film about Ruslan Rakhaev. On their first day, filming took place at Rakhaev’s home, and of the streets, parks, of the police station’s main building where the police investigators had illegally held Dakhir Dzhankezov, responsibility for whose death the Investigative Committee has repeatedly place on Rakhaev. The plan was to spend the following day filming in Pyatigorsk (in Stavropol region) and do a video-interview with a medical expert, Evgeny Nikolaev. On their way there Novikova and Gagai continued to film the town, including the building of the Investigative Committee of the Karachaevo-Cherkessk republic. Already outside of Cherkessk, and on their way to Pyatigorsk, their taxi driver received a call from his manager that the police had been on the phone with questions about the passengers who had filmed the Investigative Committee building. Then came a call from the police, asking Novikova and Gagai to return to the town because allegedly the police needed to establish their identity and to clarify why they had been filming the building. The police were not satisfied with the explanation which Asmik Novikova gave over the phone. She and Gagai decided that they should return to Cherkessk because there was every reason to believe that, given the ‘briefing’ that the police had received about their identities, they would be prevented from leaving the republic. It soon became clear that the police were taking the matter very seriously indeed. As they approached Cherkessk, Novikova and Gagai were met by several police cars and armed men in combat uniform. They surrounded the taxi, opened the boot, after which, holding his automatic at the ready, a police officer opened the door of the taxi. A member of the police force told the taxi to follow the police. In answer to the question as to the grounds for their detention, the police officer smiled guiltily and said that that he knew nothing – he simply had received the ‘briefing.’ They were accompanied to the police station by the police cars. In the courtyard they were met by about ten (!) police officers. The women were asked to leave their things in the car, and put the contents of their pockets on the hood. The police wanted to search their handbags but when Asmik Novikova asked whether they would prepare a protocol, detailing the search, they decided against and asked the women to show them the content of their handbags, as they did. Their passports were requested and inspected. One might have expected that after checking the passports the whole business of ‘detaining extremists’ would have been over and done with. But the investigators from Centre E transferred the detainees to their car and took them to the Republican Centre E building, at present under repair. On the way, Novikova and Gagai were asked ‘Do they pray?’, and, further, it was suggested they had perhaps been given ‘not the proper briefing.’ The officers said that they would take a statement from the detainees, and that would be the end of the matter. The man who, at Asmik Novikova’s request, introduced himself as the deputy head of Centre E, began in a very informal manner to ask, ‘Why were you filming?’ However, without waiting for an answer, he went on to suggest that it was related to the forthcoming visit of the Presidential Human Rights Council. The deputy head spoke rapidly and not very coherently, referring to the ‘colour revolutions’, the dangerous situation in the North Caucasus, and the need to be polite when dealing with detainees. Novikova and Galai were put in separate rooms and the questioning got underway. Now that it was known that the documentary film was about Ruslan Rakhaev, the question why they were filming the building did not arise. The officers were polite and сautious. During the questioning, which lasted about two hours, officers and heads of different law-enforcement agencies, who had been put on the alert, made appearances in turn. The official from the Investigative Committee ran in for five minutes and vanished, whereas the head of Centre E thought it important to explain, loudly, how one should make documentary films, whose permission it was necessary to obtain, how it was necessary to take into account the specific nature of the North Caucasus, whom one should interview, and so on. After spending three hours in Centre E, the women were released, and a protocol of their questioning was drawn up. There was no mention of charges relating to any administrative infringements being brought. Yesterday Ksenia Gagai received a phone call from Centre E with a request to send photographs because it was necessary to confirm that the women were not wearing the hijab. It seems that there was a problem with the videocamera on its building, and the Investigative Committee is continuing to claim that those filming ‘looked like terrorists’. The Public Verdict Foundation considers the detention of its staff members unjustified, and intends to submit a formal complaint to the law enforcement agencies with a request to provide an explanation for their detention, and also to request that the actions of the officials of the Investigative Committee who sent the ‘briefing’ and of the officials from the republic’s Ministry of Internal Affairs be investigated. Translated by Mary McAuley |
Putin signs law on "political activity" of NGOs
 Source: HRO.org (info) On 2 June 2016 President of Russia Vladimir Putin signed into law the bill on the "political activity" of NGOs. The law will allow the authorities to hang labels on almost any active NGO, and to designate as "foreign agents" NGOs that take part in the international grant competitions of philanthropic foundations. According to the law, activities of NGOs in the following areas should be considered as “political”: · State-building; · Protection of the foundations of the constitutional system; · Federal structure of Russia; · Defence of the sovereignty and protection of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation; · Protection of law, administration of justice, security; · National defence; · Foreign policy; · Socio-economic development of Russia; · National development of Russia; · Development of the political system; · Activities of government bodies, bodies of local self-government; · Legislative regulation of human and civil rights and freedoms. The law establishes that political activity, in the opinion of government officials, can be carried out by the following means: · Public appeals to government bodies, local self-government bodies and their officials. · Participating in organising and implementing public events in the form of gatherings, rallies, demonstrations, marches or picketing; · Any combination of these forms; · Organising and implementing public debates, discussions, speeches; · Participating in activities aimed at generating specific results in elections, referendums; · Monitoring elections, referendums; · Forming electoral commissions, referendum commissions; · The activities of political parties; · Other activities, exerting influence on the work of public officials, including those intended to secure the adoption, amendment, repeal of laws or other normative acts of law; · Disseminating opinions on decisions made by government bodies and government policy, including using modern information technology · Forming of views about society and politics and convictions, including by means of conducting and publicizing public opinion polls or other social research; · Involvement of citizens, including minors, in the aforementioned activities; · Financing the aforementioned activities. At the urging of major and politically-loyal philanthropists, provisions were introduced into the bill that exclude certain areas from being classified as ‘political’, namely: activities in the fields of science, culture, art, healthcare, preventive healthcare, social services, social support and protection of citizens, the protection of motherhood and children, social support for persons with disabilities, promotion of healthy lifestyles, physical activity and sport, protection of fauna and flora, activities in the field of philanthropy and volunteering. In the opinion of experts of major Russian NGOs, the adoption of a law of this kind allows the authorities to declare any NGO that they do not like as a “foreign agent” irrespective of the group’s actual activities. Adoption of the law is a serious step towards the destruction of civil society in the country. In 2015 the witch-hunt against “foreign agents” in Russia’s non-profit sector entered an active phase. By the end of 2015 there were already 109 organisations on the list of “foreign agents.” The organisations, which Ministry of Justice officials defined as “agents” were subject to disproportionately large fines, faced significant damage to their reputations and finances and a number were forced to close down. Environmental and human rights groups have been the at the forefront of this persecution. At the 70th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations in 2015, a resolution recognising the importance of human rights advocates and the necessity of defending them was adopted. The resolution was supported by 117 countries. In 2015 the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muižnieks, stressed in a special Report that “new regulations have led to the closure of a series of human rights organisations, and now other NGOs are engaging in self-censorship, taking extra precautions, and avoiding participation in activities which could be deemed “political”. The International Memorial Society has stated in a special announcement: “[…] The main idea of the law on ‘foreign agents’ is essentially not based on the principle of the rule of law. There is no problem which this law would solve. The goals of its initiators were fundamentally political and opportunistic, and its formulation intentionally introduces evident legal uncertainty. The law on ‘foreign agents’ to all intents introduces a presumption of guilt for an artificially defined group of organizations. […]” Amnesty International, the largest international human rights organisation in the world, has emphasised that “the law on so-called ‘foreign agents’ is one of a series of measures aimed at suppressing civil society and freedom of expression in the country.” Russian NGOs have repeatedly expressed their disapproval of the law and appealed against it including in the European Court of Human Rights. Human rights advocates underline that the law is evidently discriminatory and has extremely negative historical connotations. 90 members of the Russian PEN Centre, which brings together historians, members of the Free Historical Society, as well as Russian academics, have called on the Minister of Justice to put an end to the arbitrary treatment of NGOs that are being classed as “foreign agents”. Translated by Kate Goodby |
Council of the Federation adopts bill on 'political activity’ of NGOs
 Source: HRO.org (info) On 25 May 2016, as Zaks.ru reports citing TASS, the Council of the Federation approved a bill defining so-called “political activity” for non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The bill will allow the authorities to accuse practically any organisation of engaging in “political activity.” On 20 May 2016 the deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation had adopted the bill in second and third readings. According to the deputies, activities of NGOs in the following areas should be considered as “political”: · State-building; · Protection of the foundations of the constitutional system; · Federal structure of Russia; · Defence of the sovereignty and protection of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation; · Protection of law, administration of justice, security; · National defence; · Foreign policy; · Socio-economic development of Russia; · National development of Russia; · Development of the political system; · Activities of government bodies, bodies of local self-government; · Legislative regulation of human and civil rights and freedoms. The law establishes that political activity, in the opinion of deputies of the Duma, can be carried out by the following means: · Public appeals to government bodies, local self-government bodies and their officials. · Participating in organising and implementing public events in the form of gatherings, rallies, demonstrations, marches or picketing; · Any combination of these forms; · Organising and implementing public debates, discussions, speeches; · Participating in activities aimed at generating specific results in elections, referendums; · Monitoring elections, referendums; · Forming electoral commissions, referendum commissions; · The activities of political parties; · Other activities, exerting influence on the work of public officials, including those intended to secure the adoption, amendment, repeal of laws or other normative acts of law; · Disseminating opinions on decisions made by government bodies and government policy, including using modern information technology · Forming of views about society and politics and convictions, including by means of conducting and publicizing public opinion polls or other social research; · Involvement of citizens, including minors, in the aforementioned activities; · Financing the aforementioned activities. At the urging of major and politically-loyal philanthropists, provisions were introduced into the bill that exclude certain areas from being classified as ‘political’, namely: activities in the fields of science, culture, art, healthcare, preventive healthcare, social services, social support and protection of citizens, the protection of motherhood and children, social support for persons with disabilities, promotion of healthy lifestyles, physical activity and sport, protection of fauna and flora, activities in the field of philanthropy and volunteering. In the opinion of experts of major Russian NGOs, the adoption of a law of this kind allows the authorities to declare any NGO that they do not like as a “foreign agent” irrespective of the group’s actual activities. Adoption of the law is a serious step towards the destruction of civil society in the country. In 2015 the witch-hunt against “foreign agents” in Russia’s non-profit sector entered an active phase. By the end of 2015 there were already 109 organisations on the list of “foreign agents.” The organisations, which Ministry of Justice officials defined as “agents” were subject to disproportionately large fines, faced significant damage to their reputations and finances and a number were forced to close down. Environmental and human rights groups have been the at the forefront of this persecution. At the 70th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations in 2015, a resolution recognising the importance of human rights advocates and the necessity of defending them was adopted. The resolution was supported by 117 countries. In 2015 the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muižnieks, stressed in a special Report that “new regulations have led to the closure of a series of human rights organisations, and now other NGOs are engaging in self-censorship, taking extra precautions, and avoiding participation in activities which could be deemed “political”. The International Memorial Society has stated in a special announcement: “[…] The main idea of the law on ‘foreign agents’ is essentially not based on the principle of the rule of law. There is no problem which this law would solve. The goals of its initiators were fundamentally political and opportunistic, and its formulation intentionally introduces evident legal uncertainty. The law on ‘foreign agents’ to all intents introduces a presumption of guilt for an artificially defined group of organizations. […]” Amnesty International, the largest international human rights organisation in the world, has emphasised that “the law on so-called ‘foreign agents’ is one of a series of measures aimed at suppressing civil society and freedom of expression in the country.” Russian NGOs have repeatedly expressed their disapproval of the law and appealed against it including in the European Court of Human Rights. Human rights advocates underline that the law is evidently discriminatory and has extremely negative historical connotations. 90 members of the Russian PEN Centre, which brings together historians, members of the Free Historical Society, as well as Russian academics, have called on the Minister of Justice to put an end to the arbitrary treatment of NGOs that are being classed as “foreign agents”. Translated by Kate Goodby |
Novaya Gazeta: Kadyrov refused to meet Presidential Human Rights Council
 Source: HRO.org (info) According to a report in Novaya Gazeta, acting head of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, refused to meet a delegation from the Presidential Human Rights Council if Igor Kalyapin, head of the Committee to Prevent Torture and member of the Council, is present. The Human Rights Council delegation is currently undertaking a fact-finding trip and had intended to visit all regions in the North Caucasus to meet with both regional leaders and members of the public, reports Polit.ru. The report states that Kadyrov has refused outright to meet with the Human Rights Council if Igor Kalyapin is present. According to Novaya Gazeta, the Council has therefore decided not to visit Chechnya. The press officer for the head of Chechnya said that he knew nothing about any ultimatum. Mikhail Fedotov, chairperson of the Human Rights Council, refused to comment. Between 2014 and 2016 there has been a notable rise in harassment suffered by human rights activists attempting to defend the rights of residents of Chechnya. The Grozny headquarters of the Joint Mobile Group of human rights defenders were set on fire, activists were attacked and beaten up on the border with Ingushetia, their bus was set on fire, armed men broke into their office in Ingushetia, and Igor Kalyapin himself was attacked in the very centre of Grozny. However, none of the afore-mentioned attacks has been properly investigated and the perpetrators have not been brought to justice. Translated by Suzanne Eade Roberts |
Fundraising evening in support of political prisoners held in Moscow
 Source: HRO.org By Vera Vasilieva On May 28th 2016, a fundraising evening was held at the Andrei Sakharov Museum and Community Centre in support of political prisoners.  Writer and comedian Viktor Shenderovich performed as well as singer-songwriters Vladimir Turiyansky and Evgeniya Lantsberg. In addition civil activists, lawyers and former political prisoners spoke about those currently in need of aid. Guests had the opportunity to make donations for those incarcerated as well as write cards to show their support. The evening host and co-organiser Sergei Davidis, who is a member of the board of Memorial Human Rights Centre and of Solidarnost, explained that funds are needed to cover legal costs, family visits, and additionally support prisoners' families left without breadwinners.  Memorial Human Rights Centre recently published an updated list containing the names of 87 political prisoner. Since the publication of the previous list on 30th October 2015 eight political prisoners were released. During the same period 45 new people were added to the list. The event organisers made efforts to draw attention to those less known to the general public. In particular Sergei Davidis spoke about activist and blogger from Tomsk Vadim Tiumentsev, who was sentenced to five years at a low-security penal colony for “inciting extremism over the Internet” and “inciting hatred and hostility”. In a video message in January 2015 Tyumentsev encouraged locals to attend a rally that did not have official permission in protest against the rising prices for minibus taxis, their diminishing safety and corruption among local government officials.  Sergei Davidis stressed that the lesser-known individuals are “also in need of support”. A representative of Agora Human Rights Association, Olga Dinze, spoke about the so-called ZOV case and her defendant, RBK journalist Aleksandr Sokolov. According to Dinze, Sokolov was investigating corruption during the construction of the Vostochny rocket launch site. His PhD thesis on “The impact of rent-seeking behaviour on the investment of Russian state corporations” contains criticisms of the ruling elite. The initiative group ZOV is also accused of extremism due to its calls for a referendum for “An accountable government”. There has as yet been no judgment in the case. A member of the band Pussy Riot, former political prisoner and co-founder of the projects Mediazona and Zona Prava, Maria Alekhina spoke about what each individual can do to help. “There is a lack of simple actions. People can attend court hearings and write about them. Live reactions during court hearings and detailed factual accounts are important,” Alekhina stressed. These are the goals of the project Mediazona. According to its founders it “reports on reality in Russia and follows the developments in society.” Meanwhile the project Zona Prava is providing legal support and advice to prisoners and defendants.  Another former Bolotnaya Square case defendant and coordinator of Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s Open Russia (Otkrytaya Rossiya) Maria Baronova talked about the financial aid for political prisoners provided by this organization. On this occasion the organisers of the event, apart from directly collecting cash donations, employed other ways of fundraising for political prisoners. Viktor Shenderovich and journalist Viktoria Ivleva donated their books for the cause with all proceeds going into the main donations box. Viktor Shenderovich chose his books “My friend Ali, offspring of Mohammed” and “Reptilion” for this occasion. Viktoria Ivleva’s book “Mandryvka or A Facebook Worm Travels Round Ukraine” documents through photos and Facebook comments her journeys through Ukraine in 2014. In addition, Victor Shenderovich acted as auctioneer for a painting by a Petropavlosk-Kamchatka based artist Denis Lopatin, who made the trip especially for the occasion. The painting featured a portrait of Sergei Syrtsov who is the hero of Shenderovich’s book titled “Solo on the Flute”. The painting, initially valued at 5,000 roubles, was sold for 16,000 roubles, again with all proceeds going towards political prisoners’ needs. Lastly, Vladimir Turiyansky and Evgeniya Lantsberg received a wealth of applause for their songs accompanied on guitar. The event raised a total of 158,850 roubles and $300. According to the organisers, those who could not attend the event can provide support for Russian political prisoners at any time by donating to the Union of Solidarity with Political Prisoners via the Yandex Wallet number 410011205892134. To see more photos, click HERE |
1-10 of 1992
