Doc. 8426

24 May 1999

Honouring of obligations and commitments by Latvia

Information report

Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)

Co-rapporteurs: Mr Terry Davis, United Kingdom, Socialist Group, and

Mr Gunnar Jansson, Finland, Liberal, Democratic and Reformers' Group

Summary

During their three fact-finding visits in 1998, the rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee, MM. Davis and Jansson, noted that Latvia has complied with many of the commitments which it accepted when it joined the Council of Europe on 10 February 1995. However, Latvia has not yet honoured one major commitment: to integrate its non-citizen population. Of course, significant steps have recently been taken in this field, particularly the amendments to the law on citizenship, as approved in the referendum of 3 October 1998, intended to bring the "age windows" system to an end and automatically grant Latvian citizenship to stateless children born in Latvia after 21 August 1991. The Saeima should be warmly congratulated for approving on 15 April 1999 the ratification of Protocol 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for abolition of the death penalty. Protocol 6 was officially ratified on 7 May 1999.

Where the integration of the non-citizen population into Latvian society is concerned, it is perfectly understandable and legitimate that the Latvian authorities are trying to promote the national language and culture. Nevertheless they should avoid measures, such as the imposition of the state language in the private sphere and the proposed amendments to the Labour Law Code, which may infringe the human rights of minorities.

Co-operation with international organisations in this field, particularly with the Council of Europe experts, is essential and should be further increased, particularly in respect of the language test and the test of history and other knowledge.

Whilst the Latvian Government should be congratulated for having set up a Latvian Language Training State Programme, and for preparing a Social Integration Programme, it is clear that it should also give more encouragement to non-citizens to take the language tests, by, for instance, running media campaigns. It should also make it easier for them to learn the Latvian language, in co-operation with the UNDP and the European Union.

The rapporteurs also expect the Latvian authorities to enhance their efforts to remove remaining discriminations in the fields of employment and local elections and to further improve relations between the Department of Citizenship and Migration Affairs and the non-citizens.

It is also vital for the non-citizens to make an effort to become full citizens in the country where they are resident. Now that the amendments to the law on citizenship have been approved in a referendum, practically all non-citizens resident in Latvia are entitled to apply for naturalisation, and the rapporteurs strongly encourage them to take advantage of this opportunity. Only in this way will they be able to play an active part in the country's political, economic, social and cultural life.

Finally, the rapporteurs appeal to the Latvian authorities to enter into a constructive dialogue with the non-citizens on the most controversial subjects, such as citizenship and language.

CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION        4

II.  THE POLITICAL CONTEXT       4

III. LATVIA'S COMMITMENTS VIS-A-VIS THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE       7

IV.       DEATH PENALTY       8

V.       TREATMENT OF NON-CITIZENS       8

VI.       CONCLUSIONS.       15

Appendix I:        Opinion No. 183 (1995)       17

Appendix II:       Programme of the visit on 29 April – 1 May 1998       20

Appendix III:        Programme of the visit on 15-18 June 1998       22

Appendix IV:        Programme of the visit on 1-4 October 1998 (elections)       24

Appendix V:       Comments by the Latvian authorities       26

Appendix VI:       Comment by Mr Sinka       43

Appendix VII:       Questions for the Written Examination (Test)       45

I.       Introduction

1. Latvia joined the Council of Europe on 10 February 1995, following the adoption by the Assembly of Opinion No. 183 (1995) on the application by Latvia for membership of the Council of Europe. The opinion is contained in Appendix 1.

2. The monitoring procedure for Latvia began on 26 September 1997, that is some two-and-a-half years after its accession.

3. The purpose of this information report is to take stock of the commitments entered into by Latvia, as listed in Opinion No. 183. It does not cover all the country's obligations as a member state of the Council of Europe. These obligations will be the subject of a subsequent report.

4. It is based on information collected by the rapporteurs, particularly during our three visits to Riga, from 29 April to 1 May, from 15 to 18 June and from 1 to 4 October 1998 (the programmes are in Appendices II, III and IV), and on the comments provided by the Latvian authorities on 2 March 1999 (see Appendix V) and by Mr Sinka on 19 May 1999 (Appendix VI). As rapporteurs, we should like to thank the Latvian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly for its hospitality and co-operation.

5. Our first two visits took place in an atmosphere of growing tension between the Latvian authorities and the non-citizen residents (one third of the Latvian population), who allege that they suffer from discrimination. During the third visit, we were part of the Ad hoc committee of the Assembly to observe the parliamentary elections and the referendum on the law on citizenship on 3 October 1998.

6. In this preliminary draft report, we shall consider, in turn:

II.       The political context

7. After the USSR disintegrated, some of the countries having thus recovered their independence, like Lithuania, automatically granted nationality to all who were lawfully resident. Others, such as Latvia, reconfirmed legal continuity of citizenship of the pre-occupation republic, but introduced naturalisation procedures for anyone who had settled on their territories after they were occupied and forcibly incorporated into the USSR in 1940.

8. In 1994, as was noted in Mr Espersen's report on the application by Latvia for membership of the Council of Europe (Doc. 7169 of 6 October 1994), "Latvia's population today is approximately 2,6 million, compared with 1,9 million in 1935. Following fifty years' incorporation into the Soviet Union, controversy focuses on the shift during this period in the proportion of ethnic Latvians to residents from different ethnic backgrounds. The former were 77% of the population in 1935. They are under 54% today. In Latvia's eight largest towns their proportion is lower."

9. Population movements have resulted in far-reaching changes to Latvia's demographic structure, as the table below shows:1

 

1935

1989

1995

Latvians

75.5%

52%

54.8%

Russians

10.6%

34%

32.8%

Other

13.6%

14%

12.4%

10. Most of the population of non-Latvian stock residing in Latvia are not regarded as citizens. Both population groups feel that they are victims of the debate on citizenship and language, in so far as the non-citizens believe that they are unfairly discriminated against, while the Latvians rightfully aim at preserving their specific cultural identity.

11. This situation has led to growing deterioration in relations between Riga and Moscow, especially in the spring of 1998, after a series of disturbing events in Riga: on 3 March, the Latvian police were alleged to have used force to disperse a demonstration by mainly Russian-speaking pensioners; on 16 March there was a parade by veterans of the Latvian Waffen SS Legion in which officials participated; and two explosions occurred - one near the Riga synagogue on 2 April and the other near the Russian Embassy on 6 April.

12. On the occasion of our visit to Riga from 29 April to 1 May 1998, and from our discussions with the parties concerned, we reached the conclusion that the international reports of these events had been exaggerated out of all proportion. We also concluded that the Latvian authorities had reacted appropriately: taking disciplinary action against two police officers who had assaulted pensioners on 3 March and forcing the resignation of the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, who had participated in the parade on 16 March.

13. In our view, the boycott of Latvian products initiated at the time by a number of regional leaders from Russia did not seem to be an appropriate reaction to the events in Riga, and it did not make any contribution whatsoever to a harmonious integration of non-citizens into Latvian society.

14. At the political level, one significant party, Saimnieks (Democratic Party), left the government coalition on 8 April 1998, accusing the Prime Minister of doing nothing to improve the deteriorating relations with Russia. A new government was formed with support from the other coalition partners: the "For Fatherland and Freedom" party of the Prime Minister (Mr Krasts), the Latvia's Way party, the Farmers' Union and the Christian Democrats. Altogether these parties held 45 seats of the 100 in the Saeima (parliament). A vote of confidence in the Saeima on 30 April was won by the government by 58 to 37 votes.

15. All these developments were to be viewed in the light of the forthcoming legislative elections, scheduled for 3 October 1998, during which nationality and language issues played a key part.

16. These elections and the referendum on the law on citizenship held the same day were observed by an Ad hoc committee set up by the Bureau. Its report was presented to the Standing Committee on 4 November 1998. The elections were considered as free, fair and democratic.

17. The results of the elections were as follows:

(1)        Changed into the Union “For Fatherland and Freedom/LNNK” for the 1998 elections.

(2)        Political parties which did not exist in 1995.

18. In a referendum held on the same day, 53% of the Latvian voters approved the law on citizenship as amended by the Saeima on 22 June 1998.

19. On 4 October, the Chairman of the Ad hoc committee, Mr Elo, declared in Riga:

“We have received some complaints about bias in the media and some complaints about provisions in the electoral law which prevented some candidates from taking part in the elections. However, we consider the electoral process as free, fair and democratic. It is to be hoped that the election results will enable Latvia to make further progress on the road to democracy and economic stability. As for the referendum, we found some evidence of confusion about the question. Its outcome reflects nevertheless the will of the Latvian people to achieve full integration of all persons residing in Latvia and to pave the way for the country’s admission to European institutions”.

20. On 26 November 1998, the Saeima approved by 59 votes to 24 the minority coalition government of Prime Minister Vilis Kristopans. The governing coalition holds 46 seats in the 100-seat parliament, and brings together three parties: Latvia's Way, Fatherland and Freedom Union and the New Party. A few weeks later, an agreement was reached among the governing coalition parties to appoint a member of the Association of Latvian Social Democrats as Minister of Agriculture.

III.       Latvia's commitments vis-ŕ-vis the Council of Europe

21. When it joined the Council of Europe on 10 February 1995, Latvia entered into a number of commitments, which appear in Assembly Opinion No 183 (1995) - see Appendix I.

a)       Commitments which have been honoured

- European Convention on Human Rights and Protocols Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 11: ratified on 27 June 1997, as well as Protocols Nos. 3, 5 and 8; Protocol 6 was ratified on 7 May 1999;

- European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment: ratified on 10 February 1998;

-       European Convention on Extradition: ratified on 2 May 1997;

-       European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters: ratified on 2 June 1997;

-       Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons: ratified on 2 May 1997;

-       General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities and its additional protocol: ratified on 15 January 1998;

-       Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime: ratified on 11 December 1998;

-       settlement of international disputes by peaceful means;

-       co-operation in the implementation of the procedure for monitoring of the honouring of obligations and commitments.Tribute should be paid here to the members of the Latvian parliamentary delegation, particularly its Chairman, Mr Sinka, for the spirit of co-operation they have shown in the context of the monitoring procedure in relation to Latvia.

b)       Commitments which have not yet been honoured in full

-       European Social Charter: signed on 25 May 1997, but not yet ratified;

-       Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities signed on 11 May 1995, but not yet ratified;

-       the treatment of "non-citizens" (paragraph 7 of Opinion N°183) – see Section V.

IV.       Death penalty

22. When Latvia joined the Council of Europe, it undertook to ratify Protocol No. 6 to the ECHR, the aim of which is the abolition of the death penalty. Although President Ulmanis declared a moratorium in September 1996, the Saeima rejected in a vote on 11 May 1998 the removal of the death penalty from Section 36 of the Latvian Criminal Code by 27 votes to 20 (with 17 abstentions). In response, the President sent the question back to the Saeima, which referred it to the appropriate committees on 28 May. Another vote was taken on 17 June and the Saeima again rejected the President's proposal that the death penalty should be removed from the Criminal Code, this time by 35 votes to 28 (with 6 abstentions). Nevertheless, the Latvian government signed Protocol N°6 on 26 June 1998 and this signature in itself entails a legal commitment, in accordance with the Vienna Convention, not to carry out executions. On 15 April 1999, the new Saeima finally voted in favour of the ratification of Protocol 6 by 64 votes to 15 (with 5 abstentions), for which it should be warmly congratulated. Protocol 6 was officially ratified on 7 May 1999.

V.       Treatment of non-citizens

a)       Naturalisation

23. In pursuance of the law on citizenship of 22 July 1994, only persons able to prove that they themselves or their ancestors were Latvian citizens prior to 1940 could claim automatic citizenship. Approximately 200 000 of the 900 000 non-citizens resident in Latvia were in that situation. The remainder were required to follow the naturalisation procedure.

24. According to information received from the Latvian Naturalisation Board, only 10 309 (6 760 women and 3 549 men) of these 700 000 members of the non-citizen population had applied for naturalisation between 1995 (when the naturalisation process was set up) and 31 May 1998. There were 2 856 applications in 1995, 2 572 in 1996, 3 075 in 1997 and 1806 from January to May 1998. By the end of 1998, 11 576 persons had been granted citizenship.

25. These low figures can be explained by several factors.

26. First, until the amendments to the law on citizenship approved in the 3 October 1998 referendum came into force, the naturalisation procedure in Latvia was based on a system of "age windows", enabling certain age groups (according also to their place of birth) to apply for naturalisation each year. Only 152 000 people were therefore entitled to apply as at mid-1998.

27. However, it is a fact that only some 10 000 of these 152 000 people had applied for naturalisation. Several reasons have been advanced for the failure to apply:

-       many non-citizens do not have sufficient command of the Latvian language and are afraid of failing the language test;

-       the introduction of non-citizens' passports in April 1997 gives sufficient rights to non-citizens, particularly where travel is concerned, without any need for them to go through the naturalisation process;

-       some non-citizens are either unwilling or unable to pay the necessary fees;

-       some young people do not wish to acquire Latvian nationality because it would place them under an obligation to perform military service;

-       some children of parents who are not Latvian citizens do not wish to acquire a nationality which their parents cannot enjoy;

-       many non-citizens feel humiliated by the need to go through the naturalisation procedure. They voted for Latvian independence in 1991 and consider that they should be automatically entitled to become Latvian citizens.

28. A Baltic Data House survey of the population resident in Latvia, conducted between November 1997 and January 1998, showed that one in five non-citizens did not wish to obtain Latvian citizenship, but most of them stated that they would attempt to obtain it if the naturalisation procedure were simplified (removal of the "age-windows").

29. Since the "age windows" were seen as the main obstacle to non-citizens acquiring citizenship (locking the door to citizenship as far as most non-citizens are concerned), the attention of the international community has focussed on this aspect of the naturalisation procedure.

30. Thanks to constructive consideration of the results of the above-mentioned survey and international co-operation, particularly by Mr Max van der Stoel (OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities) and Mr Ole Espersen (Council of the Baltic Sea States Commissioner on Democratic Institutions and Human Rights), the Saeima voted to abolish the "age windows" system at an extraordinary session on 22 June 1998. At the same time, the Saeima decided:

-       to grant Latvian citizenship to stateless children born in Latvia since 21 August 1991 (the date on which independence was proclaimed) with the application for naturalisation being made by either the parents or the child on reaching the age of 15 years;

-       to simplify the language tests for persons aged over 65 years.

31. Although this attempt to frustrate the amendments was unsuccessful, being rejected by 53% of the voters at the 3 October referendum, it must not be overlooked that these amendments only make it possible for practically all non-citizens to obtain naturalisation in theory. There are other formalities to be accomplished, namely the tests of language, history and other knowledge.

b)       The tests

32. The 1994 law on citizenship provides for all applicants for naturalisation to pass a language test and a test of history and other knowledge, encompassing the national anthem, the basic principles of the constitution and the rights and obligations of individuals and citizens.

33. By 31 August 1998, some 6000 non-citizens had taken these tests (approximately 4000 had obtained naturalisation without having to take the tests, for a variety of reasons). The pass rate was 95% for the language examination and 93% for the history and other knowledge test, and even between 97 and 99% in March 1999.

34. At first sight, these statistics are very impressive, but it must be remembered:

- that the "age windows" system has meant that most people taking the test are young people who are likely to be less hesitant than older people about taking examinations;

-       that the people taking the tests are self-selected in the sense that the tests are only taken by people who are fairly confident of passing them.

35. Over the last three years, the Latvian Naturalisation Board has worked in close co-operation with Council of Europe experts within the framework of the Joint Programme between the European Commission and Council of Europe for assistance with the integration of populations of foreign origin in Estonia and Latvia. As a result of this programme, a professional system for developing and administering impartial and reliable language tests for citizenship purposes has been established, with considerable importance being attached to promoting a realistic and meaningful level for the examinations and to providing training for test developers and examiners. Specific results include a handbook for candidates outlining the structure of the test and sample questions, a syllabus, a matrix for examinations and a revised and easier test (Model 3), which conforms more fully to international standards than the existing model. It is hoped that this model can soon be implemented in the light of amendments to Article 20 of the Law on Citizenship which prescribes the test format.

36. This co-operation also applies to the test of history and other knowledge for citizenship purposes. To encourage easier access to naturalisation in Latvia, Council of Europe experts have suggested many technical changes to the test of history and other knowledge. This has resulted in the Latvian Naturalisation Board agreeing in 1997 to reduce the number of questions from 300 to 150. We understand that a further reduction in the number of questions to 93 (see Appendix VII) was recently decided by the Latvian Naturalisation Board and we congratulate its Head, Ms Aldermane, on her endeavours. Her co-operation with Council of Europe experts between October 1996 and October 1998 resulted in the following improvements:

- test items are now published so that potential applicants can see precisely what will be required of them;

- the Latvian authorities now intend to produce a bilingual version of the written test (in Latvian and in Russian) in an attractive and user-friendly format. The Council of Europe should contribute to the funding;

- reduction of the test items from 300 to 93;

- reduction in the number of pre-20th century history questions.

Furthermore, the government adopted new testing procedures for persons over 65 and a special test format for physically disabled persons.

37. Nevertheless, the Council of Europe experts still suggest further possible refinement of the test and reduction in the number of possible questions.

38. The rapporteurs pay tribute to the Latvian authorities for their endeavours to improve integration of the non-citizens.

They welcome and encourage such initiatives as:

- the reduction of the naturalisation fee for several groups of applicants;

- the establishment of an Information Centre dealing with questions concerning naturalisation under the auspices of the Latvian Naturalisation Board;

- the implementation of the National Programme for Latvian Language Training (in 1996-1998 more than 11 000 persons benefitted from it);

- the preparation of a Social Integration Programme which, after a public hearing phase, should be adopted by the Saeima by the end of 1999.

39. All these efforts resulted in a sharp increase of applications for naturalisation. In the two months following the entry into force of the amendments to the law on citizenship (10 November 1998), more applications were received than in the whole first half of 1998. This trend puts heavy strain on the Latvian Naturalisation Board, whose staff and funding had to be increased by the government.

40. Nevertheless, non-citizens in Riga made it clear to us that the history and other knowledge test is widely regarded as a considerable obstacle by many potential candidates for naturalisation, and in our opinion the reduction in the number of questions has not gone far enough.

c)       Law on the State Language

41. The draft bill was given a second reading by the Saeima on 29 April 1998. A third reading took place on 28 September and 8 October, but it was finally referred back to the Education Committee, mainly because of inconsistencies with the draft law on Education which had been given a second reading on 7 October. At present, the new draft law on the State Language is being considered by the Saeima, and there are still two readings for this law to be adopted. One of the most controversial provisions in the bill relates to the obligation for private bodies and enterprises to conduct their activities in the state language (Latvian).

42. A Council of Europe group of experts visited Riga on 24 and 25 March 1998, in order to consider, jointly with representatives of the Saeima and the government, the bill on the state language.

43. The experts drew the conclusion that the legitimate interest of Latvia in protecting and promoting the Latvian language ought to be fully recognised. They drew attention to continued international support for Latvia in its efforts, and to the advisability of the adoption of a general strategy in the language sphere of which legislation was an essential component.

44. Hence the experts' conclusions relate not to the objectives, but more to the legislative steps taken with a view to achieving them. Their main conclusions are:

45. The experts recommended two approaches in order to overcome the main difficulties:

46. They also recommended that:

c.       a preamble and explanatory memorandum should be included.

47. We raised the question of the law on the state language with the former Prime Minister, Mr Krasts. He himself took the view that it was absurd to impose the use of Latvian in the private sector. In his opinion, such a measure would impose an excessive burden of interpretation and translation costs on private enterprises and would deter foreign investment.

48. A second reading was given to the first draft bill on the state language by the Saeima on 29 April 1998. Although a number of members opposed it, parliament had approved Section 13 (2) of the bill, under which at least half of all subjects are to be taught in the state language at general secondary schools providing education in another language. This provision is worrying in that, if it is passed, half of school subjects must be taught in Latvian at all state-funded secondary schools, including those where the teaching is in Russian. As several heads of Russian-speaking schools emphasised to us, this would create an absurd situation in which these subjects will be taught by teachers who do not speak Latvian very well to pupils who understand it even less well. That is why the Council of Europe has offered to assist the Latvian authorities in setting up a policy monitoring mechanism so that they can clearly see the difficulties with certain education policies and their impact.

49. The teachers at Russian-speaking schools were also very worried about implementation of Decree No. 175 (18 December 1996) of the Ministry of Education and Science, under which any teachers not obtaining the third (highest) level certificate of knowledge of Latvian were to be dismissed from 1 September 1998. 88 teachers were indeed dismissed in January 1999, but they were offered language courses free of charge whilst also enjoying unemployment benefits. It is to be hoped that this will enable them to return to their positions in the near future.

50. In addition, the Russian teachers complained about the lack of sufficient material and financial opportunities to learn Latvian, as well as about the way in which the checks by the Ministry of Education and Science inspectors are conducted.

51. While it seems obvious that citizens of Latvia should be able to communicate in the state language, we do not agree that the teaching provided in Russian schools should be excessively disrupted.

d)       Amendments to the Labour Law Code

52. On 5 February 1998, the Saeima passed an amendment to Section 38 of the Latvian Labour Law Code. Under this amendment, the State Language Inspectorate will be empowered to oblige employers to terminate the employment contracts of staff who do not satisfy the linguistic requirements for which Latvian law provides.

53. This provision was deemed unacceptable by the Council of Europe experts who visited Riga on 24 and 25 March 1998. It should also be noted that the penalties for which the amendments provide may, especially in the private sector, conflict with international legal standards in respect of human rights, particularly the free enjoyment of property and the prohibition of discrimination based on language.

54. The Council of Europe experts recommended that the examination of the new penalties currently proposed for the Labour Law Code should be suspended.

55. Following interventions by Mr Tarschys (Secretary General of the Council of Europe), Mr Van der Stoel (OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities) and Mr Espersen (Council of the Baltic Sea States Commissioner on Democratic Institutions and Human Rights), the President of Latvia refused to promulgate the amendment, which he sent back to the Saeima.

56. On 15 June 1998, the Minister for the Interior published a decree under which the Ministry's staff will have their skills appraised, an appraisal relating particularly to their knowledge of Latvian. Those whose knowledge is deemed insufficient may be dismissed.

57. Where restrictions to the practice of a number of occupations are concerned, it may be noted that some progress has been made, particularly thanks to the efforts of Mr Brüvers, (Director of the Latvian Human Rights Office). Restrictions have now been lifted in respect of pharmacists, fire fighters and pilots.

58. Nevertheless, non-citizens are not allowed to practise liberal professions, such as that of lawyer, so that some non-citizens who were previously qualified lawyers are now employed in manual work.

59. In its report on Latvia dated 13 March 1999, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) rightly considers that these restrictions in employment are unjustified and that they should be abolished.

e)       Political rights

60. Unlike some other Baltic countries and some other member states of the Council of Europe, non-citizens resident in Latvia do not have the right to take part in local elections. The next municipal elections are scheduled for the year 2001. In the above-mentioned report, ECRI considers that such restrictions appear to have an unjustifiable discriminatory character. In our view, the Latvian authorities should consider granting the non-citizen population the right to take part in local political life without further delay.

f)       Education law

61. In an update document of 17 November 1998, the rapporteurs noted that "on 29 October 1998, the outgoing Saeima adopted by 64 votes to 4 a new Education law which provides that Latvian will become the sole language of instruction in public schools. Its implementation will be phased in over the next decade, but some class levels will switch to Latvian-only instruction as early as 2004. Russian will be allowed as the language of instruction in private schools and some special education institutions."

62. In its comments, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicates: "The Draft Report incorrectly states that in accordance with the new Law Latvian will become the sole language of instruction in public schools. In reality minority education will be continued at state or municipal education institutions which implement minority education programmes. Minority education will be available at public schools up to and including 9th grade. Private secondary schools of minorities are not affected by this provision and can provide full secondary education. Currently state or municipalities finance more than 200 schools where representatives of eight minorities can promote their identity."

63. Now, in his comments, Mr B. Civeličs, MP, Party Association "For Human Rights in a United Latvia", states: "Minority education problems cause most serious concerns and dissatisfaction in the minority communities. The Education law adopted in October 1998 contains no clear guarantees of the state's and municipalities' financial support for schools with minority language of instruction. The concept of reform of the Russian-language schools elaborated by the Ministry of Education and approved by the government envisages gradual elimination of the state and municipally financed education in minority languages. This clearly contradicts the spirit of Art. 14, para. 2 of the Framework Convention."

64. This is rather confusing and the rapporteurs would very much appreciate receiving the necessary clarifications.

g)       Radio and television law

65. On 29 October 1998, the outgoing Saeima adopted in third reading amendments to the Radio and television law, which provide that all films to be shown on television must be dubbed into the state language (Latvian) or have Latvian subtitles. The new law also stipulates that the amount of broadcasting time in foreign languages may not exceed 25% of the total broadcasting time, instead of 30% as previously.

h)       Non-citizens' passports

66. The Latvian Department of Citizenship and Migration Affairs has been issuing non-citizens' passports since 10 April 1997 and non-citizens must exchange their old Soviet passports for Latvian non-citizens' passports by 1 January 2000.

67. By the end of February 1999, the Latvian Department of Citizenship and Migration Affairs had issued 370 555 non-citizens' passports, representing about 60% of non-citizens eligible to acquire the document.

68. The Russian Federation recognised these non-citizens' passports in September 1997. However there is a difference. Non-citizens, unlike Latvian citizens, may go to Russia without a visa, they only need a permit which is valid for one year and have to pay a fee for it. It has therefore been suggested that this difference may be one of the factors explaining the low level of demand for Latvian citizenship. The Russian authorities could help with the harmonious integration of non-citizens into Latvian society, by giving the same treatment to citizens and non-citizens of Latvia in respect of entry to Russia.

69. Many non-citizens complained to us about the way they were treated by the Department of Citizenship and Migration Affairs (DCMA). According to the Head of the Department, Mr Zitars, whom we met in June 1998, the situation was improving. Nevertheless, in its March 1999 report, ECRI states that "there is evidence that some officials are still acting improperly and that, for example, residents are unjustifiably refused registration, courts decrees overturning negative DCMA decisions are not being followed, unnecessary documentation is requested and letters and enquiries are not answered. It is therefore highly desirable that proper training be given to DCMA staff members, that control mechanisms be established and adequate disciplinary action be taken as might be necessary. A simple complaint procedure whereby victims of improper behaviour on the side of officials can have their claims promptly dealt with could also be established".

VI.       Conclusions

70. It should be noted that Latvia has complied with many of the commitments which it accepted when it joined the Council of Europe. However, Latvia has not yet honoured one major commitment: to integrate its non-citizen population. Of course, significant steps have recently been taken in this field, particularly the amendments to the law on citizenship, as approved in the referendum of 3 October 1998, intended to bring the "age windows" system to an end and automatically grant Latvian citizenship to stateless children born in Latvia after 21 August 1991. The Saeima should be warmly congratulated for approving on 15 April 1999 the ratification of Protocol 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for abolition of the death penalty. Protocol 6 was officially ratified on 7 May 1999.

71. Where the integration of the non-citizen population into Latvian society is concerned, it is perfectly understandable and legitimate that the Latvian authorities are trying to promote the national language and culture. Nevertheless they should avoid measures, such as the imposition of the state language in the private sphere and the proposed amendments to the Labour Law Code, which may infringe the human rights of minorities.

72. Co-operation with international organisations in this field, particularly with the Council of Europe experts, is essential and should be further increased, particularly in respect of the language test (implementation of the new Model 3 developed in co-operation between Council of Europe experts and the Latvian authorities) and the test of history and other knowledge.

73. Whilst the Latvian Government should be congratulated for having set up a Latvian Language Training State Programme, and for preparing a Social Integration Programme, it is clear that it should also give more encouragement to non-citizens to take the language tests, by, for instance, running media campaigns. It should also make it easier for them to learn the Latvian language, in co-operation with the UNDP and the European Union.

74. We also expect the Latvian authorities to enhance their efforts to remove remaining discriminations in the fields of employment and local elections and to further improve relations between the Department of Citizenship and Migration Affairs and the non-citizens.

75. It is also vital for the non-citizens to make an effort to become full citizens in the country where they are resident. Now that the amendments to the law on citizenship have been approved in a referendum, practically all non-citizens resident in Latvia will be entitled to apply for naturalisation, and we strongly encourage them to take advantage of this opportunity. Only in this way will they be able to play an active part in the country's political, economic, social and cultural life.

76. Finally, we appeal to the Latvian authorities to enter into a constructive dialogue with the non-citizens on the most controversial subjects, such as citizenship and language.

Appendix I

PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

1995 SESSION

OPINION No. 183 (1995)2

on the application by Latvia for membership of the Council of Europe

1.       Latvia applied to join the Council of Europe on 13 September 1991. The Committee of Ministers asked the Parliamentary Assembly to give an opinion, in accordance with Statutory Resolution (51) 30 A.

2.       With the Declaration of Independence of 21 August 1991 and the reinstatement of the 1922 Constitution, a framework for parliamentary democracy in Latvia was re-established.

3.       Procedure in the Assembly was initiated by the Bureau’s decision to commission a report on conformity of Latvia’s legislation with general principles of the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights.

4.       Following visits by the rapporteurs of the three committees concerned (21-24 April, 10-12 June and 20-21 December 1992) and observation of the parliamentary elections on 5 and 6 June 1993, it was agreed that there remained outstanding the question of a law on citizenship and the definition by law of the rights and status of “non-citizens”.

5.       Through the law on citizenship adopted by the Saeima (Latvian Parliament) on 22 July 1994, a major pre-condition for accession to the Council of Europe was fulfilled. Such was the conclusion of the rapporteurs following meetings in Riga from 3 to 5 August 1994. The law was approved by the President of the Republic of Latvia on 8 August 1994.

6.       A commitment has now been made by the Latvian Government (exchange of letters with the Secretary General, September 1994) “... to continue its consultations and co-operation with the Council of Europe” in implementing the law on citizenship and in drawing up a law on the rights and status of “non-citizens”: all laws and regulations, including notably those on the use of languages, must be applied without unacceptable pressures on individuals or unduly prolonged procedures.

7.       The Assembly considers that this commitment also means that the relevant laws and regulations should very soon enter into force and will be in line with generally accepted principles of the Council of Europe – notably as set forth in Protocols Nos. 4 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in the European Convention on Establishment. In particular, it means that there must be no arbitrary and unjustified discrimination between citizens and “non-citizens”. Decisions of an allegedly discriminatory character – whether taken under national, regional or municipal authority – must be subject to procedures of appeal and review.

8.       The Assembly welcomes the setting-up of a special parliamentary committee within the Saeima for monitoring application of the law on citizenship. It welcomes the planned establishment of a council – independent of the government – for monitoring the observance of human rights, as an outcome of Latvia’s national human rights programme.

9.       On the basis of:

i.       Latvia’s participation in various Council of Europe programmes;

ii.       Latvia’s co-operation under several conventions and partial agreements; and

iii.       the participation of a “special guest” delegation from the Latvian Parliament in its proceedings since 18 September 1991,

the Assembly considers that Latvia, in the sense of Article 4 of the Statute, is able and willing to fulfil the provisions for membership of the Council of Europe as set forth in Article 3: “Every member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realisation of the aim of the Council.”

10.       Accordingly, the Parliamentary Assembly, on the understanding that Latvia shares its interpretation of commitments entered into, as spelt out in paragraphs 6 to 8 above, and now intends:

a.       to sign the European Convention on Human Rights at the moment of accession;

b.       to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights and Protocols Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 11 within a period which, by the terms of Assembly Resolution 1031 (1994), should not normally exceed one year from the time of accession;

c.       to recognise, pending the entry into force of Protocol No. 11, the right of individual application to the European Commission and the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court (Articles 25 and 46 of the Convention);

d.       to sign and ratify the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment;

e.       to study, with a view to ratification, the Council of Europe’s Social Charter and to conduct a policy along the principles set forth in this Charter and in Assembly Recommendation 1201 (1993) on the question of an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights on the rights of national minorities;

f.       to study, with a view to ratification, and to apply the central principles of other Council of Europe conventions – notably those on extradition, on mutual assistance in criminal matters, on the transfer of sentenced persons, and on laundering, search, seizure and confiscation of proceeds from crime;

g.       to sign and ratify the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities (and its additional protocol);

h.       to seek to settle international disputes by peaceful means, as an obligation incumbent on all member states of the Council of Europe;

i.       to co-operate in the implementation of Assembly Order No. 488 (1993) on the honouring of commitments entered into at the time of accession to the Council of Europe on issues related to the Organisation’s basic principles,

Recommends that the Committee of Ministers:

i.       invite Latvia to become a member of the Council of Europe;

ii.       allocate three seats to Latvia in the Parliamentary Assembly.

Appendix II

Programme of the fact-finding visit of the Rapporteurs

of the Monitoring Committee to Riga

(29 April – 1 May 1998)

Wednesday 29 April 1998

3 pm       Meeting with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr V. Birkavs

4 pm       Meeting with the Chairperson of the Saeima Social and Employment Matters Committee, Mrs L. Kuprijanova, and Chairman of the Saeima Human Rights and Public Affairs Committee, Mr A. Seiksts, and

5 pm       Meeting with the Latvian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly

6 pm       Meeting with the Head of OSCE Mission to Latvia,       Mr R. Samuel, and

8 pm       Meeting with Mrs T. Zhdanoka, member of the Latvian Human Rights Committee

Thursday 30 April 1998

8 am       Meeting with the Ambassador of the Russian Federation,

9 am       Meeting with representatives of the Russian-speaking community

10.30 am       Meeting with the Chairman of the Saeima, Mr A. Cepanis

11.15 am       Meeting with the UNDP co-ordinator in Latvia, Mr J. Sorensen

11.50 am        Meeting with the Director of the Latvian Human Rights Office,

12.30 pm       Lunch hosted by Mr A. Ameriks, Deputy Chairman of the Saeima

2.00 pm       Meeting with the Prime Minister, Mr G. Krasts

2.50 pm       Meeting with the Minister of Justice, Mr D. Rasnacs, and the Chairperson of the Naturalisation Board, Mrs E. Aldermane

4.00 pm       Meeting with representatives of the Russian-speaking community

5.00 pm       Meeting with the acting Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr T. Jundzis, and Head of the Department of Citizenship and Migration Affairs,

Friday 1 May 1998

Appendix III

Programme of the fact-finding visit of the Rapporteurs

of the Monitoring Committee to Riga

(15 - 18 June 1998)

Monday 15 June 1998

afternoon       Arrival of the delegation

4 pm       Meeting with Head of OSCE mission in Riga, Ambassador R. Samuel

Tuesday 16 June 1998

7.30 am       Meeting with the Director of the Latvian Centre for Human Rights and Ethnic Studies, Mr N. Muiznieks

9.00 am       Meeting with Deputy Head of OSCE Mission, Mr F. Lange, and German, British and Finnish Ambassadors

10.00 am       Meeting with the Chairman of the Saeima, Mr A. Cepanis

11.00 am       Meeting with the Latvian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly

2.00 pm       Meeting with the Saeima Committee on European Affairs and with representatives of political groups

3.00 pm       Meeting with the Chairperson of the Saeima Social and Employment Matters Committee, Mrs L. Kuprijanova

4.00 pm       Meeting with the Chairman of the Saeima Human Rights and Public Affairs Committee, Mr A. Seiksts

5.00 pm       Meeting with the Minister of Education and Science, Mr J. Gaigals

Wednesday 17 June 1998

8.00 am       Meeting with the Ambassador of the Russian Federation,

9.00 am       Meeting with teachers of the Russian-speaking community

11.00 am       Meeting with the Prime Minister, Mr G. Krasts

3.00 pm       Meeting with Mrs T. Zhdanoka, member of the Latvian Human

4.00 pm       Meeting with the Head of the Department of Citizenship and Migration Affairs, Mr I. Zitars

5.00 pm       Meeting with the Minister of Justice, Mr D. Rasnacs, and the Head of the Naturalisation Board, Mrs E. Aldermane

6.00 pm       Meeting with representatives of the Russian-speaking community

Thursday 18 June 1998

8.00 am       Meeting with Mr O. Denisous of the Latvian Socialist Party

9.00 am       Meeting with the Director of the Latvian Human Rights Office,

10.00 am       Meeting with the Director of the Information and Documentation Centre on the Council of Europe, Mr U. Krastins

11.00 am       Visit of the Occupation Museum

11.30 am       Meeting with the press

12.30 pm       Meeting with the Minister of Education and Science, Mr J. Gaigals

1.30 pm       Meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr V. Birkavs

afternoon        Departure of the delegation.

Appendix IV

Programme of the visit to Latvia

of the ad hoc Committee for the Latvian elections (1-4 October 1998)

Thursday 1 October

Arrival of the delegation

5.30 p.m.       Meeting with Ambassadors of Council of Europe member States at the German Embassy

Friday 2 October

9 a.m.       Meeting with the Latvian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly

10 a.m.       Meeting with Mr A. Cimdars, Chair of the Central Election Commission, and other members of the commission

11 a.m.       Meeting with representatives of the political parties

2 p.m.       Participation in a press conference given by Mr A. Cimdars, Chair of the Central Election Commission

3 p.m.       Meeting with media representatives

4 p.m.       Meeting with Ms T. Zhdanoka (Latvian Human Rights Committee) and Ms Z. Zvaigzne (Information and Documentation Centre on the Council of Europe)

7 p.m.       Reception hosted by the Central Election Commission

Saturday 3 October

Monitoring of the elections and the count

- Riga and Jurmala:       MM. Elo, Davis, Obuljen and Mrs Pulgar, accompanied by Mr Dufour

- Daugavpils (in the east):        Mrs Fehr, Mr Besostri, Mrs Fleetwood and Mr Mutman, accompanied by Ms Ramanauskaite

- Ventspils (in the west):        Lord Newall, Mr Jansson and Mrs Ojuland, accompanied by Ms Fritsch

Sunday 4 October

8.30 a.m.       Meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee and adoption of a statement on the elections and the referendum

11 a.m.       Press conference

Appendix V

Comments by the Latvian authorities

on the preliminary draft report

[AS/Mon (1998) 35]

To the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations

and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe

(Monitoring Committee)

Preliminary draft information report on Latvia:

Comments by the Latvian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly

1 March 1999

Juris Sinka

Union for Fatherland and Freedom /LNNK, head of the Latvian delegation

Comment by Ms Kristiāna Lībane, MP, member of the Latvian delegation

from the Latvian Way (Liberal) Party, in consultation with

Mrs E. Aldermane, Head of the Naturalisation Board

of the Latvian Republic

1.       Paragraph 5: This is an emotional allegation because the non-citizens' views were expressed by the representatives of organisations and institutions with specific political orientation, the rapporteurs' assertions do not correspond to objectively researched facts (for example, "On the road to a civic society").

2.       Paragraph 7: The conclusion is correct, yet it would have been appropriate to explain the specific situation in Latvia owing to which the "zero option" was not acceptable (as opposed to Lithuania's case). Latvia should not in any way be compared with the CIS states.

3.       Naturalisation

3.1.       Paragraph 21: It is incorrect to use the description "Russian-speakers" since such people account for 90% of the population of Latvia. Moreover, of the 640 000 or so non-citizens some 25% to 30% are also Latvian-speakers.

3.2.       Paragraphs 22-25: On the whole, there cannot be any substantial objections to these.

3.3.       Paragraph 26: An inaccurate interpretation of the research results, since 18% of those questioned did indeed say they did not wish to obtain Latvian citizenship, but at the same time 80% of them admitted they did not want to acquire any citizenship. This research did not mention any simplification of the naturalisation procedure, only the removal of the "age windows", in which case only 9% of those polled did not specifically wish to obtain Latvian citizenship.

3.4.       Paragraph 27: The inference is imprecise and tendentious, since the 1994 Law on Citizenship in force did not prevent anyone from obtaining Latvian citizenship because it specifically stated that every inhabitant in Latvia had the right to apply for citizenship, only in a certain sequence. It would have been unrealistic to grant citizenship to some 730 000 applicants (1994 figures) in one go according to the procedure laid down by law.

3.5.       Paragraph 28: International pressure was by no means the only reason for passing the amendments to the Law on Citizenship. There was a careful investigation of the situation in the country in connection with the naturalisation process and the various aspects of social relationships (re the aforementioned investigation) and the results of this investigation played an equally important role in the taking of the decision (to introduce the amendments), which is testified by the government action when working out the state programme concept "Integration of society in Latvia" and by the work on the programme itself.

3.6.       Paragraph 29: It is incorrect to conclude that the amendments make it possible for the non-citizens to obtain naturalisation in theory only. At the time of writing, since the amendments came into force, the speed of naturalisation has increased fourfold — from 250 applications a month to over 1 000 a month. The language, history and other knowledge tests mentioned in the report are not to be viewed as mere formalities for creating obstacles on the road to naturalisation, but as a means of ensuring for the new citizen opportunities for a successful integration in Latvian society and unrestricted implementation of the rights of citizenship. That an ever increasing number of applicants regard the knowledge tests in exactly such a light is testified by recent polls taken by the Naturalisation Board in which new kinds of answers have appeared, for instance: "I had not realised how interesting Latvian history could be!"

4.       The tests

4.1.       Paragraph 30: Factually correct.

4.2.       Paragraph 31: The indices used in the report are the average for the period since the beginning of the naturalisation process. The Naturalisation Board works — in co-operation with Council of Europe experts — on the improvement of the test procedure; for example, the number of questions to test the knowledge of Latvian history, the basic tenets of the Constitution and the Latvian National Anthem has been reduced from 300 to 93. As a result, the applicants now have a success rate of between 97% and 99% in their tests.

4.3.       Paragraph 32: The conclusion that "the 'age windows' system has meant that most people taking the test are young people who are likely to be less hesitant than older people about taking examinations" is not correct. It ignores the fact that in 1995 Latvian citizenship could be obtained only by people who had the right to become naturalised out of turn and who were not subject to age restrictions. Statistics indicate that during the last four years out of all applicants only 24.5% belong to the 16 to 30 age group and that 43.9% are older than 50.

4.4.       Paragraphs 34 and 35: The conclusions are on the whole correct. Our comment is partly contained in the evaluation of paragraph 31 (see 4.2.). It must be noted, however, that as from 1 January 1999, in the case of test papers for applicants aged 65 and older, only 54 questions have to be answered and in Latvian history they apply only to the twentieth century. The Council of Europe experts, too, agree that the content, assessment and organisation of the Latvian history and constitution knowledge tests for citizenship applicants serve their purpose and that there is no need to introduce any substantial changes. Speaking of the sense of any one test question, it must be stated that both the Euro-parliamentarians and Council of Europe experts sometimes might find it difficult to understand the influence of important facts of Latvian history — contained in the test questions — on the development of the Latvian nation's awareness of history. Surely, the knowledge and understanding of these facts will help foreign nationals to become integrated in Latvian society. It is precisely for this reason that we cannot accept the suggestion that these periods in Latvian history are of little importance. Specific questions dealing with the daily work organisation of the Saeima, although stipulated by our constitution, have been deleted from the tests.

4.5.       Paragraph 36: This conclusion is tendentious. Augmenting our earlier comment, one can say that the knowledge test has proved to be "an insurmountable obstacle" only to 1% to 2% of the applicants, as shown by the statistics of the last few months. Moreover, 90% of these applicants have managed to pass the test at the second attempt. It has to be pointed out that it is the younger applicants, not the older ones, that are more likely to fail. And it is
because of their lackadaisical attitude to the test and not because of the difficulties of the test or poor memory. And so, in 1998 out of the total number of applicants who failed the history test at the Examination Centre, 58% were aged between 16 and 30.

Riga, 28 January 1999

Kristiāna Lībane, MP

15 February 1999

Comments regarding the preliminary draft report on Latvia

Vaira Paegle, MP

Member of the Latvian delegation

from the People's Party

14 February 1999

Comments on the "Preliminary draft information report on Latvia"

by Mr Terry Davis and Mr Gunnar Jansson

by Boriss Cilēvičs, MP,

Party Association "For Human Rights in a United Latvia"

1.       Page 2, paragraph 8: More recent demographic data are available. According to the data of the Citizenship and Immigration Board of Latvia, as from January 1999, ethnic Latvians made up 57.13% of the population, Russians 29.94% and others 12.93% (the data in Latvian can be found on the Internet at http://www.pid.gov.lv/statist/iedznac.htm).

2.       A similar point on demography is relevant for paragraph 55 (page 11): citizens' share in the population of Latvia's major towns is the following: 57.2% in Riga, 63.9% in Daugavpils, 63.5% in Jelgava, 63.8% in Jurmala, 55.3% in Liepaja, 85.5% in Rezekne, 58.4% in Ventspils (the same source, http://www.pid.gov.lv/statist/iedzsk.htm). Thus non-citizens are not in a majority in any of the biggest towns.

3.       Footnote 2 to the table reflecting the results of the 1998 parliamentary elections (page 4) is not completely accurate. In fact, both social democratic parties did exist in 1995; they participated in the 1995 elections to the Saeima in the coalition under the title "Labour and Justice" but failed to overcome the electoral barrier. (The party of the deceived investors "Justice" was the third participant of the coalition in 1995. Later it merged with the Social Democratic Party.).

4.       In my view, the point on complaints about provisions of the electoral law preventing some candidates from running (paragraph 18, page 4) deserves further elaboration. It seems to me that claims about the discriminatory nature and incompatibility of restrictions of the right to run for elections on the basis of an insufficient command of the Latvian language (a letter from the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities to the Estonian authorities of December 1998 contains detailed substantiation of this), or former membership of the Communist Party or other organisations which were not outlawed at that time, are rather well-reasoned. For example, an activist on the Latvian Human Rights Committee, Tatyana Zhdanok, will be deprived of the mandate of Riga city council member following the decision of the Riga district court on 15 February 1999. The court established merely the fact of "participation in the Communist Party's activities after 13 January 1991", but not any illegal acts committed personally by Mrs Zhdanok. Thus, it would be desirable, in my view, to evaluate the essence of these complaints mentioned by the rapporteurs, at least loosely.

5.       Paragraph 29, page 7 includes the point that the amendments to the Law on Citizenship "…make it possible for all non-citizens to obtain naturalisation in theory". This is not completely accurate, for considerable groups of permanent resident non-citizens are subject to restrictions on naturalisation (Article 11 of the Law on Citizenship). In particular, sub-paragraph 8 of paragraph 1 of the said article bans naturalisation of the persons that "…after 13 January 1991 have acted against the Republic of Latvia through participation in the C[ommunist] P[arty], Working People's International Front … [some other anti-independence organisations] … and its regional committees". In this case the naturalisation application must be declined even without the court decision which establishes the fact of acting against the Republic of Latvia. Thus, these persons might appear to be prevented from naturalisation merely on the ground of their political views and/or membership in the legal opposition organisations.

6.       Paragraph 59, page 11. The point made that Latvia's non-citizens may go to Russia without a visa is true to a limited extent. Indeed, non-citizens must receive a special permit (stamp in the non-citizen's passport) to enter Russia. The permit is valid for one year, and Russia's consular offices charge a fee for receiving the permit. Without this stamp non-citizens cannot enter Russia. Besides, the Russian Federation has announced that from 1 January 2000 non-citizens will also need visas to enter Russia.

7.       The list of commitments which have not yet been honoured in full by Latvia deserves special attention.

7.1.       As to ratification of Protocol No. 6 to the ECHR, the situation is developing in a rather encouraging way. Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the Latvian citizens do not support the abolition of capital punishment, in early February 1999 the Saeima adopted the law on ratification of Protocol No. 6 in the first reading. I have good reasons to believe that the protocol will be ratified in the final reading before the summer of 1999. Some minor controversies might be expected with the date of its entry into force, but it seems clear that the legislative abolition of the death penalty will take place in the very near future.

7.2.       On the contrary, the problem of integration of minorities remains the main concern. Standards established by the Council of Europe might be of great help for democratic resolution of this extremely difficult problem.

7.3.       The new language draft law currently prepared for the second reading gives very serious reasons for concern. The draft does not recognise the existence of any minority languages in Latvia and defines all other languages than the state one as foreign languages (an exception is made only for the Liv language spoken by a small indigenous group comprising less than 200 persons). The draft strictly prescribes mandatory usage of only the state language, both written and spoken, also in private enterprises and NGOs, thus intervening into the private sphere. It is also envisaged that state and municipal institutions accept any documents from individuals only in the state language (currently, also documents in English, German and Russian must be accepted). Mandatory usage of the state language in all "official public events" is also prescribed, with few exceptions. If serious changes are not introduced into the draft during the second and third readings, the new law will not only fail to fix problematic provisions of the existing legislation but will aggravate the situation with implementation of the minority language rights.

7.4.       According to the Decree of the Ministry of Education mentioned in paragraph 45, page 10 of the report, eighty-eight minority school teachers who failed to pass a state language test for the highest degree of proficiency were fired in January 1998.

7.5.       Minority education problems cause most serious concerns and dissatisfaction in the minority communities. The Education Law adopted in October 1998 contains no clear guarantees of the state's and municipalities' financial support for schools with a minority language of instruction. The concept of reform of the Russian-language schools elaborated by the Ministry of Education and approved by the government, envisages gradual elimination of the state- and municipally-financed education in minority languages. This clearly contradicts the spirit of Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Framework convention.

7.6.       The same approach is developed in the Social Integration Programme elaborated by the working group of the Cabinet of Ministers. Most of the minority NGOs strictly oppose elimination of the minority schools. However, their views were not taken into account during elaboration of the Integration Programme. In particular, the Latvian Association of Russian Culture (which was the most staunch ally of the Latvian Popular Front during the struggle for restoration of independence) left the government-supported Association of Ethnic Cultural Organisations of Latvia (AECOL), protesting against disregard of their views and signature of the AECOL chairman under the Integration Programme.

8.       Thus, I completely agree with the basic recommendation of the report, that is to say, the necessity to develop a constructive dialogue between the Latvian authorities and the minority groups. Basic conventions of the Council of Europe (first of all, the Framework convention for the Protection of National Minorities) give a firm ground for a reasonable compromise, and ratification of the Framework convention as early as possible is vitally important. Taking into account absence of inter-ethnic conflicts in Latvia, friendly relations between ethnic Latvians and minority groups at the everyday level, and some effective steps done by the Latvian leadership lately (adoption of amendments to the Law on Citizenship, intention to elaborate an effective programme of integration of the society, broad consensus among both ethnic Latvians and non-Latvians that accession to the European Union is the top priority), wise policies towards minorities appears the main prerequisite for the further successful development of democracy, human rights and civil society in Latvia.

Comments of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the

preliminary draft information report on Latvia

I.       General comments

The political context

1.       The draft report misrepresents the very basis of the Latvian statehood which seriously affects the credibility of the whole document. The Republic of Latvia cannot be regarded as a former Soviet Republic3 because its occupation and later incorporation into the Soviet Union was illegal and was recognised as such by the international community. In 1991 Latvia restored its statehood and citizenry. Law on Citizenship, adopted in 1994, was passed in accordance with recommendations of international organisations, including the Council of Europe. In this regard the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, Mr Max van der Stoel, has said:

2.       The term "Russian-speakers" cannot be used when referring to non-citizens. The use of this term ignores the existence of a number of minorities presently residing in Latvia (Russians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Ukrainians, Poles, etc.). It undermines the national identity of these minorities and therefore is offensive in regard to them. This term also violates their human right to choose whether to be or not to be treated as belonging to a minority. Moreover, the term "Russian-speakers" is usually used only when wrongfully accusing Latvia of violating human rights. Therefore, this term should be substituted by the generally accepted term "populations of foreign origin" which is also used later in the report (point 33).

3.       The events of March 1998 are not directly related to fulfilment of Latvia's obligations in the framework of the Council of Europe and therefore do not deserve such extensive coverage discussed in the report. The Head of the OSCE mission to Latvia, R. Samuel, speaking before the OSCE Permanent Council, gave the following assessment of the events of 3 March 1998: "(1) The event should be regarded as a public order matter, (2) the ethnic relations in Latvia are harmonious, (3) the event of 3 March should not be exaggerated".5 This certifies that there is no relevance to Latvia's Council of Europe membership obligations and commitments. The same applies to the parade of veterans of the Latvian Legion and two explosions. Therefore, we see no particular reason to attach the Declaration on Latvian Legion to the report.

II.       Comments to parts of the report

Latvia's commitments vis-ŕ-vis the Council of Europe

Death penalty

Treatment of non-citizens

Naturalisation

Language Law

Professional restrictions

Right to take part in the local elections

Education Law18

III.       Conclusions

Comment by Gundars Bojārs, MP, member of the Latvian delegation

from the Social Democrat Union

1.       Paragraph 5 (of the introduction) talks about "growing tension between the Latvian authorities and the non-citizen residents". This allegation has no foundation whatever, and the report fails to indicate the sources of information on which such allegations are based.

2.       Paragraph 7 of the political context (Part II) contains the allegation that Latvia, compared to other new or renewed states resulting from the disintegration of the USSR, did not choose the "zero option" for granting nationality. Here one should take into consideration the fact that in Latvia — as opposed to the other aforementioned states — the "zero option" would have led to the immigrants and military personnel on active service taking part in state administration (at that time a large number of USSR service personnel — some 400 000 — were present in Latvia).

3.       Paragraph 9. The term "Russian-speakers" is misleading, since almost 95% of the population speak Russian in Latvia.

4.       In the Saeima debate on the ratification of Protocol No. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Social Democrat Union faction voted against ratification because of the belief that amendments have to be carried out not only to the Criminal Code but simultaneously in the law on the protection of the rights of the victims and in the law on the rights of the witnesses. It is the view of the Social Democrat Union that this subject must be dealt with in a combined package.

5.       Naturalisation — paragraph 28. The removal of the naturalisation "windows" was by no means only connected with "international pressure", it happened because of the setting in of a general trend towards easing the naturalisation procedure in Latvia. The results of the referendum on 3 October 1998 proved that the society was inclined to accept easier naturalisation conditions.

Gundars Bojārs

Member of the Latvian delegation to the PACE

Appendix VI

Comment by Mr Juris Sinka, MP (Latvia, EDG)

on the draft information report on Latvia [AS/Mon (1999) 09 rev.]

submitted by MM. Terry Davis (UK, Soc) and Gunnar Jansson (Finland, LDR)

on 29 April 1999

These will be just a few remarks, since a detailed analysis would seek to alter the report in its substance, in its spirit, as it were, which, judging by Mr Davis' remarks at the Monitoring Committee meeting on 29 April, is not likely to happen. It is only a pity that due to the vicissitudes of parliamentary life, when even the meaning of the word "opposition" may change at the drop of a hat, I am prevented from attending the Paris meeting on 20 May, which leaves Mr Boriss Cilevics, representing the "opposition" in this particular case, to comment and answer any questions on behalf of the Latvian delegation. In general, I am grateful to the rapporteurs for the kind remarks addressed to the Latvian delegation and to me personally under III para 21.a on page 7.

Summary: I suggest the removal of the final paragraph, and of paragraph 77 of the report, since I view the Latvian authorities' efforts to integrate the non-citizens and to open the way to naturalisation as "entering into a constructive dialogue". Likewise, the statement that "Latvia has not yet honoured one major commitment: to integrate its non-citizen population" seems in some way to contradict the statement that "significant steps have recently been taken in this field". Integration is a two-way traffic and without a 100% willingness to become integrated the process will never be completed. Why not take a more positive view and state: "Significant steps have recently been taken by Latvia towards honouring its commitments to integrate the non-citizen population."? This is but one suggestion how to make the report fairer and more sensitive. Some reference should have been made to the difficulties and discrimination experienced by the Latvians during the years of Soviet occupation when large numbers were killed and deported and when the Latvian language was forced into the second position after Russian without which it was next to impossible to obtain higher education or to pursue a vocation.

I. Introduction: When mentioning the opening of the procedure on Latvia in 1997, reference should have been made to the specific reasons for this move (proposed by Mr Bindig from Germany), and "growing tension between the Latvian authorities and the non-citizen residents" (paragraph 5) was not one of them. I strongly believe that "growing tension" is an unreasonable suggestion which could well have been inspired by forces outside Latvia.

II. The political context: The inclusion of the words "were occupied" in paragraph 7 is to be welcomed. As for paragraph 8, Mr Espersen's report omits to give any reasons for "the shift during this period in the proportion of ethnic Latvians", they should have been explained in fairness to the Latvians. Surely these changes were due to deportations, exodus of refugees from communism and influx of Soviet citizens due to a policy of Russianisation and colonisation of Latvia. There is no evidence for the suggestion that the events in Riga in March and April 1998 were in any way related and had caused "a growing deterioration in relations between Riga and Moscow". It would have been fairer to explain that the illegal demonstration of both Russian and Latvian pensioners on 3 March had caused a serious traffic hold-up and had even prevented ambulances from getting through on their way to hospitals. I believe that by adding some details to paragraph 12 one could do away with paragraph 11 altogether. I suggest the removal of paragraph 14 as being highly irrelevant to the report. The call for improvement in the relations with Russia (why not with the United Kingdom?) was only one of several – and by no means at the top of the list – pretexts for the departure of "Saimnieks", which, incidentally, very quickly ceased to exist as a "significant party". It was largely due to the ineffectiveness of its leader and a miscalculated "take-over bid" that the resignation occurred.

V. Treatment of non-citizens: I suggest paragraph 31 should read as follows: "The attempt to frustrate the amendments in a referendum was unsuccessful, being rejected by 53% of the voters who took part in it on 3 October."

Juris Sinka

Chairman of the Latvian delegation

Riga, 19 May 1999

Appendix VII

Questions for the Written Examination (Test)

I.       Symbolics

1.       Who is the author of the national anthem of Latvia?

2.       At what national event was Dievs, sveti Latviju! performed in public for the first time?

3.       What (symbols) can you see in the State Emblem of Latvia?

4.       What do the three stars in the Freedom Monument stand for?

II.       Geography of Latvia

1.       Which two countries from the list below have overland borders with Latvia?

2.       Which is the most valuable natural economic resource in Latvia?

3.       How does the geographical location of Latvia influence the development of economy?

4.       Which towns and cities of Latvia have the ice-free ports?

5.       Which of the following is a cultural and historical district within Latvia?

III.       Population of Latvia

1.       Which peoples gradually consolidated to form the Latvian nation?

2.       In what way did the years of Soviet rule affect the size of the Latvian population?

3.       What is the approximate number of population of Latvia?

4.       Which is the largest national minority in Latvia?

5.       Why is the population of Latvia decreasing at present?

IV.       History of Latvia before the 20th century

1.       How did the European crusades influence the destiny of the peoples living in the territory of Latvia in the 13th century?

2.       How did the Livonian period influence developments in Latvia?

3.       Which country ruled at least a part of the territory of Latvia in the period of the 16th to 19th centuries?

4.       Which of the following stimulated economic change in Latvia at the end of the 19th century?

5.       What kind of national policy did the Russian empire apply in the territory of Latvia at the end of the 19th century?

6.       What was the level of economic development in Latvia like if compared to other regions of the Russian Empire?

7.       What movement introduced the Latvian national awakening in the middle of the 19th century?

V.       History of Latvia in the 20th century

1.       What were the results (consequences) of the 1905 revolution in Latvia?

2.       How did World War I influence the situation in Latvia?

3.       Why did a great number of the inhabitants of Latvia join the regiments of Latvian riflemen during World War I?

4.       Why is November 18, 1918 important in the history of Latvia?

5.       Which public official holds the most merits for achieving diplomatic recognition of Latvia at the beginning of the 20th century?

6.       One important consequence of the fighting which took place in Latvia in the years 1918 – 1920 was that …

7.       Why is Day of Lacplesis celebrated in Latvia on November 11?

8.       Why is the peace treaty with Soviet Russia concluded in 1920 so important for Latvia?

9.       Which important international organisation was Latvia member of in the 20-ies, 30-ies of the 20th century?

10.       Who was the first State President of Latvia?

11.       What political regime was there in Latvia between the years 1920 to 1934?

12.       What happened on May 15, 1934?

13.       What was the attitude of Karlis Ulmanis' regime towards political parties after May 15, 1934?

14.       Which monument built for the donations of people was unveiled in Riga in 1935?

15.       What were the consequences of Molotov-Ribbentrop's treaty of August 23, 1939 for Latvia?

16.       What happened in Latvia on June 17, 1940?

17.       Why is June 14 a date of commemoration in Latvia?

18.       What happened to the Latvian Balto-German minority during the years 1939-1941?

19.       What was the policy of Nazi Germany towards Latvia during the years 1941-1945?

20.       What happened to most Jews and Gypsies in Latvia during World War II?

21.       In the armies of which countries did Latvian soldiers fight during World War II?

22.       What did large numbers of the Latvian population do at the end of World War II?

23.       What radical changes influenced the development of agriculture in Latvia during the post-war years?

24.       Why is March 25, 1949 commemorated in Latvia?

25.       How was the development of industry stimulated in Latvia during the years of Soviet power?

26.       What did the National Communists try to achieve in Latvia in the late 1950s?

27.       Which political non-governmental organisation played a decisive part in the restoration of independent Latvian State in 1988?

28.       What significant document was adopted on May 4, 1990?

29.       Of what important international organisation is Latvia a full member state?

30.       Which international organisation does the State of Latvia wish to join?

31.       Who is the incumbent State President of Latvia?

VI.       Culture and National Traditions

1.       In which century were the first books in Latvian printed?

2.       Why is Garlibs Merkelis significant in the history of Latvia?

3.       Why is Krisjanis Barons a significant figure in Latvian culture?

4.       What Latvian cultural tradition commenced in Riga in 1873?

5.       What is the title of the Latvian folk epos?

6.       The designer of the Freedom Monument and the Ensemble of Soldiers' Cemetery is ….

7.       Rainis, Aspazija and Rudolfs Blaumanis are …. in Latvian culture.

8.       What traditional holidays are celebrated in Latvia?

9.       What is characteristic of Jani (Ligo) celebrations in Latvia?

VII.       Religion

1.       What was the attitude of the Soviet regime towards religion?

2.       Which of the following religious faiths has the largest number of members in Latvia?

3.       In which region of Latvia is Catholicism traditionally the strongest religion?

VIII.       Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

1.       Who adopted the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia?

2.       What are the colours of the national flag of Latvia?

3.       Which is the state language in Latvia?

4.       Who has the supreme legislative power in Latvia?

5.       How many members are elected to the Saeima (Parliament)?

6.       How is the Saeima (Parliament) elected?

7.       At what age do citizens acquire the right to vote (to elect the Saeima)?

8.       For how many years do citizens of Latvia elect the Saeima (Parliament)? (How long is the term?)

9.       Who elects State President?

10.       For how many years is State President elected? (How long is the term?)

11.       For how many successive terms can one and the same person be elected State President?

12.       Which of the following is a power of State President?

13.       Who has the supreme executive power in Latvia?

14.       Who forms the Cabinet of Ministers (Government)?

15.       In what case must the Cabinet of Ministers (Government) resign?

16.       Which of the following is a power of the Cabinet of Ministers (Government)?

17.       How can citizens submit draft laws to the Saeima (Parliament)?

18.       Which of the following is a case when a referendum is necessary?

19.       Who approves the state budget of Latvia?

20.       What do judges follow in their work? (What do they depend upon?)

21.       In what way can a person defend his/her rights and legitimate interests?

22.       What defends a person's right to life?

23.       Who is entitled to the solicitor's assistance?

24.       Who has the right to leave Latvia freely?

25.       Who has the right to return to Latvia freely?

26.       What does the right to freedom of expression mean?

27.       What is the role of the state in ensuring medical service to population?

28.       What level of education is compulsory in Latvia?

29.       In what case can a person's rights be restricted?

Reporting committee: Committee on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Member States.

Reference to committee: Resolution 1115 (1997) of 27 January 1997.

Information report unanimously approved by the committee on 20 May 1999.

Members of the committee: MM. Mota Amaral (Chair), Sole Tura (Vice-Chair), Mrs Gelderblom-Lankhout (Vice-Chair), MM. Sinka (Vice-Chair), Akselsen, Atkinson, Averchev, Mrs Aytaman, MM. Bársony, Baumel, Bindig, Brunetti, Columberg, Dagys, Davis, Diana, Dinçer, Domljan, Dumitrescu, Mrs Durrieu, MM. Eltz, Enright, Eörsi, Eversdijk, Frunda, Gjellerod, Glotov, Gross, Gusenbauer, Hornhues, Irmer, Jansson, Jaskiernia, Jurgens, Mrs Kautto, MM. Kelam, Kiratlioglu, Korakas, Kostysky, Koulouris, Kuzmickas, Magnusson, Marmazov, Moeller, Muehlemann, Myrvoll, Nedelciuc, Mrs Nemcova, Mr Pahor, Mrs Poptodorova, Mr Ramirez Pery, Mrs Ringstad, MM. Ruffy, Schwimmer, Mrs Sehnalova, Mrs Severinsen, MM. Shishlov, Smorawinski, Steolea, Mrs Stoyanova, MM. Surjan, Urbain, Valkeniers, Vella, Weyts, Mrs Wohlwend, Mr Xhaferi.

N.B. The names of those members who took part in the meeting are printed in italics.

Secretaries to the Committee: Mr Ausems, Mr Dufour and Mrs Chatzivassiliou.

1        Source: Forced Migration Projects — Open Society Institute, 1997.

2 Assembly debate on 31 January 1995 (2nd Sitting) (see Doc. 7169, report of the Political Affairs Committee, rapporteur: Mr Espersen; Doc. 7193, opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, rapporteur: Mr Vogel; and Doc. 7190, opinion of the Committee on Relations with European Non-Member Countries, rapporteur: Mr Toshev). Text adopted by the Assembly on 31 January 1995 (2nd Sitting).

3        Point 7 in the draft report.

4        Letter to Minister for Foreign Affairs, G. Andrejevs, 10 December 1993.

5        12 March 1998 in Vienna.

6        Point 28 in the draft report.

7        Point 29 in the draft report.

8        Points 34 to 36 in the draft report.

9        Letter to Minister for Foreign Affairs, G. Andrejevs, 10 December 1993.

10        Point 29 in the draft report.

11        Letter to Minister for Foreign Affairs, V. Birkavs, 14 March 1996.

12        Definition by the ICJ, Nottebohm case, 1955.

13        Point 42 in the draft report.

14        Letter of Mr van der Stoel to Mr Dz Abikis, Chairman of the Saeima Committee on Education, Culture and Science, 7 September 1998.

15        Point 47 in the draft report.

16        Letter to Prime Minister, Mr G. Krasts, 20 April 1998.

17        Point 55 of the draft report.

18        Point 4 in Update 1.