Doc. 8788

28 June 2000

Conflict in the Chechen Republic - implementation by Russia of Recommendations 1444 and 1456 (2000)

Opinion1

Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

Rapporteur: Mr Rudolf Bindig, Germany, Socialist Group

I.       Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights concludes that:

1.        In the field of competence of this Committee (legal affairs and human rights), the Russian side has implemented few, if any, of the Assembly’s key demands formulated in Recommendation 1456 (2000) on the conflict in the Chechen Republic, which were:

2.        In particular, the Committee notes with concern that – despite declarations by the Ministry of the Defence that “the military stage of the anti-terrorist operation” is over – according to other reports (sometimes by the same Ministry) the use of indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force by Russian federal forces, including aerial attacks and bombardments, is continuing unabated, at least in the Southern part of the Chechen Republic.

3.        Most worryingly, disturbing reports are submitted by many NGOs, both local and international ones, that civilians are still being arbitrarily arrested, and then detained and ill-treated. The second preliminary report by the Council of Europe Anti-Torture Committee (CPT), has not been published by Russia; possibly, because it would have confirmed NGO reports of ill-treatment and torture in detention. Adding to these concerns are reliable reports that some people have “disappeared” after their arrest. Indeed, the figures made available by the Committee of Ministers that over half of the complaints registered so far with Mr Kalamanov’s Office2 (i.e. more than 350) concern missing persons, take on a sinister quality when one bears in mind that the bodies of some of the people who “disappeared” at the end of January after being arrested have just been found near Stariye Atagi.

4.        The other main human rights violations currently being perpetrated by Russian troops seem to be harassment and ill-treatment of non-combatants. Freedom of movement is very restricted in the Chechen Republic; extortion and looting by federal servicemen are said to be a commonplace occurrence.

5.        In these circumstances, it is imperative that the Assembly re-launch its appeal that first and foremost, human rights violations in the Chechen Republic must cease immediately. Russia’s failure to fulfil the requirements set out in Recommendation 1456 (2000) result in the continued loss of life and unnecessary suffering in the Chechen Republic.

6.        Concerning the investigation of past human rights violations and war crimes committed by Russian troops, the Committee notes President Putin’s undertaking of 13 April 2000 to bring those found guilty of human rights abuses to justice, and further notes that a variety of institutions and individuals, some newly created for this specific purpose, are charged with the follow-up to the allegations of human rights violations and war crimes committed in the Chechen Republic.

7.        However, the Committee regrets that no substantial results have been produced by any of these institutions or individuals so far. It notes with particular concern that only 12 crimes (of the hundreds reported by human rights organisations and the media during this nine-month campaign) committed against the Chechen population are currently being investigated by the Military Prosecutor’s Office, the only institution which can take the perpetrators of these crimes to court.

8.        In these circumstances, the Committee would like to recall that action within the Council of Europe to help ensure that the protection afforded by the European Convention on Human Rights to the residents of the Chechen Republic becomes operative once more, can bear fruit only if Russia reaffirms though her deeds her willingness to respect the organisation’s principles.

9.        The Committee thus deeply regrets, with the Political Affairs Committee, that none of the high contracting parties to the European Convention on Human Rights has taken up the Assembly’s urgent appeal and lodged an inter-state application with the Court. The Committee is of the opinion that this appeal should be renewed.

10.        The Committee regrets that the Russian parliamentary delegation decided not to take part in the June part-session of the Assembly, sending only one “observer”. It was the express intention of the Assembly to keep the dialogue with the Russian parliamentary delegation open when it ratified the credentials of the delegation in April 2000. The Committee deplores – as a violation of the freedom of expression - that individual members of the Russian parliamentary delegation which wanted to take part in the June part-session, as is their right, are being prevented from doing so because the Russian Federal Assembly refuses to refund their expenses.

The Committee thus proposes the following amendments:

Amendment A:

Insert a new paragraph before paragraph 5, worded as follows:

“The Assembly regrets that the above-mentioned institutions have yet to produce substantial results. It notes with particular concern that the Military Prosecutor’s Office is currently investigating only a very low number of crimes committed by Russian federal troops against the Chechen population, bearing in mind that the Office is the only institution which can take to court the perpetrators of such crimes.”

Amendment B:

Insert another new paragraph before paragraph 5, worded as follows:

“The Assembly is concerned about reports that:

Amendment C:

After paragraph 5, add the following new paragraph:

“It further calls on the Russian Federation to make public immediately the preliminary observations of the delegation of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) following its second visit to the region, and the full report currently in preparation on both visits as soon as it becomes available.”

Amendment D:

Add, at the end of paragraph 6, the following words:

"at present, but notes the transitional period is expected to last one and a half to two years, and urges the Russian Federation to make the best possible efforts to ensure that a legislative body is elected within that time-scale."

Amendment E:

Add, at the end of paragraph 9, the following sentence:

“The Assembly thus renews its demand that, first and foremost, all human rights violations in the Chechen Republic must immediately cease.”

Amendment F:

Add, after paragraph 10, the following new paragraph:

“The Assembly regrets that the Russian Federal Assembly decided not to take part in this part-session of the Assembly, sending only one “observer”. It was the express intention of the Assembly to keep the dialogue with the Russian parliamentary delegation open when it ratified the credentials of the delegation during the April 2000 part-session."

Amendment G:

Add, after paragraph 10, a second new paragraph as follows:

"The Assembly deplores – as a violation of the freedom of expression - that the Russian Federal Assembly has not allowed individual members of the Russian parliamentary delegation who wanted to take part in the June part-session, as is their right, to do so other than at their own initiative, because the Russian Federal Assembly refuses to refund their expenses."

Amendment H:

Add, after paragraph 10, a third new paragraph as follows:

"The Assembly expresses its wish that the Russian Federal Assembly will actively and substantially use its influence to improve the human rights situation in the Chechen Republic, and as a consequence, the voting rights of the Russian parliamentary delegation could be restored."

Amendment I:

Add, at the end of paragraph 14, the following sentence:

“The Assembly renews its urgent appeal for member states to lodge an inter-state application with the Court under Article 33 of the Convention.”

II. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Bindig, Rapporteur

A. Introduction

1.       On 6 April 2000, the Assembly adopted Recommendation 1456 (2000) on the conflict in the Chechen Republic, scrutinising the implementation of Recommendation 1444 (2000) on the same topic adopted during the January part-session.

2.        In the field of competence of this Committee (legal affairs and human rights), the Assembly reiterated that the Russian Federation had violated and continued to violate some of her most important obligations under both the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular Article 2 (Right to life), and international humanitarian law, as well as the undertakings she gave on joining the Council of Europe. It deplored the total and wanton destruction of Grozny, continued attacks on the civilian population, the committal of war crimes by federal troops, the murder and rape of civilians, the alleged arbitrary arrest and detention of non-combatants and their reported sub-sequent ill-treatment in detention.

3.       The Assembly also deplored that the Chechen side had not complied with the demands formulated in paragraph 11 of Recommendation 1444 (2000). In particular, it refused to accept that no cease-fire has been introduced on the Chechen side, and that hostages were still being held.

4.        As a result, the Assembly made a number of recommendations to the Russian Federation, member states and the Committee of Ministers. Most importantly, the Assembly required the Russian Federation to immediately cease all human rights violations in the Chechen Republic, to allow independent enquiries into allegations concerning human rights violations and war crimes in the Chechen Republic, and to ensure that the Military Prosecutor’s Office undertakes systematic, credible and exhaustive criminal prosecutions of those members of the federal forces implicated in war crimes and other human rights violations.

5.        The Assembly appealed to the member states of the Council of Europe, as high contracting parties to the Convention, to make use of Article 33 as a matter of urgency and to refer to the European Court of Human Rights alleged breaches by the Russian Federation of the provisions of the Convention and its Protocols. It recommended that the Committee of Ministers initiate without delay, in accordance with Article 8 of the Statute, the procedure for the suspension of the Russian Federation from its rights of representation in the Council of Europe should substantial, accelerating and demonstrable progress not be made immediately in respect of the Assembly’s requirements.

6.        Finally, on the basis of Recommendation 1456 (2000), the Assembly deprived the parliamentary delegation of the Russian Federation of its voting rights.

7.        Three months later, the Assembly must now evaluate – on the basis of the Political Affairs Committee’s report and this opinion – whether the implementation of the Recommendation (both by the Russian Federation, the Chechen side, members states and the Committee of Ministers) has been satisfactory, and what further measures should be taken.

B. Implementation of Recommendation 1456 (2000) by the Russian side

8.        Unfortunately, it is probably fair to say that the Russian side has implemented few, if any, of the Assembly’s key demands formulated in Recommendation 1456.

Cessation of human rights violations

9.        Most importantly, the Assembly required the Russian Federation to immediately cease all human rights violations in the Chechen Republic. While it is, of course, difficult to get an exact picture from Strasbourg, both NGOs and international organisations report that human rights violations continue in the Chechen Republic.

10.        As concerns indiscriminate and disproportionate military action, the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian forces in the North Caucasus, General Gennady Troshev declared on 31 May 2000 that the war in Chechnya might drag on for another two to three years. The same day, the Chief of the Russian Armed Forces General Staff, General Anatoly Kvashnin, however, considered that the military stage of the anti-terrorist operation in the Chechen Republic was over, but warned that “if terrorist activities in Ingushetia assume the same scale as in Chechnya we will be forced to use the same methods”. In practice, no troops seem to have been withdrawn from the area, and the military operation seems to be continuing unabated. Indeed, according to Russia’s military headquarters in Chechnya, fixed-wing aircraft still fly at least 20 sorties daily, with helicopter gunships flying another 40. In addition to these aerial attacks, mainly now limited to the mountainous areas in the South of the Chechen Republic, commando units stage raids against guerrilla groups. Official Russian casualty figures for the period 2 August 1999 to 22 June 2000 now stand at 2.405 army servicemen dead, and 7.005 wounded3; no reliable figures are available for the Chechen side. It should be noted that, on 31 May 2000, the official casualty figures stood at 2.350 dead and 6.645 wounded. This means that, despite declarations that the “military phase of the anti-terrorist operation is over”, statistically, at least two soldiers are dying and 16 are wounded in the Chechen Republic per day.

11.        The amnesty for Chechen militants who laid down their arms expired on 15 May 2000. According to the Russian authorities, about 150 suspected militants have been freed under the act. From the date of 15 May 2000, anybody carrying a weapon in Chechnya must automatically be treated as a criminal under Russian law. NGOs allege that, in fact, many Chechen men are arrested and detained as suspected militants because they have marks on their shoulders or fingers which might indicate that they carried or used an automatic gun. Unfortunately, many other activities leave similar marks (such as carrying and using farm utensils like shovels and sickles); in one case, even a surgeon was detained because of calloused hands (in which he had held his suture needles).

12.        In fact, the figure of 150 released suspected militants is extremely small, in comparison to the statement by the provisional press centre of the Russian Interior Ministry in the North Caucasus that over 10.000 people have been detained in Chechnya on suspicion of various crimes since the start of this year alone. Of them, according to the same source, 1.126 have been charged with active complicity in rebel activities4. In my opinion, this demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the amnesty law.

13.        The main human rights violations currently being perpetrated by Russian troops seem to be harassment and ill-treatment of non-combatants. Freedom of movement is very restricted in the Chechen Republic; extortion and looting by federal servicemen are said to be a commonplace occurrence. Disturbing reports are submitted by many NGOs, both local and international ones, that civilians are arbitrarily arrested, and then detained and ill-treated. Some people “disappear” after their arrest; the Russian NGO “Memorial” has just reported that residents of Stariye Atagi, on 15 June 2000, found the bodies of four of their neighbours, who had “disappeared” following arrest by federal forces on 27 January 2000. Credible reports of torture abound, in particular with regard to the pre-trial detention centre in Urus-Martan nicknamed the “internat”.

Cease-fire and political dialogue

14.        Dealing with the issue of the start of a political dialogue, without preconditions or prior restrictions, with representatives of a cross-section of the Chechen people, to seek an immediate cease-fire, is part of the mandate of the Political Affairs Committee and will probably be treated by Lord Judd in his oral intervention. Suffice it to mention at this point that no meaningful political dialogue has been initiated by either side.

Follow-up to allegations of human rights violations and war crimes

15.        No international investigators have been allowed to investigate the numerous allegations of human rights violations and war crimes committed by both sides, but especially by Russian troops. This can only be regretted, as, apparently, both Chechens and Russians are reluctant to complain about concrete cases of human rights violations to national bodies, fearing repercussions or simply afraid that they will not be believed, or their case will not be properly reviewed.

16.        On the national level, a variety of institutions and individuals, some newly created for this specific purpose, are charged with the follow-up to the allegations of human rights violations and war crimes committed in the Chechen Republic. Unfortunately, no tangible, substantial results have been reported so far from any of them. In addition, most of these institutions/individuals seem to put the emphasis on human rights violations perpetrated by the Dudayev and Maskhadov regimes. This emphasis goes hand in hand with an apparent unwillingness to investigate the crimes committed by federal troops during the military campaign since the beginning of August 1999, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. These facts cast a doubt on the true independence and effectiveness of the institutions and individuals concerned, which does not bode well for their future work.

17.        I am thankful to the Russian authorities who have submitted some quite detailed explanations to the Assembly in writing on 25 June 2000 in response to Lord Russell-Johnston’s request for additional information on the various institutions and individuals dealing with human rights abuses in Chechnya in his letter to the Chairman of the Russian parliamentary delegation, Mr Rogozin, of 8 June 2000. However, I did not find all the explanations completely satisfactory. The reply by the Committee of Ministers of 27 June 2000 has shed some additional light on some details.

18.        The following are the national institutions/individuals I am aware of:

19.        The State Duma Commission sees its main task, according to its Chairman, in the co-ordination of reconstruction efforts in Chechnya; its working group on “ensuring human rights and on problems of displaced persons” is concentrating on human rights violations committed by the Chechen side. Nevertheless, I do hope that the parliamentary hearing which the Commission is organising in September 2000 “On Progress in Restoring Economy, Social Sphere and Ensuring Respect for Human and Civil Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic” will concentrate on the human rights issues dear to the Assembly, in particular those violations committed by the Russian federal troops.

20.        The Independent Commission under Mr Krashennikov, organised as a non-governmental organisation, which reports that it has received over 200 citizens’ complaints so far, has no official mandate except the benediction of President Putin. It has neither the power nor the staff to conduct its own investigations or control the activities of state bodies. However, the Commission has conveyed a number of complaints to the Prosecutor General’s Office, in particular regarding cases of looting by members of the Federal forces. Council of Europe support for this Commission – which is apparently envisaged - might be able to alleviate its financial and material problems, but will not be able to make up for the Commission’s lack of concrete investigatorial and prosecutorial powers.

21.        Mr Mironov and Mr Kartashkin make periodical statements on the violation of human rights in the Chechen Republic, but again concentrate on those perpetrated by the Chechen side.

22.        Mr Kalamanov’s Office is assisted by three staff members of the Council of Europe, who arrived at the Znamenskoye Office on 21 June 2000. (Mr Kalamanov himself seems to have travelled to Chechnya only twice so far). The Special Representative and his staff have received nearly 4000 citizens as of mid-June 2000, and have registered more than 700 complaints so far (more than half of which concern missing persons). The information thus obtained is transmitted to law enforcement agencies and the Prosecutor General’s Office for the purpose of its verification and the adoption of appropriate measures. As of 20 June 2000, Mr Kalamanov’s Office had received 154 replies to his enquiries. However, Mr Kalamanov’s Office suffers from the same lack of investigatorial and prosecutorial powers as Mr Krashennikov’s Commission .

23.        The only body invested with powers of investigation and prosecution in Russia is the Military Prosecutor’s Office (for servicemen), and civilian prosecutor’s offices for civilians. The Military Prosecutor’s Office in particular seems to be hostile to undertaking systematic, credible and exhaustive criminal prosecutions of those members of the federal forces implicated in war crimes and other human rights violations. NGOs report that their reports, and witness testimony gathered by them, is dismissed out of hand, and in one case, was even described as “a waste of time”. As of 21 June 2000, only 467 criminal cases had been opened, only 12(!) of which concerned crimes committed against the Chechen population. This can hardly be described as the “systematic, credible and exhaustive criminal prosecutions of those members of the federal forces implicated in war crimes and other human rights violations” the Assembly demanded of the Military Prosecutor’s Office in Recommendation 1456.

24.        The only international bodies which have had access to detainees are the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Council of Europe Anti-Torture Committee (CPT), both of which are bound by confidentiality agreements. The Russian Federation should be called upon to agree to the publication of all CPT reports (of both visits to the North Caucasus) in full, as a sign of good faith.

Other developments

25.        The Radio Liberty Correspondent Andrei Babitsky (see the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education of the April session) is still not allowed to leave Moscow. His passport has been confiscated, and investigators have extended the five-month-old probe.

26.        The media mogul Vladimir Gusinskii’s was arrested on 13 June 2000 (and released a few days later) following a spectacular raid by the tax police on his office a month prior. Gusinskii’s media group, and many NGOs, linked the raid and the arrest to the group’s critical coverage of the Chechen war. In fact, during a parliamentary hearing on the freedom of the media in Russia held on 27 June 2000 in Strasbourg, organised jointly by this Committee and the Committee on Culture and Education, the Russian TV presenters MM. Kiselev and Dorenko (representing different media groups and TV stations) both criticised on-going pressure by the government on the free media, alleging that President Putin was trying to install “a managed democracy” with less critical and independent media coverage.

27.        100 copies of an Amnesty International report on Chechnya, intended for distribution at the Council of Europe’s Vladikavkaz seminar, were confiscated by customs officials at Moscow airport as “anti-Russian propaganda”, and have not been returned to the organisation. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe sent the report in question to all participants at the seminar afterwards.

28.        I very much regret that the Russian parliamentary delegation decided not to take part in the June part-session of the Assembly, sending only one “observer”. It was the express intention of the Assembly to keep the dialogue with the Russian parliamentary delegation open when it ratified the credentials of the delegation during the April 2000 part-session. I regard is as a violation of the freedom of expression that individual members of the Russian parliamentary delegation which wanted to take part in this part-session, as is their right, are being prevented from doing so because the Russian Federal Assembly refuses to refund their expenses.

C. Implementation of Recommendation 1456 (2000) by the Chechen side

29.        On 20 May 2000, Aslan Maskhadov ordered a new “jihad” (holy war) to begin, which led to stepped up attacks and ambushes by militants even in areas controlled by the federal forces, such as Grozny. The French hostage Brice Fleutiaux was released on 12 June 2000 after eight months of captivity, but many other hostages remained in the hands of Chechen fighters. No meaningful political dialogue has been initiated by either side to the conflict.

30.        It is unclear whether the ICRC is given access to prisoners held by the Chechen side.

D. Implementation of Recommendation 1456 (2000) by member states

31.        In Recommendation 1456 (2000) the Assembly considered that substantial grounds for concern exist that the European Convention on Human Rights is being violated by the Russian authorities in the Chechen Republic both gravely and in a systematic manner. The Assembly thus appealed to the member states of the Council of Europe, as high contracting parties to the Convention, “to make use of Article 33 as a matter of urgency and to refer to the European Court of Human Rights alleged breaches by the Russian Federation of the provisions of the Convention and its Protocols”.

32.        Very regrettably, no member state has taken up the Assembly’s appeal and lodged an inter-state application. The Court is however, currently examining whether a number of cases brought by individuals are admissible. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that the appeal for an inter-state application under Article 33 should be renewed.

E. Implementation of Recommendation 1456 (2000) by the Committee of Ministers

33.        I fully support paragraph 12 of the draft resolution proposed by the Political Affairs Committee. Indeed, the reply of the Committee of Ministers is disappointingly weak. It particular, I find the assertion that “the situation in the Republic had certainly improved” rather naïve in view of the continued aerial attacks and bombardments in the Southern part of the Republic, as mentioned above. I also seriously doubt that the results achieved so far by the Russian Federation can be qualified as “positive”.

34.        Unfortunately, I have not had sufficient time to analyse the “Consolidated report containing an analysis of the correspondence between the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the Russian Federation under Article 52 of the European Convention on Human Rights” and its Addendum5. It has struck me, however, that these eminent legal experts consider, as this Committee has done throughout Russia’s military campaign in the Chechen Republic, that the internal legal basis of the campaign is insufficient, and indeed, incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights in several respects6. I intend to go more into detail on this matter at a later stage.

F. Conclusions and recommendations

35.        I welcome the draft resolution submitted by the Political Affairs Committee, which is of high quality. From the point of view of legal affairs and human rights, I would, however, like to make a few additions to the text, which you will find in the form of amendments in the conclusions of the Committee above.

Reporting committee: Political Affairs Committee

Committee for opinion: Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

Reference to committee: Ref No 2470 (request for urgent procedure on 24.1.00), Res 1201 (1999), Rec 1444, Doc 8631, Rec 1456 (2000)

Opinion approved by the committee on 28 June 2000

Secretaries to the committee: Mr Plate, Ms Coin and Ms Kleinsorge

1 See Doc 8785 of the Political Affairs Committee.

2 Mr Kalamanov is the Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation on Securing Human and Citizens’ Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic.

3 This data only includes information on losses among the servicemen of the Ministry of Defence and the officers of the Ministry of the Interior.

4 In fact, one of the problems are conflicting figures provided by various Russian official sources. For example, in his letter to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe dated 24 June 2000, Mr Ivanov, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, on page 7 gives the following figures: “Between January 1, 2000 and June 15, 2000, 384 members of the illegal armed groups had been put in custody, 184 of them had been released under the amnesty”. In the same letter, on page 6, Mr Ivanov claims that “More than 1000 persons have taken advantage of the 1999-2000 Amnesty”, while on page 5 of the Appendix of the letter the figure is 150 again.

5 SG/Inf (2000) 24 and Addendum.

6

SG/Inf (2000) 24, p. 7.