Doc. 8843

27 September 2000

Conflict in the Chechen Republic (follow-up to Recommendations 1444 and 1456 (2000) and Resolution 1221 (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.        Human rights violations continue to be perpetrated in the Chechen Republic by both sides to the conflict. Chechen fighters routinely violate international humanitarian law in their combat activities, oblivious to their effects on the civilian population. Hostages are still being held. The Chechen leadership has endorsed a series of lethal attacks on persons – and their families - working in the administration of the Chechen Republic. The Russian federal troops continue shelling villages in the Southern part of the Republic, and conduct combat and “mop-up” operations with scant regard for civilian life. Extortion and harassment at federal checkpoints are the rule rather than the exception; illegal and arbitrary arrests and detentions are manifold; allegations of ill-treatment and torture in detention, in particular in temporary detention facilities, persist. The freedom of movement of the civilian population in Chechnya is curtailed in an unacceptably severe manner, as is the freedom of the media.

2.        Machinery to investigate human rights violations perpetrated by Russian federal forces has been put into place. Mr Kalamanov’s Office and Mr Krashennikov’s Commission of Inquiry, in particular, analyse, record, catalogue and forward complaints to the prosecuting authorities – where they are not given sufficient follow-up. The Prosecutor’s Office is obviously making no serious effort to investigate crimes committed by servicemen against the civilian population, and is thus contributing to the climate of impunity in the Chechen Republic.

3.        While these problems are recognised to a certain extent in Russian political circles, open criticism of the situation in the Chechen Republic has not yet translated into the understanding that action is needed to change the situation. So far, the parliament has proven unable or unwilling to put sufficient pressure on the government and the administration to have an impact on the worrying situation in the Chechen Republic. Within the government, responsibility for the situation is transferred from one Ministry to the other. However, until someone is held accountable, and all those guilty of war crimes and other human rights violations are prosecuted and brought to court, human rights violations will go on in the Chechen Republic, poison the atmosphere, and impede peace and a political settlement of the conflict.

4.        The Committee broadly supports the draft resolution presented by the Political Affairs Committee, subject to the following amendments:

To the draft resolution:

Amendment A:

Insert the following new paragraph after paragraph 7:

Amendment B:

In paragraph 10, insert the following text after the first sentence:

Amendment C:

In paragraph 14, replace “including an interstate complaint before the European Court of Human Rights” with the following text:

Amendment D

In paragraph 15, replace the second sentence with the following text:

To the draft recommendation:

Amendment E:

In paragraph 2 iii, delete “including an interstate complaint before the European Court of Human Rights” and add a new sub-paragraph with the following text:

II. Explanatory memorandum

by Mr Bindig, Rapporteur

A. Introduction

1.        On 29 June 2000, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1221 (2000) on the conflict in the Chechen Republic, following up on its January and April Recommendations on the subject. While noting that the Russian authorities had put into place machinery to investigate human rights abuses in the Chechen Republic, and welcoming the Council of Europe’s involvement in this process, the Assembly regretted the lack of substantial results. It also expressed concern about continuing violations of human rights and humanitarian law committed by both sides to the conflict. The Assembly concluded that its recommendations to the Russian Federation had to remain fully in force, and, pending accelerating progress, the Assembly repeated its calls for the Committee of Ministers to keep under review the eligibility of the Russian Federation for continued membership of the Council of Europe.  The Assembly also renewed its urgent appeal for member states to lodge an inter-state application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 33 of the ECHR. 

2.        The Assembly, in the same resolution, instructed its Bureau to establish an ad hoc committee composed of representatives of the political groups and Rapporteurs of the competent committees in order to monitor the follow-up to Recommendations 1444 and 1456 (2000), report back on progress made or on the lack of progress, and to take part in the parliamentary hearing on the situation in the Chechen Republic to be organised by the State Duma in September 2000. 

3.        As Rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, I was appointed a member of this ad hoc Committee and took part in its visit to Znamenskoye (Chechnya) and Moscow, and attended the hearing. The full programme of the visit is annexed to the report of the Political Affairs Committee.

4.        The ad hoc Committee has not been able to gather sufficient information on the situation in the areas of the Chechen Republic which are not under full federal control – neither the ad hoc Committee, nor international organisations or NGOs have access to these areas or their leaders. For this reason, this opinion must concentrate on the situation in those areas which are under federal control. This does not mean, however, that I am blind to the human rights violations committed by Chechen fighters. Indeed, it seems quite obvious that Chechen fighters do not respect international humanitarian law in their combat activities, and that they are oblivious to their effects on the civilian population. Hostages are still being held. Most worryingly, the Chechen leadership has endorsed a series of lethal attacks on persons – and their families - working in the administration of the Chechen Republic (appointed by the Russian authorities).

5.        In this opinion, I will focus on developments in the legal field and regarding the human rights situation, as befits my mandate. First, I will assess developments on the ground, in the Chechen Republic itself. Second, I will evaluate the effectiveness of the machinery within the Russian Federation responsible for documenting, investigating and prosecuting human rights abuses and war crimes committed in Chechnya, concentrating on the crucial question of accountability before drawing my conclusions and making my recommendations.

B.       The human rights situation in Chechnya

Arbitrary and indiscriminate fire

6.        The human rights situation in the Chechen Republic as a whole remains precarious. Sporadic fighting continues in the Southern, mountainous areas of the Republic, which are not yet under full federal control. Russian non-governmental organisations report that the Russian federal forces shell villages in this area nightly2. Although there are reportedly few casualties, as most of the shells hit the surrounding fields, the civilian population understandably lives in terror. So-called “mop-up” operations of the federal forces aggravate the situation once a village comes under federal control, as there seems to be a policy of (short-term) mass detention of villagers, especially of the male population. The Russian NGO “Memorial" alleges that, increasingly, at the end of such mop-up operations, people “disappear” without trace, or corpses are found3.

Extortion and harassment at checkpoints

7.        In areas controlled by the federal forces, illegal acts at checkpoints pose a major problem. The number of checkpoints is very high4, and harassment and extortion are the rule rather than the exception5. Many soldiers and policemen serving in Chechnya have apparently not been paid for some time6 - some of them thus seem to consider extorting bribes while on checkpoint duty as “a right”. In addition, many people are detained at checkpoints if they cannot produce the required identity papers – or are unable to pay the demanded bribe. The illegal acts perpetrated at checkpoints constitute an unacceptable additional obstacle to the freedom of movement of the civilian population in Chechnya, which is already severely curtailed, inter alia by the nightly curfew. Checkpoints should thus be limited to the absolute minimum, and discipline in the federal forces tightened in order to stop these illegal practices immediately.

Illegal detentions and ill-treatment in custody

8.        One of the most worrying allegations is that many of those detained are at least temporarily held in unacceptable conditions – e.g. in holes dug in the earth at military bases7 (for example, in Khankala near Grozny), with no access to lawyers and no possibility of informing their relatives of their whereabouts. The Minister of Justice, Mr Chaika, informed us that there is only one pre-trial detention centre in Chechnya, in Chernokosovo – another one is due to be opened in Grozny soon. The Chernokosovo pre-trial detention centre was transferred to the Ministry of Justice on 15 February 2000, it having been run by the Ministry of the Interior beforehand. Allegations of torture and ill-treatment in Chernokosovo pre-trial detention centre, in fact, are made mainly regarding the period before 15 February 2000, when all the staff was exchanged. Russian NGOs allege that torture and ill-treatment shifted in spring 2000 from Chernokosovo to temporary detention facilities (“secret prisons”), e.g. one nicknamed the “Internat” (boarding school) in Urus-Martan, and other make-shift facilities like the above-mentioned holes in the ground, which are ”run” by the Ministry of the Interior or the Ministry of Defence8.

9.        During a visit to a temporary detention facility (IVS) in Znamenskoye, the Assembly’s delegation had the opportunity to speak to three detainees, who had been arrested a few days prior. Two of the three told us that they had already been charged, and had been in contact with a lawyer. No complaints were made on the conditions of detention or the food, which corroborated our personal impression of the detention facility.

10.        Officially, the Prosecutor’s Office must approve all detentions. The Prosecutor-General, Mr Ustinov, informed us that, in the period between 1 August 1999 and 25 June 2000, 1.176 persons were detained in the Chechen Republic. Strangely, the Minister of Justice gave quite different figures. In the period between 15 February 2000 and 31 August 2000, 1.439 persons had passed through Chernokosovo alone9. Mr Kalamanov, the President’s Human Rights Plenipotentiary in the Chechen Republic, told us that he had been given a list of all detained persons in Chechnya. This list is to be published by Russian NGOs in Chechen local papers soon.

11.        However, it seems clear that a high number of arrests and detentions are never officially registered by the authorities. The number of missing persons is staggeringly high – Mr Kalamanov estimates their number at 18.000 – and most of these persons seem to go missing after having been detained by federal forces. NGOs allege that civilians in Chechnya are currently at an equally high risk to be kidnapped by federal servicemen as by Chechen fighters. My personal feeling is that the making of illegal and non-reported arrests and detentions is not an intentional policy of the authorities, but that it is a practice that is tolerated by them, like the practice of extortion at checkpoints. It is obviously a practice that has to stop immediately.

Other human rights violations

12.        Russian and international NGOs allege that other human rights violations are also frequently perpetrated by Russian servicemen, in particular looting and rape. Many incidents of looting are, in fact, apparently quite well documented10, and range from the theft of jewellery, money and other portable valuables to organised transportation of voluminous goods stolen from homes (e.g. TV sets, video-recorders, fridges, etc.). The number of rapes is far more difficult to ascertain, as Chechen women are afraid to come forward. The reason for this reticence is that having been raped in the Chechen Muslim society means a dishonour for the woman concerned, who will have difficulties in marrying in the future or may be divorced from her husband.

Absence of a functioning judiciary in Chechnya

13.        These problems are compounded by the fact that there is currently no functioning judiciary in the Chechen Republic, not even for criminal cases. As an interim solution, criminal cases are currently sent to the Supreme Court, which distributes the case-load to courts of first instance in neighbouring regions. This system, as well as the general difficulties of investigating crimes committed in the Chechen Republic (lack of identity papers, witnesses unwilling to testify, etc.) leads to unacceptably long delays in the treatment of these criminal cases – and the pre-trial detention of those accused.

14.        The re-establishment of a functioning judiciary in the Chechen Republic must be a priority. The legal department of the Supreme Court informed us that the re-establishment of the judicial system is currently being worked upon. Buildings had been located in ten places in Chechnya, which were now being restored, furnished and provided with the technical facilities needed for them to be used as court buildings. In addition, judges were being appointed and trained, and staff provided. We were told that the financial and security situation posed particular difficulties. Mr Kalamanov mentioned the date of 1 October 2000 for the re-establishment of a functioning judiciary; the representative of the Supreme Court 1 December 2000.

General living conditions

15.        General living conditions in the federally controlled areas in Chechnya seem to have improved somewhat, with efforts made by the administration in the Chechen Republic to restore gas and electricity supplies, and provide basic medical care and education. However, many problems persist. Pensions, wages and social benefits are paid sporadically, if at all. Even the staff of Mr Kalamanov’s Office have not been paid for the last 6 months; many teachers have received no salaries for years. Some pensioners have to travel to Grozny to collect their pensions – only to have to give up all the little money they have received at the checkpoints en route to their home village. According to Mr Kalamanov, 40.000 identity papers have been issued so far11. In an area where few of the remaining estimated 510.000 inhabitants possess any identity papers recognised by the authorities, but where non-production of valid identity papers can lead to detention (e.g. at checkpoints or during “mop-up” operations), this is clearly insufficient.

Plight of displaced persons

16.        The conditions in camps for displaced persons, many of them temporary tent camps, can only be described as alarming in view of the approaching winter. Not surprisingly, according to the Ministry of Federal, National and Migration Affairs, the number of persons leaving the Chechen Republic is currently higher than that of those returning. The representative of the Ministry reported at the hearing that the over 200.000 displaced persons in Ingushetia could not be expected to return to the Chechen Republic until their security and minimal survival conditions could be guaranteed (housing, jobs, etc.). According to the Ministry’s representative, one of the principal conditions for their return was compensation for lost, destroyed and damaged property. However, not even the legislative framework for such compensation currently exists.

Targeting of ethnic Chechens and human rights NGOs

17.        Displaced persons who have fled to areas of Russia other than Ingushetia, e.g. Moscow, face the additional problem of not being granted the status of refugees or “forced migrants”, in contrast to the practice during the first Chechen conflict (1994-1996). NGOs report that these displaced persons, as indeed other persons of Chechen ethnic origin, are routinely targeted by the police – who break into their apartments at night, plant drugs or weapons on people, or simply arrest and detain them in broad daylight on false charges12. Most worryingly, NGOs defending the rights of Chechens are now becoming targets themselves. On 28 August 2000, masked police officers raided the Moscow office of the “Glasnost Foundation”, a human rights NGO. Its Chairman, Sergei Gregoriants, described the raid as a “conscious, government action aimed at intimidating civil society”. In a separate development, on 12 September 2000 two NGO activists working for “Memorial” and “Civic Assistance” were arrested at a checkpoint in Chechnya, and released only a few days later upon the intervention of Mr Kalamanov’s Office.

C.       Investigation and prosecution of human rights abuses in the Chechen Republic: the problem of accountability

18.        The following institutions/persons deal with the documentation and investigation of human rights violations in the Chechen Republic:

Mr Kalamanov’s office

19.        Mr Kalamanov informed us that his office has received over 8.000 complaints so far, of which 4.300 had been registered in writing in his headquarters at Znamenskoye (90%) or one of his 11 field offices (10%). 90% of the applicants were women. Nearly half of the complaints lodged concerned abuses perpetrated by Russian servicemen. A high proportion of complaints received (452 so far) concerned missing persons, and the number was constantly growing. According to Mr Kalamanov, this was not due to more people “disappearing” recently than at the beginning of the year, but due to increased confidence within the population in his office. Allegations of war crimes had also been made.

20.        As his office has no prosecutorial powers, Mr Kalamanov forwards the complaints he receives to the competent Prosecutor’s Office, or to the Presidential Commission for the search of missing persons and hostages in the case of missing persons (which, in his opinion, works far too slowly14). Members of his office have also started a practice of being present when detainees are liberated (e.g. on the basis of the amnesty), since Mr Kalamanov had observed that liberated detainees were given no papers and thus often found themselves re-arrested a few hours later.

The State Duma Commission

21.        The State Duma Commission under the Chairmanship of Duma Deputy Mr Tkatchov organised the hearing which was held on 21 September 2000 in Moscow, and in which representatives of the Council of Europe participated (the Chairman in Office of the Committee of Ministers, the Secretary-General, and Lord Judd as the representative of the Assembly’s ad hoc Committee were all given the opportunity to speak). While the Commission is quite critical of the situation on the ground in Chechnya – Mr Tkatchov himself raised most of the problems I have detailed in Chapter B of this opinion – the Commission has so far been unable to put sufficient pressure on the government and the administration to have an impact on the situation in the Chechen Republic.

Mr Krashennikov’s Commission

22.        The Independent Russian Commission of Inquiry under the Chairmanship of Duma Deputy Mr Krashennikov has a status similar of that of an NGO, though the Commission has decided not to register as one. Lacking any legal status, though not lacking in good will, the Commission has set up a number of helpdesks in the Chechen Republic and in camps for displaced persons, where complaints are registered in a manner similar to that of Mr Kalamanov’s Office. Since the Commission, as Mr Kalamanov’s Office and the State Duma Commission, lacks any prosecutorial authority, it transmits the complaints it receives – 200 so far - to the competent Prosecutor’s Office. It also makes recommendations to the President and the Prime Minister on how to improve the humanitarian situation.

The Prosecutor’s Office

23.        One of the most disappointing and disillusioning meetings the ad hoc Committee had in Moscow was a two-hour meeting with Prosecutor-General Ustinov. While the Prosecutor’s Office has re-established the Republican Prosecutor’s Office and 13 municipal and district offices, and the Military Prosecutor’s Office never interrupted its activity, it is clear that the emphasis of the prosecution is distorted. During the first 8 months of this year, the Prosecutor’s Office has started investigating over 2.800 crimes committed by “illegal armed groups”, including 185 murders, 31 cases of grievous bodily harm, 33 cases of robbery, 64 cases of theft, 300 cases of drug-trafficking and 172 cases of arms-trafficking. In the period between 1 August 1999 and 31 August 2000, the Military Prosecutor’s Office has opened 540 criminal cases for crimes committed by servicemen, of which 87 have been transferred to the courts. However, only 16 of these crimes were committed against the civilian population, including 6 murders, 4 cases of manslaughter, 1 rape and 2 thefts. 4 of these cases were transferred to the courts, 4 investigations were stopped on the basis of amnesty and 8 cases are still being investigated.

24.        I think it is clear from these figures that the Prosecutor’s Office is making no serious effort to investigate crimes committed by servicemen against the civilian population, and is thus contributing to the climate of impunity in the Chechen Republic. Indeed, it is totally unacceptable that the thousands of complaints on crimes and abuses committed by servicemen documented by Mr Kalamanov and forwarded to the prosecuting authorities simply seem to receive practically no follow-up. The willingness and capability of the Prosecutor’s Office to investigate crimes committed and bring those guilty to court, is a key question in a state based on the rule of law. In this area the deficits are so grave that Duma Deputy and member of the State Duma Commission E. Rogatchev even spoke of “criminal inactivity” of the prosecuting authorities during the hearing in the State Duma.

25.        When members of the ad hoc Committee asked the Prosecutor-General Ustinov for clarification on the prosecutions into the three alleged massacres documented by human rights groups (in Alkhan-Yurt in December 1999, Staropromyslovski in January 2000 and Aldi in February 2000), Mr Ustinov first replied by drawing attention to mass killings of ethnic Russians by Chechen bandits, and then by pointing out that the alleged massacres were perpetrated by unidentified masked gunmen wearing military camouflage uniforms worn by both sides. In fact, criminal proceedings have been instituted, but not by the Military Prosecutor’s Office – this means that the prosecuting authorities maintain that no federal serviceman is involved15. Similarly, a “civilian” criminal case has been instituted into the abduction and murder of the former Speaker of the Chechen “Parliament”, Mr Alikhadzhiev, although witnesses have reportedly unanimously testified that he was arrested and abducted from his house in Shali by federal troops. In addition, the question of the existence (and possible opening) of mass graves has not yet been investigated in a serious manner.

D.       Conclusions and recommendations

26.        It must be concluded that human rights violations continue to be perpetrated in the Chechen Republic by both sides to the conflict. The Russian federal troops (which are made up of servicemen both from the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of the Interior) continue shelling villages in the Southern part of the Republic, and conduct combat and “mop-up” operations with scant regard for civilian life. Extortion and harassment at federal checkpoints are the rule rather than the exception; illegal and arbitrary arrests and detentions are manifold; allegations of ill-treatment and torture in detention, in particular in temporary detention facilities, persist. The illegal acts perpetrated at checkpoints constitute an unacceptable additional obstacle to the freedom of movement of the civilian population in Chechnya, which is already severely curtailed, inter alia by the nightly curfew and the lack of valid identity papers.

27.        Past and present human rights violations are currently being officially documented mainly by Mr Kalamanov’s Office and Mr Krashennikov’s Commission of Inquiry. Complaints are analysed, recorded, catalogued; and forwarded to the prosecuting authorities – where they are not given sufficient follow-up. The Prosecutor’s Office is obviously making no serious effort to investigate crimes committed by servicemen against the civilian population, and is thus contributing to the climate of impunity in the Chechen Republic.

28.        These problems are recognised to a certain extent in political circles. Open criticism of the situation in the Chechen Republic was made, for example, during the hearing in the State Duma. However, even amongst parliamentarians, criticism of the status quo does not translate into the understanding that action is needed to change the situation. So far, the parliament has proven unable or unwilling to put sufficient pressure on the government and the administration to have an impact on the situation in the Chechen Republic. No-one holds the government accountable – not even public opinion. Within the government, responsibility for the situation is transferred from one Ministry to the other. However, until someone is made accountable, and all those guilty of war crimes and other human rights violations are prosecuted and brought to court, human rights violations will go on in the Chechen Republic, poison the atmosphere, and impede peace and a political settlement of the conflict.

29.        When seen as a whole, in conjunction with the Recommendations and Resolutions adopted by the Assembly in January, April and June this year, the draft resolution proposed by the Political Affairs Committee deserves support. In particular, paragraphs 8 and 9 of the draft resolution take the concerns into account which have always been at the heart of the opinions of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, and which I had the opportunity to voice during the visit of the ad hoc Committee of the Bureau to Moscow and Chechnya. I would suggest only very few amendments, in order to emphasize the gravity of the Committee’s concern about the unsatisfactory situation with regard to past and present human rights violations in the Chechen Republic.

Reporting committee: Political Affairs Committee

Committee for opinion: Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

Reference to committee: Reference 2470, Resolution 1201 (1999), Resolution 1221 (2000), Recommendations 1444 and 1456 (2000)

Opinion approved by the committee on 27 September 2000

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

1 See Doc 8840 tabled by the Political Affairs Committee.

2 Examples given include Urus-Martan, Yermolovskaya, Agishty, Assinovskaya, Tangi-Chu and suburban areas of Grozny (some of these towns and villages are, in fact, at quite a distance from the main combat zones).

3

As an example, the village of Starye Atagi was given, where 6 corpses were found on 13 September 2000 after a “mop-up” operation.

4 For example, there are reportedly up to 40 checkpoints on the 60-minute stretch of road between the administrative border of Chechnya and Znamenskoye.

5 The going rate is reportedly 50 rubles per car per checkpoint; one checkpoint observed by Council of Europe staff had a “$top” sign, clearly indicating the message.

6 “Kontraktniki” (contract soldiers) are currently on hunger strike at the military headquarters in Rostov on Don, demanding their pay.

7 We were told that during active combat operations, keeping prisoners of war in holes dug in the earth might actually be a means to prevent them coming into the line of enemy fire. This explanation, however, does not seem to be relevant in the current situation in the Chechen Republic.

8 According to the Russian NGO “Memorial”, one man died in September 2000 in the village of Gekhi from the effects of torture with electric shocks, which leads the NGO to presume that a “mobile torture chamber” is being employed in these make-shift, unofficial prisons.

9 Of these, 647 had been transferred to pre-trial detention centres in other regions, 673 had been set free, and 183 amnestied.

10 For example, Russian government representative Nikolai Koshman personally witnessed large-scale looting in December 1999 in Alkhan-Yurt.

11 NGOs dispute this figure, claiming that no blank passports have arrived in the Chechen Republic.

12 The Russian NGO “Civic Assistance” has documented a high number of such incidents.

13 Mr O. Mironov (Ombudsman of the Russian Federation) and Mr V.A. Kartashkin (Chair of the Presidential Commission on Human Rights of the Russian Federation) also issue periodic statements on the matter, but do not seem to be making any large-scale investigations.

14 One might add here that the Chairman of the State Duma Commission, Mr Tkatchev, also accused the Ministry of the Interior of not being “interested” in searching for missing persons.

15 In a letter to Lord Judd from the Deputy Prosecutor-General of the Russian Federation, Mr Biryukov, dated 21 September 2000 (available from the Secretariat), the state of investigation for these cases is described as “on-going”. Concerning the Staropromyslovski district of Grozny, “investigations and searches are being carried out to establish whether members of illegal armed formations took part in the crime”. The Prosecutor’s Office should seriously investigate the possibility that Russian servicemen were involved in these crimes, in particular as NGOs allege that witnesses even, in some cases, identified the regiments of the perpetrators.