Doc. 8956

25 January 2001

Credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation

Opinion1

Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

Rapporteur: Mrs Renate Wohlwend, Liechtenstein, EPP/CD

I.       Conclusions of the committee

1.        The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights recommends that the credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation be ratified.

2.        However, the committee remains gravely concerned about the human rights situation in the Chechen Republic, and thus underlines that its recommendation should not be misinterpreted.

3.        The committee is not satisfied with the progress made in the implementation of the Resolutions and Recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly of last year by the Russian authorities. It nevertheless believes that the Russian parliamentary delegation deserves to be given another chance to prove that it is willing – and able – to influence the situation in the Chechen Republic for the better.

4.        The Committee thus proposes the following amendment:

Insert a new paragraph after paragraph 1, worded as follows:

II. Explanatory memorandum by Mrs Wohlwend

1.       On 6 April 2000, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe ratified the credentials of the Russian delegation, but decided to deprive it of its voting rights in the Assembly and its bodies in relation with the conflict in Chechen Republic, following a recommendation of this Committee.

2.        The Committee’s Rapporteur at the time, Mr Frunda, had recalled that in January 2000, the Assembly had decided by a narrow majority vote not to deprive the Russian delegation of their voting rights, hoping that this would enable the parliamentarians, on their return to Moscow, to use their influence to end the military campaign in the Chechen Republic and enter into negotiations with the Chechen side. He concluded: “The Russian parliamentary delegation did not make use of this reprieve. On the contrary, with a few notable exceptions, both the State Duma and the Council of the Federation have repeatedly aligned themselves with the policy of the Russian government in Chechnya.”2

3.        Nevertheless, Mr Frunda recommended to keep open the channels of communication to the Russian delegation. He thus concluded that non-ratification of the credentials was not an option. Instead, he recommended that the delegation be deprived of its voting rights, since “the realistic, tough and specific demands of the Assembly” formulated in January 2000 had not been complied with.

4.        As in April 2000, the reason why the credentials of the Russian delegation were challenged at the beginning of the session – this time by Mr Atkinson – was the conflict in the Chechen Republic. The recent developments in this conflict are the subject of an excellent report by Lord Judd on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee3, and a – no less excellent – opinion by Mr Bindig on behalf of this Committee4. Of course, the recommendations of this Committee with regard to the credentials of the Russian delegation should be in line with the conclusions of the Committee on the conflict in the Chechen Republic.

5.        The Committee concluded that it was “high time for the Russian authorities to act” to solve the key problem from a human rights perspective, the lack of accountability for crimes committed by federal servicemen and the personnel of law-enforcement agencies against civilians and the resulting impunity which, in turn, encourages further human rights violations by the Russian federal forces operating in the Chechen Republic and leads to unnecessary and unacceptable suffering among the civilian population. In other words, the Committee expects significant further progress to be made before the situation in the Chechen Republic can in any way be deemed satisfactory.

6.        This Committee must, however, also judge the efforts of the Russian parliamentary delegation undertaken to obtain such progress. From January 2000 to April 2000, the aggregate contribution of the Russian parliamentary delegation – indeed of the Russian parliament as a whole – had been fairly negative. The reaction of most members of the delegation to the suspension of their voting rights in April 2000 was equally unconstructive – instead of keeping the channels of communication open with the Parliamentary Assembly, the Chairman of the delegation led a “walk-out” from the Assembly.

7.        Relations with the Assembly further worsened when the State Duma adopted a declaration shortly afterwards in which it condemned the Assembly’s decision as a “discriminatory” decision. Subsequent co-operation with the parliamentary delegation, from April until September 2000, can be described only as ad hoc and spurious. The delegation decided to send only one “observer” to the June and September part-sessions of the Assembly, and refused to pay the expenses of those members of the delegation who disagreed with this policy, and came to Strasbourg nevertheless, prompting the Assembly to “deplore – as a violation of the freedom of expression – that the Russian Federal Assembly has hindered 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”.5

8.        Nevertheless, the Russian parliamentary delegation has proved extremely helpful, especially since late September 2000, in organising visits of the Rapporteurs and Committees to Russia and the Chechen Republic, engaging in constructive dialogue. The State Duma as a whole has also become somewhat more critical of the way the Russian government is conducting its campaign in Chechen Republic, instituting a Commission on the Normalisation of Political, Social and Economic Situation and Protection of Human Rights in the Chechen Republic, which held a hearing on 21 September 2000 in Moscow, followed by monthly Committee meetings.

9.        On balance, I am therefore not in favour of depriving the Russian delegation of its voting rights at this point in time. I feel that the Russian delegation deserves to be given another chance to prove that it is willing – and able – to influence the situation in the Chechen Republic, by – for example – actively participating in the joint Council of Europe/Russian parliamentary mechanism which Lord Judd has devised in his report on the conflict in Chechen Republic. The State Duma Commission could also be encouraged to hold accountable – possibly in a Western-style parliamentary hearing – those government authorities which are not delivering satisfactory results. From this Committee’s point of view, the prosecutor’s office should be taken to task first, since it is its “criminal inactivity”6 which is largely responsible for the lack of accountability and the climate of impunity reigning in the Chechen Republic today.       

10.        The conclusion of this Committee should thus not be misinterpreted as condoning human rights violations in the Chechen Republic. On the contrary, as the Committee’s opinion on the conflict in the Chechen Republic clearly shows, the Committee remains highly critical of the situation. It is now up to the parliamentary delegation of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe – and of the Russian parliament as a whole – to prove that they deserve the trust of the Assembly, and can influence the situation to the better. Should there be no significant improvement in the human rights situation in the Chechen Republic in the next six months, this Committee should put the question of voting rights of the Russian delegation on the agenda once more.

 

Reporting committee: Political Affairs Committee

Committee for opinion: Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

Reference to committee: Reference No. 2562, 22 January 2001

Opinion approved by the committee on 25 January 2001

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

1 See Doc 8949 tabled by the Political Affairs Committee.

2 See Doc 8701, opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on the credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation, 5 April 2000, pp 2-3.

3 See Doc. 8929.

4 See Doc. 8949.

5 Resolution 1221 (2000) of 29 June 2000, § 16.

6 As one of the participants in the hearing in Moscow on 21 September 2000 put it, I am told.