Whose responsibility? Protection of Chechen internally displaced persons, asylum seekers and refugees

Report by the Norwegian Refugee Council May 2005 2 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 HPE 3:PROTECTION ISSUES CHAPTER 2:PROTECTION OFIDPS FROMCHECHNYA CHAPTER THE SITUATION 1: INCHECHNYA CHAPTER INTRODUCTION PART 1:INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONSFROMCHECHNYA recommendations and summary Executive Introduction Table ofContents 3.5 Consequencesofalackeffective protection Forced returns toChechnya 3.4 Access toidentificationdocuments 3.3 3.2 Residence registration RecognitionasIDPs/forcedmigrants 3.1 Anti-Chechen feeling, harassment anddiscrimination harassment Anti-Chechen feeling, Displacement causedby conflict armed inChechnya The UNGuiding Principles onInternal Displacement Standards fortheprotection IDPs: situation The human rights conflict andinstability ten years of Background: • Conclusion notbeingregistered • Consequences of IDPs from Chechnya of • Registration movement andthesystem • Freedom of • Conclusion theLaw• Otherproblems with onForced Migrants • Access to refugee statusdetermination procedure forced statusto IDPs migrant from Chechnya of • Granting through forced status granted • Rights migrant • TheLaw onForced Migrants • Conclusion • Enforced returns • Thereturn process forreturn andcriteria tent camps inIngushetia • Closure of IDPs to Chechnya • Russian policyonreturn of • International standards forreturn • Conclusion • Problems facing IDPs from Chechnya to personalidentificationdocuments • Theright ...... fResidence intheRussian registration Federation of and theRussian system passport ...... Page 23 Page Page 24 Page 28 Page 10 Page 14 Page 21 Page 18 Page 18 Page 11 Page 11 Page 6 Page Page 4 Page CHAPTER 11:RETURNSACCORDING TO THEDUBLINIIREGULATION CHAPTER 10:EXTRADITIONS MANDATORY ANDFORCED RETURNS TO RUSSIA CHAPTER 9: CHAPTER 8:EXCLUSION FROMREFUGEESTATUS APPLICATION OFTHEINTERNALPROTECTION ALTERNATIVE CHAPTER 7: STATUS DETERMINATION INTHEEU,NORWAYCHAPTER 6: ANDSWITZERLAND STATUS DETERMINATION INCOUNTRIESOUTSIDE THEEU CHAPTER 5: DETENTIONOFCHECHEN ASYLUM SEEKERS CHAPTER 4: ACCESS TO 3: ASYLUM PROCEDURES CHAPTER ACCESS TO TERRITORY CHAPTER 2: MOVEMENT OFCHECHEN ASYLUM SEEKERS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION PART 2:ASYLUM SEEKERSANDREFUGEESFROMCHECHNYA te eot frtrso Chechens returns of of Other reports Reports aboutchain-refoulement rejected asylum seekers from EUcountries return of The mandatory Internal orinternal relocation? flight regardState with practice to Chechen asylumseekers PACE andNGOs Recommendations from UNHCR, ECRE Policy onInternal Protection Alternative UNHCR Guidelines onInternal Protection Alternative Finland, Germany, Lithuania, • Poland, Austria, TheCzech Republic, Poland, • TheSlovak Republic, 6.2. Policies onasylum • Policies towards Chechen asylumseekers inEuropean countries • Refugee recognition rates 6.1. Generaloverview TheDublinRegulation Access inEUcountries: Limited access inUkraine Prima facierecognition inGeorgia andBelarus Azerbaijan, No access inKazakhstan, Reports aboutrejection atborders Visa policiesaffectingChechen asylumseekers 6.3. Otherformsofprotectionandtotalrecognitionrates wdn owy Switzerland Norway, Sweden, Switzerland Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, Germany, TheNetherlands, Belgium, France, ...... Page 30 Page 39 Page 39 Page 34 Page 56 Page 32 Page Page 45 Page 48 Page 52 Page 53 Page 38 Page 37 Page 57 Page 31 Page 31 Page 41

3 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 Introduction to the report

The purpose of this report is to identify and analyze This report is part of a project initiated by the choice of focus was guided by a concern to emphasize While the rights of refugees are defined in the the obstacles to the protection of ethnic Chechen European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE). the right of IDPs to seek protection in a safe area and 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees internally displaced persons (IDPs), refugees and ECRE is a network of 80 non-governmental organ- to highlight the protection problems facing Chechen and its 1967 Protocol (hereinafter the 1951 Refugee asylum seekers. izations (NGOs) in 30 European countries. In 2002 asylum seekers that are denied international protec- Convention), there is no international treaty defin- ECRE included work with IDPs in its mandate. In tion and referred the possibility of returning to the ing the rights of IDPs. But international standards During the last decade there has been two peri- 2004 the Norwegian Refugee Council undertook to Russian Federation to live as IDPs outside Chechnya. for protection of IDPs do exist. In 1998 Francis ods of armed conflict in the Chechen Republic collect information from, and coordinate advocacy This being said, the situation for IDPs in Chechnya is Deng, the first UN Special Representative on (Chechnya), often referred to as the first conflict efforts by, ECRE members with regard to the situa- critical, and deserves the utmost international atten- Internally Displaced Persons developed the UN 3 (1994-96) and the second conflict (1999- ). This tion for Chechen IDPs and asylum seekers and tion and resources. Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. report will focus on displacement caused by the refugees in European countries. The main observa- Although not a binding instrument, they reflect second conflict. tions from this work are presented in this report, The second part of the report addresses protec- and are consistent with international law, and have which is intended to serve as tool for ECRE mem- tion concerns for Chechen asylum seekers and become the main tool for addressing the protection Since 1999, hundreds of thousands people have bers, other non-governmental and governmental refugees in the EU and in countries neighbouring needs facing IDPs. been forced to flee their homes in Chechnya. In organizations, as well as governments, when for- Russia. The analysis does not cover the situation in 2003 and 2004, asylum seekers from the Russian mulating their policies towards Chechen IDPs, asy- all countries hosting refugees and asylum seekers The 1951 Refugee Convention is the corner 1 Federation, most of whom are presumed to be of lum seekers, and refugees. from Chechnya, but the countries that receive most stone for protection of refugees. All the countries Chechen origin, have been the largest groups of of these groups are included. The analysis is mainly covered in the report have ratified the Refugee asylum seekers in Europe. The report is divided into two parts. The first part based on a survey among ECRE member organiza- Convention. Two principles of refuge and human addresses the situation for IDPs from Chechnya. The tions in 2004, as well as statistical and other infor- rights law are of particular concern when analyzing A substantial amount of material has been pub- analysis is based on information from the Russian mation provided by UNHCR. the current protection of Chechen asylum seekers lished on the situation of IDPs from, and in, human rights organization, and ECRE member, and refugees: This is the right to seek asylum as 2 Chechnya. Less information has been made available Memorial (winner of UNHCR´s Nansen Award in The legal framework of the report is all relevant defined in the Universal Declaration of Human on the conditions facing asylum seekers and refugees 2004), but also from international human rights international public law. This includes not only Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights from Chechnya. The protection concerns facing those organizations and inter-governmental organizations, international refugee law, but also international and Freedoms, and the principle of non-refoule- seeking internal protection and those seeking inter- including UNHCR and the Parliamentary Assembly human rights and humanitarian conventional law, ment as defined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, national protection have rarely been covered in one of the Council of Europe. Most of this information is customary law and “soft law”. but also in universal and regional human rights analysis. By doing this in our report, we seek to already published in various reports. The focus of our instruments and customary international law. ■ emphasize the link between internal displacement analysis is on the protection of IDPs from Chechnya, and refugee flows. With regard to Chechnya, poor that is, IDPs that are residing outside Chechnya. management of the IDP has led to people seeking There is a high number of internally displaced per- international protection. Many Chechens are, howev- sons within Chechnya itself, often referred to as er, denied international protection with reference to “inner internally displaced persons”. The protection

the fact that they can resettle as IDPs in other regions concerns particular for this group will not be 1 ECREs Guidelines on the Treatment of Chechen Internally Displaced 3 For more information about IDPs in Chechnya, see Memorial (Svetlana in the Russian Federation. As a consequence many addressed in this report. In addition to the need to Persons, Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Europe is to be published at Gannushkina), “On the Situation of residents of Chechnya in the Chechens risk being left without effective protection. limit the scope of our report for practical reasons, our www.ecre.org in May 2005. Russian Federation June 2003-May 2003”,pp. 14-25. 2 Memorials reporting about the situation of IDPs from and in Chechnya is based on information from 54 legal aid offices in 53 cities in Russia. CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

4 5 Executive summary and recommendations

The human rights situation in Chechnya Principles). The voluntary nature of return implies Guiding Principles, which state that all IDPs should apply for asylum. Chechens are denied access to Chechnya constitutes the most serious human more than a lack of physical coercion or overt be issued with necessary documents without national asylum systems in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan rights crisis in Europe today. Since the re-eruption intimidation. By definition, voluntary return imposing unreasonable conditions such as return and Belarus, and have only limited access to the asy- of armed conflict in Chechnya in 1999 the civilian involves individuals freely choosing to return or to original place of residence. lum system in Ukraine. The two latter countries are population has been a victim of grave and massive resettle internally without pressure from the state mainly considered as transit countries by most human rights violations, including extrajudicial and with their genuine consent. IDPs from Chechnya are not granted a legal sta- Chechens, whose final destination is countries in killings, disappearances and torture, including rape. tus that defines their rights as IDPs. The concept of Western Europe. Relatively large Chechen refugee Despite claims by the Russian authorities that the Despite a worsening of the security situation in an internally displaced person as defined in the UN populations are residing in Azerbaijan and situation in Chechnya has “normalized”, a number Ingushetia, IDPs from Chechnya often face insur- Guiding Principles is not reflected in Russian legis- Kazakhstan without any legal status and living in of incidents demonstrate the worsening of the mountable obstacles when attempting to seek safe- lation, but a similar status for “forced migrants” poor conditions. Georgia is the only country to security and human rights situation in, and around, ty in other regions of the Russian Federation. Anti- exists. This status serves as a guarantee for certain have recognized Chechens as refugees prima facie – Chechnya. Since 2003 the conflict has increasingly Chechen feeling is strong, and discrimination and rights, including the right to apply for special as a group. There are, however, recent reports that spilled over to neighbouring republics, most clearly harassment, both by private and state actors, are allowances and the right not to be forcibly Chechens have been prevented from seeking asy- illustrated by the armed attacks by Chechen groups widespread in the Russian Federation at large. returned. The status is not, however, applied to all lum also in Georgia. Concerns have been raised in Ingushetia in June 2004, and the school hostage Arbitrary detentions, the fabrication of criminal those covered by the international definition of an about the security and humanitarian situation for crisis in North-Ossetia in September 2004. Human charges, unlawful identity checks and attacks by IDP, and is often used in a restrictive and discrimi- the Chechen refugees in Georgia, who are residing rights violations in Chechnya are committed by private groups are commonplace. Racist crimes are natory manner. During the first conflict in in Pankisi, a territory bordering Chechnya. both federal forces, troops under the command of rarely investigated and punished. Legal safeguards Chechnya (1994-1996), when most IDPs were eth- the pro-Russian Chechen administration and in national legislation are not systematically nic Russians, IDPs were generally granted this sta- Asylum lottery Chechen rebel groups. In 2004, when the number enforced throughout the Russian Federation. tus. The refusal to grant forced migrant status to The EU does not have a common approach to asylum of disappearances rose sharply, human rights Regional and local authorities commonly adopt Chechen IDPs amounts to a violation of the UN seekers from Chechnya. Refugee recognition rates for organizations reported that troops under the their own regulations, which are in contradiction to Guiding Principles, which state that there should be asylum seekers from Russia vary considerably from Chechen administration had replaced federal national laws and do not meet with international no discrimination in according IDPs their rights. country to country. In 2003, two of the main receiv- troops as the main perpetrators of human rights standards. The refusal to grant forced migrant status to ing countries, Austria and the Slovak Republic had abuses. By the end of 2004, grave concern was Chechen IDPs seriously weakens the protection of recognition rates of 76.9 percent and 0 percent expressed about increasing numbers of incidents of The combination of unconstitutional laws and Chechen IDPs. It can be seen as a demonstration of respectively. Thus, despite the ongoing process of har- hostage-taking of relatives of suspected rebels, and practices and discrimination against ethnic a lack of willingness to recognize IDPs in general, monizing European asylum policy, the outcome of a an increase in disappearances of women. According Chechens are preventing Chechens from residing and Chechen IDPs specifically, as a particularly vul- claim depends to a great extent on the country in to the UN´s best case scenario for 2005, there will be legally in many regions of the Russian Federation. nerable group with special needs. which it is processed. In many countries, the majori- 4 little change in the security situation. The assassi- Even though the soviet system of “propiska”,where- ty of Chechen asylum seekers seem to be considered nation of Chechen separatist leader, Aslan by citizens had to apply for an authorization to reg- victims of war who do not qualify for refugee status, Maskhadov, in March 2005 has raised fears about ister at a new place of temporary or permanent res- and generally only persons who can establish that an upsurge of violence in the region and decreased idence, has been formally outlawed, it is still applied they have been persecuted for their political opinion The combination of the factors described above the possibilities of finding a political solution to the in administrative regulations and practice. Such are granted asylum. Fewer countries seem to regard leads to the conclusion that persons who have fled conflict. Given the current security situation in practice may affect all Russian citizens, but it has a Chechens at risk of persecution simply because of from Chechnya cannot expect to be granted effec- Chechnya, the return of IDPs should not be pro- disproportional effect on ethnic Chechens. their ethnicity. Several European countries are pro- tive protection in the Russian Federation, and are moted. “Undesirable” Chechens are often denied residence viding other forms of protection to asylum seekers in need of international protection. registration. As a consequence they are denied liber- from Chechnya. The protection provided does, how- Lack of effective protection ty of movement and freedom to choose a place of ever, vary from country to country and does not nor- of IDPs from Chechnya residence, in violation of the UN Guiding Principles mally provide the same rights as those provided to The armed conflict in Chechnya and the human and the Russian Constitution. According to Russian persons recognized as refugees. rights violations associated with it have forced hun- federal legislation, rights cannot be restricted or Increased flow of Chechen dreds of thousands of people to flee their homes in granted based on registration or the absence there- asylum seekers to Europe No genuine internal protection alternative the Republic. IDPs from Chechnya are not, howev- of, but in practice, without registration, Chechen As pressure on IDPs in the Russian Federation has In many European countries Chechens are denied er, granted effective protection in safe areas of the IDPs have limited access to basic social right such as intensified, an increasing number of Chechen asy- protection with reference to a so-called “internal pro- Russian Federation. employment, social security and education etc. lum seekers have sought international protection. tection alternative” i.e. that they can settle in regions Since 2003 asylum seekers from Russia, most of other than Chechnya in the Russian Federation. An In Ingushetia, where a majority of IDPs from IDPs from Chechnya also have limited access to whom are considered to be Chechens, have been internal protection alternative rarely exist when the Chechnya have been residing, direct pressure has the necessary identity documents. They often have the biggest group of asylum seekers in Europe. state is the persecutor. The fact that Russian Federal been exercised on IDPs to return to Chechnya in problems renewing “internal passports” at the place Chechens seeking international protection are fac- forces and security agencies under the control of the contradiction to the principle of voluntary return where they are actually residing, and are in many ing a number of obstacles. They risk being denied local Chechen administration are reported to have established by the UN Guiding Principles on cases told to return to Chechnya to renew such access to the territory of some states, and are there- committed widespread human rights abuses in Internal Displacement (the UN Guiding documents. This is a clear violation of the UN by denied the possibility of exercising their right to Chechnya; the atmosphere of impunity and lack of CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

6 7 prosecution of these abuses; the lack of a federal genuinely free from the risk of serious harm in the Concerns about the consequences ly to Poland, but also to the Slovak Republic and the response to local and regional authorities introduc- country of origin, they are directly contributing to of EU-enlargement Czech Republic. There is concern that the systems ing legislation that contradicts both national and the worsening of a problem of internal displace- The enlargement of the EU in May 2004 had a for receiving, processing and integrating asylum international law in the very places most Chechens ment. strong impact on the situation of Chechen asylum seekers in these countries are weak or over-bur- settle; the tide of an “anti-Chechen” feeling and an seekers. The majority of Chechens first arrives in dened, and unable to provide satisfactory protec- increase in racially motivated attacks; discriminato- The mandatory return of rejected Chechen asy- the EU in one of the new EU member states, usual- tion to Chechen asylum seekers and persons recog- ry treatment towards Chechens by law-enforce- lum seekers from EU countries to the Russian ly Poland. Before May 2004 Chechens could register nized as in need of international protection. In ment agencies, arbitrary arrests and detention; the Federation is not reported to take place on a large as asylum seekers in these countries before moving addition to concerns about low recognition rates discriminatory and authorizing nature of registra- scale. Non-governmental organizations do report, on to countries further west. After these countries and weak protection regimes, wide-spread deten- tion at place of residence and sojourn, the violation however, that mandatory returns are taking place in became member of the EU and parties to the tion of asylum seekers in Poland and claims about of rights during checks on identity documents and some countries. Due to the conditions described Dublin Regulation, applicants arriving in these incidents of the chain-refoulement of Chechens the fact that documents have been taken away ille- above, we consider that returns cannot take place in countries generally need to have their cases from the Slovak Republic to Russia via Ukraine are gally; lead us to conclude that an internal protec- safety and dignity, and recommend against the processed there even if they manage to reach the of major concern. ■ tion alternative for Chechens should not be consid- mandatory return of Chechen asylum seekers to the territory of other states. Currently, many Chechen ered at the present time. If States do not focus on Russian Federation at the current time. asylum seekers are waiting to be returned from the key question of whether a refugee claimant is “old” Dublin countries to new EU-countries, main- 4 According to the Chechnya Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP) for 2005.

Recommendations* 9. The Russian authorities must ensure that all return hap- 16. European States should adopt a full and inclusive inter- Article 3 (2) of the Dublin II Regulation to adopt responsibil- pens voluntary, in safety and dignity. In particular, the pretation of the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to ity for examining all asylum claims from Chechen asylum Regarding internally displaced Russian authorities must ensure that Chechen IDPs are Refugees with regard to asylum seekers from Chechnya. seekers lodged on the territory of the Member State, with- persons from Chechnya not evicted from temporary residence centers in Ingushetia out returning the Chechen asylum seeker to the first coun- without being offered alternative shelter; that IDPs are pro- 17. Flight from armed conflict should not be an automatic try of arrival in the European Union; by utilizing Article 15 of 1. The Russian Federation should use all available peace- vided with humanitarian assistance both inside and outside reason to deny Chechens refugee protection as many who the Regulation (the Humanitarian Clause) to ensure that ful political means to resolve the conflict in Chechnya and Chechnya; and that the granting of compensation is not flee conflict, do so in fact for Convention reasons. family unity is preserved and that applications from family stop it spreading further into the Russian Federation. conditional upon return to Chechnya. members and other dependent relatives can be processed 18. Complementary forms of protection should only be in the same country if the asylum seeker so requests. 2. The Russian Federation should take all possible meas- 10. Conditions must be in place to ensure that it is safe to return accorded to those Chechens whose reason for flight are ures to address the issue of discrimination towards to Chechnya – physically, legally and materially. It is the duty of beyond a full and inclusive interpretation of the Convention, 26. Support should also be manifested by the implementa- Chechens within the Russian Federation and, in particular, the Russian government with the support of the international but who nevertheless require international protection. tion of a system of financial support to be given to govern- take active measures to halt the gross violations of human community to ensure that these conditions are in place. ments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in rights currently taking place in Chechnya. 19. European states should ensure that all those accorded those countries receiving the highest numbers of refugees 11. Guarantees should ensure a minimum standard of living in complementary protection enjoy the same rights as from Chechnya. 3. The Russian Federation should respect the concept of Chechnya for IDPs in line with that enjoyed by other citizens in Convention refugees, in particular with regard to family uni- internally displaced persons as defined in the1998 United other regions of the Russian Federation and should include ty and socio-economic rights. 27. EU Member States should not return Chechens to other Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. The minimal guarantees such as the possibility to work, the avail- Member States unless they can ensure that the applicant will scope of this definition appropriately includes the conse- ability of a necessary level of subsistence and a monetary pay- 20. For Chechens in need of international protection, states be granted access to a fair and efficient asylum procedure. quences of indiscriminate military actions carried out by ment that can ensure a healthy and dignified life. should not consider there to be an internal protection alter- police and/or armed forces. native in the Russian Federation, including those Chechens 28. The risk of refoulement from some EU Member States 12. The Russian authorities should develop a comprehen- who hold residence registration (propiska) outside of means that extreme care must be taken in such cases in 4. The Russian Federation should ensure all IDPs on its sive plan for integration of Chechen IDPs who choose to Chechnya. order not to expose refugees to this danger and to uphold territory have equal access to their rights as set out in the resettle outside Chechnya. obligations under Article 33 (2) of the 1951 Geneva 1998 UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. 21. The fact that a refugee may have lived as an IDP before Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Article 3 Regarding Chechen refugees seeking protection should not be used in negative credibility find- of the ECHR and the Convention against Torture. 5. The rights of IDPs should be explicitly formulated in and asylum seekers: ings to prove that the claim for asylum abroad is not genuine. Russian legislation. 29. EU Member States should as a minimum not return 13. European states should ensure that Chechen asylum 22. The forced or mandatory return to the Russian Chechen asylum seekers or Chechens who have had their 6. The Russian Federation should take all necessary steps seekers can avail themselves of protection on their territo- Federation of any Chechen seeking international protection applications for asylum rejected to third countries such as to ensure that the practice of authorizing registration or ry, through adequate access to territory and fair asylum should not take place, and voluntary repatriation to the Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova or Ukraine, where propiska is totally abolished. procedures. Russian Federation as a durable solution should not be pro- relatively new asylum systems are under added pressure moted at the present time as the conditions of “safety and due to the presence of other large groups of refugees 7. An IDP’s place of residence registration should not affect 14. European states should consider all Chechens who dignity” cannot be upheld. and/or IDPs and the proximity of the Russian Federation. their ability to access his/her rights, including all socio-eco- have fled as a result of war and violence in Chechnya in nomic state benefits or allowances and their right to claim need of international protection. 23. In a spirit of responsibility sharing and solidarity EU 30. European states should not extend refugee protection to for compensation for lost housing. Member states should resettle Chechen refugees from any person with respect to whom it has been found – after 15. European states should acknowledge that Chechens who Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Georgia. an individual refugee status determination – that there are 8. IDPs from Chechnya should be able to replace their have been living permanently outside the Chechen Republic serious grounds to consider that he or she is individually passports at their factual place of residence without the may also be in need of international protection due to the risk of 24. ‘Old’ EU Member States should support ‘new’ Member responsible for acts falling within the scope of Article 1F of need to return to Chechnya or other regions where they discriminatory treatment and human rights violations due to States receiving more refugees from Chechnya. the refuge convention. Such a person may still be protected fear for their safety. their ethnicity in the Russian Federation at large. by other human rights instruments. 25. Such support should be manifested through utilizing

* These recommendations have been drawn up with reference to the ECRE Guidelines on Chechen IDPs, Asylum Seekers and Refugees, approved by the ECRE CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA membership, which can be found at www.ecre.org. 8 9 Part 1: Internally displaced persons from Chechnya Introduction

This part of the report is divided into 3 chapters. ing and racist crimes against Chechens in the The first chapter gives a brief background to the Russian Federation. The third chapter address spe- conflict in Chechnya and addresses developments cific protection issues of particular relevance to in the human rights situation in the republic. The the current situation of IDPs from Chechnya; the second chapter focuses on standards for the pro- issue of forced migrant status; the issue of resi- tection of IDPs, provides an overview of the dis- dence registration; the issue of access to identifica- placement caused by the conflict in Chechnya, and tion documents; and finally the issue of forced describes the development of anti-Chechen feel- return to Chechnya. ■

Chapter 1: The situation in Chechnya

Background: Ten years of conflict and instability for implementing “anti-terror operations” has been «Human Rights Watch Chechnya has been in state of armed conflict transferred to local Chechen security agencies. has concluded that almost continuously for the last ten years. In the widespread and December 1994, Russian troops engaged in a full- In 2004, an escalation of the conflict was systematic pattern scale military intervention in Chechnya. The aim of demonstrated by a number of dramatic events. The of “disappearances” the intervention was declared to be to restore con- winner of the 2003 Presidential elections, Ahmed in Chechnya now stitutional order after the Chechen parliament in Khadyrov was assassinated, and the conflict amounts to a 1991 declared Chechnya independent from Russia. increasingly spread to republics neighbouring “crime against A guerilla war followed before a cease-fire was Chechnya. In June, radical militants attacked sever- humanity” signed in August 1996. Russian forces withdrew al cities in Ingushetia. Within days of new presiden- as defined in the although no final status agreement had been made. tial elections in Chechnya three months later, ter- Rome Statute of During the next three years the situation in the rorist attacks were carried out against two Russian the International Republic remained violent and unstable. In 1997, airplanes, and the infamous Beslan school hostage Criminal Court.» Aslan Maskhadov won presidential elections moni- crisis in North-Ossetia took place. A wave of terror- tored by the OSCE. President Maskhadov was seen ist attacks and the assassination of the former elect- as the moderate candidate, but was in a situation of ed President of the Republic, Mr. Akhmed near total unemployment and lacking resources to Maskhadov in March 2005, have raised concern rebuild a war-torn economy, unable to control rad- about the decreased possibilities of fining a political ical Chechen factions. In August 1999, Chechen solution to the conflict and a further escalation of militants carried out raids into neighbouring violence in the region Dagestan. When a month later a series of apartment bombings in Moscow were attributed to Chechen The human rights situation separatist, Russian authorities launched a new mil- The UN Human Rights Committee has expressed itary intervention into Chechnya. deep concern about substantiated reports of human rights violations in the Chechen Republic, The Russian authorities have insisted that their including extra-judicial killings, disappearances 6 current military activities in Chechnya are part of and torture including rape and has criticized an “anti-terror operation”, not an internal armed Russia’s federal anti-terrorism legislation “On the 5 7 conflict. Large-scale military fighting lasted a rela- Fight Against Terrorism” for exempting law tively short time, and since 2001, the Russian enforcement and military personnel from liability authorities have claimed that the situation has “sta- from harm caused during counter-terrorist opera- 8 bilized”. In 2003 a referendum and presidential tions. Human Rights Watch has concluded that the elections were organized in Chechnya, but consid- widespread and systematic pattern of “disappear- ered “flawed” by the international community. ances” in Chechnya now amounts to a “crime Increasingly, a “Chechenization” of the conflict has against humanity” as defined in the Rome Statute 9 been carried out, where much of the responsibility of the International Criminal Court.

Chechen IDPs in Satitsa tent camp CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA in Ingushetia, February 2004. 10 11 Photo: Anne Marit Austbø, NRC. «The Norwegian On 24th February 2005 the European Court of the armed conflict in 1999 is between 10, 000 and source, “torture seems to be employed not only in Helsinki Committee Human Rights delivered judgments on the first six 20, 000. In addition an estimated 5 000 persons order to extract information from persons suspect- 15 concluded in a report Chechen cases from residents of Chechnya whose have “disappeared”. ed of criminal acts, but also on ordinary citizens in from 2002 that “there relatives died at the hands of Russian troops or who order to make them sign phony confessions or 22 is no security for the suffered as a result of Russian military action in Human rights violations in Chechnya are com- sometimes simply in order to degrade them”. civilian population and 1999 and 2000. In each of the cases, the Court has mitted by federal troops, Chechen fighters, and, Human Rights Watch has stated that “simply being where especially adult found Russia in violation of several key articles of increasingly, by militia connected to the Chechen a male of fighting age appears sufficient for males are in danger the European Convention on Human Rights and administration. In early 2005, Human Rights Watch grounds for detention, and those detained are 23 of being detained by Fundamental Freedoms, including Article 2 (the researched 50 abduction cases from the second half invariable beaten and abused”. According to the federal forces, right to life) and article 3 (prohibition of torture). of 2004. Out of the abductions studied, Kadyrov’s Norwegian Helsinki Federation the persecution of 16 often with fatal The Court, in particular, stressed in its judgments militia had carried out two-thirds of the abduc- young males seems to be an informal policy of the consequences.» that the Russian authorities had failed to carry out tions, while federal troops carried out the other federal anti-terror campaign, and that in practice 17 adequate investigations into the circumstances of third. The high number of abductions committed the federal anti-terror operation takes little distinc- 10 the deaths of the applicants’ relatives’ cases. by Kadyrov’s militia is regarded a consequence of tion between persons who could be termed “ter- 24 the “Chechenization” of the conflict. Chechen rorist” and ordinary Chechens. Throughout 2004, NGOs continued to docu- rebels, on their side are reported to kill local ment the worsening security situation in Chechnya. authority heads and workers who do not share their The pattern of abductions is reported to have In April 2004, Amnesty International, Human political views. In early 2005 a secondary school changed over the past couples of years, from large Rights Watch and Memorial jointly stated that teacher was reportedly killed “only for his teaching groups in clean-up operations to selected individu- 18 enforced “disappearances,” rape, torture and extra- the Russian language” Due to the reign of impuni- als. The kidnappers’ motivations differ. “Often they judicial executions by federal troops and Chechen ty in place in Chechnya, the identity of the crimi- demand a ransom, while in other cases they torture A Chechen IDP shows a pho- 11 fighters are everyday occurrences in Chechnya. In nals can often not be established with certainty. The people and demand they name rebels among their tograph of a relative who has October 2004 UNHCR spoke of the grounds for procuracy has opened hundreds of criminal inves- acquaintances. When the torture goes too far, vic- disappeared. Ingushetia, 25 “serious concern, due to targeted persecution tigations into abuses by Russian and pro-Russian tims usually disappear without trace.” While the 2003. Photo: Fredrik including arbitrary detentions, widespread vio- Chechen troops, but in most cases officials fails to victims of forced disappearances and other viola- Naumann. lence, insecurity and violations of human rights, as conduct even the most basic investigate steps, and tions of human rights were formerly almost exclu- 19 well as ongoing hostilities significantly affecting the most investigations remain unresolved. sively men of fighting age, in 2003 and 2004, there practice that Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov civilian population and leading to continued forced was a growing number of such crimes against of the Russian Federation proposed should be 12 displacement” . Human rights organizations have pointed out woman, teenagers and elders. According to legalized after the Beslan hostage-taking raid last 27 that people who have been, or who could be Memorial, human rights violations against women September. According to statements by represen- The number of “disappearances” in Chechnya deemed to have been, involved in rebel activities acquired a “mass character” in 2004, when mothers, tatives of Human Rights Watch in February 2005, rose sharply in 2004. According to Vladimir Lukin, and human rights defenders are at particular risk wives and sisters of Chechen rebels constituted the increasingly indiscriminate abductions have Russia’s human rights ombudsman, some 1700 of arbitrary detentions and the human rights vio- groups most frequently abducted or taken hostage instilled among Chechen civilians a sense of terror 20 26 people in Chechnya were abducted during the lations associated with them. However, human in Chechnya. Reprisals against the relatives of more intense and overwhelming than they 13 year. Memorial documented at least 396 disap- rights organizations increasingly describe a situa- insurgents, including hostage-taking became sig- suffered during the military phase of federal oper- 28 pearances in 2004. 175 of them are considered to tion whereby the whole civilian population risks nificantly more frequent and systematic in 2004, a ations. ■ have disappeared without trace. 293 locals were being a victim of such violations. The Norwegian 14 found killed in the same period. Memorial sys- Helsinki Committee concluded in a report from tematically monitors the situation in only approxi- 2002 that “there is no security for the civilian pop- mately one third of Chechnya’s territory, and con- ulation and where especially adult males are in cludes that a conservative estimate of the number danger of being detained by federal forces, often 21 of civilians killed in Chechnya since the outbreak of with fatal consequences. According to the same 5 In this context it is interesting to note that in a decision from Disappearances, Rape, Torture and Extrajudicial Executions”. November 2003 a British court concluded that the events in Chechnya Joint statement 8 April, 2004. in 1995 and 1996 amounted in law to an internal armed conflict. See 12 UNHCR Position regarding Asylum-Seekers and Refugees from the Currently, the highest num- The Bow Street Magistrates’ Court, The Government of the Russian Chechen Republic, Russian Federation. UNHCR Geneva, Federation v Akhmed Zakaev, 13 November 2003. 22 October 2004. bers of IDPs are in Chechnya 6 U.N. Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations of the 13 Human Rights Watch, “ Russian Federation/Chechnya: Human Rights itself. Outside Chechnya, Human Rights Committee. Russian Federation § 13, 06/11/2003, Concerns for the 61st Session of the U.N. Commission on Human CASPIAN SEA most Chechen IDPs reside in THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION U.N.Doc.CCPR/CO/79/RUS. Rights”, 10 March 2003. 7 Article 21 of this statute "Exculpation from responsibility for causing 14 neighboring Ingushetia, but Prague Watchdog Newsletter, 6 January 2005. damage", states: "During the conduct of a counterterrorist operation on 15 Memorial, Briefing note, December 2004 also in other republics in the basis and within the limits laid down by law necessary damage may 16 Security Service of the Chechen President under command of Ramzan be caused to terrorists' lives, health and property, and also to other Northern Caucasus. Kadyrov, son of late President Akhmat Kadyrov. legally protected interests. Servicemen, specialists, and other person- 17 Moscow Times, 17 February,2005 (Issue 3108). KARACHAYEVO- participating in the fight against terrorism are exempted from respon 18 Itar-Tass, 10 February 2005 CHERKESSIA sability for damage caused in the conduct of a counterterrorist opera- 19 Supra note 13 tion in accordance with Russian Federation legislation". Federal' KABARDINO 20 nyi zakon of 25 July 1998, N130-FZ, Sobr. Zakonod. RF 1998 N 31 Amnesty International, Russian Federation: Amnesty International BALKARIA Statement on the Situation of Chechen Asylum-Seekers , EUR INGUSHETIA CHECHNYA (as amended in 2002). Available in English at http://www.legislation- line.org/view.php?document=55618. 46/010/2004. Grozny 21 8 U.N. Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations of the The Norwegian Helsinki Committee, “The Ethnic War: Persecution of NORTH Human Rights Committee. Russian Federation § 13, 06/11/2003, Chechens in the Russian Federation” (2002) OSSETIA U.N.Doc.CCPR/CO/79/RUS. 22 Ibid, p. 17. 9 Human Rights Watch, “ Chechnya: “Disappearances” – a Crime Against 23 Human Rights Watch, Into Harms Way: Forced Return of Displaced Humanity”,21 March 2005. People to Chechnya, January 2003, p. 4. 10 http://www.ecre.coe.int/Eng/Press/2004/Oct/HearingKhashiyev 24 Supra note 21, p. 18. GEORGIA &AkayevavRusia141004.htm. 25 Supra note 17. 11 Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Medical Foundation 26 Memorial, “From the Conflict Zone”,March 2005. DAGESTAN for the Care of victims of Torture, and Memorial, “ The Situation in 27 Ibid. Chechnya and Ingushetia Deteriorates: New Evidence of Enforced 28 Supra note 17. CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

12 13 Chapter 2: Protection of IDPs from Chechnya

of human rights or natural or human-made disas- tant to have a national legal framework to address the «One important ters, and who have not crossed an internationally rec- IDP issue, and that it should be based on existing indication of whether 31 35 ognized State border”. human rights and humanitarian instruments. governments are fulfilling their national The UN Guiding Principles establish the rights of One important indication of whether govern- responsibilities IDPs during all phases of displacement, providing ments are fulfilling their national responsibilities towards IDPs is protection against arbitrary displacement, protection towards IDPs is the existence and implementation of the existence and 36 and assistance during displacement and during the appropriate national policies and laws. Russian leg- implementation of return or resettlement and reintegration phases. IDPs islation contains no specific reference to the UN appropriate national should enjoy, in full equality the same rights and free- Guiding Principles or the term “internally displaced”. policies and laws.» doms under international and domestic laws as oth- However, many rights relevant for protection of er persons in the country. IDPs should not be dis- IDPs are explicitly provided for by the Russian criminated against because they are IDPs, and the Federal Constitution, such as the principle of non- rights defined should be applied without discrimina- discrimination, freedom of movement, the right to 37 tion of any kind. As citizens of their country, they are housing and many more. The Constitution also entitled to a broad range of economic, social, cultur- states that international law and international al, civil and political rights. Particular rights that have treaties supersede domestic law in the Russian been pointed out are their right to basic material Federation. Russia is party to six major international assistance, physical and legal protection; they are human rights treaties that form the normative 38 entitled to liberty of movement and freedom to framework underlying the Guiding Principles. choose a residence and the right to be protected against return to an unsafe area; and are to be pro- Despite constitutional guarantees for the basic 32 vided with all the necessary documentation. rights of Russian citizens and the fact that the gov- From Satitsa tent camp in National authorities must grant rapid and unimped- ernment has expressed support for the UN Guiding Ingushetia. February 2004. ed access to humanitarian organizations. Principles, the actual treatment of IDPs in the Photo: Anne Marit Russian Federation far from comply with the stan- Austbø, NRC. The UN Guiding Principles make clear that dards established by UN Guiding Principles. national governments have the primary duty to pro- According to Russian lawyer from the Memorial Standards for Protecting IDPs: The UN Guiding Principles also address grey areas and gaps vide protection and assistance to IDPs in their coun- Human Rights Centre Migration Rights Network, Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement in existing law. The UN Guiding Principles in itself try. The Guiding Principles are based on the concept Margerita Petrosyan, IDPs constitute one of the least 39 Internally displaced persons are persons who have are not binding law, but they reflect and are consis- that national sovereignty means responsibility. protected groups of the Russian Federation. been forced or obliged to flee from their homes, but tent with international law. Insofar as they do not Effective sovereignty implies a system of law and who have remained within the borders of their already restate customary international law, they may order that is responsive to the needs of the popula- The obligation of the state towards IDPs is not 30 country of origin. Because they have not crossed an gain that status in the future. tion. If a nation cannot ensure effective protection fixed explicitly and not supported by specific regula- international border, they are entitled to protection and assistance, the nation has the responsibility to tions that defines the rights and safeguards which from the state of which they are citizens, just like The UN Commission and the General Assembly accept international assistance. Rather than under- would protect IDPs. The need for legislation identi- any other citizen. But IDPs face common types of in unanimously adopted resolutions have taken note mining sovereignty, the Guiding Principles is meant fying the rights and obligations specific for IDPs is vulnerabilities due to their displacement, and this of the Principles, welcomed their use as an important to reinforce the duty and responsibility of national vital not only because IDPs have special needs com- 33 distinguishes them from other citizens. Because of tool and standard, and encouraged UN agencies, authorities to protect and assist their population. pared to the rest of the population, but also because their special “protection needs”, IDPs require spe- regional organizations, and NGOs to disseminate federal and national legislation protecting the rights cial focus. Experience from different countries and apply them. Individual governments have begun The Russian Federation is a member of several of citizens in general are not systematically enforced shows that the specific needs of IDPs often are to incorporate them in national policies and laws, international bodies that have welcomed the UN throughout the Russian Federation. Often the inadequately taken into account or simply disre- international organizations and regional bodies have Guiding Principles, including the UN General regional or local authorities adopt their own regula- 29 garded. The recognition of IDPs as a particularly welcomed and endorsed them, and some national Assembly, the UN Human Rights Commission and tions, which are in contradiction to national laws 40 vulnerable group has lead to the development of courts have begun to refer to them as relevant restate- the OSCE. The Russian Federation has on two occa- and do not meet with international standards. IDPs standards for protecting them. ments of existing international law. sions invited the UN Special Representative on IDPs are often minority groups that become dispropor- to visit the Russian Federation. During a visit to tionally affected by unconstitutional laws and prac- The UN Guiding Principles on Internal The UN Guiding Principles define internally dis- Russia in 2003 of the UN Special Representative on tice. This is defintely the case for Chechen IDPs. Displacement that were developed in 1998 consoli- placed persons as:“persons or groups of persons who Internally Displaced Persons, Francis Deng, Russian date into one document the legal standards relevant have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their Deputy Foreign Minister Fedov stated that the Displacement caused by to internally displaced persons drawn from human homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as Russian government saw the UN Guiding Principles armed conflict in Chechnya rights law, humanitarian law and refugee law by anal- a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed on Internal Displacement as helpful in the legal pro- At the outbreak of the first conflict (1994-1996), both 34 ogy. In addition to restating existing norms, the UN conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations tection of IDPs. He also stressed that it was impor- ethnic Chechens and people of other ethnic origin CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

14 15 41 «Russian authorities fled the Chechnya. While most ethnic Chechens be discussed in separate sections in the next chapter. In May 2004, Memorial reported that Chechen In 2004 the Civic Assistance Committee wrote «According have consistently returned to Chechnya in 1996, the majority of the These protection issues must, however, be seen IDPs are still under constant pressure from different concerning the situation in Moscow that the fre- to Memorial, maintained the official non-ethnic Chechen population resettled in other against the background of increasing xenophobia internal affair bodies, and that police measures had quency of the harshest manifestations of discrimi- in Moscow, position that IDPs regions of the Russian Federation. and anti-Chechen feeling in Russian society. been significantly strengthened in Russia’s southern nation by the police had gradually decreased, but all Chechens should return to regions during 2003-2004. According to Memorial, that less obvious forms of discrimination against are suspected Estimates of the number of people who have NGOs and international governmental organi- police officers in Krasnodar said in August 2003 that Chechens, such as discrimination in employment, Chechnya, 42 terrorists been displaced since 1999 vary from 350 000 to 600 zations have documented growing racism and xeno- they had had orders that all the Chechens they could have become an everyday, commonplace occur- and not provided 43 69 because of their 000 In comparison, the total number of the phobia in the Russian Federation, in particular find, without exceptions should go behind bars, and rence. According to Memorial, in Moscow all protection against 53 ethnicity, and Chechen population has been estimated at 800 000 against those from the Caucasus. According to the that they had instructions to add whatever charges Chechens are suspected terrorists because of their forced return to 44 are treated - 1 million. Most of the persons displaced by the Moscow Helsinki Committee, the status of they wanted and make sure no lawyers were provid- ethnicity, and are treated accordingly: “Any of them a region still 66 accordingly.» characterized by second armed conflict are of ethnic Chechen origin. Chechens in the internal regions of Russia worsened ed. Memorial concluded that “given the rampant might be sought out at any moment at home or at massive and compared to that of other Caucasians during the arbitrary action on the part of law enforcement work, stopped in the street and taken to the police Exact numbers of displaced persons are difficult first conflict (1994-96); “the war turned into an authorities there is simply no point in turning to station to be forced to explain why he or she was in grave human 67 to establish. Not all IDPs have been displaced at the additional source of hatred towards Chechens living them with requests and complaints”. Moscow and what they were doing at the moment rights violations.» 54 70 same time, and many have been displaced several in Russia”. A tide of “anti-Chechen feeling” has when this or that terrorist act was committed.” times. When the conflict re-erupted in 1999, most developed in many parts of the Russian Federation Since mid 2003, the falsification of criminal evi- The organization concluded that “discrimination IDPs from Chechnya sought refuge in neighbouring and this worsened after the October 2002 hostage dence is reported not to have taken place in the against Chechens has taken on a stable shape, has Ingushetia, which shares similarities with Chechnya crisis in Moscow, the bombings on the Moscow form of large-scale, organized police campaigns, coalesced into a certain system, the foundational in some traditions and customs. At the height of the underground in 2004 and the hostage crisis in but local legal aid offices are still confronted with a principles of which are constant control on the part armed conflict in 1999/2000 an estimated 240 000 Beslan in September 2004. great number of such cases. “When suspicions of of the police, alienation from sources of subsis- 45 IDPs from Chechnya resided in Ingushetia. A sub- the person’s connection to a terrorist act are not tence, and limited access to the basic rights available 71 stantial number also settled temporarily in Chechens are reported to be victims of violent confirmed, evidence of smaller crimes is invented. to the Russian population”. According to 68 Dagestan, other neighbouring republics or big attacks by extremist groups. In a recent example Often weapons and narcotics are planted”. Memorial, the rural areas are no more hospitable to 72 Western Russian cities. Many remained internally from September 2004, after the Beslan school siege, Chechen residents than large cities. ■ displaced within Chechnya. it was reported that a gang of up to 50 young people on the Moscow subway assaulted four people of A substantial number of IDPs have returned to Caucasian origin, pummeling them and slashing Chechnya during 2003-2004. The majority of these with knives as they screamed: “This is what you get 55 have been unable to return to their homes, and have for terrorist attacks!” According to the head of 29 Commission on Human Rights. E/CN.4/2005/84. Report of the other CIS countries. Doc.10118 25 March 2004. Report. Committee on become displaced within Chechnya. In January 2004 Memorial´s Migration Rights Network, Svetlana Representative of the Secretary General on the human rights of inter- Migration, Refugees and Population. Rapporteur Mr Tadeusz Iwinski, 56 nally displaced persons, Walter Kälin, submitted pursuant to the Com- Poland, Socialist Group the number of IDPs registered for humanitarian Gannushkina , in most cases, violent attacks on 49 46 mission on Human Rights resolution 2004/55. 31 December 2004, p. 11. According to Russian authorities in June 2004. assistance in Ingushetia was 66 996. In March 2005, Chechens should not be regarded as random acts of 30 Walter Kälin, “Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. Annota- 50 Situation of refugees and displaced persons in the Russian Federation 47 the number was down to 32 446. Armed hostilities violence, but as acts aimed at inciting ethnic or reli- tions”, The American Society of International Law, The Brookings and some other CIS countries. Doc.10118 25 March 2004. Report. 57 Institution Project on Internal Displacement (2000), Preface, p. vi Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. Rapporteur Mr and human rights violations associated with them gious hatred and enmity. 31 The UN 1998 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, Introduction. Tadeusz Iwinski, Poland, Socialist Group. 32 are still causing groups of persons to flee Chechnya. The Brookings Institution Project on Internal Displacement, 51 UNHCR (2003), supra note 42, p. 24. “International Conference on Internal Displacement in the Russian While the Russian Constitution and federal laws 52 Ibid,p.15. Federation”,Moscow, Russia , April 25-26, 2002, p. 12. Internet: 53 See: Amnesty International "Dokumenty! Discrimination on grounds Estimates of numbers of IDPs within Chechnya guarantee equality, rights and freedoms, actual legal ttp:www.//brook.edu7fp/projects/IDP7conferences/20020425.pdf 48 49 of race in the Russian Federation" (AI Index: EUR46/001/2003; On the 33 The Brookings Institution Project on Internal Displacement, in 2004 vary from 140 000 to 200 000 . In June remedies against discrimination and racist propa- Situation of Residents of Chechnya in the Russian Federation, June 58 “Handbook for Applying the Guiding Principles”,1999, p. 12. 2004, UNHCR estimated the number of IDPs from ganda are weak and inefficient. The Moscow 34 Commission on Human Rights (2004), E/CN.4/2004/77/Add.2. 2003 - May 2004", Svetlana Gannushkina, Memorial Human rights Chechnya in Dagestan at 8 000. An estimated 40 000 Helsinki Committee has reported that the authori- “Specific Groups and Individuals; Mass Exoduses and Displaced Centre, Migration Rights Network, Moscow 2004, pp. 9-13. 54 IDPs are thought to have moved to other North- ties “prefer to turn a blind eye to these kinds of activ- Persons; Report of the Special Representative on Internally Displaced Moscow Helsinki Group, “Chechens as a particularly vulnerable group”, 60 Persons, Mr Francis Deng, Addendum, profiles in displacement; the www.mgh.ru/english/1FE5A84 Caucasian republics and elsewhere in the Russian ities”. According to Amnesty International “ racist 55 The Christian Science Monitor, “Ethnic Chechens face revenge attacks 50 Russian Federation, 24 February, to Russia, September 2003. Federation . UNHCR confirmed in a report from crimes are rarely documented and the perpetrators 35 Ibid. in Moscow”,1 October 2004, http:www.cmonitor.com/2004/1001 2003 that ethnic Chechens traditionally do not live are hardly ever punished – creating a climate of 36 Report of the Special Representative on Internally Displaced Persons, /p04s01-woeu.html. Walter Kälin, supra note 29, p. 6. 56 Svetlana Gannushkina is also member of the Commission for Human in areas outside the republics of the northern impunity whereby [-] perpetrators feel they can get 37 Margarita Petrosyan, “Guiding Principles on the Issue of Internal Rights under the President of the Russian Federation. Caucasus and larger Western Russian cities, being away with committing racially-motivated viola- Displacement and Internal Legal Order of the Russian Federation: A 57 Information provided in March 2005. 61 reluctant to travel to areas where there is no resident tions”. In fact, racial discrimination is reported to Comparative Analysis”,2 November 2004. 58 See “Compliance of the Russian Federation with the Convention on the 51 38 Report of the Representative of the Secretary-General on Internally Chechen community with whom they could stay. have evolved into state-sponsored, large-scale coor- Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, An NGO Report to 62 Displaced Persons, Mr. Francis Deng, Addendum: Profiles in the UN Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination (62nd dinated campaigns. Since 1999 Chechens in many Displacement: the Russian Federation, 24 February, E/CN.4/2004/77/add.2 session, March 2003), Moscow December 2002. 39 Petrosyan (2004), supra note 37. 60 See supra note 54 Anti-Chechen feeling and racist parts of the country have been the targets of extraor- 40 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Situation of refugees 61 crimes against Chechens dinary police measures that have included large scale Amnesty International, “ Russian Federation: Amnesty International and displaced persons in the Russian Federation and some other CIS Statement on the Situation of Chechen Asylum Seekers, AI Index: EUR countries, Recommendation 1667 (2004). IDPs from Chechnya are restricted, or prevented, in police check-ups of registration papers accompanied 46/010/2004, March 2004. Http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/ta04/EREC1667.htm their attempts to seek safety in other regions of the by arbitrary detentions, beatings of detainees, 62 Ibid. 41 In 1989 about 25 % of Chechnya’s population were ethnic Russians. 63 See supra note 54. Russian Federation (than Chechnya) by a number of unlawful entry into living quarters, and the seizure Source: AlterNet, 17 February 2005 63 64 Memorial (Svetlana Gannushkina), Migration Rights Network, obstacles. The fact that Chechens generally are of personal documents. Major police campaigns 42 UNHCR Paper on Asylum Seekers from the Russian Federation in the Context of the Situation in Chechnya, February 2003, p. 4. “On the Situation of Residents of Chechnya in the Russian Federation, denied status as forced migrants, the problems “initiated from the top” whereby criminal charges 43 Supra note 38. June 2003 - May 2004", Moscow 2004, pp. 9-13; 65 Chechens have obtaining residence registration and against Chechens have been falsified have also been 44 According to an October 2002 census, the population of Chechnya is See supra note 54. 64 66 1.088 million. In the Russian Statistical Yearbook for 2003, the indicated Memorial (2004), supra note 64, p.46. identification documents, as well as the fact that reported. Such incidents have included planting 67 65 number for the population in Chechnya was 813,000. Ibid. Russian authorities have consistently maintained drugs, ammunition and sometimes weapons. 45 Supra note 42, p. 16. 68 Ibid,p.62. the official position that IDPs should return to Operations like these have intensified after bomb 46 Numbers from the Danish Refugee Council 69 Ibid, p.48. 52 Chechnya , and have not provided protection attacks or violent incidents, such as the Moscow the- 47 Numbers from the Danish Refugee Council. 70 Ibid,p.51. 48 According to the Council of Europe in March 2004. Situation of 71 Ibid,p.48. against forced return to a region still characterized atre siege in October 2002. refugees and displaced persons in the Russian Federation and some 72 Ibid,p.47. by massive and grave human rights violations will CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

16 17 Chapter 3: Protection issues

3. 1. IDPs from Chechnya are the UN Guiding Principles, but not all. The defini- Chechnya, most of whom are ethnic Chechens, unless they prove that they were at risk of persecu- «Human rights not recognized as IDPs tion of a forced migrant is narrower than the defi- have practically been uniformly denied forced tion on ethnic, religious or similar grounds. Besides organizations 85 All persons who have been displaced as a result of the nition of an IDP in the UN Guiding Principles as migrant status , even though they would appear to the vague criteria of “persecution” provide for have highlighted first and second conflict in Chechnya qualify as inter- concerns the causes of displacement. The Law on fall within the scope of the Law on Forced officials´ freedom of discretion. Consequently, the discriminatory 86 nally displaced persons according to the definition in Forced Migrants lists specific human rights viola- Migrants. During the first conflict some 162 000 system creates thresholds of different heights for practices in granting 87 94 the UN Guiding Principles. Therefore, according to tions and reasons for persecution while the IDPs received forced migrant status. Although different ethnic groups.” forced migrant Principle 4 (2) the Principles should be applied to all Principles list more general causes. Also, the Law on some ethnic Chechens also received the status, status, and the of them without discrimination. Principle 4 prohibits Forced Migrants does not cover persons who have especially in regions adjacent to Chechnya, most During the first conflict, when most IDPs were UN Committee on discrimination among the displaced on the basis of been displaced as a result of natural or “human- IDPs that were granted the status as a result of the of non-Chechen origin, the federal government the Elimination of 76 88 race, ethnic or social origin, language, religion, sex made” disasters. Forced migrant status is also lim- first conflict were of non-Chechen origin. Precise officially declared that the situation in Chechnya Racial Discrimination 95 and other criteria enumerated. ited to those who leave their place of permanent numbers of IDPs from the second conflict granted represented a mass violation of public order. has also expressed residence on the territory of one subject of the forced migrant status are not available. It is esti- Fleeing a situation of mass violation of public order concern that ethnic 77 Guiding Principle 4 embodies the principle of Russian Federation and move to another. This mated that at least some 240 000 persons had fled was also often recognized as sufficient reason to Chechens are denied 96 non-discrimination firmly established in interna- means that those within Chechnya itself cannot, Chechnya by January 2000. According to govern- qualify as forced migrants , or the presumption of forced migrant 97 tional law. Its wording closely follows formulations under the current law, qualify for forced migrant ment statistics, between October 1999 and late 2001 persecution was applied to this wave of IDPs. status.» of human rights and humanitarian law provisions status and the benefits this status entails. only 12 464 IDPs from Chechnya were granted 73 89 that prohibit discrimination. forced migrant status. This number also includes According to UNHCR, during the second con- Regional agencies of the Federal Migration IDPs from the 1994- 1996 conflict who were grant- flict, most forced migrant status applications based «According to The concept of internally displaced persons as Service under the Ministry of Interior conduct the ed the status late, so the real number is probably on allegations of mistreatment by federal forces, Memorial the forced defined in the UN Guiding Principles is not reflected forced migrant status determination procedure. lower. Federal authorities have confirmed that most lost property/and or “a mass violation of public migrant status is in Russian legislation. But the Russian Federation has The status is given for 5 years, with the possibility of of the persons granted forced migrant status in order” were rejected by the competent migration 90 for IDPs “the only a Law on Forced Migrants that provides a similar sta- one-year renewals thereafter. 1999- 2001 were not of Chechen ethnic origin. authorities on the grounds that the on-going anti- 74 hope to get minimal tus for persons who are forcibly displaced. The law terror operation conducted by the Russian support from was adopted in 1993, and amended in 1995 and 2000. Rights granted by forced migrant status Human rights organizations have highlighted Government, by definition does not constitute a the state and a According to article 1 (a) of the Law on Forced The primary purpose of forced migrant status is to discriminatory practices in granting forced migrant “mass violation of public order”,and that the feder- minimal guarantee Migrants, a forced migrant is: facilitate the integration of displaced persons in their status, and the UN Committee on the Elimination al forces cannot be considered to have committed 78 98 of social rights”» new place of residence. The status provides for the of Racial Discrimination has also expressed con- such violations. Persons applying for forced A citizen of the Russian Federation who was right to accommodation and specific allowances and cern that ethnic Chechens are denied forced migrant status reportedly have to provide evidence 79 91 forced to leave his/her place of permanent residence loans. In practice, forced migrants are often not giv- migrant status. that they have been discriminated against for eth- 80 99 due to violence committed against him/her or mem- en the special material assistance they are entitled to. nic, confessional political or social reasons. bers of his/her family or persecution in other forms, or Despite this, human rights organizations consider the Russian NGOs and legal experts have pointed out due to real danger of being subject to persecution for status of crucial importance because it serves as pre- that the norms in the Law on Forced Migrants regulat- According to Memorial, immigration officers reasons of race, nationality, religion, language or condition for the exercise of some general basic ing status definition are vague and therefore allow for have been instructed to not grant forced migrant membership of some particular social group or politi- rights. The Law of Forced Migrants provides for the the granting of forced migrant status to depend on status to ethnic Chechens on the grounds that they 92 cal opinion following hostile campaigns with regard right to independently choose a place of residence in political directives. The law contains no mention of are not considered to be victims of discrimination to individual persons or groups of persons, mass vio- the Russian Federation, and forbids forced returns to displacement as a result of armed conflict. It is explicitly for ethnic, confessional political or social reasons.100 81 lation of public order. the original place of residence. With forced migrant mentioned in the law that persons who left their places In a letter to regional bodies, the federal authorities status, it is easier to obtain residence registration, to of residence “as a consequence of hunger, epidemic, or officially recognized that ethnic Chechens are not 82 The Law on Forced Migrants covers two differ- get a job, and to avoid arbitrary police action. In the emergency conditions caused by natural disasters or deemed eligible for the status: ent categories of displaced persons. In addition to 2002 NGO shadow report to the UN Committee for man-made catastrophes”are not acknowledges as forced persons who have been displaced within the Russian the Elimination of Racial Discrimination “forced migrants, but the issue of the application of the provi- “Reasons for leaving Chechnya by citizens of the Federation, it also covers persons who have Russian migrant” status is described as ”vitally important” for sion of the law to persons who are displaced as a result title nationality (ethnic Chechens) don’t fall into the 93 citizenship, and are repatriating from other former displaced persons. According to Memorial the forced of armed conflict theoretically remains open. The def- characteristics and circumstances of granting forced Soviet Republics. When the Soviet Union dissolved it migrant status is for IDPs “the only hope to get mini- inition is open to at least two different interpretations: migrant status mentioned in art 1 of the RF law on was felt that the Russian state was responsible for mal support from the state and a minimal guarantee Forced Migrants. Their exodus primarily represents 83 those who had once lived on the territory of the of social rights”. “One [interpretation] enables us to consider mass moving to safe regions in connection with measures Russian Federal Republic, but currently were living disorders as a separate legitimate ground for claim for fighting terrorist groups being undertaken by the 101 on the territory of one of the other former republics Granting of forced migrant ing the status, the other one rests on the assumption law-enforcement authorities.” 75 when the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. status to IDPs from Chechnya that mass disorders are mentioned in the law only During the 1994-96 conflict IDPs, mostly of as an additional component of persecutions. [-] Although ethnic Russian IDPs also face problems The Law on Forced Migrants covers some cate- Russian ethnicity, were generally granted forced Usually the people who just escape from “simple” obtaining forced migrant status, they are generally gories of internally displaced persons as defined in migrant status. Victims of the current conflict in disorders or from warfare cannot obtain the status perceived to be victims of persecution from Islamic CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

18 19 117 «According to the fundamental groups, while ethnic Chechens are not flict. But even if there was acceptance of a definition ter in the Russian Federation, demonstrate a discre- their place of stay and residence respectively. Council of Europe considered victims of persecution. This happens, that includes victims of armed conflict, she argues, tionary practice against IDPs who have not been However, regional authorities often accord them- the politically “unde- despite well-founded claims that ethnic Chechens the Law on Forced Migrant is not a well-suited tool granted this legal status. selves through local laws or practices a de facto right 111 sirable” Chechens are also victims of persecution from Islamist to provide protection to IDPs. The Law on Forced to issue or deny such registration. The Constitutional 102 have in many instan- groups , and solid documentation of systematic Migrant does not protect against forced displace- Court of Russia has handed down a number of judg- ces been restricted and widespread violations of human rights viola- ment and does not cover durable solutions to dis- ments pronouncing the unconstitutional nature of in their possibility to tions committed by federal forces in Chechnya. placement. It is also a substantial weakness that the Conclusion sub-statutory acts which maintains a residence regis- reside legally outside law in its current form does not cover persons dis- The fact that IDPs from Chechnya are not granted tration system based on authorization rather than 118 Chechnya, especially This letter stating that Chechens are ineligible placed within one of the federal entities of the a special legal status as IDPs seriously weakens notification. Despite this, various regional authori- in Moscow and other for the status, and the instructions not to grant the Federation. their opportunities to reside in safe regions of the ties have adopted rules which have similar effects as big urban centers as status to Chechens are seemingly evidence of direct Russian Federation. They are deprived of social the mechanism declared unconstitutional, and local 103 well as in North- discrimination. A blanket ban on the granting of According to Margarita Petrosyan, the Law on benefits and protection that respond to their spe- officials still rely on old methods to limit freedom of Caucasian republics.» the status on the grounds of ethnicity is also a clear Forced Migrants is oriented primarily towards the cial protection needs, such as the right to accom- movement in order to keep people who are perceived 119 violation of provisions of the Law on Forced protection of Russian citizens who were forced to modation and the right not to be forcibly returned. as undesirable out of their communities. The Migrants which make it clear that an assessment of leave their place of residence abroad and returned The lack of a clear legal status also makes it prob- authorizing nature of the propiska-like restrictions whether status should be granted should be carried to Russia. It has also been pointed out by other lematic for Chechen IDPs to access basic servic- has a disproportionate impact on Chechens (IDPs) 104 out on a case-by case- basis. actors that the fact that the Law on Forced Migrants es offered to the Russian population generally, and other minority ethnic groups, who are often covers categories of displaced persons other than and makes them vulnerable to arbitrary police denied residence registration. 112 Access to the status determination procedure IDPs has created much confusion. At a conference action. The proper application of the UN Guiding In 2004 Memorial reported that while the authori- on internally displaced persons in the Russian Principles would not allow for the discrimination Registration of IDPs from Chechnya ties used to receive, consider, and reply to applica- Federation in Moscow in 2002 it was argued that currently shown with respect to the Chechen civil There are no numbers available on the total num- tions for forced migrant status from Chechen IDPs, since the term “internally displaced” does not population fleeing the conflict, and would require ber of IDPs from Chechnya that have been granted it has become the norm for the authorities to no appear in Russian legislation, this group “got lost that they were granted the necessary protection. residence registration outside Chechnya. According 105 113 longer process applications from this group. among the other categories of forced migrant”. Even if the granting of legal status to Chechen to the Moscow Helsinki Group, the number is very 120 Sometimes their cases are not processed with refer- IDPs in the current context may not have guaran- small. According to the NGO shadow report to ence to lack of residence registration, place of Memorial has pointed out the total number of teed the necessary material assistance, it would CERD, in most regions, the local authorities have sojourn or other additional circumstances not persons granted status as “forced migrants” in the have constituted an acknowledgement on behalf systematically refused to register Chechen IDPs 106 required by the law. People who have received Russian Federation is in decline in general, despite of the state of its obligations towards this group, since 2000, in violation of federal regulations and 121 compensation for ruined property in Chechnya are continued flows of internal displacement and and provide them with a proof of their right to pro- the constitution. 107 generally denied extensions of their status. There forced migration from other former Soviet states. tection. The general decline in the granting of have also been instances where IDPs have been mis- This is both because the status is not granted to forced migrant status in the Russian Federation UNHCR, UN CERD and the Parliamentary informed about the conditions regarding forced newly displaced persons, and because of refusals by raises concern about the political will of the Assembly of the Council of Europe have all issued migrant status, and been told that they would lose the Migration authorities to extend the validity of Russian authorities to recognize IDPs as a partic- statements on the difficulties IDPs face due to their right to other forms of government assistance the period of the status. According to Memorial, ularly vulnerable group with special protection restrictive legislation and/or the discriminatory 108 if they obtain the status. Very often Chechens who this decrease in the number of “forced migrants” is needs. administration of residence registration or 122 apply for forced migrant status receive only an oral an indication of a strategy on behalf of the govern- “propiska”. According to the Council of Europe negative answer to their claim, and increasingly, ment to “eradicate this status and a denial of any the politically “undesirable” Chechens have in many Chechen IDPs are denied the opportunity to sub- kind of obligation on the part of the Russian gov- instances been restricted in their possibility to 114 mit their written applications for the status. In 2004 ernment to this group of people”. 3. 2. The Issue of Residence Registration reside legally outside Chechnya, especially in it was common for requests not be accepted at all. Moscow and other big urban centers as well as in Memorial has concluded that “it can be said with a Violation of Guiding Principle 4 (1) The right to freedom of movement North-Caucasian republics. In other places, like in great deal of certainty that there is no access to the The Guiding Principles do not explicitly require and the system of residence registration the North-West- Caucasus, the desire to protect the 109 process that provides forced migrant status”. that national authorities establish a special legal sta- in the Russian Federation local labor market and to control the internal flow tus for IDPs. However, Principle 4 (1) states that the According to Guiding Principle 14, every internally of migrants has resulted in many restrictive prac- 123 In practice, taking the case to court is perceived principles shall be applied without discrimination displaced person has the right to liberty of move- tices. Meanwhile, UNHCR, has acknowledged as the only real possibility for Chechens to get this of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, reli- ment and the freedom to choose his or her residence. that it has become “almost impossible” for ethnic status without having to pay bribes. There are gion or belief, political or other opinion, national, This principle corresponds to Article 12 (1) of the Chechens to receive registration in Moscow, examples of successes with such legal proceedings, ethnic or social origin, legal or social status, age, Convention on Civil and Political Rights and other Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachai-Cherkessia, and 115 but only after lengthy, and sometimes humiliating disability, property, birth, or on any other similar human rights instruments. that there are barriers to receiving registration in rounds in court, with only a slim chance of a posi- criteria. The fact that some IDPs – those who have other areas such as St Petersburg, Voronezh, tive decision.110 The fact that Chechens are increas- been granted legal status as a forced migrant – have Article 27 of the Russian Constitution (1993) Stavropol Krai, Nort-Ossetia-Alania and Krasnodar 124 ingly receiving oral rejections is rendering this access to rights that are not granted to IDPs without guarantees freedom of movement and the freedom Krai. According to Memorial, authorities in option impossible for many. this legal status can represent a breach of the prohi- to choose residence to every person legally staying on Moscow and Krasnodar Krai remain the worst bition of discrimination in Principle 4 (1). This will the territory of the Russian Federation. This right is, offenders of restrictive laws and practices, while Other problems with be the case if the rights in question are rights that however, strictly limited by federal and local regula- other regions also create a number of problems for 125 the Law on Forced Migrants IDPs are entitled to according to the Guiding tions and administrative requirements based on the citizens arriving there, Chechens in particular. 116 According to Russian lawyer and member of the Principles, and if the legal status is necessary in Soviet era propiska regime. The 1993 “Law on The authorities in Kabardino-Balkaria are reported Memorial Human Rights Centre Migration Rights order to obtain them. According to Guiding Freedom of Movement” established a two-tier sys- to systematically adopt statutory acts in order to Network, Margarita Petrosyan, who has conducted Principle 3 (2) IDPs have the right to request and to tem of registration of individuals within the Russian “legalize discrimination against Chechen residents”. 126 a comparative analysis of the Guiding Principles receive protection and humanitarian assistance Federation: “temporary registration” (at place of and the Law on Forced Migrants, the main problem from the national authorities. The fact that only sojourn) and “permanent registration” (at place of with the Law on Forced Migrants is that it is not IDPs with forced migrant status can apply for spe- residence) whereby citizens who move around in the Between 2000 and 2004 it was reported that clear if it covers persons displaced from armed con- cial allowances and have a right to temporary shel- Russian Federation notify the local authorities of Chechens have been denied registration for a num- CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

20 21 140 «Based on reports ber of reasons. Only those IDPs with a forced residence. In a report from 2004, the Swiss insurance contradicted federal legislation. Similarly 3. 3 The issue of access from legal aid offices migrant status have to a certain degree been pro- Refugee Council concludes that it is “possible” to in 2001, a ban in Moscow on the admission of chil- to personal documents in various regions tected against the arbitrary rule connected to the stay illegally in Russian cities, but that it is associat- dren to schools when parents did not have registra- 127 of the Russian registration procedure. Violations range from ed with permanent danger of being detained by the tion was ruled unconstitutional. These are encour- The right to personal documents Federation, Memorial simple refusals to issue sojourn registration to police, ill-treated, have criminal charges fabricated aging developments, but do not always result in and the Russian passport system 141 claims that regional administrative obstacles. IDPs have been denied against you, or risk expulsion to Chechnya. changes in practice on the ground. For example, in Guiding Principle 20 explicitly recognizes that IDPs bodies seem to have registration on the ground that only persons with a report published by Memorial in May 2004, it is should be issued all the documents necessary for been tacitly instruc- family connection at the new place of registration A lack of registration also has other serious con- stated that refusals to admit children to schools and the enjoyment and exercise of their legal rights, and ted from the top to are allowed to register. Permanent registration has sequences. Under the Constitution and the laws of kindergartens due to a lack of registration continue that requiring that they return to their habitual area deny registration to been denied on the grounds that the applicant must the Russian Federation and the civil administra- to be a problem: “perhaps the complaints were not of residence is an unreasonable condition that shall IDPs from Chechnya, first go back to Chechnya and de-register their per- tions rights cannot be restricted or granted based as numerous as in the past, but there were still too not be imposed: 147 or at the least, to manent registration there. Illegal limits have been on registration or the absence thereof. Despite this, many to speak of a radical change” . According to limit it’s duration placed on the size of living space required. Illegal basic social rights continue to be conditional upon Russian lawyer, Margerita Petrosyan, “discrimina- 1. Every human being has the right to recognition to a minimum.» time limits have also been practiced. IDPs from the existence of residence registration. According to tion on the basis of registration will not cease to everywhere as a person before the law Chechnya are often registered for a period no Petrosyan, “the presence of registration is what the exist till the federal administration gives up its lais- 2. To give effect to this right to internally displaced longer than six months, even if they have a place to executive on-the-spot considers as the necessary sez-faire approach to the local lawmaking that vio- persons, the authorities concerned shall issue to 128 stay for a longer period. Chechens have also expe- prerequisite for the implementation of such vitally late federal legislation and the Internal Affairs them all documents necessary for the enjoyment rienced to be de-registered without any further important rights as the right to employment, access Ministry stops winking at the arbitrary rule and and exercise of their legal rights, such as pass- 129 explanation. In some cases the procedure of reg- to medical care, school education and social hous- corruption of its officers and establishes strict con- ports, personal identification documents, birth 142 istering is made extremely complicated with ing”. The Moscow Helsinki Group considers the trol over the conformance of their actions to the certificates and marriage certificates. In particu- 130 148 demand for finger-prints, tax information etc. absence of residence permit as de facto deprivation law.” lar, the authorities shall facilitate the issuance of 143 Very often, however, the applicant simply receives of civil- and socio-political rights. new documents or the replacement of documents an oral rejection from police officers during pre- lost in the course of displacement, without impos- 131 liminary oral interviews. Federal laws regulating medical insurance, free ing unreasonable conditions, such as requiring the education, employment, pensions etc do not return to one’s area of habitual residence in order In some instances, personnel from the passport require registration of citizens at their place of Conclusion to obtain these or other documents. offices or police have openly explained their refusal sojourn as a condition for accessing these services. As a consequence of the widespread practice of 132 by referring to the applicant’s ethnic affiliation. It In fact, the laws regulating the two latter topics denying residence registration to IDPs from The wording of the first paragraph corresponds has also been reported that officials have been given explicitly prohibits discrimination on the grounds Chechnya, many Chechen IDPs are prevented to Article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human 133 144 instructions not to give registration to Chechens. of registration. Despite this, contrary practices from residing, or reside illegally, in regions outside Rights. Similar provisions are set forth in other Based on reports from legal aid offices in various and laws exist at regional levels. In a report from Chechnya. The practice of denying registration to human rights instruments. Most human rights regions of the Russian Federation, Memorial claims 2002, Memorial has documented how Chechen Chechens is not just contrary to the principle of treaties do not, however, explicitly address the ques- that regional bodies seem to have been tacitly IDPs have been denied employment, medical aid, freedom of movement. When registration is nec- tion of identity documents. During the develop- instructed from the top to deny registration to IDPs education, pensions and child allowances in a num- essary in order to access basic social, economic ment of the UN Guiding Principles it was recog- from Chechnya, or at the least, to limit its duration ber of regions on the grounds that they are not reg- and other rights, the refusal to grant registration to nized that present international law does not ade- 134 145 to a minimum. istered at their de facto place of residence. persons forced to flee their habitual place of resi- quately protect the needs of IDPs for identity docu- According to this report, an absence of registration dence amounts to a violation of the UN Guiding ments. Paragraph 2 of Principle 20 attempts to fill 150 «Sometimes potential The fact that applicants often simply receive an is an insurmountable obstacle when seeking Principles, which state that IDPs shall enjoy the this gap. oral rejection, makes it very difficult to appeal the employment, although being of Chechen ethnicity same rights and freedoms as other persons in the landlords are directly 135 threatened by officials decisions. In some regions, however, appeals have is described as an even bigger obstacle. In many country, and that they shall not be discriminated From the age of 14, all Russian citizens are from the passport and been successful. The Czech NGO, Organization for places Chechen IDPs were denied free or other against on the ground that they are internally dis- required to be in possession of a so-called internal visa service with being Aid to Refugees, reported in June 2004 that in medical assistance if they had no registration, placed.149 IDPs from Chechnya are not the only passport. This is not a travel document, but an Stavropol, 95 to 97 percent of appeals submitted although the Ministry of Health is considered to persons who are affected by restrictive laws and identity document, recognizing the person as a cit- charged for assisting 136 result in a positive decision. Many IDPs do not, discriminate on the basis of registration less often practices with regard to residence registration. izen of the Federation. Russian citizens are required terrorists, or they are 146 becoming objects of however, appeal because they do not believe that than other ministries. As for education, parents Due to strong anti-Chechen feeling in the Russian to be in possession of their internal passport at all the courts will defend their rights, or because they were still asked to present residence registration, Federation, IDPs from Chechnya are, however, times. Not having an internal passport is in itself an constant checks by 137 inspectors.» fear that it may irritate the authorities. Those who despite court decisions and instructions prohibit- more likely to be exposed to it than most other administrative offence that can be punished. have the financial capacity go to dealers or firms ing such practice. Pensions were paid only to per- groups. The impact of a lack of registration is also 138 who have made false registrations their business. sons with registration at their de facto residence, more serious for IDPs from Chechnya than for Temporary and permanent registration is Another problem facing Chechens is that they can- with the exception of refugees or persons with most others because it is accompanied by ethnic recorded in the internal passport. The possession of not register because people do not dare to rent forced migrant status. Most Chechens are not discrimination and harassment. Left in a legal lim- an internal passport is, therefore, necessary in order apartments to Chechens. Sometimes potential granted forced migrant status, and without regis- bo in a society characterized by increasingly hos- to enjoy freedom of movement and freedom to landlords are directly threatened by officials from tration they do not receive their pensions. The tile attitudes to their ethnic group, Chechens are choose place of residence as well as access to social the passport and visa service with being charged for report also documents refusals to deliver child extremely vulnerable to abuse and discrimination. allowances. The internal passport also enables the assisting terrorists, or they become the objects of allowances, marriage certificates and formalize Finally, the impact of a lack of registration is more citizen to realize other constitutional rights, such as 139 constant checks by inspectors. property ownership due to a lack of registration. dramatic for IDPs from Chechnya simply because the right to take part in the management of affairs they are IDPs. They have been forced to flee their of the state, the rights to vote and to be elected etc. Consequences of not being registered The only way deemed effective to overcome homes and do not have the option to return to a According to the Code on Administrative such discrimination is to take cases to court. A safe region of origin. The European Court of Human Rights has con- Violations in the Russian Federation, a Russian cit- number of such cases have been successful. For cluded that, “in their everyday life Russian citizens izens lack of registration on the territory of the example in August 2002 the Supreme Court ruled have to prove their identity unusually often, even Russian Federation can result in a monetary fine, that Moscow rules restricting the right of persons when performing such mundane tasks as exchang- 151 detention or expulsion to an individual`s former with a temporary residence permit to medical ing currency or buying train tickets” . The internal CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

22 23 «According to passport is also needed for more crucial needs, for the IDPs. It is well documented that young men espe- health would be at risk. Protection from forced return to caused an individual to flee no longer exist, violence and Memorial, by 2002 example finding employment or receiving medical cially are at risk of being detained and illtreated if unsafe places is well established in the refugee law (the intimidation have come to an end, and enforcement 152 IDPs from Chechnya care”. Without a passport a person will not be able stopped at military checkpoints without identity principle of non-refoulement) and in human rights pro- agencies ensure human rights compliance, including an 153 169 were denied internal to register marriages or births , enroll in schools, documents. There are reports that persons have been tection relating to the deportation of aliens. In Guiding independent police service and judiciary. Legal safety 154 and external receive pensions pay taxes, register a vehicle, wounded or disappeared while going back to Principle 15 the reasoning behind these principles is is considered to require the existence of functioning 155 165 passports all over obtain a drivers license etc. According to common Chechnya to get a passport. Persons exposing applied in the context of internal displacement. legal institutions and a legal framework that guarantee 170 the Russian practice, a person cannot bring an action before a themselves to these dangers are by no means guaran- basic rights. Material safety includes access to basic 156 Federation.» court of justice if she/he has no passport. teed of getting a passport, and normally have to pay a Guiding Principle 28 (1) states that, “competent services, such as health services, education and employ- 166 171 high amount of money in order to get it. authorities have duties to establish conditions, as well as ment. According to the UN Guiding Principles it is the Many Chechen IDPs, who lost their identity provide the means, which allow internally displaced per- duty of national authorities to establish such conditions. documents during their flight from Chechnya, have Between 2000 and 2002, the Deputy of the State sons to return voluntarily, in safety and with dignity, to not been able to get new passports at the places Duma sent several requests to the Passport and Visa their homes or places of habitual residence, or to resettle Russian policy on the return of IDPs 157 where they are temporarily staying. Cases where service of the Interior Ministry of the Russian voluntarily in another part of the country.”According to The Russian authorities have repeatedly declared its passport have been seized by law enforcement offi- Federation about establishing a mechanism for the Handbook for Applying the Guiding Principles on respect for the need to preserve the voluntary nature of 158 cials are also reported. issuing documents to IDPs from Chechnya. Letters Internal Displacement, the right to return voluntarily, in return of IDPs to Chechnya, but at the same time con- were also sent to the President of the Russian safety and dignity or to resettle voluntarily in another sistently maintained the official position that IDPs 172 In early 2000, IDPs from Chechnya were given Federation who several times replied that “there is part of the country is a logical extension of the right to should return to Chechnya. The Russian authorities internal passports at their places of factual resi- no need to create different rules of issuing docu- liberty of movement and freedom to choose one’s resi- have argued for return by asserting that the federal 167 dence (rather than at the place where they were ments to IDPs from the Chechen Republic”. dence. The right of IDPs to safe, dignified and voluntary forces control most of Chechen territory, that IDPs officially permanently registered), but according to return or local resettlement in another part of the coun- should take part in the reconstruction and administra- Memorial, by 2002 IDPs from Chechnya were try has been frequently reaffirmed by states in the tion of the Republic and that IDPs constitute a destabi- denied internal and external passports all over the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Commis- lizing factor in the host regions, specifically those in 159 173 Russian Federation. Refusals to issue passports Conclusion sion of Human rights and other international forums. Ingushetia. Already in October 1999, the federal are reported to be based on unpublished instruc- The possession of an internal passport is esse- authorities suggested resettling IDPs in Russian-con- tions from the Passport and Visa Service or the tial for the enjoyment of basic rights and neces- Return is one of three durable solutions to a dis- trolled areas in Chechnya. The construction of tent Federal Ministry of Interior Affairs, which sary in order to live a normal life in the Russian placement crisis. There are no agreed upon criteria or camps for IDPs in Ingushetia was only authorized after explained that since passport sections had started to Federation. The practice of demanding that benchmarks for when displacement ends, but it is often long negotiations with UNHCR. Pressure on IDPs to function in the Chechen Republic in 2001, people Chechen IDPs without permanent registration assumed that displacement ends when the conditions return from Ingushetia gradually intensified in 2001, 160 168 should go there for documents. It should be at their de facto residence have their identity that caused the displacement crisis cease to exist. when the authorities stopped the registration of new emphasized that this policy applied to all IDPs from documents replaced or renewed in Chechnya is Before this, displaced persons are in need of, and have IDPs on lists granting them the right to humanitarian 161 Chechnya, irrespective of their ethnic affiliation. a breach of UN Guiding Principle 20. Chechens the right to, protection and assistance in a safe area. They assistance and halted the provision of essential utilities that are not granted internal passports at their must not be forced to return. When displacement is over to the tent camps. According to Article 20 of the Civil Code of the factual place of residence may be forced to they have the right to choose to return or to resettle in Russian Federation a place of residence is defined as travel to Chechnya to get it. The combination of another part of the country. The Guiding Principles Closure of tent camps in Ingushetia a place where a citizen lives permanently or for the the widespread practice of refusal to grant resi- make clear that returns should not just be voluntary, but In May 2002 the government adopted an Action Plan for majority of the time. The place of residence is not dence registration to ethnic Chechens, and the also take place in safety and dignity. Safety in this con- the Return of Chechen IDPs that envisioned the closure defined as the place of registration or “propiska”. lack of effective measures to ensure that text includes physical, legal and material safety. Physical of all 6 existing camps in Ingushetia, and the return of all Therefore, instructions tying the issuance of pass- Chechens are granted passports and other nec- safety can only be ensured when the circumstances that IDPs by end of September 2002. Implementation of the ports to the place of permanent registration or essary identity documents outside Chechnya propiska contradict federal legislation. can at best be described as a failure by the A UNHCR Protection officer Russian authorities to ensure that Chechen interviews a Chechen IDP Improvements were made in May 2003, when IDPs are granted effective protection as IDPs who is planning her return the Ministry of Interior issued regulations concern- and citizens. The effect may be that Chechens to Chechnya, Ingushetia, ing making issuance of passports more flexible, and feel compelled to return to unsafe conditions in February 2004. allowing the issuing of passports at the place of de Chechnya. Photo: Anne Marit Austbø. 162 facto residence. The effect of these changes in practice is questionable. Memorial reports that in 2004, more and more incidents were reported whereby IDPs from Chechnya are facing difficulties trying to formalize their status with regard to pass- 3. 4. The issue of forced return to Chechnya 163 ports and other documents. “Nobody is standing with a gun to my head, forcing In 2004 the period of replacement for and the me to leave. But they are telling me that the school validity of the 1974 version of Soviet passports end- will be closed tomorrow, and that they will turn off ed, and since then the problem of obtaining pass- the electricity and gas here in two weeks. Now, you tell ports has grown significantly more acute for IDPs me if my decision to return is voluntary” from Chechnya. Memorial reports that as a rule applicants that are rejected are advised to return to IDP in Satitsa tent camp, Ingushetia, February 2004. the Chechnya where they will supposedly be able to have their passports replaced with no regard to the The Guiding Principles on Return danger they might face and the large financial According to Guiding Principle 15 (d) IDPs have the 164 expenses they would incur. Going back to right to be protected from forcible return to (or resettle- Chechnya represents a threat to the life and safety of ment in any place) where their life, safety, liberty and/or CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

24 25 197 «The international plan started immediately, but was accelerated after the and physical, has been applied. As a general rule positive have improved in 2004. Despite this improvement, modation centres in other regions of the Russian «The improvement 204 community and NGOs October 2002 theatre hostage crisis in Moscow. The first pull-factors at the place of origin is considered to be intense pressure on IDPs to return to Chechnya contin- Federation. The authorities have a Plan of Action for in access to shelter have voiced grave camp was closed in December the same year. By June more indicative of voluntary return than possible push- ued, and humanitarian agencies defined the returns in the Return of IDPs, but no similar plan for the resettle- can largely be concerns about the 2004, all the camps had been closed. The closures of the factors at the place of displacement, or negative pull fac- connection with the camps closures in 2004 only as ment of IDPs. Ingushetia has accepted 19 000 IDPs for attributed to 198 205 return process camps happened despite strong protests from the inter- tors, such as a threat to property a the place of permanent “largely voluntary”. The improvement in access to resettlement , but the UN has emphasized the need for continuous advocacy 174 187 206 from Ingushetia to national community and from IDPs residing there. residence. The measures implemented to make IDPs shelter can largely be attributed to continuous advocacy a more extensive resettlement programme. Return can by international Chechnya, describing According to a survey conducted by Medecins Sans return from Ingushetia to Chechnya have often been by international humanitarian agencies and NGOs. only be seen as truly voluntary as long as IDPs are pre- humanitarian the process as Frontieres in February 2003, 98 percent of the Chechen referred to as a mixture of “sticks and carrots”. Closing NGOs continued, however, to report that alternative sented with credible guarantees of an alternative. agencies and NGOs.» “forced”, “coerced” , population living in tents in Ingushetia did not want to camps, utility cuts, deregistration from lists granting shelter for IDPs who did not want to leave Ingushetia 175 199 or “induced”.» return to Chechnya. After a field visit to the region in humanitarian assistance, threats to physical security etc. has been lacking, or is in a very poor condition. As of Enforced returns September 2003, Francis Deng, the first UN Special are considered as “sticks”, or factors that push IDPs to March 2005, threats of evictions from TACs in The UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement Representative on IDPs, stated that his visit revealed sig- return from Ingushetia. The main “carrot”,or “pull” fac- Ingushetia were reported without alternative shelter do not elaborate on what “enforced returns” constitute. 200 nificant discrepancies between positive official policy tor, is the prospect of receiving financial compensation being offered. But the Annotations to the Guiding Principles imply statements and the perspectives of the displaced who upon return to Chechnya. According to the UNs Office that return does not necessarily have to have an element remained “acutely apprehensive that the camps may be for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs ( OCHA), Even when alternative shelter was offered, it is highly of physical force in order to amount to “forcible return”. closed and that they might be forced to return to a situ- in 2004 the determining factor for many returnees was questionable whether persons can be said to have been According to the Annotations,“it is clear that states bear 176 ation in Chechnya that they regarded to be unsafe” . the financial incentive of compensation for lost proper- presented with a genuine alternative to return, allowing an affirmative duty to ensure that internally displaced 188 ty. The paying of compensation is in theory a positive them to make a free choice between return or resettle- persons are not compelled to return to (-) places where 207 The manner in which the camps were closed was development that should enable the return of people ment. In order for an alternative to return to be genuine, their lives or liberty are at risk” . Reports from interna- strongly criticized by NGOs and the international com- whose homes have been destroyed. However, the fact that IDPs need to have some legal guarantees, adequate hous- tional governmental and non-governmental organiza- munity. Strong pressure was put on the residents to compensation is only paid to persons with permanent ing, access to humanitarian assistance - in short they need tions show that the general security and human rights 208 return to Chechnya. During camp closures, immigration residence in Chechnya, and that IDPs have been told that protection during displacement as defined by the UN situation in Chechnya is life-threatening. Further- and law-enforcement officials often harassed the resi- they would lose their right to compensation unless they Guiding Principles. Return cannot be considered to be more, IDPs returning from Ingushetia are not safe in the dents. Human rights organizations have provided exten- return more or less immediately, make this a negative, voluntary when the government cuts off aid to encourage temporary accommodation centres (TACs) provided by 201 sive documentation to show that IDPs were threatened rather than a positive pull-factor. It is also a problem that IDPs to go home. IDPs need to know that they do not government structures in Chechnya. According to the in numerous ways, including with arrests on false the amount of money actually paid in compensation is risk being thrown out of the places where they are resid- International Helsinki Federation, returnees have been charges, with withdrawal of registration and food considerably less than what was established by the gov- ing or being cut off from humanitarian assistance. For an arbitrarily detained and have disappeared from TACs, 189 209 allowances and with cutting of gas, water and electricity ernment of the Russian Federation in 2003. alternative to be genuine, the physical security of IDPs despite the presence of armed guards. According to a 177 supplies for weeks during winter months. IDPs were must be ensured. The gradual spilling over of the conflict survey from January-February 2004, 66. 8 percent of told that they were eligible for compensation for ruined In general UNHCR defines the principle of volun- into Ingushetia has led people to question the safety of IDPs living in TACs in Chechnya indicated that they 202 property, but that they risked loosing their right to com- tary return as meaning that besides expressing their con- the “safe haven” in Ingushetia. In fact, in some instances never or only occasionally felt safe.210 The accumulated pensation unless they returned to Chechnya more or less sent, IDPs should be properly informed of the conditions IDPs are reported to have returned to Chechnya because effect of the measures implemented by the government 178 203 immediately. At times IDPs were physically forced to upon return as well as being provided with a genuine they considered it unsafe to stay in Ingushetia. (the closing of camps, the lack of alternative shelter, de- 179 190 leave their tents. During the first two camp closures, alternative to return. With regard to consent, IDPs who registration from list providing access to humanitarian UN representatives and other humanitarian agencies have returned to Chechnya have been asked to sign “vol- The difficulties in obtaining residence registration, assistance, various forms of threats etc.) is likely to have were prevented from visiting the sites. This was a breach untary return forms”. It is however, documented that employment, personal documents etc. restrict the possi- compelled some IDPs to return, and, therefore, of Guiding Principle 25 (3) which states that the author- residents in tent camps at times have been pressured by bilities of settling in other regions of the Russian amounted to forcible return and a breach of UN ities should grant persons engaged in humanitarian representatives of the federal immigration service and Federation. During 2003 and 2004, IDPs from Chechnya Guiding Principle 15. assistance unimpeded access to the IDPs. This triggered a the federal security service to sign such forms. were also increasingly evicted from temporary accom- strong reaction by the international community, which “According to numerous witnesses, the major message might have led to the authorities decision to temporarily migration officers and especially Chechen government 180 postpone the closure of further camps . During the representatives have tried to convey to the displaced is Conclusion period of closing the camps, the number and intensity of that their choice is between immediately leaving “volun- Efforts by Russian authorities to rebuild the material and political solution to the conflict in Chechnya and to holding 191 search operations and arrests conducted by the govern- tary” or being forcibly evicted at a later date.” When it social infrastructure in Chechnya, including the issuing of accountable those responsible for human rights violations. mental security forces in Ingushetia, including in IDP comes to proper information, promise of shelter, com- compensation are important, but not sufficient measures According to the UN Special Representative on IDPs, settlements and camps, reached unprecedented levels, pensation and assistance in Chechnya have in some cas- in establishing conditions that allow for voluntary return in Walter Kälin, victims of human rights violations do not just «Between 2003 and increased the general sense of insecurity for IDPs es been illusory, and the conditions in government-run safety and dignity. After ten years of conflict there is a have the rights to “compensation and repairs”, but also 181 and 2004, the from Chechnya. Since the camps were closed, the TACs in Chechnya have not corresponded with promis- lack of housing for IDPs generally and TACs set up for “satisfaction” which includes an element of justice.214 192 authorities security situation has not improved, and the cutting of es made by the authorities. returnees cannot cope with the number of returnees from prevented efforts utilities to temporary accommodation centers where temporary settlements in Ingushetia211. The system of Russian authorities have imposed a premature end 182 by humanitarian IDPs reside have continue to be reported. The interna- Access to adequate alternative shelter in Ingushetia awarding compensation for lost housing is at best to the displacement of IDPs from Chechnya. Chechnya organizations to tional community and NGOs have voiced grave concerns has progressively been recognized as the key benchmark described as inadequate212. The health of those still in is still in a situation of low-intensity armed conflict, and 193 provide alternative about the return process from Ingushetia to Chechnya, to assess the voluntary nature of the return process. Chechnya is at serious risk with higher rates of diseases human rights violations continue with practical impunity. 183 184 shelter when camps describing the process as “forced” ,“coerced” ,or Not all IDPs evicted from tent camps since 2002 were such as tuberculosis, hepatitis A, cancer and AIDS than Governments have a duty to establish the conditions and 185 were closed.» “induced” . offered alternative shelter. When the first tent camp was in the rest of the Russian Federation and a struggling means necessary for IDPs to choose between return in closed in December 2002, the government did not offer health service. After ten years of war there are also many safety in dignity or resettlement in safety and dignity. 194 The return process and any alternative accommodation in Ingushetia. Shelter suffering from psychological trauma and illnesses.213 What means are acceptable to “push” or “pull” must be criteria for voluntary return allegedly provided to tent dwellers during later tent clo- Despite the prolonged and recurring conflict in seen in light of the security situation at the place of The UNHCR Handbook on voluntary repatriation sures were in some cases inhabitable, occupied or simply Chechnya, and well-documented human rights viola- potential return. Given the current human rights and 195 defines “voluntary” as “absence of any psychological or non-existent. Between 2003 and 2004, the authorities tions, the international community has virtually no pres- security situation in Chechnya, any attempt to pressure 186 material pressure” . According to this definition, the prevented efforts by humanitarian organizations to pro- ence in the region. Human rights organizations have IDPs to return to the Chechen Republic will amount to 196 return process from Ingushetia to Chechnya has clearly vide alternative shelter when camps were closed. repeatedly emphasized the importance of seeking a forced return. not been voluntary. Extensive pressure, both material Access to alternative shelter in Ingushetia is reported to CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

26 27 112 Conference on Internal Displacement, supra note 32, p. 6. 174 Santini (2004), supra note 172. 3. 5. Consequences of a lack of effective face within the Russian Federation. Although 113 Ibid. 175 Medecins Sans Frontieres, “ The Trauma of ongoing War in Chechnya”, 114 protection in the Russian Federation Chechens with a permanent resident registration – Memorial (2004),supra note 64, p. 32. August 2004. 115 See Walter Kälin (2000), supra note 30, p. 35. 176 Supra note 38. The protection issues analyzed above show that on and hence a legal right to reside - outside Chechnya 116 Naumann (2004), supra note 81. 177 See for example Human Rights Watch (2003), “ Into Harms Way: a number of important issues, the Russian author- have better chances of accessing social and eco- 117 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Situation of refugees Forced Return of Displaced Persons to Chechnya” and the International ities fail to provide the protection Chechen IDPs nomic rights, they still risk being victims of serious and displaced persons in the Russian Federation and some other CIS- countries, Doc.10118 25 March 2004. Report. Committee on Helsinki Committee (2004): “ The Coerced Return of Chechen IDPs are entitled to according to the UN Guiding human rights violations, such as unlawful arrests Migration, Refugees and Population. from Ingushetia”. 178 Principles on Internal Displacement. The analysis and searches, fabrication of criminal evidence, and 118 European Court of Human Rights, “ Decision as to the Admissibility of Ibid. Application no. 58964/00 by K.K.C. against the Netherlands, 3 July 2001, p. 8. 179 Human Rights Watch (2003), supra note 177, p. 3. in this report is based mainly on information from discrimination with regards to social and econom- 180 119 Ibid. Santini, (2004), supra note 172. human rights organizations, whose task is to mon- ic rights. 120 Moscow Helsinki Group, supra note 54. 181 Ibid. itor and document violations of human rights. Not 121 Supra note 58. 182 In July 2004, a total of 20 temporary settlements, hosting around 7 800 122 all Chechen IDPs in the Russian Federation may be A more detailed discussion of the application of For an analysis of the "propiska" regimes in light of States' international IDPs were under threat of eviction or were affected by utility cuts, but obligations, see Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, the no alternative had been proposed apart from return to Chechnya. equally affected by the conditions described in our the so-called internal protection alternative with Propiska System Applied to Migrants, Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Source: UNHCR, mid-year CAP. Council of Europe Member States: Effects and Remedies, 12 October analysis, but the extensive documentation of abuse regard to Chechen asylum seekers will follow in 183 See Human Rights Watch (2003), supra note 177. 2001, http://assembly.coe,int/Documents/WorkingDocs/docs01 184 See International Helsinki Federation (2004), “ The Coerced Return of and failure to provide protection provides a clear chapter 7 of the next part of this report. However, it /EDOC9262.htm 123 Situation of refugees and displaced persons in the Russian Federation Chechen IDPs from Ingushetia”. picture of a situation whereby Chechens who have should be mentioned here that the UN Guiding 185 and some other CIS countries. Doc.10118 25 March 2004. Report. UNHCR (2003), p. 15. fled from armed conflict and human rights viola- Principles on Internal Displacement, Principle 1 (c) 186 Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. Rapporteur Mr UNHCR, Handbook on Voluntary Repatriation, 1996. tions in Chechnya, are not granted the protection 5 states that IDPs have the right to apply for asylum Tadeusz Iwinski, Poland, Socialist Group 187 Ibid. by their own government that they are entitled to in another country. Also, when considering the 124 UNHCR (2003), supra note 42, p. 31. 188 See Consolidated Appeals Process for Chechnya 2005, p. 11 125 Memorial (2004), supra note 50, p. 35. 189 For more information about the compensation issue, see “UNHCR under international standards. possibilities of Chechen IDPs to obtain protection 126 Ibid, p.36. Information Note On the Implementation of Compensation for Lost 127 in the Russian Federation one should take into Petrosyan (2004), supra note 37. Housing and Property to the Victims of the Conflict in the Chechen 128 As a consequence of this, UNHCR has conclud- account the general policy of the Russian authori- UNHCR (2003), supra 42. Republic”,April 2004. 129 OPU (2004), supra note 79. 190 UNHCR (2003), supra note 42, p. 14. ed that there is a no internal protection alternative ties towards this group. The fact that Chechens are 130 Memorial (2004), supra note 64, p.35. 191 Human Rights Watch (2003), supra note 177, p. 6. for Chechens in the Russian Federation (see not granted status as forced migrants, the fact that 131 Memorial (2002), supra note 83, p. 15 and Memorial (2004), 192 Amnesty International, EUR 46/027/2004 “ Russian Federation: Chapter 7), and that Chechens whose permanent effective measures to ensure that Chechen IDPs supra note 64, p, 37. 132 Moscow Helsinki Group, supra note 54, p. 7. Chechen Republic; Normalization in whose eyes?”,23 June 2004, p. 12. residence was in Chechnya should be considered in have the legal right to reside outside Chechnya with 133 Ibid, p. 9. 193 Tullio Santini, supra note 172. need of international protection. UNHCR distin- the necessary documents have not been taken, the 134 Memorial (2002), supra note 83, p. 37. 194 UNHCR (2003), supra note 42, p. 19. 135 Petrosyan (2004), supra note 37. 195 Human Rights Watch (2003), supra note 177, p. 8. guishes between those Chechens who have fact that Russian authorities have put direct pres- 136 OPU (2004), supra note 79, p. 7. 196 For one year a block of alternative shelter constructed by NGOs were obtained a permanent residence registration out- sure on Chechen IDPs to return to Chechnya, the 137 Memorial (2004), supra note 64, p.37. left unoccupied pending official approval by the authorities. See the 138 side Chechnya, and those without, and does not the failure of the Russian authorities to hold Ibid., p. 16. OCHA, “UN Consolidated Appeals Process, Mid-Year Review 2004”,p. 2 139 Information from Svetlana Gannushkina, March 2005. 197 According to UNs Consolidated Appeal Process for Chechnya in 2005: rule out the possibility of an internal protection accountable those responsible for human rights 140 European Court of Human Rights (2001) see supra note 118. “in 2004 mostly the Government asked the IDPs to choose between 141 Swiss Refugee Council (2004), Klaus Amman, “Tschetschenien und die alternative for the first group. Amnesty violation in Chechnya and racially-motivated viola- return to Chechnya or relocation to alternative shelter in Ingushetia. tschetschenische Bevölkerung in der Russischen Föderation”,p. 20. International has challenged the validity of making tions in other regions of the Russian Federation, as 198 142 Petrosyan (2004), supra note 37. Santini (2004), supra note 172. 199 such a distinction, arguing that there is no internal well as the involvement of state actors in such abus- 143 Moscow Helsinki Group, supra note 54. Norwegian Refugee Council, “Report from seminar on IDPs from protection alternative for either group. According es all lead us to question the ability and willingness 144 Petrosyan (2004) , supra note 37. Chechnya, Moscow, August 2004 “. 145 Memorial, (2002), supra note 83. 200 According to information from Svetlana Gannushkina in March 2005. to Amnesty International, it is the ethnic identity of of Russian authorities to provide effective protec- 146 Ibid, p. 24. 201 Andrew Lawday, “Displacement only ends with safety and choice”, the person that is the key factor to take into con- tion to this group. ■ 147 Memorial (2004), supra note 64, p. 56. Forced Migration Review 17, May 2003, p. 53. sideration in light of the discrimination Chechens 148 Petrosyan (2004), supra note 37. 202 Supra note 1999. 149 Ibid. 203 Ibid. 150 Walter Kälin (2000), supra note 30, p. 51. 204 Ibid. 151 European Court of Human Rights, case of Smirnova v Russia, 205 OCHA, “Consolidated Appeals Process for Chechnya 2004, Judgement 24 July 2003. Mid-Year Review”,p. 3. 152 Ibid. 206 153 Information provided by Svetlana Gannushkina, March 2005. See OCHA, Consolidated Appeals Process for Chechnya 2005, p. 11 207 154 UNHCR (2003), supra note 42. p.28. Supra note 30. 155 NGO-report to CERD (2002), supra note 58. 208 In a policy paper in October 2004, UNHCR stated that : ...the overall 156 situation in Chechnya still raises grounds for serious concern due to 73 87 Ibid. For example Article 2 (2) of the Convention on Civil and Political UNHCR (2003), supra note 42, p.10. 157 Memorial (2002,), supra note 83, p. 20. targeted persecution, including arbitrary detentions, widespread 88 Rights, Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Petrosyan (2004), supra note 37. 158 Ibid, p. 39. 89 violence, insecurity and violations of human rights, as well as ongoing For more details, see “Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement: Memorial (2002), supra note 83, p. 10. 159 Ibid, p. 20. 90 hostilities significantly affecting the civilian population and leading to Annotations p 11. Ibid. 160 Ibid, p. 19. 74 91 continued forced displacement”. UNHCR (2003) see supra note 42, p. 9. Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of 161 Ibid, p. 21. 209 75 The International Helsinki Federation, “ Chechnya: Enforced International Conference on Internal Displacement in Russia (2002), Racial Discrimination: Russian Federation. 21 March 2003, 162 Petrosyan (2004), supra note 37. According to information from Disappearances, Extrajudicail Killings and Unlawful Detentions – An see supra note 32, p. 5. CERD/C/62/CO/7. Svetlana Gannushkina, changes were made to point 13 of the 76 92 Update”,4 August 2004. Ibid, p. 6. Russian legislation lists specific human rights violations and Petrosyan (2004), supra note 37. Instruction “On the Procedure for Issuing , Exchanging, Registration 93 210 reasons for persecution (e.g. religious belief, belonging to a particular Ibid. and Storing of Passports for Russian Federation citizens” in accordance Medecins Sans Frontieres, “ The Trauma on ongoing War in Chechnya”, 94 ethnic or social group) while the Principles list more general causes. NGO-report to CERD (2002), supra note 58. with an Order of the Ministry of Interior Affairs from July 1999. The Quantitative assessment of living conditions, and psychological and 95 Russian legislation does not include natural or human-made disaster. Naumann (2003), supra note 81. order was based on a decision by the Supreme Court of the Russian general health status among war displaced in Chechnya and Ingushetia, 77 96 Article 1.2 Memorial (2003), supra note 64, p.10. Federation in 1999. August 2004. 78 97 UNHCR (2003), supra note 42, p. 10. Petrosyan (2004), supra note 37. 163 Memorial (2004), supra note 64, p. 39. 211 See supra note 206, p.7. 79 98 Organization for Aid to Refugees (OPU) , “Report on the Situation of UNHCR (2003), supra note 42, p.10. 164 Ibid, p. 38. 212 See Memorial (2004), supra note 64, pp.16-18. 99 Chechen Refugees in the Russian Federation (2004). Memorial (2002) , supra note 83, p. 8. 165 Memorial (2002), supra note 83, p. 21. 213 See Medecins du Monde, Report on Chechnya 2002 80 100 Ibid. Ibid,p.10. 166 Ibid, p. 21. http://www.reliefweb.int/library/documents/2002/mdm-chec-31jul.pdf; 81 Mattew Naumann, “The right not to return: the situation of displaced 101 Petrosyan (2004), supra note 37. 167 Ibid. Chechnya stricken by tuberculosis - http://www.hrvc.net/news4- Chechens in the Russian Federation”,Dissertation submitted pursuant 102 Memorial (2002), supra note 83, p. 11. 168 The Brookings Institution Project on Internal Displacement, 03/24d-5-2003.htm; Precarious Health Situation prevailing in to an LLM degree in International Human Rights Law, University of 103 See Naumann (2003), supra note 80. “Handbook for Applying the UN Principles on Internal Displacment”, 104 Chechnya (2003), Global IDP Database, http://www.db.idpproject. Essex, August 2003, p. 16. Ibid. 169 European Council on Refugees and Exiles, “ECRE Policy on Return”, 82 Memorial (2004), supra note 62, p. 32. 105 Memorial (2004), supra note 64, p. 33. p. 8, at www.ecre.org org/Sites/IdpProjectDb/idpSurvey.nsf/wViewCountries/053B0FBFC 83 Memorial (S.A. Gannushkina), “The Internally Displaced Persons from 106 NGO-report to CERD, supra note 58. 170 Ibid. 11AA8D5C1256E01005A0ABF 214 Chechnya in the Russian Federation”,2002, p 10. 107 Memorial (2004), supra note 64, p. 33. 171 Ibid. Human Rights Commission (2004), supra note 29, p. 18. 84 NGO-report to CERD (2 002), supra note 58. 108 Ibid. 172 Tullio Santini, “North Caucasus: Upholding the principle of “voluntary 85 Gannushkina (2004), supra note 62, pp. 32-33. 109 Ibid. return” for IDPs”,Journal of Humanitarian Affairs, September 2004 at 86 International Conference on Internal Displacement in the Russian 110 Memorial (2002), supra note 83, p.15 http://www.jha.ac/ Federation, supra note 32, p. 7. 111 Petrosyan (2004), supra note 37. 173 UNHCR, (2003), supra note 42, p. 15. CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

28 29 Part 2: Asylum seekers and refugees from Chechnya Introduction

This part of the report will analyze the policies of dif- procedures in countries outside the EU (chapter 5) ferent countries towards asylum seekers from and within the EU (chapter 6). The application of the Chechnya. The analysis does not just cover the out- so-called “internal protection alternative” with regard come of the asylum determination procedures, but to Chechens will be discussed separately in chapter 7. also address other barriers facing Chechens seeking In chapter 8, 9 and 10 exclusion from refugee status, asylum abroad. After an overview of the general move- mandatory returns to Russia and demands for the ment of Chechen asylum seekers, the issue of access to extradition of Chechens will be discussed. Finally, the territories of other states will be addressed. Access chapter 11 will address the current situation in the EU to asylum procedures will be addressed in the third whereby many Chechens are awaiting deportations to chapter. Chapter 4 describes reports about the deten- “new” EU countries as a result of the enlargement of tion of Chechen asylum seekers. The next chapters the EU in May 2004 combined with the application of examine the outcome of refugee status determination the Dublin II Regulation. ■

Chapter 1: Movement of Chechen refugees and asylum seekers

At the beginning of the current conflict, many Most governments do not provide statistics «Although we cannot Chechens sought refuge in countries neighbouring according to ethnicity or nationality, but the major- prove a direct link Russia. Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Georgia were the ity of asylum seekers originating from Russia over between the flow main recipients of Chechen refugees. The refugee the last couples of years are considered to be from of asylum seekers 223 populations in these countries have remained rela- Chechnya. In 2003, 33 364 asylum seekers from to European coun- tively stable over the last five years. Almost 14 000 Russia arrived in 29 European and non-European tries and increased 215 Chechen refugees reside in Kazakhstan. The industrialized countries providing monthly statis- pressure on IDPs 216 majority has been in the county for about 5 years, tics to UNHCR (32 274 arrived in European coun- in Ingushetia and 224 and woman and children make up 85 percent of tries). This represented an increase of 68 percent other regions of the 217 225 them. Almost 8 000 Chechen refugees have been compared to 2002. In 2004, the number decreased Russian Federation, 218 registered by UNHCR in Azerbaijan. During the by 14 percent, but there was an increase during the there are striking 226 first half of 2004 the flow of Chechen asylum seekers last quarter of the year. correlations between registration with UNHCR in Azerbaijan was still the two.» continuing at a steady rate of over 60 individuals a An unknown number of asylum seekers from 219 month. An estimated 6 000-7 000 Chechen Chechnya are residing in Belarus and Ukraine. refugees arrived in Georgia in 1999/2000, but the These countries are mainly considered as transit current number of Chechen refugees in Georgia is countries for Chechens trying to get asylum in 220 estimated at 3540. Almost 80 percent of them are Western Europe. In 2003 and 2004 hundreds of 221 women and children. Chechens were apprehended by Ukrainian border guards when trying to cross illegally the border 227 In 2003, there was a dramatic increase in the num- from Ukraine to Slovakia or Poland. ber of Chechen asylum seekers in European countries. Russia topped the list of major countries of origin of Although we cannot prove a direct link between asylum seekers arriving in industrialized countries, and the flow of asylum seekers to European countries in European countries, both in 2003 and 2004. In 2004 and increased pressure on IDPs in Ingushetia and asylum seekers from Russia made up 9.8 percent of asy- other regions of the Russian Federation, there are 222 lum seekers to European countries. striking correlations between the two. The increase

Chechen refugees in the Pankisi Gorge, Georgia, are CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA lining up to receive blankets from UNHCR. October 30 2003. Photo: The Norwegian Helsinki Committee. 31 in Chechen asylum seekers to European countries September. In these months a referendum and pres- not allowed to enter Ukraine even when they have According to UNHCR, all of them possessed valid trav- intensified in early 2003. This was right after idential elections were held in Chechnya, events valid travel documents, and want to cross Ukraine el documents. According to the local Brest authorities a Russian authorities had closed the first tent camp in that were expected to cause disturbances and pres- territory to return to Russia. large group of Chechens were accepted by Polish Border 242 Ingushetia, and announced that more closures sure on IDPs in Ingushetia and the civilian Chechen Guards a few days later. would take place soon. In Moscow and other big population in general. In June 2004 extensive During the first half of November 2002, right after cities, document checks and other police measures armed attacks took place in Ingushetia, and at the the Dubrovka theatre hostage crisis in Moscow, These are some of the incidents that have been targeted at Chechens intensified following the the- beginning of September 2004 the infamous Beslan Chechens were denied access to Polish and Lithuanian reported. It is reasonable to assume that many similar atre hostage crisis in October 2002. The months school hostage crisis happened. Between July and territory. Lithuanian border guards refused entry to 26 incidents are not reported, especially when it concerns 233 with the highest increases in Russian asylum seek- September 2004, there was a 40 percent increase in Chechens and returned them to Belarus. At least 17 of individuals or small groups. With regards to the 228 ers to European countries in 2003 were March and the number of asylum seekers from Russia. ■ them were detained by the Belarus authorities and sub- Lithuanian - Byelorussian border, UNHCR’s office in 234 sequently put on a train bound for Moscow. Another Stockholm concludes that “following the conclusion of group of 150 Chechens were stuck in Brest, Belarus, after the re-admission agreement with the Russian Polish border guards refused to allow them entry into Federation in 2003, cases of rejection have been report- Poland. The border guards cited irregularities in their ed of Russian citizens of Chechen nationality from the 235 Chapter 2: travel documents as the reason for the rejection ,but at borders. Asylum seekers risk rejection and refoulement 243 the same time the Polish interior minister was reported at the border.” to have cited “national security” as the reason why 236 Access to territory Poland would no longer allow in Chechens. Also During the UN Human Rights Committees´ con- Lithuanian officials linked the incidents to the terrorist sideration of Poland’s 5th periodic report to the In practice, access to territory is a necessary precondi- This principle of non-refoulement is now a widely act in Moscow. The issue was addressed by the Belarus Committee, the Polish delegation was asked to com- tion for exercising the right to apply for asylum. In accepted principle of customary international law. The President and UNHCR. UNHCR emphasized that ment on the situation of asylum seekers and the prin- most cases, if an asylum seeker is not able to reach the prohibition against refoulement under Article 3 of the denying Chechens the opportunity to apply for asylum ciple of non-refoulement, in particular with regard to border of a foreign country, he or she will not be able European Convention for the Protection of Human was incompatible with the two countries’ national laws Chechen asylum seekers. The delegation said that as 229 234 to file an application for asylum. Chechen asylum Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and Article and international commitments. After a couple of of 2003 the non-refoulement principle was being seekers’ rights to seek asylum are restricted by the visa 3 of the UN Convention against Torture is broader than weeks the majority of the Chechens stranded in Brest fully observed in Poland, and this concerned nation- 238 policies of European countries. In some instances, that provided for under the Refugee Convention and its were allowed to enter Poland to apply for asylum. als of Chechen origin in particular. Chechen asylum seekers have also been rejected from 1967 Protocol. The treatment of asylum seekers must be the border of foreign countries without being allowed in accordance with states’ obligations under these inter- Similar incidents happened on the Polish- The French NGO, Forum Refugiés, provided «There are several to apply for asylum (see below). national instruments not to return any person to a coun- Byelorussian border in 2003 and 2004. Several incidents information in January 2005 that asylum claims reports of instances try where they could be at risk of torture, ill-treatment, have been brought to the attention of UNHCR when made at French ports by Chechens on several occa- when Chechen Visa policies affecting or inhumane or degrading treatment. If a person is Chechens had been repeatedly denied entry to Poland sions were regarded as “manifestedly unfounded” asylum seekers Chechen asylum seekers deported to another country that does not respect the with Polish border guards citing inconsistencies in their by the authorities, and that it was only after a court have been rejected Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine have bi- principle of non-refoulement, the first state has also vio- valid travel documents with their oral statements as to ruling that the applicants were allowed entry into from borders of 239 lateral non-visa agreements with the Russian lated the principle via so-called chain-refoulement. the purpose of their trips. Chechen asylum seekers French territory and to apply for asylum. In one European countries.» Federation. This means that with valid Russian inter- were also reportedly prevented from crossing the border case, in 2003, a woman with two children was 240 nal passports, Chechens have the right to enter these It is generally accepted that the obligation of states by Byelorussian law-enforcement officials. returned to Moscow before the court had decided countries without any further authorization. Not all to respect the principle of non-refoulement should be whether her claim was “well-founded” or not. Such Chechens do, however, possess valid internal passports respected from the point when a person is at the bor- In September 2004, shortly after the school hostage incidents have led some French NGOs to publicly (see part 1 of the report, section 3.3). In Moldova there der of the country in question. If a person is not crisis in North-Ossetia, a group of almost 100 persons, question if French authorities are willfully trying to are also no visa regulations for Russian citizens. allowed to enter a country and a request to apply for almost half of them children, were rejected at the deter Chechens from arriving to France and/or to 241 asylum is turned down, not only has the person’s right Belarusian-Polish border and returned to Brest. protect “French interests” with Russia. ■ In order to travel to EU countries, as well as to apply for asylum been violated. The state in question Switzerland and Norway, citizens of the Russian may also have failed to respect the principle of non- Federation need to have a visa. Without a visa, airplane refoulement. There are several reports of instances companies will reject travellers. European embassies in when Chechen asylum seekers have been rejected from Russia (or neighbouring countries) are, however, borders of European countries. 230 extremely reluctant to issue visas to Chechens. It is 215 UNHCR, “ Country Operational Plan for Kazakhstan, Planning year 2005 230 See Norwegian Refugee Council, “Report from seminar on IDPs from 216 sometimes possible to obtain visas from middlemen Chechens are often denied access to Ukrainian Many joined relatives who had been living there since the Chechen Chechnya”,Moscow, August 2004. See www.chechnyaadvocacy.org/refugees population was deported to Kazakhstan en masse by Stalin in 1944. 231 Information provided by Ukrainian NGOs. through bribes or falsifications, but for most Chechens territory. The State Border Service in Ukraine report- Officially, more than 30, 000 Chechens that have been living in 232 If entry is prohibited Ukrainian border guards put stamps in the the only opportunity to enter other European countries ed that during January-August 2004, 260 Chechens Kazakhstan for a long time enjoy Kazak citizenship today. passports of the person. Prohibition for entry to Ukraine varies from 217 231 UNHCR, “Country Operational Plan for Kazakhstan”,Planning Year2005. 2 to 5 years. is by travelling by land. Even with a visa, an airplane tick- were refused entry to Ukraine. According to infor- 218 UNHCR, “Country Operational Plan for Azerbaijan”,Planning year 2005. 233 UNHCR News Stories , “UNHCR urges Poland, Lithuania not to turn 219 et may be too costly. mation from Ukrainian NGOs, after the school Ibid away Chechens”, 14 November 2002. 220 hostage siege in Beslan in September 2004, the control UNHCR, “Country Operational Plan for Georgia”,Planning year 2005. 234 Ibid. 221 Ibid. 235 According to sources within UNHCR. Rejection at borders and regime at Ukraine’s border with the Russian 222 UNHCR, “Asylum levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries. 2004”,Table 3. 236 Supra note 233. the principle of non-refoulment Federation was tightened. Border guards are reported 223 See for example UNHCR, “Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized 237 Supra note 235. Countries, 2004”,p. 6. 238 According to article 33 (1) of the 1951 Convention to check all Chechens against blacklists provided by 224 Ibid. UNHCR; Asylum Levels and Trends: Europe and Non-European 239 Relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugee the Russian security service. Persons appearing on the Industrialized Countries, 2003, 24 February 2004, Table 7. Ibid. 232 240 Convention)“no Contracting State shall expel or list are refused entry to Ukraine. Also, Chechens 225 UNHCR, “Asylum levels and Trends: Europe and Non-European Many Chechens in Poland interviewed by the Czech NGO, Organization for Aid to Refugees (OPU), in December 2003 return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatso- coming to Ukraine by train or by plane from the Industrialized Countries”,2003, 24 February 2004, p. 5. 226 UNHCR, “Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries”,2004. complained about the treatment they received from the Byelorussian ever to the frontiers of territories where his life or free- Russian Federation or other countries, for example 227 Information provided by Ukrainian NGOs in January 2005. authorities. According to OPU, the Byelorussian border guards often dom would be threatened on account of his race, reli- Azerbaijan or Moldova, are routinely denied access to 228 UNHCR, “Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries, return asylum seekers from the Byelorussian-Polish border. Third Quarter, 2004”,p. 5. 241 Information from sources within UNHCR. gion, nationality, membership of a particular social the territory, even if they have valid travel documents. 242 229 In theory, asylum seekers can also approach a foreign embassy in her Ibid. group or political opinion.” According to Ukrainian NGOs, some Chechens are home country, but few countries grant asylum via their embassies. 243 Information from UNHCR Stockholm, 6 December 2004. CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

32 33 Chapter 3: Access to asylum procedures

The existence of a refugee determination procedure and access to that procedure is another necessary precondi- firmed that only a small number of Chechens have From prima facie recognition tion for a person to be able to exercise her or his rights obtained legal registration. to restricted access in Georgia as a refugee or person in need of other forms of protec- Georgia is the only country that has recognized tion. All the countries covered in this report have The situation in Kazakhstan is similar. Russian citi- Chechens in need of protection as a group. In 1999, national asylum status determination procedures, but zens are required to register with the authorities in order Georgia recognized a group of an estimated 7000 Chechen asylum seekers have no, or only limited, access to stay in the country legally, with the right to work or Chechens as prima facie refugees. By mid-2004, the to asylum status determination procedures in countries attend school. The registration of Chechens is, however, number of Chechen refugees in Georgia was reduced to neighbouring the Russian Federation. It is a concern unpredictable, and, according to the local NGO, almost half of the original number. Potential Chechen that countries to which Chechens have easiest access do “Vainakh”,the Association for the Cultural Development asylum seekers to Georgia now have to apply for asylum not grant them access to their asylum systems. Most of the Ingush and Chechen People, “totally depends on with the Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation.253 248 Chechens reside there without any legal status. the mood of the heads of the local migration police”. According to UNHCR, Chechens applying for asylum in According to “Vainakh”, Chechens are registered for Georgia are currently in a very vulnerable position. No access to national asylum procedures between 15 days and three months, or refused registra- Their office in Tiblisi has provided information that in in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Belarus tion altogether. A lack of registration can be punished early 2005 some Chechen asylum seekers entered The authorities in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Belarus with high fines and administrative expulsion from the Georgia illegally from Azerbaijan. When they contacted do not register applications for asylum filed by country. According to Vainakh, Chechens often choose the Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation they were Chechens. This happens despite the fact that these not to contact the local police to register because they fear taken to an anti-terrorist center where they were inter- countries have ratified the 1951 Convention, and have repercussions. Others pay bribes to “buy” more time. rogated before they were returned to the Azeri border.254 national asylum procedures. The Kazak authorities con- sider all citizens of former Soviet Republics as immi- According to the treaty of Equal Rights of the Chechen refugees reside in Pankisi Gorge, only kilo- 244 grants, not asylum seekers. The non-status of Chechen Citizens of Belarus and Russia (1998), Russian citizens meters away from the border with Chechnya. The secu- refugees is, however, considered to be a particularly have the right to legally reside, work and settle perma- rity situation inside the valley has been a concern, but politically sensitive issue, and the position of the Kazak nently in Belarus. They must, however, obtain registra- the situation is reported to have somewhat improved in 255 government presumed to be a reflection of Moscow’s tion. In order to get registration you need to have a job, 2004. The Russian authorities claim that terrorists view that Chechens are not in need of international pro- and to find someone willing to register you. According to reside in and enter Chechnya from the Pankisi Gorge, tection. According to a representative of UNHCR in sources within UNHCR all ethnic non- Russians would and Georgian authorities have repeatedly faced pressure Kazakhstan,“under pressure from Moscow, which views have great problems obtaining registration in Belarus. from Russian authorities to expedite the voluntary the conflict in Chechnya as an internal matter, A Chechen refugee with her child in Pankisi, Georgia. [President] Astana, has refused to acknowledge their Many of the Chechen children in Georgia are born with «According to UNHCR, 245 refugee status all together.” The Azeri government has handicaps and many are suffering from psychological Registration by UNHCR During the first year of the current conflict, Chechen refugees the government finds never officially stated its reasons for denying Chechens trauma. October 2003. Photo: The Norwegian Helsinki in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan got help from quite a few international humanitarian govern- Chechens too politi- access to the asylum procedures. There have been cases Committee. In Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan UNHCR has negotiated so- mental organizations, including those from Arab countries. cally inexpedient where other CIS-citizens have been granted asylum in called “de facto temporary protection regimes” with the local After 9/11, all Arab organization stopped functioning in to consider as 246 Azerbaijan. According to UNHCR, the government authorities whereby the governments let UNHCR register Azerbaijan. According to UNHCR, the population of Chechen refugees.» finds Chechens too politically inexpedient to consider as systems of registration in these countries are based on refugees from Chechnya. Chechens registered by UNHCR are asylum seekers in Azerbaijan is becoming increasingly desti- 247 250 «It is a concern that refugees. According to national legislation in Belarus, the Soviet “propiska” regime, and the difficulties acquir- given a registration certificate that protects them against forced tute and despondent. countries to which all applications for asylum filed with the authorities are ing registration are similar to those in Russia (see part 1 return to Russia. This arrangement is described by UNHCR as Chechens have to be registered and reviewed on their merit. Despite of the report, section 3.2). “a pragmatic approach, and the only practical measure to Resettlement of Chechens to third countries is taking place, but 249 easiest access do this, the authorities refuse to register applications from ensure protection against forcible return to Chechnya” . The on a very small scale. The numbers of persons resettled were 31 in 2002, 81 in 2003 and 23 by mid-2004.251 Countries that not grant them citizens of the Russian Federation. When refusing to In Azerbaijan, Russian citizens who will be staying Azeri and Kazakh governments tolerate Chechens staying on their territory, but do not accord any legal rights or access to have accepted Chechen refugees from Azerbaijan include access to their register these applicants, Belarus immigration authori- in the country for more than 30 days are obliged to reg- any social assistance. Canada, the US, Sweden, Ireland and the Netherlands. ties and courts refer to the Treaty on the Creation of a ister with the police in Baku within three days after asylum systems. According to UNHCR in Azerbaijan, larger scale resettlement to Union State between Belarus and Russia and the Treaty arrival. The formal criteria for registration are an inter- Most Chechens reside Chechen refugees do not have the right to work in these coun- third countries remains difficult to effect in practice, and UNHCR there without any on Equal Rights of the Citizens, which give Russian cit- nal passport and a lease agreement. In practice, howev- tries. Absence of employment opportunities, poverty and poor will continue to advocate that the Azerbaijani government grant legal status.» izens the right to obtain a residence permit. According er, the process is much more complicated. According to health conditions have had a serious negative impact on the Chechen asylum seekers a subsidiary form of protection. During to sources in UNHCR, the real reason for these rejec- UNHCR in Baku, it is common for registration officials condition of refugees in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. Many are the discussion of Azerbaijan’s third and fourth report to the UN tions is the political sensitivity of such cases given the to demand large bribes or make bureaucratic obstacles dependent on assistance from UNHCR, but UNHCR’s Committee on Elimination of Racial discrimination, the Azeri proclaimed integration policy of the two states. to registering people. This is also the case for Azeri citi- resources for providing financial, medical and other support authorities stated that the situation of those not considered zens who want to register in Baku. Chechens often chose are strained. Poor living standards influence people’s health refugees, but who could not return to their home country, was In Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Belarus, Russian cit- not to register, not just because they are likely to face negatively. UNHCR in Baku has noticed a high rise in the currently being discussed between Azeri officials and the izens can reside or settle permanently upon registration such problems, but also because they fear increased number of medical consultations and hospitalizations in 2004. International Organization for Migration.252 with the authorities. As in the Russian Federation, the attention from the police. UNHCR in Baku has con- CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

34 35 «Georgia is the only return of the Chechen refugee population to Chechnya. instructions regarding Chechens seriously hamper country that has According to UNHCR, this pressure has not developed Chechens’ access to the asylum procedures in Ukraine. Chapter 4: 256 recognized Chechens into any concrete action. In August 2004, the Georgian General shortcomings in the asylum procedures in need of protection authorities conducted a re-registration of Chechen include strict deadlines for submission of claims, dep- Detentions as a group.» refugees in Pankisi. The refugee population has been rivation of refugee status in administrative decisions concerned that some Chechen lost their refugee status upon mere suspicion of involvement in activities pos- 257 after the re-registration. Human rights organizations ing a threat to national security, and a lack of mecha- have voiced concern about human rights’ violations suf- nisms to hand asylum seekers and applicants over The Refugee Convention, Article 31 exempts resentatives of German NGOs, who visited Poland fered by Chechen refugees in Pankisi as a result of anti- from border guards and law-enforcement authorities refugees from punishment due to illegal entry. in November 2004, all asylum seekers arriving 261 terrorist operations conducted by the Georgian security to the immigration authorities. According to infor- UNHCR Detention Guidelines stipulate that the without a visa risk being detained, but Chechens services and the Interior Ministry, and argued that food mation from Ukrainian NGOs, the immigration detention of refugees should be neither automatic who apply for asylum when entering Poland are 265 distribution by UNHCR in the Gorge is unsatisfacto- authorities increasingly deny access to refugee status nor unduly prolonged , and UNHCR Executive normally not detained, mainly due to lack of places 258 276 ry. Chechen refugees in Pankisi have clearly indicated determination procedures for Chechens. Border Committee Conclusion 44, states that detention of in detention centres. The German NGO mission 266 that they are not interested in return in the current cir- guards in the Zakarpattia province, for example, keep asylum seekers “should normally be avoided.” did, however, come across a Chechen family with a 277 cumstances, but an unknown number of refugees Chechens in a separate detention facility while prepar- Chechen asylum seekers are reported to be kept in young child in the detention centre they visited. returned spontaneously in 2003 and 2004. According to ing their deportation. During the first half of 2004, detention after crossing the border illegally both in According to Polish NGOs that monitor the situa- UNHCR, the refugees are tired of harsh living condi- 759 Chechens were apprehended there, but border EU and non EU countries. There is a lack of docu- tion, they believe that detentions often happen 278 tions and a lack of possibilities for a self-sustaining guards did not hand a single asylum application to the mentation about the extent, length and conditions without NGOs knowing anything about it. The 259 livelihood in the Valley. UNHCR is resettling Chechen Regional Migration Service. Although it is theoretical- of these detentions. We can only provide some German mission concluded that it seemed clear refugees to third countries. In 2004, about 140 persons ly possible that none of these 759 had any protection examples and underline the importance of further that the Polish authorities intend to build up their 279 (40 cases) were received by Sweden, Ireland, the concerns, this is highly unlikely given the current situ- research on this matter. capacity for detaining asylum seekers. 260 Netherlands and Canada. ation for Chechens in the Russian Federation, and it would seem that the border guards did not provide an UNHCR is aware of several cases of the detention Asylum seekers risk detention in Poland not just as 267 Limited access to asylum procedure in Ukraine opportunity for effective protection for Chechens flee- of Chechens in Belarus. In Ukraine, asylum seek- a result of arriving without proper documents. Severe shortcomings in the asylum system and special ing persecution. ■ ers in general are detained together with other According to Polish legislation, persons who try to undocumented foreigners in Ministry of Interior leave Polish territory illegally can be imprisoned for 280 and Border Guard Detention Facilities. Some asy- up to three years. It is hard to obtain concrete facts lum seekers are detained for many months in about the practice of detaining those who have tried 263 Access in EU countries: The Dublin Regulation tion National legislation determines the conditions for choosing detention facilities that are over-crowded and do to leave Polish territory illegally. According to the The processing of asylum claims in EU countries (plus Iceland not to do so. As a general rule, a country that receives an asylum not provide sufficient nutritional, medical and Polish authorities, as a rule, this does not take place, and Norway) is regulated by the Council Regulation (EC) no seeker and can establish that another “Dublin” country is respon- 268 281 sanitary provisions. Special detention facilities for but individual cases are known to NGOs. According 343/2003, the so-called “Dublin II Regulation”. The regulation sible, will not process that person’s case on its merits, but will Chechen asylum seekers exist. Detentions are to UNHCR in Poland, it is not rare for persons who establishes which party to the regulation is responsible for exam- make a decision in an accelerated procedure to transfer the appli- usually based on invalid documents or attempts to have tried to leave Polish territory illegally to be kept ining asylum claims submitted in one of the member states. It aims cant. The transfer decision may be challenged, but the appeal 282 at ensuring both that each asylum application is being examined does not necessarily have suspensive effect.264 irregularly cross the border. in detention for several months. The Polish and that asylum seekers do not apply in more than one Member Helsinki Committee confirms that the detention of State (the ‘one-chance-only’ principle). The regulation establishes In May 2004, 8 former communist countries, including Poland the In 2002, the Norwegian Helsinki Committee and persons returned from other Dublin countries is tak- Czech Republic and Slovakia, joined the EU, and the Dublin reg- the Norwegian Organization for Asylum Seekers ing place, but is not able to say why this happens in a hierarchy of criteria to determine responsibility. In practice, very 283 often the first state on EU territory entered by the asylum seeker ulation. This strongly affected Chechen asylum seekers’ access documented incidents where Chechens, including some cases, and in other cases not. The German is the one responsible for the determination of refugee status. But to asylum procedures. Before this date, Chechens were in most children, were held in detention for several months NGO-mission to Poland concluded that Polish prac- 269 there are exceptions to this rule, most importantly in cases where cases able to have their applications processed on their merits in in Greece. In some countries, Chechens who are tice with regard to the detention of asylum seeker a family member has been recognised as a refugee or his appli- Austria, Germany or other Western European countries even to be returned to another Dublin country are prevents asylum seekers from considering Poland a 270 284 cation is currently being examined in another member state, after having been registered as asylum seekers in Poland, the detained. This is the case at least in Austria , safe country of refuge. ■ 271 272 where the applicant is an unaccompanied minor with a family Czech Republic, Slovakia or other new member states. After EU Germany , and Belgium . According to the Czech member legally present in another member state, or where the enlargement Chechens arriving in these countries often have NGO, Organization for Aid to Refugees, in the 265 UNHCR Revised Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards applicant holds a valid visa or residence document of another their asylum claims processed there, as these are usually the relating to the Detention of Asylum Seekers (February 1999). Czech Republic, claimants that are to be transferred 266 member state.262 Whenever a state party is able to establish that countries of first entry into the EU – even if they manage to reach UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion on Detention of Refugees to another Dublin country (mainly Poland) are and Asylum Seekers, No. 44 (1986). another party is responsible for the application, the latter is obliged the territory of countries further west. Thus, a large number of 273 267 According to sources within UNHCR. often detained before the transfer is made. The 268 to accept the asylum seeker. However, the State where the appli- Chechen asylum seekers are currently waiting to be returned to Supra note 42. organization has not observed cases of detention of 269 The Norwegian Organization for Asylum Seekers and the Norwegian cation was first lodged may choose not to return the applicant to Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia from Western someone returned from Austria or Germany pend- Helsinki Committee, “The Transfer of Chechen Asylum Seekers from the responsible State, for example for purposes of family unifica- European countries. Norway to Greece in Accordance with the Dublin Convention”,2002. ing the outcome of his or her asylum application in 270 See Rozumek Martin, “ The Fiction of Harmonized Safety”,Article for the Czech Republic. www.migrationonline.cz, November 2004. 271 See Barbara Esser (Biefelder Flüchtlingsrad), Barbara Gladysch (Mütter für den Friden), und Benita Suwelack (Flüchtlingsrat Nodrhein- NGOs have been concerned about reports from Westfalen),“Die Situation tchechenischer Asylbewrrber und Fluchtlinge 244 US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, World Refugee Survey 255 UNHCR, Country Operational Plan for Georgia, Planning Year 2005. in Polen und Auswirkungen der EU-Verordnung Dublin II” , February 2004, Country Report on Kazakhstan. 256 Chechen asylum seekers that Chechens have been Ibid. 2005. 245 Integrated Regional Information Networks, “ KAZAKHSTAN: 257 KavkazCenter.com, “Anxiety among Chechen residents”,8 March 2005. kept in detention in Poland for several months. 272 Information provided by the Belgium Refugee Council, 14 March 2005 Chechens mark 10th anniversary of war”,13 December 2004 258 The Norwegian Helsinki Committee and the International Helsinki 273 246 According to Polish legislation, asylum seekers who Information provided in April 2005. A Turkmen national was granted asylum in Azerbaijan in 2004. Federation, Report, “Fact-Finding Mission to Georgia”, 274 247 The Polish Aliens Act, article 106. UNHCR, “Country Operational Plan for Azerbaijan”,Planning Year 2005. enter Poland illegally – without the necessary visa – 275 248 21 – 27 October 2003. Supra note 271, p. 6 Information provided by the NGO Vainakh, December 2004. 259 276 249 UNHCR, supra note 220. can be detained. The length of a stay in a detention Ibid, p. 11. Ibid. 260 277 250 Numbers provided by UNHCR in Georgia in December 2004. Ibid, p. 9. See supra note 218. centre should not exceed 90 days, in exceptional 278 261 Ibid, p. 10. 251 Information from Legal-Counseling Centre of the Trade Union Numbers provided by UNHCR in Azerbaijan in January 2005. cases it can be extended, but it cannot be for longer 279 Ibid, p. 11. 252 “Solidarity”,“Human Rights Have No Borders”,Ukraine. 274 Reliefweb, Press release, “Committee on elimination of racial discrimi- 280 Ibid, p. 8. 262 Council Regulation (EC) no 343/2003, articles 6 – 14. than one year. 95 percent of Chechen asylum nation considers report of Azerbaijan”,7 March 2005. 281 Ibid. 253 263 Council Regulation (EC) no 343/2003, articles 3 (2) and 15. Information provided by UNHCR in Georgia, April 2005. seekers arriving in Poland are estimated to arrive 282 Ibid. 254 264 275 Ibid. Council Regulation (EC) no 343/2003, article 19 (2). without a valid visa for Poland. According to rep- 283 Supra note 271, p. 27. 284 Ibid, p. 1. CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

36 37 Chapter 5: Status determination in Chapter 6: Status determination European countries outside the EU in the EU, Norway and Switzerland

293 Due to the exclusion of Chechens from asylum procedures 6. 1. An overview how to stay in Poland. Most Chechen asylum seek- «Poland has for in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Belarus the possibilities for Austria, Poland, and the Czech Republic topped the ers have registered in Poland, but moved on to several years been Chechens to seek asylum in European countries outside the list of countries receiving asylum seekers from the Austria and other EU countries via the Czech the main “point of 285 EU is limited. Individual cases may appear in other coun- Russian Federation in 2003, followed by Germany, Republic. According to estimates from the Polish entry “for Chechen tries, but among European non-EU countries that receive France, Norway and Slovakia. Chechens have usually Immigration Service (URiC) in 2003 three quarters of asylum seekers to relatively large groups of Chechens; this group has only had considered the Central and East-European states as all Chechens who applied for asylum in Poland moved the EU and other 294 access to asylum determination procedures in Ukraine and transit countries on their way to countries further on without waiting for their case to be processed. Western-European Moldova and Georgia. However, the possibilities of obtain- west, and many are presumed to have been registered The Czech government has estimated that about 90 countries. According ing protection in these countries are scarce. as asylum seekers in more than one country at the percent of Chechen asylum seekers do not stay in the to a 2004 IOM study, 295 same time. According to the Czech NGO, the country for more than 35 days. After May 2004, a growing share Ukraine Organization of Aid to Refugees, which has inter- Chechens who arrived in the Czech Republic after hav- of persons from In 1993-96, special temporary regulations regarding “war viewed Chechen asylum seekers in Poland and the ing been registered in Poland were returned to Poland Russia is turning to refugees “from Chechnya were in force in Ukraine. Since Czech Republic, family links play an important role to have their applications processed there. The number organized trafficking 1996, however, asylum seekers from Chechnya have been in the secondary movement of Chechen asylum seek- of asylum seekers arriving from Russia in the Czech through Poland.» 291 channelled through normal procedures. Between 1996- ers. Recognition rates, as well as integration systems Republic decreased significantly from 2003 to 2004, 2004 about 380 refugees from Chechnya were granted for recognized refugees, are also important factors in while the number of Chechen asylum seekers in 286 asylum in Ukraine. Representatives of Ukraine’s civil the secondary movements of Chechens: “They often Poland increased. According to the Polish immigration society have reported that the Ukrainian government has express their goal to have “a normal life” elsewhere. authorities, Chechen asylum seekers have continued to secret agreements with Russia to do its best not to recog- However, during [-] interviews with them, they often leave Poland before their cases have been processed nize Chechens as refugees, and that this makes it more said that they did not consider the Czech or Polish there, even after Poland entered the Dublin regula- 296 difficult for them to obtain refugee status than for other [asylum procedures] procedure and integration sys- tion. 287 292 asylum seekers. 90 percent of Chechen asylum seekers tem to be sufficient for achieving their goal.” are estimated to be rejected by the immigration authori- There was also a significant decrease of asylum ties with reference to safe country of origin/ the internal Poland has been the main “point of entry “for seekers from Russia to Norway in 2004. This may be 288 protection alternative (see chapter 7). According to the Chechen asylum seekers to the EU and other due to the fact that Norwegian immigration Ukrainian NGO, Human Rights Have no Borders, the Western-European countries for several years. authorities “froze” the processing of applications real reason for the rejections is that the Ukrainian According to a 2004 IOM study, a growing share of from Chechnya for a large part of the year (see sec- authorities support Russia’s claim that there is no armed persons from Russia is turning to organized traffick- tion 6.3), creating insecurities about the possibili- conflict in Chechnya, only fight against terrorism. A Chechen refugee holds a Chechen flag and a portrait ing through Poland. The study also reveals that ties of obtaining protection there. If this assump- According to the same source, corruption within the of the slain Chechen rebel leader Aslan Maskhadov dur- Chechens who apply for asylum in Poland often use tion is correct, it indicates that Chechen asylum Ukrainian immigration service does sometimes enable ing a protest at the Russian embassy in Tbilisi, March 14, special “middlemen of their own migrant group” to seekers are well informed about the asylum policies Chechens to obtain refugee status. Ukraine’s policy with 2005. Photo: Scanpix/REUTERS/David Mdzinarishvili organize and facilitate transport to, and to find out- in different countries. regards to Chechens is expected to change after the Western-orientated politician, Victor Yuschenko, won the presidential election in Ukraine in late 2004. protesting against their treatment in Moldova, in particular Number of asylum seekers from Number of asylum seekers from against lengthy asylum procedures. the Russian Federation in 2003: 297 the Russian Federation in 2004: 298 Moldova In February 2005, 42 of a total of 184 asylum seekers in Georgia 289 Moldova were Chechens. According to human rights The Norwegian Refugee Council does not have informa- 1. Austria 6 715 1. Poland 7 180 organization in Moldova, as of January 2005 only two tion about the number of Chechens that may have 2. Poland 5 581 2. Austria 6 185 Chechens had been recognized as refugees in Moldova applied for asylum in Georgia in 2004. According to the 3. Czech 4 852 3. France 2 919 since the state took over the refugee status determination US Committee for refugees and Immigration, in 2004 the procedure from UNHCR in January 2003. The authorities Refugee Department within Georgia’s Ministry of 4. Germany 3 389 4. Germany 2 767 are generally of the view that Chechens would be more eli- Refugees and Accommodation processed only four asy- 5. France 3 251 5. Slovakia 2 402 gible for subsidiary protection, but there is no possibility of lum applications, all from Iranians, and had accepted 290 this at the moment as a draft law on subsidiary forms of none by year’s end. ■ 6. Slovakia 2 663 6. Czech Rep 1 499 protection has not yet been passed. In February 2005 7. Norway 1 923 7. Belgium 1 361 Chechen asylum seekers in Moldova were on hunger strike 8. Belgium 1 680 8. Sweden 1 288 285 Even though Switzerland and Norway are not members of the EU, they 288 Ibid. are parties to the Dublin regulation, and are therefore in this context 289 According to information from NGOs in Moldova, February 2005. 9. Sweden 1 361 9. Norway 937 included in the discussion regarding EU countries. 290 US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, World Refugee Survey 286 Source: Human Rights Have No Borders (Ukrainian NGO) 2004, Country Report on Georgia 2004 at 10. USA 1 001 10. USA 884 287 Ibid. http://www.refugees.org/countryreports.aspx?subm=&ssm=&cid=107 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

38 39 «The great Refugee recognition rates neighbour Slovakia had a recognition rate of asy- assistance to Chechen asylum seekers, or monitoring Member states are their first point of entry to the differences in According to statistics provided by UNHCR, the lum seekers from Russia at 0 percent. Refugee their situation. This information was provided EU. These countries are considered less prepared to 299 recognition refugee recognition rate for Russian asylum seek- recognition rates for Russian asylum seekers in the between March 2004-April 2005. The information cope with large influxes of asylum seekers than rates show that for ers in European and industrialized countries in Czech Republic were only 5. 4 percent. In Poland, may not always be complete, but should be sufficient “old” EU countries, and UNHCR has expressed 300 many Chechens, 2003 was 21 percent. For some countries this the refugee recognition rate for asylum seekers to provide a picture of the main trends. concern that the Dublin Regulation, which makes it 302 the outcome of their number includes decisions made in both first and from Russia in 2003 was 9. 7 percent - somewhat In a few European countries , ethnic Chechens possible to return asylum seekers to the first EU application for second instance, and it should be emphasized that higher than in the Czech Republic, but dramatical- who have fled from Chechnya (who can establish that country in which a person sought asylum, may asylum largely the recognition rate therefore is not an accurate ly lower than in Austria. The great differences in they risk being victim of serious human rights viola- overwhelm the weak asylum systems in these coun- 304 depends on the indication of how many persons were granted asy- recognition rates show that for many Chechens, the tions) seem to be granted asylum as long as they are tries. country in which lum. A case that is rejected in both first and second outcome of their application for asylum largely able to establish their Chechen origin. Rejections their claim will be instance will count twice, and the refugee recogni- depends on the country in which their claim is happen mostly when the immigration authorities do The Slovak Republic processed.» tion will be underestimated. What this number tells processed. not find it credible that the applicant actually is The Slovak Republic stands out as a country that 303 us, therefore, is that at least 21 % of the asylum Chechen. In many countries , however, a majority of has not recognized any Chechen asylum seeker as seekers from the Russian Federation, whose cases Policies towards Chechen asylum Chechen asylum seekers is not considered to qualify refugees. In an analysis of the decisions by the were processed in 2003, were recognized as refugees seekers in European countries as refugees. Governments largely seem to acknowl- Slovak Migration Office UNHCR’s office in and granted asylum. It should also be underlined Very few governments render public guidelines or edge that gross and systematic human rights viola- Bratislava concluded that the reasons for denial that this number concerns asylum seekers from policy with regard to Chechen asylum seekers. It is tions are taking place in Chechnya, but in many cases generally are based on a restricted interpretation of 305 Russia, of whom Chechens are considered to con- often unclear, even from individual letters of rejec- do not consider violations that many Chechens have the Geneva Convention. In 35 cases in which the stitute the majority, but not all. tions/approval, the exact reasons why an asylum been, or fear being a victim of, to amount to persecu- applicant had been returned from the Austrian seeker has been rejected or granted asylum. tion for one of the reasons mentioned in the 1951 authorities the rationale of the decision was that ” The tables above show that recognition rates for Countries change their policies over time, and the Convention (political opinion, religion, ethnicity, the asylum seeker irresponsibly left the refugee centre Russian citizens, most of whom are considered to first and the second instance in a country may have race, belonging to a particular social group). Unless during the first asylum procedure and illegally crossed be of Chechen origin, vary considerable in different different policies. This may also be the case between they can establish that they have done something that the Slovak-Austrian border, and this confirms that European countries. Austria stands out with a different regions in the same country. In Germany, put them at particular risk of grave human rights vio- the [person] had no serious intention to stay in the refugee recognition rate that is considerably higher for example the different “länder” (regions) have lations, (like being a Chechen fighter, a well-known Slovak Republic. If he had been persecuted as claimed, than any other country (79.6 percent). The “differ- their own first instance asylum procedures. Because human rights activist, a politician or a close relative of he would have remained in the first country, where 306 ence” to the next European country (France at 39.5 of these factors, it is difficult to provide accurate such persons) they are considered to be victims of eventually he would be granted asylum” . UNHCR percent) is considerable. There is also a dramatic information about government’s policies with regard armed conflict or generalized violence, and are not also noted that the reasoning of cases by the Slovak gap dramatic gap between Austria and its neigh- to Chechen asylum seekers. Our report is based on granted asylum. In some countries, some of those authorities had been general instead of individual bouring, new EU countries. In 2003, Austria’s information from NGOs and other actors providing Chechen asylum seekers not considered to qualify as and concluded that “the fact that the decisions are refugees are granted other forms of protection. This mostly all the same using the same terminology is, however, not always the case, and when it is, the denotes a lack of depth in the analysis of the case.” Refugee recognition rates for Russian asylum seekers rates in various countries in 2003* protection provided is often weaker than protection Furthermore, the benefit of doubt was never con- granted to those recognized as refugees. In many cas- sidered as well as the possibility to utilize the option Country Refugee recognition rate Number of positive decisions es, Chechen asylum seekers are granted neither asy- of granting protection for humanitarian reasons. Austria 76.9 788 lum nor other forms for protection, but referred to There is no indication that Chechens are particu- return to the Russian Federation and resettlement in larly discriminated against. Between January and US 61.3 379 Executive office of Immigration Review 301 other regions than Chechnya. (The so-called “inter- September 2004, Slovakia had received 9025 asylum 224 US Immigration and Naturalization Office nal protection alternative”). In a few countries, seekers, but only 2 persons had been granted asy- 306 Canada 59.1 178 Chechens not granted protection, but for various rea- lum. With a general 0.002 refugee recognition France 36.4 255 First instance (FI) sons not considered not able to be deported to the rate in the first ten months of 2004, Slovakia has the 308 39.5 828 Administrative review decisions (AR) Russian Federation, are granted so-called “tolerated lowest refugee recognition rate in Europe. stay permits”.This status protect them against returns Spain 31.1 32 to the Russian Federation, but provides the individu- Poland Germany 11.8 354 New applications (NA) als with a weak legal status in the country of asylum. Poland, the current main recipient of asylum seekers 30.0 9 Repeat/reopened applications (RA) from Chechnya, granted asylum to less than 10 percent Belgium 16.9 13 Administrative review decisions (AR) The following section will describe the policies of this group in 2003. Only 154 Russian citizens were Hungary 12.9 9 towards Chechen asylum seekers in different recognized as refugees. According to the Polish Norway 11 139 European countries. The first part will address poli- Helsinki Committee, “the Polish authorities do no cies on recognizing refugee status. The second part consider Chechens as persons who have a well-found- Poland 9.7 185 will describe the application of other protection sta- ed fear of persecution because of their nationality, but Denmark 8.8 10 tuses granted to Chechen asylum seekers. Finally, the as victims of war who have not proved individual per- Ukraine 6.5 6 last part of this section will describe the policy of secution on the territory of Chechnya”.Refugee status Czech Republic 5.4 62 granting “tolerated stay” in Germany and Poland. is granted only to persons who can prove that they The application of the so-called “internal protection have been political activists or that they have been Switzerland 4.2 12 309 alternative” in refugee status determination proce- fighting against Russian soldiers. Almost all positive Netherlands 4.1 17 310 dures will be discussed in a separate chapter. decisions (99 percent) were granted in first instance. Sweden 1.6 19 Decisions in the second instance can be appealed to United Kingdom 1.19 10 the administrative courts, but they only assess if the Finland 0.0 - 6.2. Policies on asylum decision is in accordance with the law (if there has Cyprus 0.0 - been any violation of procedural or material law) and Slovakia 0.0 - In new EU countries they may only cancel a decision and send the case back For most Chechen asylum seekers, the new EU to the first or second instance. In 2004, the number of * The numbers are from UNHCRs 2003 Global Refugee Trends, 15 June 2004, Table 8. CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

40 41 recognized Chechens increased to 265.3111Asylum return to Russia voluntarily. Rejected asylum seek- tions seem to have even less of a chance to qualify as had been asked to sign a paper stating that they did 329 seekers from Russia constituted 88 percent of all asy- ers can appeal to the courts. It is, however, a con- refugees, as they will have to show that they are indi- not wish to apply for asylum in Greece. According lum seekers arriving in Poland in 2004.312 cern that the Czech courts are overburdened, and vidually targeted rather than being the victim of to the same report, the processing of asylum claims in 323 In a decision from the Supreme Administrative that the courts cannot overturn a decision made in group oriented persecution/random violence. Greece can take up to five years. After being inter- Court in Warsaw in June 2004, Chechen asylum first instance, but simply refer a case back to the According to the same source, draft evasions will nor- viewed by the police, asylum seekers have the right to seekers were divided into three different categories, first instance if the decision is considered to have mally not lead to recognition as a refugee. Chechen apply for asylum and to receive medical services, but of which only one was considered to qualify for been taken in an unlawful manner. According to “nationalists” have a better chance of getting asylum not the right to receive housing or economic support, refugee status: OPU, in 2003, this was the case with only one if they can show that they face discriminatory or dis- not even food. The authors of the report concluded Chechen case. proportional punishment. Traumatic experiences can that in practice, Greece is a country where asylum “The first group is the civilian population, people who also lead to refugee status. seekers and refugees are left to take care of them- are afflicted and suffer due to the military conflict, who selves. did not get involved in this conflict, nevertheless becom- Other EU-countries, Switzerland and Norway Germany ing its victims. The other group is the Chechen fighters, Asylum seekers from the Russian Federation consti- Denmark participants of the conflict on the Chechen side, activists Austria tuted the third largest group of asylum applicants According to the Danish Refugee Council, as of of the liberation movement, who are wanted by the Austrian NGOs confirm that almost all Chechen in Germany in 2004. The share of applicants from spring 2004, in order to be recognized as refugees in Russian military forces and authorities, exposed to asylum seekers are granted asylum in Austria, and Chechnya among the asylum seekers from Russian Denmark, Chechens must establish that they are at 324 repressions and prosecutions and who cannot count on that rejections normally only happen in cases of Federation was 49.8 percent. 27.8 percent of particular, individual risk of persecution. This 313 a fair trial. Another category is those Chechens who use lack of credibility. In mid-2004, the first instance Chechens were granted asylum in 2004. According means that general hardship and random abuse by terror as their main course of action, i.e. persons who body started to grant negative decisions to to UNHCR in Germany, the main reasons for the Russian soldiers do not qualify unless there are are war criminals, common criminals or perpetrators of Chechens, allegedly due to instructions from the granting of asylum were targeted measures by the indications that abuses are NOT merely random acts contrary to the aims and principles of the United Minister of Interior who was concerned about the Russian authorities towards alleged Chechen fight- abuse, but specifically targeted at the applicant 314 Nations (Article 1 letter ‘F’ of the 1951 Geneva high number of recognized Chechens in Austria. ers or persons who had been Chechen fighters dur- because of his/her or his/her family’s activities or 330 Convention). In the opinion of the Refugee Board, the As of December 2004, all negative decisions had, ing the first war or who had allegedly supported the imputed political opinion. High profile military refugee status should be considered only with reference however, been cancelled by the second instance Chechen resistance. This included women who or political opponents to the Russian authorities are to the second group of inhabitants of Chechnya. The body (UBAS ) that is independent from the govern- were persecuted for having provided material or likely to be recognized as refugees, but simply hav- first group that is the fugitives from war-afflicted terri- ment and “gives asylum to nearly all Chechen other support to fighters. Women were often ing fought the Russians in one of the two wars gen- 315 331 tories should be granted temporary protection for refugees”. According to the Austrian NGO, Asyl in reported to have been raped, and rape was also erally “does not count in itself”. Draft evaders as humanitarian reasons”. Not, the recognition rate for Chechens in Austria reported by one male. Another group granted asy- such are not recognized as refugees unless they can was 96 percent at the end of 2004. lum were members of opposition political parties, point to specific circumstances rendering them par- The Czech Republic. employees of the former Chechen government, and ticularly targeted and subject to particularly harsh According to the Czech Organization for Aid to France relatives of persons it is claimed that the FSB is treatment/punishment compared to the “average Refugees (OPU), Chechen asylum seekers have a very According to the French NGO, Forum Refugiés, as of looking for. Monitoring of the decisions in draft evader”.According to estimates by the Danish small chance of being granted asylum in the Czech January 2005 most Chechen asylum seekers grant- Germany showed that the main reasons for rejec- Support Committee for Chechnya in January 2005, Republic. The main arguments used by the Ministry ed access to the asylum procedures seemed to tions were credibility issues and the conclusion that between 33- 50 percent of applicants from 316 332 of Interior in the Czech Republic when rejecting obtain asylum. In most cases where refugee status “the encroachments of the person in question were Chechnya are granted asylum in Denmark. 325 Chechen asylum seekers are reported to be that: was denied, it was because the French authorities not more acute than for the whole population”. were not convinced that the applicant was of ethnic Sweden 317 • bad social conditions and security conditions Chechen origin. Greece In Sweden, Chechen asylum seekers have in general apply generally and affect the whole population According to statistics from UNHCR, Greece received been rejected based on the availability of an internal 333 Belgium 52 applicants from the Russian Federation in 2003, flight alternative in the Russian Federation (see 326 • a fear of arbitrary arrests does not constitute According to estimates by the Belgian Board of and 138 in 2004. The Greek government does not chapter 7). Since February 2004, however, Chechen persecution since the whole male population is Appeal, as of March 2005 about 50 percent of the asy- provide ethnic breakdowns of statistics, but accord- asylum seekers have been granted other forms of pro- 318 targeted. Further, these arrests are generally lum seekers from Chechnya are granted asylum. ing to the Greek Council for Refugees, it is estimated tection (see section 6.3). reported as being motivated by economic reasons Belgian legislation does not provide for any other that the majority of Russian asylum seekers are of 327 forms of protection. The Appeal Board is estimated to Chechen origin. According to the same source, the Finland • the Russian Ministry of interior has started have a 60- 70 percent recognition rate for Chechen majority of Chechen asylum seekers who arrived in Despite having a border with Russia, Finland has 319 fulfilling its obligations applicants. Rejections at appeal level will generally Greece over the 2-3 last years have been returned to received relatively few asylum seekers from happen only when there is no doubt that the appli- Greece from other Dublin-countries. According to Chechnya. According to the Directorate of • significant improvement in the security cant is not from Chechnya, or if they have had a per- the Greek Ministry of Public order, 25 Russian citi- Immigration about 40-50 Chechen asylum seekers situation in Chechnya, though acknowledging manent residence registration outside of Chechnya zens applied for asylum in Greece in 2003. None of have arrived annually over the last couples of 320 334 that the fights between Russian forces and for many years. UNHCR in Brussels confirms that them were granted refugee status or other forms of years. According to the Finish Refugee Advice 328 Chechen rebels continue to some extent. Chechens who can prove that they were in Chechnya protection. According to a report by the Norwegian Centre, very few Chechens have been granted 321 during the second conflict will normally get asylum. Helsinki Committee (NHC) and the Norwegian refugee status in Finland. As the statistics show Czech NGOs have argued that the Czech Organization for Asylum Seekers (NOAS) “the Greek there were none in 2003. During 2004, however, the authorities have been deliberately slowing down the Netherlands system of asylum is strongly objectionable on several administrative court granted asylum to several asy- 335 refugee status determination procedure at times in In spring 2004, the responsible Minister informed accounts: by not providing all refugees with basic lum seekers from Grozny. the hope that Chechen asylum seekers will move on Parliament that in 2003 45 Chechens had applied for information, interpretation and judicial assistance; by to another country. Czech legislation does not pro- asylum, and that 32 had been granted refugee status extensive use of detention, even of children; and by Norway 322 vide an absolute deadline for how long an applicant in the first instance and another 20 after appeal. The what appears as tactical means to prevent refugees The Norwegian Immigration authorities have esti- must wait for a decision, and many Chechens must Dutch Refugee Council considers the interpretation from seeking asylum”. The authors also concluded mated that only 7- 8 percent of asylum seekers from 336 wait more than a year. According to OPU, the long of the refugee convention to be highly individualised that the Greek system of asylum is excessively strict, Chechnya are considered to qualify as refugees. waiting period, with dire prospects of getting a pos- in the Netherlands. In their view, asylum seekers from since most asylum seekers are rejected. According to Information from Norwegian lawyers indicates that itive answer has made some Chechens decide to countries with a pattern of gross human rights viola- the report, several Chechen asylum seekers in Greece only Chechens who can establish that they are partic- CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

42 43 ularly wanted by Russian authorities – either because “The immigration authorities acknowledge that fed- 6.3. Other forms of protection Lithuania in 2002 and 2003 were granted tempo- 343 they have been fighting with the Chechen sepa- eral authorities have exposed the local population to and total recognition rates rary residence permits on humanitarian grounds. ratists or because they are well-known political arrests and violations during the conflict in In order to get a complete picture of international In May 2004, when Lithuania became a member of activists, or relatives of such persons are granted Chechnya. Sporadic and relatively short lasting protection granted to Chechen asylum seekers, one the EU, the country introduced the status of “sub- asylum. Human rights violations are not consid- detentions and other violations have often hit civil- must also look at other forms of protection granted sidiary protection”. According to estimates by ered to amount to persecution if they are random, ians arbitrarily. The reactions towards the applicant to this group. According to UNHCR statistics, in 2003 UNHCR’s Liason Officer in Lithuania almost 99 % in the sense that they could happen to any other seems, in the opinion of the immigration authorities, 11 out of 26 countries that receive asylum seekers of all Chechens who have applied for asylum in Chechen as well. This view is reflected in a standard as a random violation in a conflict situation, and not from the Russian Federation granted some kind of Lithuania after May 2004 have been granted sub- 344 formulation in a letter of rejection by the as an expression of targeting by the federal forces to “other protection” to Chechens not considered to sidiary protection. Subsidiary protection is grant- Norwegian immigration authorities. The decision the extent that it can be characterized as individual qualify as refugees according to the 1951 ed for one year, and new applications have to be 340 345 concerned a Chechen man who claimed to have and systematic persecution”. Convention. As the table below shows, some coun- filed after that. Persons who receive this status are been detained and illtreated by federal forces dur- tries have relatively low refugee recognition rates for included in integration programs, but in contrast to ing a mop-up operation. The applicant’s brothers Switzerland Russians, but still have a relatively high total recogni- those who receive asylum, they are not included in 341 346 had been fighters during the first war, and the Out of the caseload available to the Swiss Refugee tion rate for this group. For example, in 2003 national health programs. applicant believed that he was on a federal list Council, three reasons for the rejection of claims Norway had a refugee recognition rate of 11 percent, because of this. The applicant was hospitalized as a for asylum by Chechens in Switzerland were noted: but a total recognition rate of 56.7 percent. In the Germany result of the ill-treatment. The immigration 1) doubts about ethnic origin; 2) the persecutor is same year Finland had a 0 refugee recognition rate, German legislation does contain provisions regard- authorities did not question the person’s credibility, not the state, but unknown third parties; and 3) the but a 60.9 total recognition rate. ing other kinds of protection, including humanitar- but wrote that: existence of an internal protection alternative. ian protection, but this status is not applied to a Many of these decisions have been appealed. large number of Chechens. In 2003, only 4.5 per- cent (81 persons) of Chechen asylum seekers were Table: Total recognition rates for 346 Russian asylum seekers in 2003* granted humanitarian status. From 2003 and 2004, the total recognition rate for Chechens 348 Conclusion increased from 22.2 percent to 23.3 percent. An overview of policies towards Chechen asylum seek- As pointed out by the Dutch Refugee Council, persons Austria 76. 9 ers in some European countries shows that restrictive fleeing a situation of gross violations of human rights Hungary 74.3 Finland interpretations of the Refugee Convention and other may paradoxically have greater difficulties obtaining asy- US 61.3 (EO) According to the Refugee Advice Center, Chechens who restrictive refugee policies in some countries prevent lum than other asylum seekers. In the general debate 33. 4 (IN) have been denied asylum have received other kinds of Chechens from being granted asylum. about European asylum policies, an argument has been protection, either residence permits based on the need Finland 60. 9 launched by some commentators and courts that unless for protection or one-year temporary permits because European states have different interpretations of what a person fleeing an armed conflict can show that she is “ Canada 59.1 they are considered unable to return for practical rea- constitutes “persecution” in the Chechen context and a differently at risk” i.e. more at risk than other victims or Norway 56.7 sons. As of November 2004, Finnish practice was to different threshold for what is considered “individual per- potential victims of generalized violence, for a conven- Spain 53.8 grant subsidiary protection to Chechen asylum seekers secution”. The more “liberal” states in this context, like tion reason then that person is not a refugee. This argu- originating from outside Chechnya. Denmark 46.5 Austria, France and Belgium seem to recognize that a ment has been expressed as a way of highlighting the person can be a victim of persecution, even though the need for a refugee claimant to show a fear of persecution France 36.4 (FI) Sweden majority of the population risks being a victim of the same for a reason on one of the Convention grounds rather 39.5 (AR) In February 2004 several Chechen asylum seekers acts. Most other countries seem to require that violations than a fear of violence that affects everyone equally. Belgium 16.9 (AR) were granted two-year residence permits due to the be more targeted in order for it to amount to persecution. However, persecution for one of the convention reasons Germany 16.5 (NA) armed conflict in Chechnya and the unavailability This requirement is difficult to meet for many Chechen often occurs in situations of armed conflict. ECRE has of an internal protection alternative. The initial 50.0 (RA) asylum seekers. Human rights organizations are describ- pointed out that this approach means that one must decision to apply the provision in Swedish legisla- ing a situation in Chechnya where practically everyone show an additional risk of persecution even in situations Netherlands 26.3 tion that provide sfor protection to victims of risks being a victim of abductions and other serious where there is a conflict which is based on racial or reli- Poland 10.7 armed conflict to Chechen asylum seekers was human rights violations. Observations in a report by the gious differences. ECRE believes that in a situation of Switzerland 10.2 made by the Swedish Cabinet. The Immigration International Helsinki Federation about human rights generalized violence, only those who can show persecu- Board of Appeal forwarded several Chechen cases Ireland 7.3 defenders from Chechnya, can be interpreted to imply tion for a Convention reason qualify for asylum. to the Cabinet because they were considered “of that in the Chechen context it is not always possible to However, if everyone within a region is at risk for a Sweden 7.0 importance to the country’s relation to foreign separate between “random “or targeted” human rights Convention reason then they will all potentially qualify for Ukraine 6.5 states”. violations. According to the report, “it is not always clear asylum.338 Czech Republic 5.4 whether abuses against them (human rights defenders) Cyprus 0 Norway are committed because of that special reason”, since It is outside the scope of this report to discuss the extent to Until October 2003, Chechens were generally “people in Chechnya and Ingushetia are always in dan- which the current conflict in Chechnya is an “ethnic” or “reli- * The numbers are from UNHCRs Global Refugee granted some kind of protection in Norway. The ger of becoming victim of human rights violations”.337 gious” conflict. Probably very few conflicts in the world will Trends 2003, 15 June 2004, Table 8. majority of those not granted asylum in 2003 were fit perfectly into such categories. Information from human granted residence permits on protection grounds. A One can also say that the more liberal approach recog- rights organizations show, however, that the civilian popu- relatively small number was granted a residence nizes that ethnic Chechens are persecuted because of lation in Chechnya risks being a victim of grave human Protection provided by “other kinds of protection” permit on humanitarian grounds. Among the 555 their ethnicity or nationality, while a restrictive policy does rights violations for no other reason than the fact that they varies from country to country. Below is a descrip- Russian citizens that were rejected in 2003, most 349 not recognize that the whole population may be at risk of are ethnic Chechens.339 Widespread discrimination and tion of the forms of protection granted to Chechen would have been ethnic Russians or Ingush. 342 persecution for a Convention ground. Only Chechens harassment of Chechens in other regions of the Russian asylum seekers in different countries. that are considered persecuted because of their political Federation supports the claim that the conflict has a strong In October 2003, the immigration authorities opinion (fighters, separatists, and human rights activists) ethnic dimension and that Chechens are victims of grave Lithuania “froze” the processing of asylum claims from Chechens, qualify for asylum. human rights violations due to their ethnicity. According to the US Committee for Refugees and while evaluating its practice towards this group. Immigrants, most Chechens applying for asylum in Norwegian NGOs were informed that the authorities CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

44 45 353 were considering returning Chechens that were not rec- exist. It gives the recipients the right to work, to elemen- 354 ognized as refugees to other regions of the Russian tary education and to apply for social assistance. But Federation. Norwegian NGOs strongly advised and they are not allowed to register as unemployed, do not Conclusion be afforded. According to the directive the risk of the following campaigned against this, referring to widespread dis- have access to medical insurance if they are not working, Some of those countries with a relatively low refugee recogni- elements amounts to “serious harm” and are grounds for sub- crimination against Chechens in the Russian and are not included in integration programmes. Unlike tion rate for Chechens provide other forms of protection to sidiary protection: a) death penalty or execution; b) torture or Federation. The immigration authorities restarted the persons who get refugee status, they do not receive Polish members of this group. This is, however, not always the case. inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment of an appli- processing of Chechen cases in June 2004. travel documents and can travel abroad only if they have Some countries grant asylum only to a minority of the asylum cant in the country of origin, or c) serious and individual threat their country of origin passport. According to the Polish seekers they receive from Chechnya, like the Czech Republic, to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate vio- According to the immigration authorities, by the end Helsinki Committee, Chechens with this status cannot or none, like the Slovak Republic, and offer no other forms of lence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. of October 2004, 80 percent of 847 Chechen asylum seek- renew their passport because it may raise a case for with- protection. In some countries, the legal status granted to Given the fact that UNHCR has stated that Chechens fleeing ers to Norway in 2004 had been granted either asylum or drawing “tolerated stay”.According to the same organiza- Chechens that are not granted asylum is very weak. The Chechnya who do not have a well-founded fear of persecution another form of protection. Information from lawyers tion, the social situation of a person who has received “tol- “duldnung” that has been granted in Germany is little more have left Chechnya owing to serious and indiscriminate and NGOs suggests that the majority received residence erated residence” is much worse than a person who has than a temporary protection against refoulement. The situation threats to life, physical freedom or freedom resulting from gen- permits on humanitarian grounds. Residence on human- received refugee status, and that in practice,“tolerated res- for those provided by the “tolerated stay” status in Poland is of eralized violence or events seriously disturbing public order, itarian grounds is granted for an initial period of one year, idence” status only means that the person will not be special concern since Poland is the main recipient of asylum one should think that the latter group at least would be cov- 355 but is normally prolonged, and gives the holder the right deported from Poland. UNHCR has pointed out that seekers from Chechnya, and many Chechens risk being ered by the qualification criteria for subsidiary protection in the to a permanent resident permit after three years. Persons life for those who have received official protection in returned to Poland from other Dublin countries. EU directive and that there would be a good case to include with this status enjoy many of, but not all, the same rights Poland is difficult due to 19 percent unemployment and Chechens with residence registration from other areas of the 356 as those who are granted asylum. They are for example scarcely affordable accommodation. Interviews with In September 2004, the Council of the European Union adopt- Russian Federation. The states bound by it are, however, not not granted travel documents, and do not have the same Chechens asylum seekers confirm that they do not con- ed a Directive on minimum standards for the qualification of obliged to bring into force the domestic legislation necessary right to family reunification as persons granted asylum. sider Poland a viable option: refugees and persons who otherwise need international pro- to comply with the directive until 10 October 2006. Chechens in Norway with a residence permit on humani- tection (EU Qualification Directive).364 The directive was the Furthermore, states may also apply these provisions in restric- tarian grounds have appealed to the Norwegian authori- Germany fourth piece of legislation adopted in order to accomplish the tive manner, and they may not always agree on what consti- ties to be granted travel documents, arguing that any con- Most Chechens who have had their application for asy- goal of an EU harmonized asylum policy set forth in the tutes “serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person”, tact with the Russian Embassy will lead to harassment and lum rejected in Germany have received a so-called Amsterdam Treaty. The directive set out the criteria for sub- or what constitutes “indiscriminate violence in situations of [-] is likely to endanger any relatives who are still in “duldnung”, which means that their deportation has sidiary protection and the content of the protection that should internal armed conflict”. 350 Chechnya. Allegedly, in Norway, a lack of a passport cre- been timely suspended. The “duldnung” is an individual ates difficulties in establish a bank account, applying for decision relating to the enforceability of a deportation 358 employment, and accessing language classes. Without order, and is not conceived as residence status. It has 291 This observation is based on interviews OPU has made with Chechen 328 Ibid. asylum seekers in Poland and the Czech Republic. 329 Supra note 269. valid travel documents, Chechens cannot visit relatives in been granted to persons who would upon return be at 292 Organization of Aid to Refugees, “ Current Situation for Chechen 330 Information provided by the Danish Refugee Council in spring 2004. 359 Asylum Seekers in the Czech Republic, Poland and Austria”,23 December 331 Ibid. other European countries. risk of serious harm. “Duldnung” has generally been 2003.. 332 Information provided by the Danish Support Committee for Chechnya 293 International Organization on Migration (IOM), “Migration Trends in in January 2005. granted for a maximum of one year, and could be 333 360 Selected Applicant Countries, Volume III- Poland; Dilemmas of a According to information from the Swedish Red Cross in spring 2004. Switzerland renewed. Often the status has been granted for less Sending and Receiving Country” (2004), p. 16 and 35. 334 Information provided by the Finnish Refugee Advice Center in spring 2004. 335 294 Supra note 271, p. 5. Information provided by the Finnish Refugee Advice Center in November According to the Swiss Refugee Council, as of November than a year. Persons who have received a “duldnung” 295 2004. According to information from OPU provided at seminar on Chechen 336 IDPs, organized by the Norwegian Refugee Council and Memorial in Internal Memo of the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration, 22 March 2004. 2004, most Chechen asylum seekers had not been recog- may apply for a work permit for a specific job, but the 337 Moscow, August 2004. The International Helsinki Federation , “The Silencing of Human 296 Rights Defenders in Chechnya and Ingushetia”,2004, p. 5. nized as refugees, but were granted a form of protection job must first have been offered to Germans and other Supra note 271, p. 6. 338 297 UNHCR, “Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries”, European Council on Refugees and Exiles ( ECRE), “ECRE Position on the (Vorläufige Aufnahme). This status does not provide the EU nationals. Persons receiving this status may not set- interpretation of article 1 of the Refugee Convention”, at www.ecre.org 2004, Table 5. 339 298 Ibid, Table 6. See Part 1 of the report, chapter 1. same rights as asylum, and the protection is weaker. tle where they choose to; their freedom of movement is 340 299 Refugee recognition rate = Number of recognized refugees divided by Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Persons granted “vorlaufige aufnahme” do not have the restricted to a local district or region. They have a right the total number of recognized refugees, number of persons granted 341 other forms of protection, and persons rejected protection x 100 %. A “total recognition rate” includes decisions on granting “other 300 forms of protection” right to family reunification or the same right to employ- to housing, but receive limited social assistance. They do UNHCR, 2003 Global Refugee Trends 2003, 15 June 2004, Table 7. 342 301 The Immigration and Naturalization Service no longer exists – it was dis- For more information about other forms of protection in European coun- ment as refugees, and have limited access to travel docu- not get German travel documents, and have limited tries, see ECRE policy paper: “Complementary/Subsidiary Forms of 361 solved in 2003, but its functions were absorbed into the newly created Department of Homeland Security (DHS). If the asylum seeker is applying Protection in the EU Member States; An Overview”,December 2003, ments. Usually the Vorlaufige Aufnahme is valid for one access to the national obligatory health system. at www.ecre.org after arriving in the U.S. and not at an airport or land border, generally DHS year. It can be extended, but also withdrawn. De facto a 343 The US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, Word Refugee is the “first instance” and the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) Survey, Country Report on Lithuania 2003. is the second. If, however, the alien applies at the border, at an airport, or after very large part of those with the status stays indefinitely in In July 2004, a new German immigration law was 344 Information provided in April 2005. being placed in removal proceedings, EOIR is the first instance. 345 According to information from UNHCR Liason Officer in Lithuania, April 302 For example Austria, France, Belgium Switzerland, and consequently lives a long time with the adopted that will limit the practice of granting “duld- 303 2005. For example Poland, Norway, Germany, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands 346 304 Ibid. consequences of this weak status. Relief organizations nung”.According to the new law, that entered into force See for example UNHCR, “Asylum requests jump in new European 347 Numbers provided by UNHCR in Germany in February 2005. Union Countries”,31 August 2004 348 305 Ibid. have required improvements in this status. in January 2005, those who are not recognized as The study covered decision made between July 2003- November 2004. 349 306 Information provided by the Norwegian Organization for Asylum refugees, but are recognized as facing threats of torture Information provided by UNHCR in the Slovak Republic in Seekers (NOAS), June 2004. December 2004. 350 307 Letter dated 19 January 2005. or death upon deportation shall be granted a residence Martin Rozumek (2004), supra note 270. 351 308 UNHCR, ” Hunger strike reveal strains in Polish asylum system”, 362 Only 1,081 cases were processed in 2003. The Slovak Spectator, Editorial by 13 December 2004. 6.4. Tolerated stay permit. UNHCR has welcomed this development, but Beata Balgova: “Who are our new neighbors”, 15 November 2004 352 UNHCR, ” 8079 applications – 315 recognized refugees”, 309 Information provided by the Polish Helsinki Committee, June 2004. 5 January 2005 at www.unhcr.pl also stated that the new law’s treatment of the concept of 310 Ibid. 353 Information brochure on Tolerated stay permits, Helsinki Committee Poland subsidiary protection, insofar as it relates to people flee- 311 UNHCR, “8079 applications – 315 recognized refugees”,5 January 2005 for Human Rights in Poland. at www.unhcr.pl 354 Ibid. In September 2003, Poland introduced so-called “tolerat- ing conflict or generalized violence, “is neither totally in 312 Ibid. 355 Human Rights House Warsaw, “Chechen Refugees Without Refugee 313 According to information provided by Asylkoordinaten in spring 2004, Status”,Press release 16 February 2004 ed residence” in new legislation. Many Chechens are now line with UNHCR’s views, nor with the new EU qualifi- 356 363 and Asyl in Not in December 2005. Supra note 351. granted this status. According to the Polish Office for cation directive” . Still, the new law is expected to 314 Information from Ayl in Not, December 2004. 357 Ibid. 315 Ibid. 358 For more information about the “duldnung status”,see ECRE research Repatriation and Aliens, if persons granted “tolerated res- reduce the uncertainty faced by rejected asylum seekers 316 Information from Forum Refugès, January 2005. paper: “Complementary/Subsidiary Forms of Protection in the EUMember 317 Ibid. States: An Overview”,December 2003, www.ecre.org/policy/research idence” are included, the percentage of Chechen asylum who cannot go home, and may have a positive effect on 318 Information provided by the Appeal Board in Belgium, March 2005. 359 Dulnung is granted to persons who are at risk of either a) torture, capital ■ 319 Ibid. punishment, inhuman or degrading treatment or violations of the European seekers who receive some kind of protection exceeded 80 the situation of Chechen asylum seekers. 320 351 Ibid. convention of Human Rights, or b) immediate threat to life or freedom or percent in December 2004. 734 Chechen asylum seekers 321 Information provided by UNHCR in Belgium, December 2004. persons forced to flee some situations of starvation or c) there are pressing 352 322 Information provided by the Dutch Refugee Council, April 2004. humanitarian or personal reasons against return. were granted “tolerated residence” in Poland in 2004. 323 Ibid. 360 Supra note 358. 324 Information provided by UNHCR Germany, 25 February 2005. 361 Ibid. “Tolerated residence” status protects the person against 325 Ibid 362 UNHCR News Stories: “New German immigration law includes deportations. The status can be withdrawn by the author- 326 UNHCR, Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries, 2004, advances in refugee protection, says UNHCR”,12 July, 2004. Tables 5 and 6. 363 Ibid ities if the reason for granting the permit has ceased to 327 Information provided by the Greek Council for Refugees in spring 2004. 364 Council Directive on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection

CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA granted. REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

46 47 Chapter 7: Application of the internal protection alternative (IPA)

379 «Many Chechens are Information from ECRE members indicates that many be on whether a refugee claimant has a well-founded treatment and human rights violations they are subject 2004. However, during 2004, the federal immigration «Information from 375 rejected asylum or Chechens are rejected asylum or subsidiary protection fear of being persecuted in his or her country of origin. to because of their nationality. In its argumentation office (first instance) increasingly rejected the idea that ECRE members subsidiary protection in Europe, not because it is considered safe for them to In order to assess the reasonableness of an IPA the pro- Amnesty International emphasizes that the involvement an internal protection alternative existed, in most cases indicates that in Europe, not return to Chechnya, but with reference to the fact that tection must be afforded by a de jure authority; the of state actors in abuses calls into question the ability referring to a worsening of the situation for Chechens immigration 380 because it is they can return to other regions of the Russian claimant must be able to access the area of internal pro- and willingness of the Russian authorities to provide after May 2003. In other cases, the Federal Office in authorities often do considered safe for Federation. Such practice is generally referred to as the tection in safety and in dignity and legally; there must be effective protection for Chechens. Germany concluded that internal protection did not not carry out a full them to return to “internal flight alternative” or, the “internal protection conditions to meet the needs of vulnerable groups; con- exist because the necessary registration would only be relevance analysis Chechnya, but with alternative” (IPA). The principle is that a person at risk ditions in the area must ensure that the applicant is not State practice with regard to available to ethnic Chechens if the applicant had rela- and do not even references to that of being persecuted can reasonably seek safety in anoth- forced back into the area where there is risk of serious Chechen asylum seekers tives in other parts of Russia where the person could consider whether 381 they can return to er part of her/his country and, therefore, is not in need harm for a convention reason; and the absence of a risk Not all countries consider that there are safe areas in the live. Requirements that Chechens return to Chechnya it is reasonable other regions of the of asylum. In the course of the last twenty years indus- of serious harm in the proposed site must be objectively Russian Federation where one reasonably can expect in order to get a passport, or fear of continued persecu- to expect the Russian Federation.» trialized states have increasingly applied this principle established rather than considered unlikely to occur. An Chechen asylum seekers to return to. Austrian authori- tion upon return were referred as reasons for concluding person to relocate.» 382 when processing asylum claims. There is, however, no IPA rarely exists where the state is the persecutor. ties generally do not consider there to be an internal pro- that an IPA did not exist. Often young, male Chechens 383 reference to the principle in the Refugee Convention, tection alternative for Chechen asylum seekers. In the were considered at particular risk of the latter. In many 384 and state practice concerning the interpretation and Recommendations from UNHCR, PACE and NGOs second quarter of 2004, some first instance decisions of these cases, the Federal Commissioner for Asylum application of this principle has not been consistent. According to UNHCR, there is no genuine internal pro- were made in which claims from Chechens were reject- appealed against these positive decisions (see below). tection alternative for asylum seekers from Chechnya. In ed with reference to the existence of an internal protec- UNHCR Guidelines on the Internal a report from February 2003, UNHCR concluded that: tion alternative, but according to Austrian NGOs these There seems to often be a considerable gap between Protection Alternative “the combination of local restrictive regulations on free- decisions have so far been overturned by the second UNHCRs interpretation and recommendations on the According to Guidelines on internal protection pub- dom of movement and freedom of choice of place of instance. In Finland, using IPA on applications from application of IPA and practice in many European coun- lished by UNHCR, the application of this principle is rel- sojourn/residence, anti-Chechen feelings among the Chechen asylum seekers has been considered, but has tries. In Norway, the first instance body has in letters of evant only in certain cases, and particularly when the republic, and concerns among local authorities to con- not been applied. Sweden actually did consider an IPA to rejections referred Chechens to resettlement in the 365 source of persecution emanates from a non-state actor. tain ethnic tensions and to prevent terrorist attacks, exist for Chechen asylum seekers, but the government Russian Federation, even if they have not had permanent According to the guidelines issued by UNHCR, an analy- deprives Chechen IDPs of a genuine internal relocation concluded in a decision at the beginning of 2004 that registration outside Chechnya. At least in two cases in 371 sis of whether an IPA exists should include an assessment alternative”. UNHCR emphasized that this conclusion this was not the case. France recently allowed for the use 2004, the first instance body has referred Chechens to of whether a specific geographical area is safe and acces- concerned ethnic Chechens displaced from Chechnya of IPA in immigration laws, but French NGOs are not resettlement in Russia, due to prior temporary stay in sible (the relevance analysis) and whether it is reasonable proper, not ethnic Chechens who were permanent resi- aware of it being applied to asylum seekers from Ingushetia. These cases have not yet been processed by to expect the person to move there (the reasonableness dents of other regions of the Russian Federation. The Chechnya. the Board of Appeal. In December 2004, a spokesman of analysis). Also according to the EU Qualification paper specifically warned against considering Ingushetia the Directorate of Immigration stated that Chechens Directive, an internal protection alternative must be both a safe alternative. In a new policy paper published in The application of the IPA with regard to Chechen arriving directly from Chechnya were not expected to 366 safe and reasonable. According to UNHCR, a relevance October 2004, UNHCR confirmed the lack of a genuine asylum seekers has been reported from the Netherlands, return to other regions of the Russian Federation. In a analysis includes assessments of whether the area of relo- internal flight alternative within the Russian Federation Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Poland, Spain statement in Parliament in January 2005 the Minister of 372 cation is practically, safely and legally accessible to the for Chechens. The agency stated that internal protec- and Denmark. According to the Dutch Refugee Council, Interior confirmed that the Norwegian authorities did person as well as risk of persecution based on the nature tion should only be considered with regard to Chechens in the Netherlands Chechens are considered to have an not share UNHCR’s view that all persons with perma- of the agent of persecution (state versus non-state whose place of permanent residence was not the internal protection alternative unless their personal nent residence in Chechnya were in need of internation- 373 actors). If persecution emanates from or is condoned or Chechen Republic. background shows otherwise. All Chechens who are al protection. The Minister stated, however, that families tolerated by State agents, an IPA is generally not consid- rejected on material grounds are referred to this alterna- with children, the elderly, ill and single parents were con- 367 376 ered to exist. The reasonableness analysis is defined as In January 2005, the Committee on Legal Affairs tive. In Belgium, the existence of an IPA is examined in sider particularly vulnerable groups, and that very high a tool to answer whether the claimant, in the context of and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of every case, but according to UNHCR in Brussels, the thresholds existed for the return of these groups. «The principle is that the country concerned, can “lead a relatively normal life the Council of Europe (PACE) underlined the impor- Belgian authorities will not refer to an IPA in cases con- 368 a person at risk of without facing undue hardship”. It includes assess- tance of continued international protection of refugees cerning IDPs from Ingushetia or Dagestan. According to Information from ECRE members indicates that being persecuted can ments for example of the individual’s access to basic from Chechnya and stated that “the de facto application information provided in March 2005, the Appeal Board immigration authorities often do not carry out a full rel- reasonably seek social, cultural, economic rights as well as psychological of the internal residence permit (former “propiska”) sys- in Belgium will generally not consider there to be a rea- evance analysis and do not even consider whether it is 369 safety in another trauma of the individual in question. If the conditions tem in the Russian Federation makes an internal flight sonable internal protection alternative for Chechens in reasonable to expect the person to relocate. According to 374 377 part of her/his are such that the claimant may be compelled to go back alternative unavailable in most cases”. the Russian Federation. According to the Polish UNHCR, a potential IPA must be practically, safely and country and, to the original area of persecution, no IPA exists. It is the Helsinki Committee, persons who have been registered legally accessible – the individual must have the legal therefore, is not authorities that bear the burden of proof to establish that According to Memorial and Amnesty International, for a substantial time in regions of the Russian right to travel, to enter and remain there. An uncertain 385 in need of asylum.» an analysis of IPA is relevant. there is no internal protection alternative even for Federation other than Chechnya are often denied toler- legal status can create pressure to move to unsafe areas. 378 Chechens who have permanent registration outside of ated stay in Poland. This normally applies to persons The question of “propiska” should therefore be included ECRE Position on the Internal Protection Chechnya. Amnesty considers Chechens to flee not just who have not been affected by the war, but it may also in an analysis of IPA with regards to Russian citizens. Alternative370 mass devastation and human rights violations associat- apply to IDPs. In Germany, a significant number of cas- According to the Danish Refugee Council, the Danish ECRE’s position is that the focus of enquiry must always ed with the armed conflict, but also the discriminatory es were turned down on the basis of an existing IPA in authorities consider that Chechens who are not high CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

48 49 «Amnesty profile activists are able to settle anywhere in the Russian but victims of armed conflict. The latter situation is the of registration, but all Russian citizens may be victims of qualify for refugee status is problematic for several rea- International Federation, and “do not take into account the question case at least in Norway and Denmark. If a person is con- this. Even though access to registration, especially in urban sons. Firstly, the consideration that these persons do not emphasizes that the of propiska, nor the question of the rising discrimina- sidered to have an individual fear of persecution in centres like Moscow, can be difficult and time/consuming, qualify for refugee status seem in many cases to be based involvement of state tion/harassment of Chechens and other groups looking Chechnya, an internal protection alternative is not con- it the directorate considers that it will be possible to obtain. on a restrictive interpretation of the Refugees 386 actors in abuses like Chechens in Russia”. The issue of internal protec- sidered to exist for that person. The applicant will be Even without registration, there is access to basic social Convention. Persons granted subsidiary protection in calls into question tion is regulated in national legislation in the granted asylum. Only Chechens considered not to be rights such as education and necessary medical assistance.” some countries would have been granted asylum in the ability and Netherlands, but according to the Dutch Refugee individually persecuted in Chechnya are considered able countries with a more liberal interpretation of the willingness of the Council, the social- economic situation in the country of to safely resettle in other regions of the Russian When discussing the IPA, UNHCR makes no dis- Refugee Convention. Secondly, if a consideration in these 387 Russian authorities origin has no influence unless it is really disastrous. Federation. In some cases in Germany, an IPA is consid- tinction between persons who have fled persecution and cases is limited to a risk of breach of non- refoulement in to provide effective ered to exist because the applicants are not considered persons who have fled a situation of armed conflict. The parts of the country, states are treating these persons as 394 protection for In Germany, the Federal Commissioner for Asylum persecuted prior to leaving the Russian Federation. Guidelines published by UNHCR in July 2003 refer to “normal returnees” and disregarding the fact that they Chechens.» Matters has raised the issue of residence registration as the “Internal Flight or Relocation Alternative”, but treat will often actually become IDPs – a particularly vulnera- the crucial issue in the debate about the existence of an Norwegian immigration authorities argue that in the two terms as a meaning the same thing. The 2003 ble group with special needs. According to the EU IPA. The Commissioner took the position that after the such cases, it is not really a matter of internal flight, but policy paper refers to internal relocation as “the so-called Qualification Directive, an assessment of whether an 397 official abolishment of “propiska”,everyone has the right refers to the term “internal relocation”. This reasoning internal flight alternative”. The 2004 policy papers on internal protection alternative exist is relevant also in cas- to register, and that it is possible to do this in regions of has been expressed in the following way: Chechen asylum does not mention “internal relocation”, es where the applicant is not considered to be a victim of Russia which are not economically attractive (without but concludes that there is no genuine internal flight persecution, but qualifies for subsidiary protection. 388 mentioning which ones). The Administrative courts in “Most applicants from such areas [Chechnya] will not alternative for Chechens in the Russian Federation and Article 8 of the Directive states that “As part of the assess- Germany (second instance) differ on this matter. In a be covered by the legal definition of a refugee. In the that all those Chechens whose permanent place was the ment of the application for international protection, decision in March 2004, the administrative court in assessment of a potential return it is the possibility of Chechen prior to their seeking asylum abroad should be member states may determine that an applicant is not in 398 Karlsruhe considered the refusal of the Russian authori- internal relocation that must be considered and not the considered in need of international protection. need of international protection if in a part of the coun- ties to intervene in unlawful practices with regard to res- possibilities of internal flight as such. The applicant can try of origin there is no fear of being persecuted or no risk 389 idence registration as continuing persecution. With in such situations not strictly legally be defined as To apply different standards regarding internal pro- of serious harm and the applicant can reasonably be regard to the question of whether it is reasonable to refugees, and it is therefore neither an assessment of tection outside Chechnya for persons not considered to expected to stay in that part of the country. ■ 395 expect the person in question to return, such considera- internal flight that is triggered”. tions were generally not found in decisions where it is 390 concluded that an IPA exists. As a consequence of this reasoning, Norwegian Conclusion authorities do not apply the criteria for internal protec- There is no requirement in the Refugee Convention that a al authorities introducing legislation that contradicts both According to UNHCR’s Guidelines, if internal flight tion developed by UNHCR when assessing relevant cas- refugee should first seek safety in another part of his or her national and international law in Stavropol Krai, is to be considered in the context of refugee status deter- es. Instead, the authorities make an assessment of country of origin before seeking surrogate protection or that Krasnodar Krai, Moscow, St Petersburg and other large mination, a particular area must be identified and the whether return to other regions in the Russian the fear of that protection should extend to the whole terri- cities in Western Russia – the very places most claimant provided with an adequate opportunity to Federation is in accordance with the principle of non- tory of the country of origin. If States do not focus on the key Chechens settle; the tide of “anti-Chechen” feeling and an respond. According to the Dutch refugee Council, the refoulement. According to domestic legislation this question of whether a refugee claimant is genuinely free increase in racially motivated attacks; discriminatory treat- authorities in the Netherlands do not identify the par- means assessing whether return amounts to “risk to life from a risk of serious harm in the country of origin they are ment toward Chechens by law-enforcement agencies, ticular geographical area within the Russian Federation or inhumane treatment”.This is a much more restrictive directly contributing to the worsening of a problem of inter- arbitrary arrests and detention; the discriminatory and that is considered to be a reasonable internal protection criteria than the one set out in the “relevance” analysis nal displacement of persons. authorizing nature of registration at place of residence alternative. Most Chechen asylum seekers appear to recommended by UNHCR, namely that the claimant can and sojourn, the violation of rights during checks on iden- simply be referred to the existence of an IPA in the “lead a relatively normal life without facing undue hard- The fact that Russian Federal forces are reported to have tity documents and the fact that documents have been Russian Federation, without any references to a specific ship”. committed widespread human rights abuses in Chechnya; taken away illegally; all lead to the conclusion that an geographic area. Similar practice is also reported from the atmosphere of impunity and lack of prosecution of these internal protection alternative for Chechens should not be Germany, where “generally, the internal protection In an internal memo from the Norwegian abuses; the lack of a federal response to local and region- considered at the present time. alternative concept is more often applied to the general Directorate of Immigration it is, however, stated that in assumption that in a huge country like the Russian practice, the criteria for “internal protection” and “inter- Federation there are places where the asylum seeker is nal relocation” will be more or less the same because the 391 deemed to be safe”. Often references are made in a gen- Directorate will always consider if return can take place 365 UNHCR, GUIDELINES ON INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION: “ 380 Ibid. eral way by listing several possibilities like e.g. Moscow in accordance with the principles of “return in safety Internal Flight or Relocation Alternative” within the Context of Article 381 Ibid. 392 396 and South Russia. and dignity”. 1 A 8 “of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol relating to the 382 Ibid. Status of Refugees, p. 8. 383 Ibid. 366 See Article 8 384 The Federal Commissioner for Asylum Matters is entitled to participate UNHCR has also stressed the importance of an In a standard formulation from a letter of rejection 367 Supra note 365. at all stages of the asylum procedures in order to ensure a uniform individual analysis taking into account the personal cir- to a Chechen asylum seeker from 2004, the immigration 368 Ibid,p.6. decision practice. The post of the Federal Commissioner for Asylum 369 The EU Qualification Directive also reiterates that for internal protection to Matters was abolished in September 2004. cumstances of the individual claimant when considering authorities do address the issue of legal access (registra- exist it is not sufficient that there is no well founded fear of persecution or 385 Supra note 365. if an IPA exist. There is concern that this is not always tion) and access to some social rights, but conclude in serious harm in that place. It is also a precondition that the applicant can 386 Information provided by the Danish Refugee Council, May 2004. the case with regard to Chechen asylum seekers. contradiction to UNHCR and NGOs recommendations: reasonably be expected to stay in that part of the country. 387 Information provided by the Dutch Refugee, December 2004 370 See ECRE Position on the interpretation of article 1 of the Refugee 388 Information provided by UNHCR Germany, March 2005. According to UNHCR in Germany, decisions about an Convention at www.ecre.org. 389 Ibid. IPA have recently started to change from a mainly gen- “The immigration authorities are aware that persons 371 UNHCR (2003), supra note 42, February 2003, p. 3. 390 Ibid. eral assumption to a more individual assessment of con- of Chechen origin can be victims of stigmatization and 372 UNHCR, “ Position regarding Asylum-Seekers and Refugees from the 391 Ibid. 393 Chechen Republic, Russian Federation, October 2004. 392 Ibid. ditions of an internal protection alternative. harassment in the Russian Federation as a consequence of 373 Ibid. 393 Information from UNHCR in Germany, February 2005. the conflict in Chechnya. According to the directorate’s 374 PACE Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, “Declaration on the 394 See decision of Administrative Court (AC) of Braunschweig Internal flight or internal relocation? knowledge of the general human rights situation in the recent human rights violation in the Chechen Republic”,27 January 2005. 23 February 2004, decision of Ac Aachen 20 July 2004, decision of AC 375 Amnesty International, “Statement on the situation of Chechen asylum Schleswig 19 August 2004) It is not clear to what extent IPA is used to reject persons federation, settlement and residence outside Chechnya seekers”,AI Index: EUR 46/010/2004, 1 March 2004. 395 Internal memo of the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration (First who are considered to be at risk of persecution in does not contain any risk to life or to be exposed to inhu- 376 Information provided by the Dutch Refugee Council, spring 2004. Instance), 22 March 2004. 377 396 Chechnya, or if states mainly apply the concept to return mane treatment. Freedom of movement accorded by the Information provided by the Appeal Board in Belgium, March 2005. Ibid. 378 Information provided at seminar on IDPs from Chechnya, supra note 1999. 397 Supra note 42, p. 30. asylum seekers that they do not recognize as refugees, constitution is somewhat restricted by the existing system 379 Information provided by UNHCR in Germany, February 2005. 398 Ibid. CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

50 51 Chapter 8: Chapter 9: Mandatory returns Exclusion from refugee status to the Russian Federation

«Over last couples of Over last couples of years and especially after the the exclusion clause, but the number does not seem 403 years and especially school hostage crisis in Beslan in September 2004, to be very big. In Germany, no cases explicitly after the school Russian authorities have put increased pressure on taking up the application of Article 1F of the 1951 hostage crisis in countries hosting Chechen refugees not to provide a Convention are known at present. In a very few 399 Beslan in September safe haven for terrorist. UNHCR has underlined negative decisions the immigration officer have 2004, Russian that the 1951 refugee Convention does not provide a argued that the prosecution of terrorist does not tie A child holding a Chechen flag 400 authorities have safe haven for terrorists. According to article 1 F in with asylum related criteria because it is a crimi- stands in front of a banner read- put increased refugees who are responsible for the most serious nal procedure. This has, according to UNHCR in ing "In Chechnya Europe Finalizes pressure on countries crimes as defined in paragraphs (a) to (c) are exclud- Germany only been a side issue in these decisions. Crimes Agains Humanity" during 401 hosting Chechen ed from the protection of the 1951 Convention. The Chechen Support Committee in Denmark has a demonstration by some 300 refugees not to reported that according to new anti-terror legisla- people 18 March 2005 in front provide a safe This exclusion clause is often confused with tion in Denmark, the security services can deny of the Centre Pompidou in Paris haven for terrorist.»390 Articles 32 and 33 (2) of the same Convention persons asylum in a secret decision. The person in against Russian President which allow for exceptions to the prohibition on question is to be denied asylum, but the real reasons Vladimir Putin's one-day visit to 404 non-refoulement for reasons of national security or for the rejection is not to be given. According to France. PHOTO: SCANPIX/JEAN where an individual poses a danger to the commu- the Chechen Support Committee in Denmark, this AYISSI. nity following conviction for a particularly serious has, however, not been a problem with regard to 402 crime. Articles 32 and 33 (2) should be applied Chechen asylum seekers. only to crimes committed in the country of refuge. Mandatory return of UNHCR, is aware, as of March 2005, deportations Persons covered by article 1 F can be excluded from The Norwegian Refugee Council does not know rejected asylum seekers of Chechens from Germany were carried out only 408 all rights granted by the Refugee Convention, if the persons in question in Sweden have been The EU and the Russian Federation initiated nego- very rarely. Mandatory returns of failed asylum including protection against refoulement. Articles returned to Russia or not. Even if a person is tiations on a readmission agreement covering failed seekers from Chechnya are taking place from 32 and 33 (2) simply provide exceptions to the pro- excluded refugee status or for other reasons asylum seekers in 2003, but so far the negotiations Norway. In November 2004, the parliament in the 407 hibition on non-refoulement. However, individuals stripped of the 1951 Convention’s protection have not led to an agreement. Mandatory return Netherlands decided that Chechens not qualifying may still have recourse to protection as Article 3 of against non-refoulement, protection against non- of rejected asylum seekers from EU-countries is not for refugee status could be returned to the Russian the European Convention on Human Rights places refoulement in human rights instruments still reported to take place on a large scale. NGOs do, Federation. Motions of the opposition parties ask- 405 an absolute prohibition on the return of individu- apply. In its Guidelines on human rights and the however report that mandatory returns are taking ing for deportation stops/subsidiary protection als who would face torture or inhumane/degrading fight against terrorism, the Committee of Ministers place in some countries. were rejected by the majority in the parliament. treatment in their countries of origin. of the Council of Europe has stated that if there are This happened despite protests from UNHCR, and serious grounds to believe that a person is involved According to the Danish Support Committee active lobbying by the Dutch Refugee Council. The Norwegian Refugee Council has not suc- in terrorist activities, refugee status must be for Chechnya, there have been very few instances of Failed asylum seekers are returned from Ukraine to 406 ceeded in obtaining much information about the refused. The Guidelines do, however, emphasize mandatory returns from Denmark to Russia. Most Russia, and there is no procedure to consider 409 potential application of the exclusion clause on that the country of asylum is obliged not to return Chechens whose claims are rejected move on to whether a particular area is safe. Ukrainian NGOs Chechens applying for asylum. Apparently, in the applicant to a country where he or she risks other countries, or return to live in hiding in claim to have information about cases where asy- Sweden there have been a few cases where Chechens being exposed to the death penalty, torture or inhu- Russia. The Committee is aware of two cases in the lum seekers were handed directly from the have been excluded from refugee status by applying mane or degrading treatment or punishment. ■ very beginning of 2005 of young, single men being Ukrainian to Russian security services after being 410 returned. The Swiss Refugee Council has reported interviewed. The French NGO, Forum for that mandatory returns normally seem not to hap- Refugies is not aware of any mandatory returns of pen from Switzerland to Russia, but that it does failed Chechen asylum seekers from France,but occur, especially if the asylum seeker in question is does not rule out that it does exist. According to the not “doing well”, is involved in crime etc. In one Polish Helsinki Committee, Poland does not return instance in February 2004, a Chechen asylum seek- failed asylum seekers to Russia. The organizations er that had threatened a social worker, refused to for Aid to Refugees (OPU) reported in April 2005, speak Russian during the interview and made con- that this is also the case in the Czech Republic. tradictory statements about his case was forcibly According to OPU, even Chechens who do not returned. In June 2004, the Society for Threatened apply for asylum in the Czech Republic are not

399 See for example “Russia seeks UN terrorist asylum abuse crackdown”, 402 See ECRE, “ Policy on Exclusion” , March 2004, at www.ecre.org People in Germany reported that four German forcibly returned to Russia. From time to time the The Russia Journal, 24 September 2004 403 Information provided by UNHCR Stockholm, 6 December 2004. regions consider it safe to return failed asylum seek- Aliens Police issues expulsion orders to such per- 400 UNHCR, “Ten Refugee Protection Concerns in the Aftermath of 404 According to information from the Chechen Support Committee in ers from Chechnya. In November 2004, the NGO sons, but OPU are not aware of any cases of actual September 11”,Press release 23 October 2001. Denmark, 13 January 2005. 401 The following crimes are included: “Crime against peace, a war crime 405 See Chapter 2. reported that mandatory returns were taking place, deportations of Chechens to the Russian or crimes against humanity”,a serious non-political crime, acts 406 Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on both to Moscow and to other regions in the Federation. contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN. Human Rights and Terrorism, adopted on 11 July 2002. Southern part of the Russian Federation. As far as CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

52 53 «A Chechen asylum Establishing facts about Chechens that have bee Allegations about chain-refoulement Chechen male was deported from Belgium to cials were trying to force Chechens to 422 seeker who arrived returned to the Russian Federation from other According to the Austrian NGO, Asyl in Not, Poland. Allegedly, he was met at the airport in leave. According to “Vainakh”,in the majority of cas- in Norway after countries is difficult as no independent body or Chechens risk being victims of so-called chain- Warsaw by people who spoke Russian. The day after es the decision about deportation is taken only under having been detained organization monitors this group. According to the refoulement from Slovakia to Russia via Ukraine. his departure from Belgium he called his sister in pressure of Russian law-enforcement structures: “In in Ukraine claims Danish Support Committee for Chechnya, both the Asyl in Not is basing their claim on information Belgium, telling her that he had been taken to a the framework of inter-governmental agreements on that he was told men returned from Denmark in 2005 were tem- that at least ten Chechens in July- August 2004 were police station in Belarus. The day after his depar- the fight against terrorism each of the country- par- by Ukrainian porarily detained upon arrival in Moscow. The expelled by Slovakian border guards and turned ture from Belgium to Poland, he called his sister ticipants take preventive measures and for law-enforcement release of one of the men is attributed to the fact over to Ukrainian border police before they were from a police- station in Belarus. Since then, no Kazakhstan Chechen refugees and Chechen citizens officials that none that he had relatives in Moscow who protested deported to Russia. The whereabouts of these per- information about his whereabouts has been of Kazakhstan have become a very good basis to of the Chechens against the detention. This person is currently liv- sons is unknown, with the exception of a young reported. implement the clauses of the agreement.” that were deported ing “under-ground “in Moscow. The committee has woman, who as of December 2004 was reported to and handed not had any contact with the other person after his be in prison in Rostov, Russia. According to the Other reports about the mandatory According to the “Law on the Legal Status of over to Russian return. The person referred to above who was same source, agents of Russian secret service coop- and forced return of Chechens foreigners” (1966) foreigners who violate the rules law-enforcement returned to Russia by Swiss authorities, claims that erate with the Slovak authorities in identifying and The Chechen diaspora group “Vainakh” claims to for legal registration in Azerbaijan can be expelled officials “reached he was ill treated by Russian law-enforcement offi- apprehending Chechens wanted by the Russian have information that many Chechens who had from the country. UNHCR in Baku does, however Russia in one cials upon arrival. The man told the Swiss Refugee authorities. been deported from Kazakhstan were murdered dur- report, that they do not experience that Chechens is piece”.» Council that he was apprehended and questioned ing sweep-up operations in Chechnya in 2000- deported from the country for the reason. 420 by the police at the airport in Moscow, and then The office of UNHCR in the Slovak Republic 2001. According to the US Committee for Refugees brought to a police station where he was ill treated reports not to have not witnessed cases of refoule- and Immigrants, a number of cases of deportations According to reliable sources within UNHCR before he was released after 24 hours. Allegedly he ment. According to UNHCR, “intercepted people of Chechens to Russia were brought to the attention there have been several cases of police harassment, had to give the police officers money in order to be entering the country illegally have been allowed of UNHCR during 2002, but the agency was unable detention and deportations of Chechens in released, and was told by the police officers that he into the system when requesting it. [-] Due to the to establish how many persons might have been Belarus. In 2004, UNHCR received information had been lucky and that he should not stay in consistent and continuous flow into the refugee deported or refouled without ever having a chance to on139 cases of Russian citizens being deported, 19 411 421 Moscow. A Chechen asylum seeker who arrived in centres of applicants from the Russian Federation make their claims. In 2003, a UNHCR protection of which were escorted. Between 2001- 2003, the Norway after having been detained in Ukraine (mainly of Chechen origin) the office considers that officer stated that in some parts of the country offi- number was 413. ■ claims that he was told by Ukrainian law-enforce- the security system is not prejudicially inclined to ment officials that none of the Chechens that were prevent cases from the Russian Federation from 419 deported and handed over to Russian law-enforce- entering the asylum procedure.” 412 ment officials “reached Russia in one piece”. UNHCR`s office in the Slovak Republic has According to a report from 2002 by the investigated some of the cases brought to its atten- Norwegian Helsinki Committee, the problems tion by Asyl in Not. According to UNHCR, the returnees have faced have been similar to the diffi- Slovak authorities in one instance reported that the culties experienced by the Chechen population in case in question was not registered among those general, except that young male returnees will be registered as having requested asylum. There was interrogated by the police about possible guerilla however no record if the person had been then affiliations and that any temporary registration of returned (or denied access) at the border. 413 residence of the returnees will be cancelled. This assessment is from late 2002, before a series of new We may talk about cases where the persons in grave terrorist attacks in Moscow and Beslan. In question have not asked for asylum – perhaps with Omar, a Chechen boy of 11, February 2004, Human Rights Watch expressed the intention of applying for asylum in countries carries his one-year-old brother concern that Chechens cannot, or are not able to further West. If these persons have entered Slovakia in Austrian largest and oldest safely access, the necessary documentation to illegally, and do not apply for asylum they will be refugee camp in Traiskirchen, 414 ensure a secure return. In March 2004, Amnesty considered illegal immigrants. Slovakia has entered 28 October 2004. The camp set International wrote that most Chechen asylum into readmission agreements with Russia and some 30 kilometers south of seekers rejected in European countries are returned Ukraine that allow the readmission of foreigners if Vienna, shelters 1,300 asylum to Moscow, and that information available suggest- they do not ask for asylum. But Slovakia has also seekers coming from 64 coun- ed that many of them are immediately subject to ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention and the tries. In October 2004, the popu- 415 thorough questioning at Moscow Airport. Some European Human Rights Convention. The Slovak lation of the village called for of the returned Chechens are allegedly also authorities are consequently obliged not to refoule the closure of the camp, with a deprived of money or other belongings by Russian anyone to a place where the person may risk perse- petition of 12,000 signatures. 416 security officers. In a statement from May 2004, cution, or risk to life, torture or inhuman treat- PHOTO: SCANPIX/JOE KLAMAR 417 Svetlana Gannushkina emphasized that even ment. A Chechen asylum seeker in Norway has told though she could not document that Chechens the Norwegian Refugee Council that he was were persecuted “exactly for having been to a for- deported to Ukraine, after Chechen border police 407 European Union, “EU/Russia: The Four “common spaces””, 416 Ibid. The Hague, 25 November 2004 417 Svetlana Gannushkina is chair of the Civic Assistance Committee for eign state, asking for asylum and deported to had forced him to sign papers that he did not apply 408 Information provided by UNHCR in Germany, February 2005. Refugees, head of the Migration Rights Network of Memorial Human Russia” this did not mean that there were no such for asylum in Slovakia. The asylum seeker, a young 409 Information provided by Human Rights Have no Borders in June 2004. Rights Center and a member of the Commission on Human Rights for 418 cases. In the same statement, Svetlana Chechen fighter, claimed that he was imprisoned in 410 Ibid. the Russian President. 411 Supra note 141. 418 Caucasian Knot, “Gannushkina convinced Chechens can be given Gannushkina underlined that all Chechens are in Ukraine for several weeks, and told that he was 412 Interview with Chechen asylum seeker, 9 December 2004. refugee status rightfully”,12 May 2004. need of international protection, and that going to be deported to the Russian Federation. 413 The Norwegian Helsinki Committee, “The Ethnic War”, 2002, p. 7. 419 Information provided by UNHCR, Bratislava, 17 December 2004. Memorial considers mandatory and forced returns 414 Human Rights Watch, Letter to the Dutch Immigration Minister, 420 Information provided in December 2004. 13 February 2004. 421 US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, World Refugee Survey 2003. unacceptable. In March 2005, the Chechen diaspora in 415 Amnesty International Deutschland, Asyl – Landerbericht, Russische 422 US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, World Refugee Survey 2004. Belgium reported that in February 2005 a young Föderation, 31 March 2004. CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 CHECHNYA

54 55 56 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 the Russian 2003. during authorities state thatthegovernment over turned 38Chechens to Unconfirmed reports nections bothin2002and2003. dited to Russia Chechens to alleged have terrorist con- for Refugees andImmigrants, politicalasylum intheUnitedlater granted Kingdom. Russia. apprehended from andextradited Azerbaijan to from theNorthern Caucasushadbeen “Wahabbis” theInterior stated that14 the Azeri Minister of 2004, Parliamentary Assembly seminarinBakuOctober Extraditions Chapter 10: that Zakaev wouldthat Zakaev to besubject torture. andthere wassubstantialrisk and politicalopinions” hisnationality prosecuting onaccount MrZakaev of wereauthorities seekingextradition “for of purposes Russian According to thedecision, inRussia. his trial to to MrZakaev return stand “unjust andoppressive” concluded aLondoncourt thatitwould be from 2003, In adecision offences. criminal anumber of tions of fromZakaev the Mr of extradition but sought ment inthetheatre siege, aboutZakaev’slater theallegations withdrew involve- Russian The authorities evidence. dition dueto lackof refused TheDanishauthorities extra- in October 2002. tions thathewasinvolved intheMoscow theatre siege Mr Zakeav from of Russian theextradition sought initially authorities Aslan Maskhadov. Chechen oppositionandenvoy of the leadingrepresentative a of AhmedZakaev, dition of death penalty or subject to orsubject torture”.death penalty beingsentenced where heorsherisks to country to aperson a states “may of extradition notgrant Europe recognizes that theCouncil of Ministers of theCommittee of terrorism of against fights andpolitical andthe TheGuidelines onhuman rights nationality, opinion. religion, race, account of dition where thefugitive would bepunishedon contain thestate to aclausethatpermits refuse extra- returned to Russia. including torture if violations human rights serious believed of to beatrisk were because they charges, Russia on “terrorism” wanted by Chechens, concern of abouttheextradition their Human have organizations rights voiced cases. profile high afewvery theexception with of seekers, Chechens asylum Russian of demandsforextradition There isnotmuch available publicinformation about According to from information theUSCommittee n20-03 Russian theextra- sought authorities In 2002-2003, l Nmliltrl anti-terrorist conventions UNmulti-lateral, All 426 UNHCR in Baku reports thattheofficeUNHCR inBaku reports isnot United Kingdom Denmark (partly) basedonallega- (partly) Azeri Azeri nrseto allega- in respect of 423 authorities extra- authorities 425 424 At a NATO a At Zakaev was Zakaev fAtce3o theEHRC. 3of Article of today these persons would beaviolation of extradition concluded TheCourt thatan Human Court]. Rights [theEuropean hadlodgedapplicationswith who gin Chechen ori- personsof of persecutionandkillings of noted the the Court “extremely phenomenon alarming In particular, thepasttwohad changed years. during holdthatthesituation however, did, Thecourt ment. treat- inhuman anddegrading of a real risk personal believe would thatextradition expose theapplicantsto there were reasons andwell-founded to notserious in2002 According to theCourt, in2002. extraditions regard with treatment) to the inhuman anddegrading Human Convention Right (EHRC) (theprohibition of theEuropean 3of Article of had beennoviolation 431 430 429 428 427 426 425 424 423 ing Chechens indetention were released from prison. to Russia. kidnapping theChechens andsecretly them extraditing of which authorities accused theGeorgian Georgia, amongtheChechen community in gered protests newstrig- The attheGeorgian-Russian border. them Russian law enforcers haddetained reported that then peared andthe Russian Service Federal Security themmysteriously disap- ly after theirrelease both of short- However, them. acquitted thecourt two of 2004, In February remained butthey imprisoned. detained, decidednotto courts extradite theChechens Georgian Human Rights, tion to theEuropean of Court after themenhadfiledanapplica- In 2003, to Russia. themenwere extradited five of October thesameyear, In arms. crossing theborder andthepossessionof were border detainedby Georgian guards forillegally Georgian the Chechens with concern of abouttheextradition made adecisioninthecase. Human Rights theEuropean of Court In April 2005, those who havethose who beenextradited. concern to itbeingamong aware thatany of persons Ibid. release by 12 theRegistrar April 2005. Press andRussia Georgia (applicationno.36378/02), 12 othersv. ChamberJudgement Shamayev and Human Rights, European of Court Ibid. 2005-01-05 18:37:05http://www.civil.ge/eng/article “Released Chechens Fear ‘Secret* / Tbilisi Extradition”, Civil Georgia, Ibid 2005. 11January Information provided by UNHCRin Azerbaijan, Report on Country Azerbaijan 2003. Word Refugee Survey,US Committee forRefugees andImmigrants, 13November 2003. Federation v Akhmed Zakaev, theRussian The Government of Court, The Bow Street Magistrates’ Supra note 406. Amnesty InternationalAmnesty hasrepeatedly its raised 428 uhrte.I uut20,13Chechens In August 2002, authorities. nJnayadFbur 05 theremain- 2005, In andFebruary January 431 430 ■ The Court heldthatthereThe Court 427 429 Chapter 11: Poland andothernewEU-countries there. 3131peoplewere accommodated January 2005, o w ek,demanding thatPoland openssafe for two weeks, thecentres went onhunger strike seekers inone of the centres is2700persons. of Thetotal capacity which were openedin2004. five of has 14reception centres forasylumseekers, country The overwhelming reception centres there. Chechen asylumseekers to Poland is The influxof from Polandarriving to theircountries. to automatically return Chechen asylumseekers andappealedto othermembersstates not tion exists, deficits inthePolish system forasylumandintegra- concluded thatserious Poland inNovember 2004, NGO-missionto TheGerman border countries. who arrive intheEUthrough Poland orothernew refugees andasylumseekers addressing theneedsof thenewEUmemberstatesed theneedto in support Ruud Lubbers highlight- Commissioner forRefugees, UNHigh theformer in September 2004, andFrance. Belgium (320), Austria Most were returned from Germany (8432), returned to Poland from otherDublin-countries. 1320personswere 2004, of thesecondDuring half instances. can beconsidered safethird inall countries thelatter Republic andPoland thequestionif raise fromtions to andBelarus theSlovak Ukraine Allegationsaboutdeporta- to European standards. innewEU-members states areintegration notup asylumand voiced been thatthesystems of ever, how- Concern has, to return them there. the right have normally theDublincountries members of other to theEUisnewEU-countries, entry Since mostChechens firstpointof processed there. to EU-countries have theircases to “new” “old” or are waitingto bereturned from ers have been, After EU-enlargementmany Chechen asylumseek- Poland andothernewEU-memberstates Concerns aboutthesituationin Chechens applied for asylum every dayChechens inPoland. appliedforasylumevery Chechen asylumseekers. allanEUapproach to but mostof from theEU, Poland needsfinancialhelp Repatriation and Aliens, According to thePolish Office for returns. refugeesognized have created concern aboutsuch forrec- integration aswell aspoorsystems of tions, long-lastingdeten- of risk the reception system there, Most Chechens arrive inEurope Poland. via so oebr20,a vrg f40 anaverage of November 2004, As of 438 nDcme 04 ru f200asylum agroup of In December 2004, 434 «Dublin-returns» to During his visit to Poland hisvisit During 433 437 An overburdening of At of thebeginning 435 436 432 resources are lacking. andfinancial but thatcapacity relatively good, that thesituationinopenreception centres is NGOsalsoconcluded German November 2004, loaded andunder-resourced. butthesystem isover- perfectlyreasonable, erally assistance provided by Poland are gen- standards of the According to UNHCR, education forchildren. clothing and proper food, complained aboutlackof Asylum seekers conditiontheir living atthecentres. passage to Western Europe andprotesting against there. and intimidationby otherChechens residing fearreturning tothat they Poland dueto threats instances Chechen asylumseekers have reported In several exposed to extreme experiences. Chechens already who traumatize have been may re- upon return from otherDublin-countries, to Poland bothuponarrival and tions inPoland, long-lastingdeten- of pointed outthattherisk a hopelesssituation(seesection6.3). Chechens -are considered to bein of the majority -which is Those whoonlyreceive “tolerated stay” u” ril 2 ftheRegulation allows states to lum”. 3(2)of Article asy- return asylumseekers to the of “first country rying. “Dublin”-cases intheCzech Republic are alsowor- detention of tion rates andthepractice of Low recogni- 54). 41and p. son forconcern (seep. to Russia give rea- Ukraine serious via refoulement” andtheallegationsabout “chain- Slovak Republic, Thezero recognition rate inthe tion inPoland. not beendocumented asthoroughly asthesitua- refoulementabout therisk from Poland. inPolandRussian service concern raise security tions thatChechens have over been turned to Chechens future to inPoland. establishaviable constitute for anoften barrier insurmountable assistanceintegration foroneyear isconsidered to asylum seekers andrefugees inPoland. medicalandsocialcare offeredtory to Chechen satisfac- concern aboutthelackof hasbeenraised asylum seekers andrefugees. hasanegative effectonassistance to tem atlarge, severe problems inthePolish socialandhealthsys- to theafore-mentioned NGO-report, German The DublinRegulation doesnotobligestates to has The situationinothernewEU-countries The factthatrecognized refugees onlyreceive 445 nadto oteecnen,theallega- In additionto theseconcerns, 440 444 The samesource has 439 After in visits 442 443 According Particular 441 processed there.» have theircases EU countriesto “old” to“new” to bereturnedfrom been, orarewaiting asylum seekershave ment manyChechen «After EU-enlarge- 57 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 58 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 High Commissionerfor the needsofrefugees Poland inSeptember states inaddressing who arriveintheEU 2004, theformerUN and asylumseekers the needtosupport the newEUmember Lubbers highlighted «During hisvisitto through Poland or other newborder Refugees, Ruud countries.» 440 439 438 437 436 435 434 433 432 asylum procedure. not appliedto ensure access to afairandefficient and thattheabove mentionedexemption are rules arecountries processed inaccelerated procedures fromChechen asylumseekers newEU- arriving that however, There isconcern, the samecountry. cations from familymemberscanbeprocessed in ispreservedensure andthatappli- thatfamilyunity clause)canbeusedto 15(thehumanitarian Article thememberstate. of claims lodgedonitsterritory forexamining asylum adopt responsibility all everybody do)andPolandeverybody accepts inmostcases through PolandChechens arriving (which almost theBelgian haveauthorities systematically asked of foratransfer 2005, Since of thebeginning cases. wayDublin-regulation strict inChechen in avery the are authorities applying reported thattheBelgian theDutch Refugee Council inBelgium March 2005, In Sweden andDenmark. Poland from Norway, we are aware thatChechens have beenreturned to andtheCzech Belgium Republic – France, Austria, to mentionedabove thecountries –Germany, In addition havelished thatthey Poland arrived via . itcanbeestab- if inaanothercountry their merits es Chechens are nothaving theircasesconsidered on above) canbeseenasanindicationthatinmostcas- 2004(see of returned to Poland thefirsthalf during asylumseekers number of Thehigh countries. indifferent European ing Chechen “Dublin-cases” accurate abouttheprocedures information regard- ur oe21 .12 p. Supra note 271, note 351. supra UNHCR, 12. p. Supra note 271, note 351. supra UNHCR, 16 November 2004atwww.unhcr.pl Chechen asylumseekers grows”, “Number of UNHCR, thesummary. 3of Seep. the Dublin-regulation. exemption clausesof the themissionrecommended extensive use of of The report system”, 13December 2005 “Hunger reveals Strike inPolish strains asylum UNHCR New Stories, Ibid. 22. p. Supra note 271, tee thatotherChechenasylumseekerswouldgetsatis- release ofthisfamilyshouldnotbeviewedasaguaran- Norwegian HelsinkiCommittee(NHC)arguedthatthe the Norwegianauthoritiesresumeddeportations. The released fromdetentionandgrantedasyluminGreece, seek asylum. After awomanandherthreechildrenwere asked, withoutaccesstointerpreter, towavetheirright months upontheirarrivalinGreece,andsomecases families withminorswereheldindetentionforuptothree 2002 aftertheNHCforwardedinformationthatChechen These deportationswerehaltedtemporarilyinJanuary country ofasylum,”asfoundintheDublinConvention. persons toGreecewithreferencetheprinciple“first Norwegian immigrationauthoritiesstarteddeportingthese arrived inNorwayfromRussiaonGreekvisas.In2001 Since 2000hundredsofChechenasylumseekershave The Norwegian Refugee Council doesnothave 446 Exert fromtheinternationalHelsinkiFederation’s Annual Report2003 449 448 447 446 445 444 443 442 441 sideration oftheirapplications. return asylumseekerstoRussiawithoutindividualcon- left onthestreetsandthatsomeattemptsweremadeto Greece, oftendetainedbytheGreekauthoritiesorsimply including minorsandsickpeople,were,uponarrivalin NHC continuedtodocumentthefactthatasylumseekers, manner bytheGreekauthorities. Throughout 2002the the asylumseekerswerebeingtreatedinasatisfactory deportation policywaspremisedontheassumptionthat once againafteracoupleofweeks. The Norwegian were againtemporarilystopped,howevertheyresumed sion oftheNHCtoGreeceinJune2002,deportations ernment tohaltthedeportations. After afact-findingmis- factory treatment,andappealedtotheNorwegiangov- have taken manner. place inaviolent Chechens from to Poland Belgium of deportations (almost 90%). lum. asy- from of beingreturned to thefirstcountry exempt have who persons trauma suffered serious butonaprovision in Austrian law that Republic, thesituationinSlovak consideration of notona Thedecisionwasbased, Slovak Republic. tection to aChechen stay mandespite prior inthe Austria provided pro- In atleastoneinstances, tion. not beenreturned according to theDublinregula- A fewinstances are whereby known Chechens have (See box below). aboutchain-refoulement. risk andclaimsof tion, minor Chechen asylumseekers were kept indeten- lum seekers to Greece dueto that information Chechen asy- of stopped thedeportations porarily In 2002Norwegian tem- authorities enlargement. existed also before theEU seekers inparticular, andChechen asylum asylum seekers ingeneral, regard with toin Dublin-countries of treatment applicant’s specialconnection to Norway. butwasbasedmainlyonthe Slovak Republic, thesituationin cially hadnothingto dowith thedecisionoffi- Alsointhiscase, Slovak Republic. reasons the tarian to aChechen hadarrived via who residence forhumani- granted permit authorities Martin Rozumek, supra note 270. supra Rozumek, Martin from todeported Poland Belgium manner. inaviolent reported oneincidentswhereBelgium aChechens allegedlyhadbeen in theChechen diaspora President of Tina Ismailova, In March 2005, 15March 2005. Information provided by theDutch Refugee Council, note 271. supra See forexample by NGOs, thereport German 12. p. Supra note 271, 2. p. summary Supra note 271, 18-20. pp. Supra note 271, Ibid. 2 p. Supra note 271, h rbe fdifferent policiesandstandards The problem of 449 iial,i ac 05 Norwegian inMarch 2005, Similarly, 447 There have alsobeenallegationsthat ■ 448 Horne (NRC). Ilkova Tjessem (NRC)and Thomas Vigdis Vevstad (NRC),Dobromira (NRC), RagnaVikøren (NRC), Referance group: Editor: Anne Marit Austbø Toril Skjetne © NorwegianRefugeeCouncil Internet: http://www.nrc.no E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (+47)23109801 Tel: (+47)23109800 Norway 0130 Oslo Potsboks 6758St.OlavsPlass Norwegian RefugeeCouncil(NRC) Publisher: Number ofcopies: ISBN number: Print: Design: Gamlebyen Grafiske AS Cox Media 82-7411-152-4 1000 Borchgrevink (theNorwegianHelsinkiCommittee). Project), Aage Tseytlina (Memorial),ChristopheBeau(NRCGlobalIDP (ECRE secretariat),Svetlana A. Gannushkina(Memorial),OlgaOsipova- offices. Specialthanksto:ClaireRimmer(ECREsecretariat),ChrisNash report, especiallyECREmemberorganizationsandUNHCRcountry Many thankstoeveryonewhohascontributedwithinformationthis

CHECHNYA REPORT 2005 60 CHECHNYA REPORT 2005