DOCSLIB.ORG

Opinion of the Commissioner for Human Rights on the Legislation of the Russian Federation On

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Opinion of the Commissioner for Human Rights on the Legislation of the Russian Federation On Strasbourg, 15 July 2013 CommDH(2013)15 Original version OPINION OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ON THE LEGISLATION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ON NON-COMMERCIAL ORGANISATIONS IN LIGHT OF COUNCIL OF EUROPE STANDARDS CommDH (2013)15 Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................................3 I. Background information on domestic legislation regulating the activities of NCOs .................4 1.1 Federal Law No. 82-FZ “On Public Associations” ...............................................................5 1.2 Federal Law No. 7-FZ “On Non-Commercial Organisations” (hereinafter referred to as the Law on NCOs) ...............................................................................................................6 1.3 Federal Law No. 121-FZ “On Introducing Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation Regarding the Regulation of the Activities of the Non-Commercial Organisations Performing the Functions of Foreign Agents” (hereinafter “the Law on Foreign Agents”) ..................................................................................................................6 1.4 Federal Law N 190-FZ “On introducing amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and to Article 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as the Law on Treason) ..................................................................8 1.5 Federal Law N 272-FZ “On measures for affecting persons implicated in violation of basic human rights and freedoms, rights and freedoms of the citizens of the Russian Federation” ..........................................................................................................................8 II. The applicable standards .........................................................................................................9 III. Observations on the implementation of the legislation ......................................................... 13 3.1 Definition of “political activity” in the Law and its interpretation ........................................ 14 3.2 Use of term “foreign agent” and difference in treatment attributed on the criteria of “foreign funding”................................................................................................................ 16 3.3 Inspections of the NGOs and the right to private life ........................................................ 17 3.4 The role of the Ministry of Justice ..................................................................................... 18 3.5 The role of the Prosecutor’s Office ................................................................................... 19 3.6 Additional observations as to the legislation and its implementation ............................... 20 IV. Conclusions and recommendations ...................................................................................... 22 2 CommDH (2013)15 Introduction 1. Human rights defenders are among the main actors contributing to the effective observance and full enjoyment of human rights in Council of Europe member states. Their protection and the development of an enabling environment for their activities are at the core of the mandate of the Commissioner for Human Rights. 2. In February 2008, the Committee of Ministers adopted a Declaration on Council of Europe action to improve the protection of human rights defenders and promote their activities.1 In particular, it called on Council of Europe member states to “create an environment conducive to the work of human rights defenders, enabling individuals, groups and associations to freely carry out activities, on a legal basis, consistent with international standards, to promote and strive for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms without any restrictions other than those authorised by the European Convention on Human Rights”2 and “to take effective measures to protect, promote and respect human rights defenders and ensure respect for their activities”.3 3. The Declaration has also emphasised the role of the Commissioner for Human Rights, who is invited to “continue[…] to meet with a broad range of defenders during his country visits and to report publicly on the situation of human rights defenders”4 and to “intervene[…], in the manner the Commissioner deems appropriate, with the competent authorities, in order to assist them in looking for solutions, in accordance with their obligations, to the problems which human rights defenders may face, especially in serious situations, where there is a need for urgent action”.5 4. During his visit to Moscow in October 2012, the Commissioner raised concerns with his official interlocutors related to the adoption of legislative amendments on non-commercial organisations performing the function of “foreign agents” and of amendments to the Criminal and Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation concerning the definition of high treason. He had an opportunity to further discuss those issues with the members of the Russian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe during its January 2013 session. The Commissioner’s visit to the Russian Federation took place in April 2013, after a series of comprehensive checks of NGOs had been initiated by the Prosecutor’s Office and other authorities. The Commissioner expressed his concerns about the above-mentioned legislative provisions and their implementation, in particular, in view of the very broad and vague definition of political activity in the Law. He reiterated the need for non-governmental organisations to function in an environment conducive to their work.6 5. The Russian Federation has a vibrant civil society consisting of more than 220,000 non- commercial organisations (hereinafter referred to as NCOs).7 During his visits to the Russian Federation in October 2012 and April 2013, the Commissioner was told by his interlocutors in the government at regional and federal levels that they regard civil society 1 The Russian Federation was one of the eleven countries represented in the Group of Specialists on Human Rights Defenders, which has largely contributed to the drafting of this Declaration. 2 Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on Council of Europe action to improve the protection of human rights defenders and promote their activities, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 February 2008 at the 1017th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, § 2.i. 3 Ibid, §2.ii. 4 Ibid, §4.ii. 5 Ibid, §4.iii. 6 See Press release on the visit to the Russian Federation. 7 For the purposes of this document, the concepts “non-governmental organisation” (NGO) and “non- commercial organisation” (NCO) and “non-profit organisation” are used interchangeably. 3 CommDH (2013)15 organisations as important and valuable partners and appreciate their contribution to decision-making processes in different spheres. Many of these organisations are members of various consultative and advisory bodies to the federal, regional and local authorities, such as the Council on Human Rights and Civil Society Development under the President of the Russian Federation, Public Chambers and councils, and advisory and working groups attached to ministries and other governmental institutions. Civil society organisations, mainly those involved in human rights advocacy, play an important role in the public monitoring commissions, which according to the 2008 Federal Law “On Public Oversight of Respect for Human Rights in Places of Forced Detention and on Assistance to Inmates of Places of Forced Detention” perform the public watchdog function within the law enforcement and penal correction systems. 6. The national legislative framework regulating activities of non-commercial organisations in the Russian Federation is fairly complex. The two laws which are of particular relevance to the activities of non-commercial organisations and the issues under discussion in this Opinion are the Federal Law No 82-FZ “On Public Associations” of 19 May 1995 (as amended) and Federal Law No. 7-FZ “On Non-Commercial Organisations” of 12 January 1996 (as amended). Other key legislative provisions applicable to the functioning of the civil society sector could be found in the Constitution of the Russian Federation; Civil Code; Criminal Code; Code of Administrative Penalties; Tax Code; Federal Law No 135-FZ “On Charitable Activities and Charitable Organisations”; Federal Law No 95-FZ “On Free of Charge Assistance”; Federal Law No 54-FZ “On Assemblies, Meetings, Demonstrations, Marches and Picketing”; Federal Law No 275-FZ “On the Procedure of Establishment and Use of Endowments of Non-commercial Organisations”. The regulatory framework currently in force also includes legislation enacted in 2012, which will be discussed in more detail in the present Opinion. Other relevant documents include: Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No 212 “On measures aimed at implementing certain provisions of the federal laws regulating activities of non- commercial organisations” of 15 April 2006; Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No 485 “Regarding the list of international organisations whose grants (free aid) obtained by Russian organisations shall be tax exempt and shall be accounted for as taxable income of taxpayers – recipients of such grants” of 28 June 2008; and Decree of the Ministry of Justice of Russia No 222 “On the Procedure of State Control
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From Assistance to Engagement—A Model for a New Era in U.S
    From Assistance to Engagement A Model for a New Era in U.S.-Russian Civil Society Relations CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & CSIS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES A Report of the CSIS Human Rights & Security Initiative 1800 K Street, NW | Washington, DC 20006 author Tel: (202) 887-0200 | Fax: (202) 775-3199 Sarah E. Mendelson E-mail: [email protected] | Web: www.csis.org September 2009 CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & CSIS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES From Assistance to Engagement A Model for a New Era in U.S.-Russian Civil Society Relations A Report of the CSIS Human Rights & Security Initiative author Sarah E. Mendelson September 2009 About CSIS In an era of ever-changing global opportunities and challenges, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provides strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decisionmakers. CSIS conducts research and analysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. Founded by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke at the height of the Cold War, CSIS was dedicated to the simple but urgent goal of finding ways for America to survive as a nation and prosper as a people. Since 1962, CSIS has grown to become one of the world’s preeminent public policy institutions. Today, CSIS is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, DC. More than 220 full-time staff and a large network of affiliated scholars focus their expertise on defense and security; on the world’s regions and the unique challenges inherent to them; and on the issues that know no boundary in an increasingly connected world. Former U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Observation of the Presidential Election in the Russian Federation (4 March 2012)
    Parliamentary Assembly Assemblée parlementaire http://assembly.coe.int Doc. 12903 23 April 2012 Observation of the presidential election in the Russian Federation (4 March 2012) Election observation report Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau Rapporteur: Mr Tiny KOX, Netherlands, Group of the Unified European Left Contents Page 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Political and legal context ....................................................................................................................... 2 3. Election administration and voter and candidate registration .................................................................3 4. The campaign period and the media environment.................................................................................. 4 5. Complaints and appeals ......................................................................................................................... 5 6. Election day ............................................................................................................................................ 5 7. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Appendix 1 – Composition of the ad hoc committee.................................................................................... 8 Appendix 2 – Programme of the pre-electoral mission (Moscow,
    [Show full text]
  • Russia 2012-2013: Attack on Freedom / 3 Introduction
    RUSSIA 2012-2013 : Attack on Freedom Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, February 2014 / N°625a Cover photo: Demonstration in front of the State Duma (Russian Parliament) in Moscow on 18 July 2013, after the conviction of Alexei Navalny. © AFP PHOTO / Ivan Novikov 2 / Titre du rapport – FIDH Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 1. Authoritarian Methods to Suppress Rights and Freedoms -------------------------------- 6 2. Repressive Laws ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8 2.1. Restrictions on Freedom
    [Show full text]
  • In Search of Happy Gypsies
    Norway Artctic Ocean Sweden Finland Belarus Ukraine Pacifc Ocean RUSSIA In Search of Kazahstan China Japan Mongolia Happy Gypsies Persecution of Pariah Minorities in Russia COUNTRY REPORTS SERIES NO. 14 Moscow MAY 2005 A REPORT BY THE EUROPEAN ROMA RIGHTS CENTRE European Roma Rights Centre IN SEARCH OF HAPPY GYPSIES Persecution of Pariah Minorities in Russia Country Report Series, No. 14 May 2005 Table of Contents Copyright: © European Roma Rights Centre, May 2005 All rights reserved. ISBN 963 218 338 X ISSN 1416-7409 Graphic Design: Createch Ltd./Judit Kovács Printed in Budapest, Hungary. For information on reprint policy, please contact the ERRC 5 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements....................................................................................................7 1. Executive Summary.............................................................................................9 2. Introduction: Anti-Romani Racism....................................................................19 3. A Short History of Roma in Russia ...................................................................43 4. Racially-Motivated Violence and Abuse of Roma by Law Enforcement Officials..............................................................................................................55 4.1 Racial Profiling ..........................................................................................57 4.2 Arbitrary Detention....................................................................................61 4.3 Torture
    [Show full text]
  • The Russian Federation
    Asylum Research Centre The Russian Federa�on: LGBTI Country of origin informa�on to support the adjudica�on of asylum claims from Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (‘LGBTI’) asylum seekers /shutterstock.com Bennian 17 July 2012 Cover photo © 17th July 2012 Country-of-origin information to support the adjudication of asylum claims from Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (‘LGBTI’) asylum-seekers The Russian Federation Commissioned by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Division of International Protection. Any views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of UNHCR. Contents 1. The legal position of LGBTI persons in the country concerned including criminalisation p. 3 2. Evidence of the implementation of legal provisions, including police and judicial treatment p. 11 and punishment of same sex activity 3. Societal attitude to LGBTI persons, evidence of non-state persecution and discrimination p. 31 4. Homophobia and transphobia in government institutions (including but not limited to p. 47 government statements state owned media, prisons, education, health system) 5. State willingness and ability to provide effective protection to LGBTI persons; (particularly p. 54 police attitude to LGBTI persons, investigations into crimes perpetrated against LGBTI persons) 6. (Limitations in) access to social and economic rights for LGBTI persons p. 60 7. Sources consulted (including descriptions of lesser known sources) p. 72 1 Explanatory Note The following non-exhaustive excerpts of COI are from 2011-2012. The COI is presented in reverse chronological order and is cited directly from the original source, including original footnotes.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Federation – Yabloko – Treatment of Supporters – Tax Investigations
    Refugee Review Tribunal AUSTRALIA RRT RESEARCH RESPONSE Research Response Number: RUS32923 Country: Russian Federation Date: 27 February 2008 Keywords: Russian Federation – Yabloko – Treatment of supporters – Tax investigations This response was prepared by the Research & Information Services Section of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the RRT within time constraints. This response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum. This research response may not, under any circumstance, be cited in a decision or any other document. Anyone wishing to use this information may only cite the primary source material contained herein. Questions 1. Please provide information on fate of Yabloko Party supporters from 2003 to present. 2. What are the procedures for investigating tax offences? Who are the investigators? Where are the people interviewed? 3. Where are the tax offices located in Moscow? 4. What are the summons and charge procedures for tax offences? 5. Is there a “black list” for people wanted for tax offences when departing Russia? RESPONSE 1. Please provide information on fate of Yabloko Party supporters from 2003 to present. Information on this question is provided under the following sub-headings: Information on the Yabloko Party Funding of the Yabloko Party Treatment of Yabloko supporters since 2003 Information on the Yabloko Party The Yabloko Party is a liberal democratic party in Russia. Although it is well established, Yabloko has been marginalised in Russian politics and has a relatively low level of support. It did not win any seats in the Duma elections held in December 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of NATO Expansion on Russian Political Parties
    After Kosovo : The Impact of NATO Expansion on Russian Political Parties JOHANNA GRANVILLE uring the heated debate leading up to the Senate's ratification of the Clinton D administration decision to enlarge NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organiza- tion), opponents predicted that expansion would alienate Russia, with dire con- sequences for world peace.1 Nevertheless, by a vote of 80 to 19, the Senate endorsed the policy on 30 April 1998.1 One by one, over the ensuing months, par- liaments in other NATO member countries ratified the expansion decision as well. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic became the newest members of NATO in a ceremony held in Independence, Missouri, on 12 March 1999. The crisis in Kosovo that occasioned NATO military action against the Rus- sian-favored Yugoslavian government and its president, Slobodan Milosevic, has ended. However, the issues of NATO expansion and Kosovo will no doubt figure prominently in the Russian presidential election in June 2000. The time is right to take stock and ask: Have recent NATO decisions discredited the liberal Rus- sian political parties and strengthened the conservative ultranationalist and Com- munist parties? A common shortcoming of articles predicting the worst in this regard has been the tendency to treat Russia as a unified body. Perhaps this was permissible, indeed necessary, when the West lacked detailed information about the Kremlin during the cold war period. Today, however, a more discriminating anallysis is not only possible, but imperative. Russia has a more-or-less Free press and more than one hundred political parties (forty-three of which gained enough support to run slates of candidates in the December 1995 Duma elections).3 Unlike many over- simplified articles by Western pundits with a political agenda, in this article 1 will draw mainly on statements made by Russians themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Discourse on Borders and Territorial Questions – Crimea As a Watershed?
    russian politics 4 (2019) 211-241 brill.com/rupo Russian Discourse on Borders and Territorial Questions – Crimea as a Watershed? Tuomas Forsberg Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies & Tampere University [email protected] Sirke Mäkinen Aleksanteri Institute, University of Helsinki [email protected] Abstract This article addresses the question of how the Crimean case relates to Russia’s general understanding of territorial questions and border regimes. We examine the histori- cal evolution of Russian discourse on borders and territorial questions and investigate to what extent they can explain Russia’s decision to annex Crimea. We will look into the principles of inviolability of borders and territorial integrity that sustain the status quo, and how this has been challenged by three partly interlinked doctrines: national self-determination, geopolitics, and historical rights. We argue that the discourse on territorial integrity and the status quo has predominated in Russia since the Cold War, and that this has not changed fundamentally, either before or after the annexation of Crimea. Russia does not seem to want to abolish the existing norms altogether or to advocate any clearly articulated reformist agenda. Rather, it picks and chooses argu- ments on an ad hoc basis, imitating Western positions in some other cases when de- parting from the basic norm of the status quo. Hence, we claim that Russia’s territorial revisionism is reactive, self-serving, and constrained by the desire to avoid changing the status quo doctrine to any great extent. Keywords Russia – borders – territorial integrity – national self-determination – historical rights © tuomas forsberg and sirke mäkinen, 2019 | doi:10.1163/2451-8921-00402004 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the cc-by-nc 4.0 License.
    [Show full text]
  • RUSSIA the Russian Federation Has a Centralized Political System, With
    RUSSIA The Russian Federation has a centralized political system, with power concentrated in a president and a prime minister, a weak multiparty political system dominated by the ruling United Russia party, and a bicameral legislature (Federal Assembly). The Federal Assembly consists of a lower house (State Duma) and an upper house (Federation Council). The country has an estimated population of 142 million. Security forces generally reported to civilian authorities; however, in some areas of the Northern Caucasus, there were serious problems with civilian control of security forces. There were numerous reports of governmental and societal human rights problems and abuses during the year. The restrictions on political competition and interference in local and regional elections in ways that restricted citizens' right to change their government continued. There were reports of: attacks on and killings of journalists by unidentified persons for reasons apparently related to their activities; physical abuse by law enforcement officers, particularly in the North Caucasus region; and harsh and often life-threatening prison conditions. Arbitrary detention and politically motivated imprisonments were problems. The government controlled many media outlets and infringed on freedoms of speech and expression, pressured major independent media outlets to abstain from critical coverage, and harassed and intimidated some journalists into practicing self- censorship. The Internet remained by and large free and provided citizens access to an increased amount of information that was not available on state-controlled media. The government limited freedom of assembly, and police at times used violence to prevent groups from engaging in peaceful protest. Rule of law and due process violations remained a problem.
    [Show full text]
  • 345-362 Evans Fall 08.Indd
    The First Steps of Russia’s Public Chamber Representation or Coordination? ALFRED B. EVANS JR. Abstract: Russian President Vladimir Putin created the Public Chamber to institutionalize a civil society that would provide feedback to the state while remaining within the bound- aries of legitimate conflict. Putin’s critics predicted that the Public Chamber would be a Kremlin puppet. During the first few months of its functioning, however, chamber members proved to be bolder than those critics expected and did not hesitate to criticize some of the state’s policies. The Public Chamber’s dependence on the presidential administration for its status is both an asset and a source of restraint for the Public Chamber members. Keywords: civil society, nongovernmental organizations, Public Chamber, Vladimir Putin, Russia s president of Russia, Vladimir Putin made speeches containing many references to the Aimportance of building a strong civil society. Yet, in light of his consistent efforts to centralize power, what is the nature of Putin’s conception of civil society?1 Most scholars of civil society view it as the sphere of organized social life that gives scope to Russian citizens’ initiative and is relatively independent from the state.2 In contrast to this notion, in April 2005, I argued that “Putin envisions a well-ordered civil society as a network of organizations that formally remain outside the boundaries of the state and provide needed representation for citizens’ interests while also serving as part of the system of support for the structures of political authority.”3 Inherent tension exists between the desire to maintain control over the framework within which social organizations operate and the hope that such organizations will effectively voice their members’ demands.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Repression in Contemporary Russia: Protests of 2011-2013 and Methods of Suppression
    The Politics of Repression in Contemporary Russia: Protests of 2011-2013 and Methods of Suppression By Egor Sennikov Submitted to Central European University Department of Political Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Supervisor: Professor András Bozóki CEU eTD Collection Budapest, Hungary 2017 Abstract The protests of 2011-2013 have become one of the most serious challenges for the Russian political regime. In their scenario, these protests were similar to those that led to the fall of regimes in a number of other post-Soviet countries; in countries where they were unsuccessful, their suppression was associated with human victims and large-scale repressive actions on the part of the state. The case of Russia differs from the others in that despite the active actions of the regime to counteract the protest movement, the state did not have to resort to mass political violence. For this reason, the study of methods of suppressing protests in 2011- 2013 is of great interest, since it allows us to find a common pattern in successful, but not excessively violent, methods of repressive and coercive actions. Using the case-study method for key examples of reprisals during and after the protest, the study showы that the general pattern for the methods of repressive actions is their indirect character, depoliticization of actions against civil society and the use of external actors who are not formal representatives of the regime. CEU eTD Collection i Acknowledgements In writing this thesis, I received help and advice from many people. Most of all I would like to thank Professor András Bozóki for his help, advice, and guidance while writing this research, as well as for his valuable additions to my work.
    [Show full text]
  • Politics of Child Adoption: Comparative Analysis of Russia and Kyrgyzstan
    POLITICS OF CHILD ADOPTION: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RUSSIA AND KYRGYZSTAN By Kaukhar Asylbekova Thesis submitted to the department of International and Comparative Politics of the American University of Central Asia in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts Bishkek 2014 THIS SENIOR THESIS IS DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF MY FATHER ASYLBEKOV BAKTYBEK 1961-2010 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe great many thanks to a great many people who helped and supported me during writing this senior project. First, I will forever be thankful to my thesis supervisor Medet Tiulegenov. And also to our professor of senior thesis seminar class Emil Dzhuraev. ii ABSTRACT The importance of orphans’ future has been a believe it or not topic among political scholars. While some argue that there should be an inter-country adoption, due to globalization and liberalization, others claim that there should be a strict control over institution of adoption and there should be restrictions over inter-country adoptions. Despite the fact that the problem of child abandonment has not yet been solved in Russia and Kyrgyzstan, in recent years the issue of prohibition or temporary restriction on international adoption of children has been constantly raised. During the research about institute of adoption, I have set myself a task to understand whether the imposed restrictions and bans on the institute of international adoption in Kyrgyzstan and Russia were developments of the institution or on the contrary, deterioration of orphans’ situation. This paper provides comparative analysis of the institutions of adoption in Russia and Kyrgyzstan, as well as analysis of bans on inter-country adoption.
    [Show full text]