DOCSLIB.ORG

Human Rights in Russia: an Overview

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

HUMAN RIGHTS IN RUSSIA: AN OVERVIEW HEARING BEFORE THE TOM LANTOS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED AND ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION MAY 6, 2010 Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.tlhrc.house.gov TOM LANTOS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts, Cochairman FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia, Cochairman JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois CHRIS SMITH, New Jersey DONNA EDWARDS, Maryland JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota TRENT FRANKS, Arizona TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin AHN “JOSEPH” CAO, Louisiana HANS J. HOGREFE , Democratic Staff Director ELIZABETH HOFFMAN , Republican Staff Director LARS DE GIER , Fellow ALLISON McGUIRE , Fellow ALISON MUELLER , Fellow LESLIE DUDDEN , Intern II C O N T E N T S WITNESSES Karinna Moskalenko, Founder and Director of the International Protection Center in Russia ................................................................. 4 Professor Paul Goble, Director of Research and Publications at the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy ................................................. 10 William Browder, Chief Executive Director of Hermitage Capital Management Ltd. ........................................................................... 15 Tanya Lokshina, Deputy Director Human Rights Watch, Moscow Office............................................................................................. 38 Sam Patten, Senior Program Manager, Eurasia at Freedom House ........................................................................................................ 48 Nina Ognianova, Program Coordinator Europe and Central Asia at the Committee to Protect Journalists ............................................ 52 LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING Prepared Statement of the Honorable James P. McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts and Cochairman of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission ................................................................................................................... 3 Prepared Statement of Karinna Moskalenko ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Prepared Statement of Professor Paul Goble .......................................................................................................................................... 12 Prepared Statement of William Browder................................................................................................................................................ 18 Prepared Statement of Tanya Lokshina .................................................................................................................................................. 42 Prepared Statement of Sam Patten ......................................................................................................................................................... 50 Prepared Statement of Nina Ognianova ................................................................................................................................................. 55 APPENDIX Hearing Notice ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 65 Prepared Statement of the Honorable Chris Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey ................................... 66 III HUMAN RIGHTS IN RUSSIA: AN OVERVIEW THURSDAY, MAY 6, 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, TOM LANTOS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION , Washington, D.C. The Commission met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 2255, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James P. McGovern [cochairman of the Commission] presiding. Cochairman McGOVERN. I think we ought to begin, because I have an opening statement. Hopefully by the time I finish, everybody is going to be here. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to welcome you to today's hearing on the human rights situation in Russia. I would like to thank our Commission fellows, Lars de Gier and Allison McGuire, for all their hard work to make today's hearing happen. While the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s completely changed Russia's political landscape, human rights concerns remain eerily similar. Freedom of expression, attacks on a free media and political opposition, the rule of law, religious freedom, corruption, ethnic tensions and violent crackdowns are just as relevant now as they were two decades ago. The Russian Federation remains a crucial world power of critical importance to the United States in many vital policy areas, including but not limited to nuclear proliferation issues, dealing with Iran and North Korea, disarmament agreements, global warming, the war on terror, and the international economic crisis. I therefore applaud our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for working hard to strengthen and deepen our ties with Russia and the Russian people, which reflect the important role Russia continues to play today. The fruits of this hard labor became obvious on April 8th when the President signed a new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia. Despite these successes, however, much still needs to be done. When the Obama administration announced with regard to Russia that the United States was willing to hit a symbolic "reset button," I was and remain seriously concerned about how the Russian administration is reading the implications of this gesture. As I have repeatedly stated, hitting the reset button cannot suggest that we are simply walking away from the past, wiping the slate clean, and closing our eyes to history. In no area is such ignorance more delusional and dangerous than in the area of human rights, because it enshrines impunity, and impunity for human rights violations cannot be the quid pro quo for successful collaboration in other areas. Rather, human rights discourse must be an integral part of our relationship with Russia, as it should be with any other country. If the despicable slayings of human rights heroes like Anna Politkovskaya in 2006 and that of Natalya Estemirova in 2009 are not met with justice for the 1 perpetrators, and if Anastasia Baburova and Stanislav Markelov can be killed in broad daylight on a busy Moscow street in 2009, there are far greater consequence also for the Russian Federation as a whole than simple murder statistics can ever suggest. The chilling effect on human rights activists, journalists and the political opposition stifles any public criticism and dialogue between civil society and Russian leaders, whether that be on democratic reform, Russian policies in the North Caucasus or corruption, religious freedom, and the rule of law. In Russia, the human rights situation is further exacerbated by extremely weak legal institutions and by corruption, frequently targeting critics of the President or the Prime Minister. Increasingly, tax laws and politically motivated charges under other technical laws have been used in Russian courts to single out power businessmen, such as Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Platon Lebedev or Sergei Magnitsky because they were critical of the Russian leadership or were seen as potential rivals. Other oligarchs, who are proregime, continue to operate freely and without any scrutiny. Those who dare to publicly expose corruption or disagreement with official policies frequently risk nothing less than their lives. According to the 2009 U.S. State Department Country Report on Russia, the Glasnost Defense Foundation documented 59 journalists who were attacked, 8 of whom were killed in 2009. Reporters Without Borders reported for 2009, "Media freedom in Russia has not significantly improved over the past decade. Radio and TV news diversity is still lacking, independent media outlets are harassed by police and courts and those who kill journalists are not punished. Most recently, violence against journalists and human rights activists has increased significantly." According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, a vaguely worded new press law currently under consideration further expands the reach of security agents to censor the press, ostensibly in order to combat extremism. Activists who work in the volatile North Caucasus region, such as the NGO Memorial, face similar threats to their lives. The State Department report warned that the situation there remained an area of particular concern and indicated that the human rights record had actually worsened. Regarding this volatile region, the report suggests that "local government and insurgent forces reportedly engaged in killing, torture, abuse, violence, politically motivated abductions and other brutal or humiliating treatment, often with impunity." The international community, including the United States, does not underestimate the terror threat that Russia faces. We all vividly remember the attacks on the school in Beslan in 2004 by Chechen terrorists, which ended in a bloodbath with at least 334 people dead, including 186 children, when Russian forces stormed the school. More recently, a whole spate of attacks in the first half of this year, including the March Moscow Metro bombing which killed 39 individuals, drove home again in the starkest way possible that Russia continues to face a lethal terrorism threat. Now, all of these developments command our attention. Every killing committed by powerful political circles against journalists and government critics, or by neo-Nazi
Recommended publications
  • Policy Department External Policies CITIZENS in DANGER HUMAN

    Policy Department External Policies CITIZENS in DANGER HUMAN

    BRIEFING PAPER Policy Department External Policies CITIZENS IN DANGER HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOM IN PUTIN’S RUSSIA HUMAN RIGHTS February 2008 JANUARY 2004 EN This briefing paper was requested by the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights. This study is published in the following languages: EN, FR (OR), RU Author: Marie Mendras, researcher Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris Administrator: Andrea Subhan Directorate-General for External Policies Policy Department BD4 06 M 071 rue Wiertz, 60 B-1047 Brussels Manuscript completed in February 2008. This study is available on the Internet at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies.do?language=FR Brussels: European Parliament, 2008. The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. ©European Communities, 2008 Marie Mendras is a researcher at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), and Russia expert at the Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Internationales (CERI). She teaches at Sciences Po University in Paris. She runs the Observatoire de la Russie at CERI and in particular has published Comment fonctionne la Russie ? Le politique, le bureaucrate et l’oligarque, Autrement, 2003, and La Russie de Poutine, Pouvoirs, Le Seuil, 2005. Her publications in English include: Russia and Europe. The Challenge of Proximity, Europa Institut Zürich, Schulthess, 2004, ‘Back to the Besieged Fortress?’ in Putin’s Empire, Stefan Batory Foundation, Warsaw, 2007, ‘Authority and Identity in Russia’ in Katlijn Malfliet, ed., Elusive Russia, Leuven, 2007. Marie Mendras studied at Essex University, Sciences Po Paris, Institut des Langues et Civilisations Orientales, Johns Hopkins University Bologna Center, and Harvard University.
  • Young People and Human Rights in Russia: Paradoxes and Controversies

    Young People and Human Rights in Russia: Paradoxes and Controversies

    YOUNG PEOPLE AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN RUSSIA: PARADOXES AND CONTROVERSIES Pavel Chikov A large-scale representative survey has been conducted In this essay, we would like to focus on how public by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation jointly with Russia’s opinion and state propaganda influence the youth. Last Levada Center targeting the Russian youth. A total year, our organization produced a report under the title, of 1500 young people aged from 14 to 29 years old Society vs. Authorities: the Difficulties of Voicing Public responded to a questionnaire; and a number of focus Concerns¹. In it, we talked about how society in Russia groups were organized to address its questions. When has been finding ways to make the state notice and listen asked to name a value that matters most to them, the to serious public concerns and analyzed how perceptive youth collectively answered that it was human rights. As the general public is to a formalized public opinion. Our many as 42% of the respondents selected human rights conclusion was that yes, it is very perceptive, that the as their top value, and 76% included human rights in general public can produce active or passive response the top three values of their choice. This essay seeks to [depending on circumstances], has a tendency to trust identify the reasons behind that choice. [the authorities] and does not always think critically. In this report we looked at how society has been making In general, one way to describe the assessments given progress over the past 10 years in getting human rights by the Russian youth to the country’s social and political issues on the publicly discussed agenda.
  • The Arrest and Detention of Alexei Navalny in January 2021

    The Arrest and Detention of Alexei Navalny in January 2021

    http://assembly.coe.int Doc. 15270 19 April 2021 The arrest and detention of Alexei Navalny in January 2021 Report1 Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Rapporteur: Mr Jacques MAIRE, France, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Summary Alexei Navalny was arrested and detained in January 2021 for having breached the terms of a suspended sentence passed in the so-called Yves Rocher case. In February 2021, he was sentenced to two years and eight months in prison. The European Court of Human Rights (the Court) has ruled that Mr Navalny’s conviction in the Yves Rocher case violated his right to a fair trial and the prohibition on punishment without law, and called for the domestic courts to remedy these violations. The Russian Supreme Court reopened the case but maintained the verdict and sentence. The Committee of Ministers has called for Mr Navalny’s conviction to be quashed and for him to be released without delay. The European Court of Human Rights has also granted an interim measure requiring the Russian authorities to release Mr Navalny. The committee notes with concern that Mr Navalny’s health has deteriorated significantly in detention, in possible violation of the prohibition on inhuman treatment or punishment; that other aspects of his detention conditions raise further issues under the European Convention on Human Rights; and that his complaints about these issues have gone largely unanswered. The committee therefore proposes that the Assembly express its support for the position of the Committee of Ministers; call on the Russian Federation to co-operate towards full execution of the Court’s judgment, to release Mr Navalny, and pending that to provide him with all necessary medical care and ensure full respect for his rights; invite the Committee for the Prevention of Torture or Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) to visit Mr Navalny’s place of detention; and call on the Russian delegation to co-operate with follow-up to the Assembly’s resolution.
  • Corruption in Russia: Reasons for the Growth

    Corruption in Russia: Reasons for the Growth

    Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 336 5th International Conference on Social Science and Higher Education (ICSSHE 19) Corruption in Russia: Reasons for the Growth V.V. Moiseev I. V. Goncharova Belgorod State Technological University named after V.G. Orel State University named after I.S. Turgenev Shukhov Orel, 302026, Russia Belgorod, 308012, Russia [email protected] G. S. Chuvardin Orel State University named after I.S. Turgenev Orel, 302026, Russia Abstract—The scale of increased corruption in Russia is such Council did not bring tangible results, since its composition that it began to threaten the national security of our country. was practically no longer assembled, and soon it was abolished, This conclusion belongs not only to the authors of this article, without becoming a viable political institution. who have been conducting research in this field for a long time, but also to the head of state, who recently signed a special Pursuant to the President’s instructions, a special directive on national security. The main goal of the authors of the commission of the State Duma was created to prepare article was to show why corruption in Russia acquired such a proposals for amending existing legislation in order to enhance wide scope, what reasons contributed to its growth in 2000-2019. legal mechanisms to combat corruption. However, a legal In accordance with the purpose of the study, the following main mechanism to combat corruption was not created in 2000-2008: questions were identified: 1) showing the increase in the scale and the State Duma twice passed a law on combating corruption, level of corruption in the country in 2000-2019; 2) to analyze the and both times, President Vladimir Putin rejected it, using the causes of weak anti-corruption in Russia; 3) showing the role of right of veto.
  • Russia 2012-2013: Attack on Freedom / 3 Introduction

    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
  • The Hundred Russian Whistleblowers the Subject Referring to Protection Of

    The Hundred Russian Whistleblowers the Subject Referring to Protection Of

    Report of the International Human Rights Group Agora The hundred Russian whistleblowers The subject referring to protection of individuals who reveal information about violations to the public gets more and more topical not only in Russia, where the whistleblowers are regularly subjected to retaliation, including murders, violence, prosecution and imposing of disciplinary measures, but also in the rest of the world. The questions relevant to protection of whistleblowers have become subject to discussions in the UN, OSCE, Council of Europe, OECD, the bodies of the European Union and the G20. Up to date the national legislations of more than 60 countries envisage various measures aimed at guaranteeing of security and protection from retaliation of individuals who objectively act in favor of society by revealing of inaccessible information. The review of the subject relevant to protection of whistleblowers shall include the existing materials in the field. Mainly the Project on basic principles of laws on reporting of facts about corruption and illegal activities1 realized by Transparency International and the report of experts of this organization published in 2012 on ‘Corruption Reporting and Whistleblower Protection’2 describing in details the existing international and foreign approaches that may be used at elaboration of mechanisms for protection of individuals who report violations of greater size. The assurance of access to information is one of the problems closely related to the protection of whistleblowers. According to a report of Team 29 ‘The right to know’ the practice in Russia when it comes to assurance of access to information is not always in conformity to the international requirements and often contradicts to these requirements3.
  • HIV and Incarceration: Prisons and Detention Ralf Jürgens1*, Manfred Nowak2 and Marcus Day3

    HIV and Incarceration: Prisons and Detention Ralf Jürgens1*, Manfred Nowak2 and Marcus Day3

    Jürgens et al. Journal of the International AIDS Society 2011, 14:26 http://www.jiasociety.org/content/14/1/26 REVIEW Open Access HIV and incarceration: prisons and detention Ralf Jürgens1*, Manfred Nowak2 and Marcus Day3 Abstract The high prevalence of HIV infection among prisoners and pre-trial detainees, combined with overcrowding and sub-standard living conditions sometimes amounting to inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of international law, make prisons and other detention centres a high risk environment for the transmission of HIV. Ultimately, this contributes to HIV epidemics in the communities to which prisoners return upon their release. We reviewed the evidence regarding HIV prevalence, risk behaviours and transmission in prisons. We also reviewed evidence of the effectiveness of interventions and approaches to reduce the risk behaviours and, consequently, HIV transmission in prisons. A large number of studies report high levels of risk behaviour in prisons, and HIV transmission has been documented. There is a large body of evidence from countries around the world of what prison systems can do to prevent HIV transmission. In particular, condom distribution programmes, accompanied by measures to prevent the occurrence of rape and other forms of non-consensual sex, needle and syringe programmes and opioid substitution therapies, have proven effective at reducing HIV risk behaviours in a wide range of prison environments without resulting in negative consequences for the health of prison staff or prisoners. The introduction of these programmes in prisons is therefore warranted as part of comprehensive programmes to address HIV in prisons, including HIV education, voluntary HIV testing and counselling, and provision of antiretroviral treatment for HIV-positive prisoners.
  • 10.1057/9780230282940.Pdf

    10.1057/9780230282940.Pdf

    St Antony’s Series General Editor: Jan Zielonka (2004– ), Fellow of St Antony’s College, Oxford Othon Anastasakis, Research Fellow of St Antony’s College, Oxford and Director of South East European Studies at Oxford Recent titles include: Julie Newton and William Tompson (editors) INSTITUTIONS, IDEAS AND LEADERSHIP IN RUSSIAN POLITICS Celia Kerslake , Kerem Oˇktem, and Philip Robins (editors) TURKEY’S ENGAGEMENT WITH MODERNITY Conflict and Change in the Twentieth Century Paradorn Rangsimaporn RUSSIA AS AN ASPIRING GREAT POWER IN EAST ASIA Perceptions and Policies from Yeltsin to Putin Motti Golani THE END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, 1948 The Diary of Sir Henry Gurney Demetra Tzanaki WOMEN AND NATIONALISM IN THE MAKING OF MODERN GREECE The Founding of the Kingdom to the Greco-Turkish War Simone Bunse SMALL STATES AND EU GOVERNANCE Leadership through the Council Presidency Judith Marquand DEVELOPMENT AID IN RUSSIA Lessons from Siberia Li-Chen Sim THE RISE AND FALL OF PRIVATIZATION IN THE RUSSIAN OIL INDUSTRY Stefania Bernini FAMILY LIFE AND INDIVIDUAL WELFARE IN POSTWAR EUROPE Britain and Italy Compared Tomila V. Lankina, Anneke Hudalla and Helmut Wollman LOCAL GOVERNANCE IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE Comparing Performance in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Russia Cathy Gormley-Heenan POLITICAL LEADERSHIP AND THE NORTHERN IRELAND PEACE PROCESS Role, Capacity and Effect Lori Plotkin Boghardt KUWAIT AMID WAR, PEACE AND REVOLUTION Paul Chaisty LEGISLATIVE POLITICS AND ECONOMIC POWER IN RUSSIA Valpy FitzGerald, Frances Stewart
  • Committee of Ministers Secrétariat Du Comité Des Ministres

    Committee of Ministers Secrétariat Du Comité Des Ministres

    SECRETARIAT / SECRÉTARIAT SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS SECRÉTARIAT DU COMITÉ DES MINISTRES Contact: Zoë Bryanston-Cross Tel: 03.90.21.59.62 Date: 07/05/2021 DH-DD(2021)474 Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. Meeting: 1406th meeting (June 2021) (DH) Communication from NGOs (Public Verdict Foundation, HRC Memorial, Committee against Torture, OVD- Info) (27/04/2021) in the case of Lashmankin and Others v. Russian Federation (Application No. 57818/09). Information made available under Rule 9.2 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements. * * * * * * * * * * * Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. Réunion : 1406e réunion (juin 2021) (DH) Communication d'ONG (Public Verdict Foundation, HRC Memorial, Committee against Torture, OVD-Info) (27/04/2021) dans l’affaire Lashmankin et autres c. Fédération de Russie (requête n° 57818/09) [anglais uniquement] Informations mises à disposition en vertu de la Règle 9.2 des Règles du Comité des Ministres pour la surveillance de l'exécution des arrêts et des termes des règlements amiables. DH-DD(2021)474: Rule 9.2 Communication from an NGO in Lashmankin and Others v. Russia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.
  • Final 14/09/2009

    Final 14/09/2009

    CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF KUDESHKINA v. RUSSIA (Application no. 29492/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 26 February 2009 FINAL 14/09/2009 This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. KUDESHKINA v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Kudeshkina v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Christos Rozakis, President, Nina Vajić, Anatoly Kovler, Elisabeth Steiner, Dean Spielmann, Giorgio Malinverni, George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 5 February 2009, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 29492/05) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Ms Olga Borisovna Kudeshkina (“the applicant”), on 12 July 2005. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms K. Moskalenko, Ms A. Panicheva and Ms M. Voskobitova, lawyers practising in Strasbourg and Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev and Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3. The applicant alleged that her dismissal from the judiciary, following critical statements by her in the media, violated her right to the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. 4. By a decision of 28 February 2008, the Court declared the application admissible. 5.
  • Russian NGO Shadow Report on the Observance of the Convention

    Russian NGO Shadow Report on the Observance of the Convention

    Russian NGO Shadow Report on the Observance of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by the Russian Federation for the period from 2001 to 2005 Moscow, May 2006 CONTENT Introduction .......................................................................................................................................4 Summary...........................................................................................................................................5 Article 2 ..........................................................................................................................................14 Measures taken to improve the conditions in detention facilities .............................................14 Measures to improve the situation in penal institutions and protection of prisoners’ human rights ..........................................................................................................................................15 Measures taken to improve the situation in temporary isolation wards of the Russian Ministry for Internal Affairs and other custodial places ..........................................................................16 Measures taken to prevent torture and cruel and depredating treatment in work of police and other law-enforcement institutions ............................................................................................16 Measures taken to prevent cruel treatment in the armed forces ................................................17
  • From the Ukraine–Russia War to the Navalny Case: How to Deal with the Kremlin?

    From the Ukraine–Russia War to the Navalny Case: How to Deal with the Kremlin?

    From the Ukraine–Russia War to the Navalny Case: How to Deal with the Kremlin? Nona Mikhelidze No. 12. April 2021 This publication has been funded by the European Union under the Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 769886. ABSTRACT April 2021 . 12 Seven years after the annexation of Crimea and amid an ongoing war in Ukraine, Russia has tried to move towards military escalation in the Donbass region making clear that the status quo emerged in 2014 as a “new normal” cannot last. The Minsk II Agreement negotiated between Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany in the framework of the Normandy Format in February 2015 remains unimplemented despite numerous rounds of mediation. Western economic sanctions against Moscow succeeded in limiting the Kremlin’s military EU-LISTCO Policy Paper Series. Paper EU-LISTCO Policy advance beyond Donbass and deterred it from making further territorial gains. However, these measures failed to impact on Russian decision-making regarding resolution of the conflict. Influencing Russia’s foreign policy is not an easy task, as the country’s conduct of international relations is shaped by domestic factors and the authoritarian nature of its governance. Still, the West needs a strategy in response to the international and domestic wrongdoings already committed by the Kremlin and as a preventative measure to deter Moscow’s future aggression. In order to face the Russian challenge, the West should first design clear rules for its own foreign-policy behaviour based on the primacy of human rights and democracy and then define how to defend universal values abroad, including in Russia.