Testimonies
from
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
LEV PONOMAREV
"Human Rights in Putin''s Russia"
January 31, 2001
BEN DUNLAP: I am a researcher at the Strengthening Democratic Institutions Project and editor of SDI''s bi-monthly publication, Russia Watch. At the SDI Project, we study and assist in whatever small way we can the process of democratization in Russia. One of our recent projects has been what we call "The barriers to backsliding." In that project we have been studying a number of institutions in Russia that can serve as barriers toward potential authoritarian backsliding, especially in the year since President Putin has taken office. One of those institutions— or barriers— is human rights, the idea of human rights, and also the very organizations that defend human rights in Russia. So, today we are pleased to have with us Dr. Lev Ponomarev, who is a leading human rights activist in Russia.
Dr. Ponomarev is originally from the city of Tomsk in Siberia. He is actually a physicist in the proud tradition of scientists/activists in the Soviet Union. He holds a Ph.D. and a higher Doctoral Degree in physics. During Soviet times, Dr. Ponomarev was close to the dissident movement. In 1988 he conceived and became one of the founders of the All-Russian society in memory of victims of political repression, MEMORIAL. Dr. Ponomarev was instrumental in drawing Andrei Sakharov, whom we all know, into MEMORIAL. He played an integral part in Sakharov''s campaign during the election to the Soviet Deputies in 1989.
Dr. Ponomarev was one of the founders, and from 1990-1996 was a co-chairman of the All-Russian political movement, Democratic Russia, which was the leading democratic organization in Russia from 1990 to 1992. In 1990 and 1993, he was elected a deputy in the Russian Parliament. In 1997, he created and became chairman of the public organization, Hot Line, which is the organization that monitors the observance of human rights in Moscow. At the time, he also organized and became the executive director of the movement, For Human Rights. This movement is the only national organization that unites dozens of human rights centers from sixty regions of Russia. In that capacity, Dr. Ponomarev is also the editor-in-chief of a human rights monthly newsletter, also called For Human Rights. He created and became one of the most active members of the Common Action Group, the organization that unites prominent human rights activists in Russia.
Most recently, Dr. Ponomarev played an integral role in organizing the First All-Russian Emergency Congress in Defense of Human Rights, which took place a few weeks ago in Moscow. In his talk today, we hope to hear more about that congress and its results, and also recent interesting work.
DR. PONOMAREV: First of all I would like to thank those who organized this event, because it is a great honor for me to speak at this world-renowned institution, Harvard University. I would like to structure our meeting in the following way. First, I would like to shed some light on the real situation in Russia in regard to human rights and specifically to our organization because there is a campaign -- a certain degree of criticism and bad-mouthing - that our organization is subjected to in the Russian press. So I would like to tell you the truth about it. Then I would like to discuss various organizations that exist in the area of human rights. And from describing those little organizations, I would like to come to a general picture and describe the whole community of people who are engaged in the fight for human rights.
So what is a typical human rights organization? This is how it is generally structured. There is a reception area. These reception areas or centers are publicized; they are advertised in newspapers and on the radio. They may be open for two, three or even seven days a week so that the general public can come to register their complaints. A person, a citizen, can complain about abuses from the government or from any government bureaucrat, but not about any other types of conflicts, for example conflicts between individuals. If such conflicts arise, a person can go to complain to the militia or police.
To illustrate how it works: for instance, if there was a fight, some kind of a conflict that resulted in a fight between two individuals, and one of them was punched, and he goes and complains to a police officer, and there is no action taken, that is when that citizen can go to one of those human rights centers or reception areas and register his complaint about the inaction of the militia. He can complain that they are not doing their job protecting his security. This is, of course, a very simplified example. It is a typical one, though. We have people lining up when those centers open; people with all kinds of complaints. The first thing we do for them is to evaluate and assess the situation, and then provide free legal advice.
At the second stage of our activity, we take it upon ourselves to advocate for this citizen. In this advocacy capacity, we try to work on behalf of that of citizen whose rights were violated. We then take his case further to government authorities. It is very important in Russia''s current environment to do that for people, because government authorities may not take seriously even a well-written complaint registered by an individual. They will simply sit on it, ignore it for an indefinite period of time. Whereas if we register this complaint, if this complaint is on our stationery and signed by someone like me whose name is relatively well known, they pay more attention to it.
Then if the case turns out to be more interesting or outstanding, we try to attract the media. We try to call a press conference. We know how to get the information published in the newspaper or on the TV. This is a very important function. It is what makes us more influential.
The total volume of our operations is about 1,500-2,000 letters per year. This is what our organization does. We write complaints to the President''s Administration; we write complaints to prosecutors'' office on behalf of citizens whose rights were violated. That turns our organization from a small group of dissidents into an active successful factory -- mass production on behalf of the citizens. This is what we have become.
Again, we cannot do anything on our own. You have to understand that we can only register our complaint. We can write and call the prosecutor''s office -- the prosecutor''s office is the main body or governmental entity that can launch a case and can seriously pursue it. Curiously, we complain about the actions of some government bureaucrats. Then we go to another governmental organization and try to seek remedy through their assistance. This is actually what happens. We do deal with bad bureaucrats with the help of another governmental entity.
I was asked to give some specific cases. I will get to that after I tell you a general story. Based on our caseload of about 1,500-2,000 a year, we accumulate a significant volume of information about activities of certain governmental institutions. Government agencies that abuse human rights consistently become our targets. We then concentrate our efforts on trying to change things with these agencies, and we publicize their violations. Some people mistakenly believe that our activities are directed against the government in general. This is not really what we are all about.
Now, about the structure of human rights organizations: most of them are united and are under the umbrella of certain all-Russia human rights organizations. As one example, MEMORIAL, one of the oldest human rights organizations in existence now, has been around for over ten years. It has over 100 offices all over Russia. Its main goal is to advocate for former political prisoners, trying to rehabilitate and help them. There is also a widespread network of offices for the Soldiers'' Mothers Committee. This is a very needed organization in Russia where, as you know in the military, great abuses exist directed toward young soldiers. They are beaten up and are sometimes killed while serving. This committee does great work.
There is also an organization that helps people who were forced to migrate. This is a network of organizations called Civil Assistance. These people tried to open their offices near the sources of conflict where migration is the largest -- for instance in Ingushetia. They try to see as many people as possible through their reception center and help them during this difficult period of their lives.
There is a network of organizations that are all linked up to a head office in Moscow. They deal with freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
Then finally, our movement, our organization that is basically a general-purpose human rights organization, provides assistance to people in all the areas we discussed before. It is especially important in the areas, cities and towns where specialized assistance, for instance, in the area of migration, freedom of speech, and rights of journalists, is not available. This is when we come in. We provide general services for all kinds of human rights violations. This organization is called For Human Rights.
Even though this organization, For Human Rights, was formally registered in 1997, just a few years ago, it could be considered a much older entity because it was in 1997 when we formally recognized a cooperative nature of the organizations that existed there before it was given the name, For Human Rights. 1997 was an important year. Our organization was started formally, and they also created a roundtable of human rights organizations in Moscow that was called Common Cause or Common Action Group. This organization consists of various all-Russian human rights organizations that existed there. They decided to sit down and form a joint congress of sorts with our organization For Human Rights.
This organization, Common Action Group or Common Cause, includes all the organizations that I talked about including Memorial, For Human Rights, and various individual human rights activists. We all get together on a bi-weekly basis and discuss our issues.
The last important event that was put together by Common Cause was the Emergency Congress in Defense of Human Rights which took place just a couple of weeks ago in Moscow. This is where all the organizations were represented. This is a unique kind of a congress or conference, which happened in Russia for the first time. We called it an Emergency Congress in Defense of Human Rights. This word emergency was not here by mistake.
We began to notice deterioration in human rights starting in the middle of last year. This is when we began to plan this emergency congress. Things were deteriorating on all fronts: actions by the government against specific individuals, general executive orders by President Putin, many visible things like the arrest of Gusinsky, and many things less known and visible that happened locally and became known to our members on the ground.
We were convinced that if we remained in our regular mode, our voice would not be heard. We needed to do something more influential, something more alarming. This congress was that kind of event. We realized that if we issued individual statements regarding each individual violation, we would not get published; we would not get press or TV coverage. But if we assembled a group of influential human rights personalities and organizations -- over 100 -- we would be better covered, and better heard. There were 330 regional delegates represented at this conference. These were people from the Russian Federation and other NIS countries, not including Moscow representatives. About 100 people from Moscow were represented.
As a result, we had so many people -- over 1,200 including guests— of this congress that we couldn''t fit everyone into the ballroom that had a capacity of 1,000 people. Some people had to be seated in the lobby, and we had to provide speakers and microphones so that they could hear what was going on in the room. There were about 180 journalists accredited for the conference.
You all noticed that congress I am sure. We adopted several resolutions. Our next phase is to decide how the human rights community is going to exist and what direction we should take. Sadly, in spite of the presence of 180 journalists, the coverage we received was very poor. Only two newspapers seriously covered this event. The rest of the coverage was either negative or incompetent. Those who were represented there were looking for sensational coverage. They were looking for the presence of some controversial figures, and they were looking for a scandal. They were pretty much trying to find entertainment at this congress. As a result, it did not receive serious coverage, but rather superficial.
Some newspapers put the emphasis on how well we fed our human rights activists. I guess these people who were covering the event were looking for this kind of information for a kind of sensationalism. I guess what they paid attention to was how expensive the dinners at the hotel were. We needed to hold the congress in a large hotel so we arranged for the congress to take place at the Kosmos Hotel in Moscow, which is large. It had one large room, which we needed, and five breakout rooms. The cost of those dinners was $15. They could not reduce their price at the hotel.
I would say that overall the coverage was so negative and well organized against our congress and its participants in human rights activities that it resembled the type of anti-human rights propaganda that existed under the Soviet rule. The type of coverage, the type of libel that we read about ourselves, was very similar to what we read in the Soviet newspapers. The positive signal that we receive from this type of coverage is that we were noticed. I think that this was a reaction to us as a positive force. It was a reaction to something that is "for real." It is the reaction of people who are launching a serious, well-organized campaign against human rights ideology.
Why do you think this happened? Why was the coverage so negative? Why were they so much up in arms against us? We are doing such a modest thing; we are trying to help our people. I think the key to their negative reaction was our resolutions. We adopted several resolutions as a result of this congress. The first one was on Chechnya. We called for the immediate resumption of negotiations with Maskhadov. This resolution was taken to Strasbourg and it was announced there.
We were very much against the weakening of Western resolve and pressure on Russia. We accused the West of complacency. We believed that the West allowed Russia to talk them into their complacency. As a result, Russia would be given a vote in Strasbourg, and it would give them carte blanche to continue their operations in Chechnya.
I think where we stand right now is more consistent then where the Western governments stand. We are perhaps more radical and more persistent in our opposition, while certain people in the West perhaps believe that we are criticizing the government, and we are betraying the Russian government position. We feel lonely in our stand.
I think we understand the situation in Chechnya pretty clearly. We came to this resolution based on our numerous visits to the region. Our representatives have just returned from Chechnya and Ingushetia before the congress started. They saw with their own eyes what was going on on the ground in Chechnya. So I think we are very sober and very realistic about what is going on in Chechnya. Our resolution should not be seen as a criticism of Putin''s government, but rather as a criticism of the events in that region.
The resolution on Chechnya was adopted almost unanimously with over 90% of the participants voting for it. Among them were people from Moscow who were perhaps more politicized than representatives from the regions. Yet, they voted the same way as the representatives from, say, Siberia, who have not gone to Chechnya, who do not visit it, and who don''t have much at stake there.
The second resolution that was adopted was to protect the constitutional structure of the Russian Federation. The Russian Constitution that was adopted in 1993 is a constitution of a social-democratic government. I think those chapters of the constitution that deal with human rights issues were well written; they were written based on the best available information and examples accumulated worldwide.
This constitution is very difficult to change. Once it was written, in order for it to be amended, it needs 2/3 of the votes in the Federal Assembly and then 3/4 of the votes of the representatives of the subjects of the Russian Federation. The first two chapters of this constitution that deal with human rights were protected even better than the rest of the constitution. In order to be changed, these two chapters would require a constitutional assembly that would specially gather to vote on these issues. The constitution further says that there will be a law passed that will define the rules on this constitutional assembly. But such a law has not yet been written. The constitution calls for the creation of such a law, and I don''t see anything wrong with trying to write and pass this law. I think it is time for it to be enacted.
However, right now there is a legislative proposal that calls for a simplified procedure that would allow for a faster and simpler changing of the constitution. According to this proposal, the constitutional assembly is formed as follows: 100 representatives from the lower house, and the entire upper house which consists of around 200 representatives, who, as you know are not elected but appointed by the heads of administrations of the regions. And, another 100 people who are generally expected to be lawyers, who would be appointed by the president. Finally, the president himself is going to be a part of this.
Considering this composition of the constitutional assembly, where only 100 people are elected by the people, and even these 100 people come from the lower house which is now controlled by the president, it is feared that this constitutional assembly may be manipulated by the president.
The realities are such that the representative of the Union of Right Forces, Boris Nadezhdin, is introducing this proposed legislation. This Union is composed of representatives of different political views, and some of them are pro-government, others are not. But since the representative of that party will introduce it, it is expected that it will pass, and will pass easily.
We sensed the danger before that law was passed, actually. We, I think, rightly understood where it was all going, and we in the human rights community decided to act quickly. Sergei Kovalev, one of the prominent members of this community, quickly wrote our version of this law, and it was introduced into the Duma.
Our position is that the general population should elect members of the constitutional assembly. This is how it was throughout history, and this is what will give this assembly legitimacy, or at least a larger degree of legitimacy. On the other hand, we understand and we are being realistic about Russia and how things are in Russia now. We understand that even if we go that route and members of the constitutional assembly would be elected, they would still eventually be obedient to the powers that be, and the government could potentially manipulate them. So our opinion right now is to do nothing about the constitution, and we propose a hands-off approach— hands off the constitution.
This is roughly where we stand with this second resolution from our congress. We understand that it is a forward-looking resolution. Right now according to President Putin, he is not going to change the constitution - he does not have any intentions - but we want people to understand that the danger is there, that potentially there could be an assault on the constitution, and we would want to be ready and prepared.
These were the two main resolutions that we adopted at this congress. Altogether there were over 30 resolutions, which were less political in nature. These other resolutions deal with various aspects and issues relating to human rights. The most important outcome of our congress, I believe, is that we decided to create working groups that would concentrate on different aspects of human rights. These working groups, we believe, should continue to operate until the next congress. The situation that we have here as a result of it is quite unique. Even though, legally, we did not create a new entity, a new kind of umbrella organization that would be formally registered and take the place of the human rights organization, in reality, this is what happened at this congress. We all got together, and de facto we are going to work together as one unified force.
I am ready for questions.
QUESTION: Can you give a specific example of a case?
PONOMAREV: I would say that this is a typical case. Many appeals that we hear from citizens have this mystery to them. The lawyer for a certain farmer named Nikolai Dubina called us and said that his client was in jail awaiting trial. He was being accused of using drugs, and that the narcotics were planted by another party. They registered this complaint that he did not actually have possession of any narcotics, but that this was being ignored by the prosecutor''s office. They were going ahead and were going to put him in prison. In this specific case, the farmer was a man of vast age; he was a former director of a collective farm and a well-known individual in the region. We were puzzled by the motives. He was a person who enjoyed a good reputation and had been issued credits by banks, and so on.
It turned out that the case was that he, indeed, relying on his good reputation, entered into a joint venture with a couple of individuals in the region. He borrowed $500,000, and I guess gave them the money to carry out this project. They did not do the job. They needed to return the money to him, but they didn''t have it. So, they decided to put him in jail. This man was pushing for his money back, and eventually they said, "Okay fine, we''ll get together." He went for the rendezvous with a witness - and fortunately there was a witness who stayed outside and observed what happened. The business partner who came to see the farmer approached him and said that he did not have the money on him. Then suddenly his cell phone rang, and he began talking on the phone. At the same time, the farmer Dubina was jumped by a bunch of people and was arrested. They put his hands behind his back, put him in the car, and whisked him away. His friend, the observer, saw the whole scene, and thought it was kidnapping. He was alarmed by this whole scene, and he called the militia and reported it as kidnapping.
It turned out that he was arrested by people in plain clothes. They turned out to be police officers, militia. As they were putting him into their car, and putting his hands behind his back, they squeezed some narcotics into his back pockets. He felt it, he heard it, and this is what happened.
At the time of the arrest, knowing where the wind was blowing, knowing what was going on because he was an experienced man, and he felt that there was something fishy about it, he asked the militia to do the forensic tests that he knew were required under the circumstances. They needed to cut his fingernails and do other tests on his fingertips to determine whether there were traces of drugs on his hands. But they refused to that. They refused to administer the forensic tests.
At that time, we lodged our complaint against the prosecutor''s office. We wanted it to go in two directions: one, to defend this farmer against the accusation of drug possession, and two, against the illegal placement of narcotics at the time of the arrest. I should mention that we appealed to our local deputy to strengthen our case. We didn''t just go and complain to the prosecutor''s office; we sought help from the local representative. Our joint efforts led to the farmer''s temporary release from jail. The trial went, but at least he was not in jail during the trial.
What happened in Russia in the past was that we used to say that if a person is in jail, he is likely to continue to stay in jail. If he is free, the likelihood of his staying out of jail is higher. Kind of a Soviet entropy. So this is what happened at the time. He indeed was freed, and it was determined that he was not guilty. Our next battle is to try to go after those two corrupt militia officers who placed the drugs into his pocket.
We believe that the prosecutor''s office was also tied into this deal, that they were also corrupt and part of the scheme. What suggests that is that when we asked the prosecutor''s office to release the person before the trial, they refused to do that. They waited for the trial and the decision in order to release him. This is one of hundreds of stories.
QUESTION: Is there a governmental agency or an office at the president''s administration, perhaps, that is in charge of human rights -- that is responsible for monitoring human rights?
PONOMAREV: First of all, the prosecutor''s office has to be in charge of the protection of human rights. The second one is the ombudsman''s office, which is an elected position. It is at the legislative level -- the Ombudsman for Human Rights of the Russian Federation. This specific person, whose name is Oleg Mironov, was a former communist. He used to work very poorly. Now he is improving, and we are working in contact with him,
As a matter of fact, he addressed our congress. We liked his speech. It was very positive and aggressive. He said that he was going after human rights violations, and that he wants to continue working with us. Naturally enough, as a result of his increased activity, we learned that certain structures connected with the FSB and with president''s office are trying to remove him from his position.
Thirdly, there is a President''s Commission on Human Rights in the Executive Branch. They do nothing. He addressed our congress as well, and the sense of his presentation was that everything is fine with human rights in Russia. There are no violations. To my surprise, instead of booing him out of the congress, people simply kept quiet and reacted to him as people would react to a madman.
QUESTION: I just want to ask for a clarification about something you brought up earlier. I thought it was that the West had betrayed the Russian human rights movement.
PONOMAREV: Yes, I did mean what I said before. I think by allowing Russia''s vote on the last session the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), the West betrayed our struggle for human rights. We believe that what happens in Chechnya, and what is happening is Chechnya is very alarming. We discussed the term "genocide" during our congress. It is legal term, and we were very concerned about not abusing this term. But we used different formulations, for example, the "first signs of genocide," or the "beginning of genocide," or the "symptoms of genocide." But in the face of hundreds of thousands of people being killed, people dying in Chechnya, we believe that the West needs to apply more pressure on Russia. By being complacent, by playing along with Putin, the West betrays Russia''s true interests.
Our position is such that we are not against using force in Chechnya. Moreover, having troops there is a very good way to begin negotiations - from a position of power. We do believe that it is necessary to fight against the bandits. We believe that right now is the best time to start negotiating with Chechen leaders, while the troops are in Chechnya.
The reality is such that the troops are going to stay there. They will just report to different leaders. But negotiations will not resume. We believe that the negotiations should resume with actual Chechen leaders, not the people who are connected to Moscow, in as much as they could be nice guys. But, rather with people like Maskhadov and like other field commanders who are leaders of the enemy.
QUESTION: On the question of religious freedom, I think it was about three years ago that these new religious laws were enacted. Since then, certainly here in the West we read about harassment, and in some cases the closing down of certain religious groups. Does that come under human rights? Does a group like the Association of Religious Liberty participate with you on these kinds of things?
PONOMAREV: We are aware of this problem. We know it exists, and we know that the situation is not very bright in this area. But as much as we are aware that there are assaults on religious freedom, there are organizations that deal with that, including the one that is headed by Mironov. And it was not discussed much during this congress because we believe that this particular set of issues is being addressed adequately by the existing organizations that concern themselves with religious freedom.
QUESTION: I am a Chechen. My name is Xasan Baev. I know how important your work is in Russia. I know how human rights are being violated in Russia constantly. You know that it is so hard to be discriminated against, to have your human rights violated. I personally was arrested seven times in one day in Moscow. Seven times I was brought into the militia office in Moscow. I had to pay them off to get out. When I was arrested, I was held in jail in inhumane conditions, and went through humiliating things that I do not want to discuss here. This was just because I am a Chechen. (Continued in Russian).
INTERPRETER: The gentleman suffered all kinds of indignities and tried to seek help from various human rights organizations. He named a few. He did not get any help and emphasizes that it is so important to do what Mr. Ponomarev''s organization is doing.
PONOMAREV: We deal with this issue, and have been dealing with this issue specifically in Moscow. I, personally, went through a legal procedure -- I appealed to the court to release several young Chechens who were arrested, not knowing these people. I just gave them my word that I stood behind them so that they would be released. Among our accomplishments in this area is the reversal of Luzhkov''s ordinance issued right after the explosion in the Moscow Metro requiring re-registration of all the visitors in Moscow. We accomplished that, and the order was reversed. This is the unprecedented case when one of Mayor Luzhkov''s decisions was reversed through a citizen action.
DUNLAP: Please join me in thanking Dr. Ponomarev.
PONOMAREV: Thank you very much for your patience and for you very professional questions.