The contradictions inherent in the IDP problem show that it is signally important to work out common approaches to the problems of help and protection, international protection included. In 1998, Representative of the UN Secretary-General Mr. Francis M. Deng compiled the report the “Guiding principles on Internally Displaced Persons.” This report was offered as a guide to action in relation to IDPs when acting on a UN mandate, for states, all official structures, groups of persons and individuals in their relations with IDPs and for intergovernmental organizations and NGOs. The Guiding Principles and the suggestions on their application1 are the only international document that can be applied to an analysis of the situation in each particular case.
The Guiding Principles describe this category of people as those who “have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State borders”. Russian laws know no such category that makes it difficult to apply the Guiding Principles in Russia.
In Russia forced migrations inside the country are classed according to their causes. In case of natural or technetronic calamities the government issues special decisions related to each particular instance of such calamity. They are very limited and mostly neglected, at least in part, yet they do offer those who lived through a calamity a certain amount of state support.
The victims of armed conflicts and military actions are in the worst possible situation: if the state is one of the sides in the conflict it looks at IDPs as the conflict instigators and denies them adequate assistance. Forced migrants, the category recognized by Russian legislation, are the closest category to IDP. The Law of the RF “On Forced Migrants” applies to the Russian citizens that move to Russia from other countries and to IDPs. The former are, in fact, repatriates to whom no law is applied, partly because it is too hard to formulate a conception of such law. The Law “On Forced Migrants” appeared as a derivative of the Law of the RF “On Refugees.” As a result, the definition of the forced migrant nearly exactly repeats the definition of a refugee. The only difference is that the forced migrant is a citizen of Russia. Those who apply for the forced migrant status have to prove that they were discriminated against for ethnic, confessional, political or social reasons. The definition also mentions mass disorders yet it does not say whether they were an independent defining feature or a possible outcome of such discrimination.
As a result of lack of clarity in 1999–2000, as distinct from the period between 1991 and 1996, practically no victims of armed actions got the forced migrant status. The authorities preferred to interpret the forced migrant in a different way than in 1996 when “mass disorders” served the reason of granting the status. What happened is absolutely clear: the first wave of people from Chechnya were mainly Russians; by the beginning of the second war nearly all Russians had left the republic. It was Chechens who fled bombings and arbitrary rule of the military in great numbers. There is evidence of an instruction not to grant the forced migrant status to the Chechens (see Section II and Appendix 2 ).
There is no law under which the state should extend its support to IDPs. The Guiding Principles reflect the international human rights norms and the provisions of international humanitarian laws that are part of the Russian legislation. From this it follows that they should be observed in Russia even if domestic legislation contains no definition of IDP.
I regret to say that Russian realities are far removed from the UN principles.
Contrary to Principle 1, the Chechens who found shelter in other subjects of the Russian Federation and who live with friends and relatives are deprived of equal rights with the local population. They cannot register with the structures of the Interior Ministry ; what is more, they and those who give them shelter are equally punished (see Section II). They are unemployable, their children are denied school education (see Section III). In some regions they cannot get medical assistance. I should say that the Ministry of Health is the only state structure that nearly always responds to applications from IDPs, yet not all those who need treatment can apply there directly.
The developments in Chechnya violate Principle 10 that demands of the state to protect people against murders, lynching, disappearances, and secret arrests. There is an international ban of these actions, threats of them and abetting them. All this happens in Chechnya on a wide scale. Many political leaders and certain media directly instigate these actions.
In violation of Principle 12 people from Chechnya are detained and arrested in violation of legal norms (see Section V and Appendix 3).
Principle 13 bans compulsory conscription of IDPs to the army and their punishment for avoidance of military service. This important principle should be introduced in Russia because compulsory conscription of young Chechens is of a provocative nature.
Conscription in Chechnya started in autumn 2001; 525 young men born between 1875 and 1983 joined the Armed Forces. In response to a deputy inquiry Deputy Chairman of the Government of Chechnya answered: “Despite a complex social and political situation people in Chechnya demonstrated high civil awareness and patriotism.”
The Russian authorities violate generally accepted principle 17: reunification of families in the shortest time possible. They refuse to accept to the centers of temporary accommodation (CTA) close relatives of those few lucky people who managed to get places there.
Principle 20 that demands that IDPs be supplied with all the necessary documents (passport, birth and marriage certificates) is regularly violated: the Interior Ministry insists that these people get their documents in places of their permanent domicile (Chechnya). Meanwhile a trip there may end in deprivation of freedom or even death. The same applies to the disabled who cannot get passports in places of their temporal accommodation (see Section II).
Principle 18 that insists on an adequate living level for IDPs is not observed either: it does not fit even the very low living level of the entire population. The majority of IDPs from Chechnya has no means of subsistence, lives by chance jobs, tiny assistance coming from NGOs and private persons, and old-age pensions of those who managed to get them paid.
The right of property according to Principle 21 is ignored: IDPs are arbitrarily deprived of the main type of property in Russia: dwellings and personal property (see Section III).
Other types of property are outside of their reach: nearly all small and medium Chechen businesses were destroyed; big businesses less dependent on politics or cooperating with the authorities survived. A small fraction of the victims of the hostilities in Chechnya acquired the right to tiny compensations. These are the people who left the Chechen Republic forever December 12, 1994, to November 23, 1996, that is, during the first period of military actions. There are no normative documents to regulate compensations for lost property to those who left Chechnya since fall 1999 when the second stage of armed actions began. The property left behind is destroyed and plundered.
The Russian authorities that strive to return IDPs to Chechnya by depriving them of food in the Ingush camps violate Principle 28 that obliges the authorities to create conditions and supply means to safe and dignified return of IDPs to their homes and places of permanent domicile (see Appendix 4).
Finally, the authorities do not completely abide by Principle 30 that demands that international humanitarian and local NGOs be allowed to meet IDPs and that such organizations should receive all possible assistance in their work (see Appendix 5).
One should say that the rights of women mentioned in the “Guiding Principles” have taken a very specific form in Russia: the families of IDPs are totally dependent on women. Despite certain difficulties one may say that their status in the family has boosted. Because of the police, men rarely venture outside because of possible unmotivated detentions, extortions, and false accusations. This deprives them of a possibility to help their families, their social status is decreasing and they cannot find their bearings in the new conditions. There are families in which fathers and grown-up sons totally rely on small earnings of not so young mothers who work as a domestic help or spend hours selling things in the local market. Men are prone to heart condition and acute nervous and psychic disorders to a greater extent than women.
So, we have seen that the Russian Federation is far removed from observing the UN Guiding Principles, which means that the authorities and the public should be familiarized with the document. This is an urgent task. One hopes that mechanisms able to turn this and similar documents into something much more efficient that simple recommendations will be set up.
The Forced Migrant Status
According to experts, during the second Chechen campaign, 80 percent of the houses in the republic were destroyed; tens of thousands of people are spending the third winter in tents, their only means of subsistence being sporadic humanitarian aid (see Section V).
So far, there is no concrete document about compensation for lost housing and property, yet there is much talk in the official structures about it: when asked by NGOs the government structures reply that a corresponding decision is being elaborated. So far nobody has seen a draft of any such document.
Decision of the RF Government No. 163 of March 3, 2001, “On Funding Upkeep and Food Supplies to the Citizens who Temporarily Left Places of their Permanent Habitation in the Chechen Republic and Living in Places of Temporal Residence, and on Paying for their Transfer to the Places of Habitation in the Chechen Republic in 2001” is neither concrete nor efficient. It was discontinued in 2002 and was not replaced with any other document.
The state has made no attempt to settle the problem of housing for IDPs, the problem that remains the most acute across Russia.
The Decision of the RF Government No. 845 of November 8, 2000, “On Endorsing the Regulations on Housing for Forced Migrants in the RF” applies only to those of the IDPs who got the forced migrant status. There are few of them (see Section II).
The status document is no guarantee of housing since it does not make the state responsible for housing for forced migrants. To be registered in a queue for housing people need registration at places of habitation. The majority of the IDPs do not have it. Registration in a queue for temporal housing includes inspections of the housing conditions of relatives. Those who gave shelter to their relatives should know that they would stay with them forever.
A seminar on “Observance and protection of Human Rights in the Chechen Republic as a Basis of its Democratic Rebirth” organized by the Bureau of the Human Rights Commissar of the Council of Europe took place in Strasbourg on November 26–27, 2001. Among other things it discussed the problem of payments for lost housing and property and protection of the property rights of people from Chechnya.
NGOs pointed out that the country needed a normative document that would specify compensation for lost housing and property for those who suffered in the second Chechen campaign that started in fall 1999 similar to the document issued for the victims of the war of 1994–1996.
The representative of the Department of Regional Development of the RF Government said at the seminar that a draft had been prepared and submitted to the government.
Deputy Igrunov asked the government to let him see the document so that to help improve it.
The government sent his request to the Interior Ministry: presidential decree No. 1230 of October 16, 2001, made it responsible for all migration-related issues.
In January 2002 the ministry informed the deputy that none of the structures had been instructed to draft a similar document and that a draft Rules on Extending State Assistance to the Citizens of the RF who lost their homes and property during the anti-terrorist operations in the Chechen Republic had been drafted in the Ministry of Federation and sent to the governmental commission for restoring the social sphere and economy of Chechnya. The Ministry of Federation was instructed to complete the work; later the Ministry was liquidated and the work on the draft stopped.
From this it follows that there is no hope for those who lost their houses and other property in Chechnya.
There is another important question: the responsibility of the Savings Bank of the RF for the deposits made to its branches in Chechnya. The Savings Bank is a unified state structure functioning across the country, therefore it is responsible for its closed branches and deposits in them.
In 1995 the Government of the RF stopped payments on deposits. This was accompanied by repeated assurances that the Central Bank of Russia would renew payments if the banking system in Chechnya would not be restored in the nearest future. This has not happened yet.
There were several cases when people got their money back through courts with the help of Network lawyers who had to work hard to make this possible. I regret to say that the courts stopped this practice even in places where positive decisions had been passed. In Volgograd one of the judges said that he was instructed “to leave the Savings Bank alone.”
There was an inquiry to the government; the Ministry of Federation answered that on October 25, 2001, the governmental commission for restoring the social sphere and economy of Chechnya approved a draft order compiled by the Savings Bank and coordinated with all interested structures.
On January 15, 2002, the order “On Organizing Work to Compile Lists of Depositors of the Former Chechen Bank of the Savings Bank of Russia who Left Chechnya” was signed by Deputy Interior Minister A. Chekalin and Deputy Chairman of the Board of the Savings Bank G. Melikian and sent out to all ministers of the interior, chiefs of state departments of the interior of the subjects of the Russian Federation, chairmen of the territorial banks of the Savings Bank of Russia.
To be included into the list the citizen should present:
— a savings bank book issued by one of the departments of the former Chechen bank of the Savings Bank of Russia;
— a passport or other identity document;
— a document that confirmed that the citizen lived in Chechnya;
— registration at new place of residence or habitation.
The branches had to compile lists, authenticate them and present to the migration structures.
Conciliatory commissions that included officials of migration structures, the ministry of the interior and the Savings Bank were set up in the subjects of the Russian Federation to consider applications and resolve disagreements.
The work was expected to be finished in two months (from January 21 to March 22, 2002).
It was clear from the very beginning that the mechanism was too complicated to allow the structures involved to complete the task in two months. Our apprehensions proved to be correct. The Network was flooded with complaints: people were not included in the lists because they had no registration, no stamps in the newly issued passports about their previous addresses in Chechnya, no passport, etc. Since many people from Chechnya have no registration at place of their present residence they are deprived of any hope to recover their money. Some of them who found housing in new places, got new passports there and were registered are unable to prove that they lived in Chechnya where all archives were destroyed. Those of the migrants from Chechnya who left Russia cannot get their money back because the Savings Bank has no foreign branches.
To be included in the lists and to get money back are two different things: nobody knows when the bank will start payments.
This shows that restoration of the property rights of those who used to live in Chechnya is stalling.
So far all attempts to recover compensation for material losses and moral damage through courts according to Art. 53 of the Constitution of the RF and the Code of Civil Procedure proved futile. Not infrequently courts reject such claims. Still, the Network lawyers managed, with great difficulties, to start several hundreds of such court cases. The Russian lawyers elaborated a special form of claim. The claims are legally well founded yet the courts rarely side with the claimants, they prefer to reject their claims.
In Pskov the head of the Chechen diaspora Z. Okunchaev asked the state structures to compensate for the lost housing in Grozny. He was refused and went to court. His claim was rejected, the regional court supported this decision.
Alievtina Doronina, 60-year-old teacher of Russian from Grozny, was kidnapped, managed to escape, and reached her friends in Moscow. After a lot of trouble she got the forced migrant status yet all branches of power refused to compensate for her losses and to give her housing because she had left Chechnya after military aclions. Today she is employed by the Civic Assistance Committee, draws a small salary and teaches Russian to Chechen children and children of other migrants. She is still living with friends.
There were two typical court cases of famous attorney Abdula Hamzaev and Hamidov brothers (see Appendix 13 and Appendix 14).
V. The Situation in the Centers of Temporal Accommodation
andthe Ingushetia Tent Camps
Time has come to replace old tents. In winter the UN HCR was doing the job, it is sill going on. No tents were changed in the Alina and Bela camps: commissioned in early 2000 they were considered to be new. Early this year people started complaining that the tents were leaking.
By early April 756 tents were replaced by UN HCR in Ingushetia and 65 new tents added. The International Salvation Committee is also actively involved in improving accommodations: it renovated 800 rooms. The Charity Corps prepared for habitation 224 rooms.
The migrants are also actively involved in improving their housing conditions: they patch over tears in their tents yet this cannot resolve the problem. Old tents are literary falling apart.
The problem of new tents is especially acute in small camps. For example, in the Goskhoz camp (Iandar) the majority of tents have to be replaced yet the camp was not even listed among those needing help. The head of the camp managed to replace part of the tents but this is far from enough. The “Medicines sans Frontiers” from the Netherlands are expecting 400 tents that will go to Aki Iurt. Half of them will arrive by the end of April and will be immediately installed.
The tents are not the only problem: people in the Bart camp (Karabulak) complain that they received no mattresses, the old ones have not been replaced either.
Water, gas, and electricity supply is unstable. The population of the capital has increased — this causes sewage problems that threat with epidemics. Toilets are mostly placed outside houses: in the conditions of curfew a visit there may end in death.
The authorities call on people to come back or even insist on it. Meals in refugee camps are discontinued — the federal authorities permanently owe the Republic of Ingushetia from 300 to 500 million rubles. At the same time, no favorable conditions are created for those who are bold enough to go back; the military still defy all rules and orders. Starting with 2001 free meals were stopped several times in those few CTA to which people had been sent in 1999. The migration structures are continuously restructured that does not add clarity to the situation. Today they belong to the Interior Ministry that has complicated the situation still more.
Late in May 2001 Akhmad Kadyrov, the Head of the Administration of the Chechen Republic, announced that he intended to return to Chechnya all forced migrants living in Ingushetia before winter colds. After a working meeting on the problems of developing the production forces of Chechnya held by the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs Kadyrov said that heads of district administrations promised to accommodate up to 50 thousand forced migrants. Schools, rest homes, kindergartens were transformed into hostels that can house up to 15 thousand.
There is an active campaign going on in the region to persuade Chechen families to move back. The territorial structures of the Federation Ministry of Russia are prepared to pay the fare yet few agree to return to face armed actions and cruel and senseless “mopping up” operations.
Direct and indirect pressure in the form of liquidation of camps and discontinuation of meals applied to people who were forced to abandon their homes because of the anti-terrorist operation is inhuman and unconstitutional, it goes against international laws and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Appendix 17 contains Evidence of the Human Rights Center Memorial and Civic Assistance Committee about the life of Chechens in Russia. Memorial members are monitoring the situation with the victims of armed actions in Chechnya and other regions of Russia where there are offices of the Migration Rights Network.
Regrettably, Russia offers no security to people who had to leave Chechnya: there is no safety, no jobs and no chance of a dignified life.
The lawyer of the Penza office of the Migration Rights Network quotes a letter Amant Akhaeva addressed to the Governor of the Penza Region V. Bochkarev:
“I am Amant Akhaeva, mother of three little children, the younger is barely 12 months old. I am a Chechen. I have lived through two wars. During the first war I lived in cellars. On January 28, 1995, I tried to find shelter under bombs with a two-month-old baby in arms. In August 1999 I had to leave home because of the danger of war. I came to Penza. I immediately registered with the migration service but got not status. It is for three years now that I have been traveling from one instance to another, from one court to another. This is a vicious circle: I still have to face my problems unaided. I have no home, no work. One of my children is ill. We all are trying to survive on child allowances (54 rubles, or $2 per month per child). Sometimes people help us. I don’t know what I have to prove to whom to get help from the state… I lost a two-room flat, everything that had been collected through years. I left with my children in what I stood. Are these arguments not enough? As soon as I came here I got a letter in which neighbors told me that my house had been hit by a shell. This meant sure death for us should we stay behind. I, a citizen of Russia, saved my children. They say that nobody persecuted me: whom did I flee then?
“There is no way out for us: my children are hungry, our clothes are falling apart. The man who owns the room we are living in warned us that in spring we should vacate it because we have no money to pay the rent. Where can I go? Whom should I ask for help?”
Many other Chechen women are asking themselves the same questions.
I want to complete my report with this letter and these questions.
Lawyers: Maya I. Orlova
Tatiana K. Dolbneva, Dionisy Lomakin, Natalia V. Dorina
Valentina E. Golovach
National and Migration Policy of the Russian Federation
Tel. 203-10-88; fax 202-44-90
09.12.2001 # 09/1-9317
State Duma of Federal Assembly of RF
Committee for CIS and relations with compatriots
For attention of Deputy Head of Committee
During the period of September, 1999 to 2001 the local authorities of FMS of Russia and the Ministry of Federation of Russia located in the Chechen Republic, the Republic of Ingushetia, the Republic of Dagestan, the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, and Stavropolsky Region registered 568449 citizens under form No 7 — «Registration of families arrived during the state emergency». All these citizens have left their permanent habitation in the Chechen Republic.
Since the beginning of antiterror actions in the Chechen Republic during the period from October 1, 1999, to October 1, 2001, the local authorities of FMS of Russia and the Ministry of Federation of Russia granted the forced migrant status to 12.5 thousand the people (some 6 thousand families) that were forced to leave the Chechen Republic.
The majority of these people are not of the title nation or are mixed families in which there are persons of both title and nontitle nation.
The status of forced migrant has been granted to these people for the reason that they comply with the circumstances of leaving the permanent habitation stated in point 1 of Article 1 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On Forced Migrants», that is, the people who appplied for granting them and members of their families of the status of forced migrant have suffered violence or prosecution or have well-founded fear of being subjected to violence or prosecution based on nation or belief.
During nine months of 2001 the status of forced migrant was granted to 1331 people (italicized by us – Civic Assistance Com.) out of 2903 people included in the applications filed. The remaining applicants were rejected the status for the reasons that they do not comply with the circumstances stated in point 1 of article 1 of the Law or that they haven’t filed their application in due time (stated in the subpoint 2 of point 1 of Article 2 of the Law) and have no valid reasons.
The information on the citizens of the Chechen Republic that were granted the status of forced migrant in various regions of Russia during the period from 1.10.99 to 1.10.2001 is enclosed.
Encl.: two pages, one copy.
Central Federal District 1036 2097
Belgorod region 116 197
Briansk region 16 43
Vladimir region 29 76
Voronezh region 103 169
Ivanovo region 12 20
Kaluga region 25 47
Kostroma region 4 11
Kursk region 31 62
Lipetsk region 32 64
Moscow region 89 162
Orel region 32 82
Ryazan region 24 47
Smolensk region 21 41
Tambov region 316 687
Tver region 61 117
Tula region 18 42
Yaroslav region 36 73
Moscow 71 157
Privolzhsky Federal District 601 1451
Republic of Bashkorkostan 73 217
Republic of Mary El 4 15
Republic of Mordovia 4 5
Republic of Tatarstan 25 69
Udmurt Republic 11 46
Chuvash Republic 15 46
Kirov region 16 51
Nizhni Novgorod region 32 72
Orenburg region 43 104
Penza region 39 55
Perm region 20 40
Komi-Permyak Autonomous Area 0 0
Samara region 33 57
Saratov region 271 627
Ulyanovsk region 15 47
Southern Federal District 3525 6807
Republic of Adygeya 34 96
Republic of Daghestan 279 889
Republic of Ingushetia 20 89
Kabardino-Balkarskaya Republic 65 155
Republic of Kalmykia 4 18
Karachaevo-Cherkeskaya Republic 13 45
Republic of North Osetia-Alania 161 259
Chechen Republic 0 0
Krasnodar region 71 986
Stavropol region 1865 3250
Astrakhan region 180 430
Volgograd region 109 186
Rostov region 224 404
Ural Federal District 142 359
Kurgan region 34 121
Sverdlovsk region 9 22
Tumen region 6 17
Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area 57 127
Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Area 25 42
Chelyabinsk region 11 30
Siberian Autonomous District 210 692
Republic of Altai 4 16
Republic of Buryatia 23 74
Republic of Tyva 0 0
Republic of Khakassia 0 0
Altai region 37 115
Krasnoyarsk region 28 77
Nenets) Autonomous Area 0 0
Evenk Autonomus Area 0 0
Irkutsk region 8 19
Autonomous Area 0 0
Kemerovo region 56 213
Novosibirsk region 5 12
Omsk region 8 26
Tomsk region 36 133
Chita region 5 7
Žgin -Buryat Autonomous Area 0 0
Dalnevostochny Federal District 59 157
Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) 1 5
Primorsk region 23 72
Habarovsk region 15 41
Amursk region 2 3
Kamchatka region 5 10
Koryak Autonomous Area 2 6
Magadan region 2 2
Sakhalin region 4 5
Jewish Autonomous Area 5 13
Chukotka Autonomous Area 0 0
On activities of international non-governmental organizations and their representatives in the territory of Chechen Republic
Section 1. General provisions
2. Heads of INGOs (or of their missions in the RF) shall inform the Government of the Chechen Republic about an intended visit of an INGO representative of the territory of the Chechen Republic in no less than 5 days before such visit is to be undertaken so as to approve the programme of the visit of the zone of antiterrorist actions.
The programme shall state the information on the INGO representatives, including
(if such be present) foreign citizens — citizenship, the purpose of visit, the places intended to be visited, time and term of visits, objects planned to be visited, the place of living, quality certificates for the food and other objects brought by the representatives, as well as the names and data of the representatives of INGO in charge of the visit and of Chechen authorities in charge of relations with the INGO.
3. INGO representatives temporarily visiting Chechnya shall live in hotels or other accommodation (irrespectively of their status) of their own choice; according to the approved programme of the visit, the Russian reception organizations, enterprises, institutions, natural persons who invited the INGO representatives to Chechnya shall inform in written form the local Passport and Visa Departments of RF Interior Ministry Department for Chechnya about the arrival of such representatives on the day of their arrival.
4. Organizations that receive the INGO representatives on the territory of Chechnya shall inform them about their rights and duties stated in the existing RF legislation and in the present Regulations, are responsible for the abiding of the INGO representatives by the applicable legal norms, carry out the respective registration, are responsible for provision of documents that grant the right of presence on the territory of Chechnya and of moving around its territory in due time, as well as for the leaving of the Chechen territory by the said representatives provided with documents issued in due form.
Organizations that have relations with INGO and their representatives are obliged:
to have a respective permission for such activities, issued by the Government of the RF;
to provide Passport and Visa Service of RF Interior Ministry Department for Chechnya with passports of INGO representatives for purposes of registration in no more than three business days after the arrival of such representatives;
to perform registration of foreign citizens-representatives of INGO and control their movements, as well as movements of motorcades of these INGOs on the territory of Chechnya;
to bear the necessary expenses due to living, moving, leaving or forced relocation of the foreign representatives.
An INGO is obliged, if the contract with the representative or organization it represents doesn’t state otherwise:
to immediately inform the local interior authorities on any known facts of breaches of the regulations of residence and of moving in the zone of antiterrorist actions, committed by the INGO representatives, be they foreign citizens or Russian citizens.
5. Natural persons who invited representatives of INGO in Chechnya and who provided them with accommodation are to register the said representatives in due time by providing the Passport and Visa Service of RF Interior Ministry Department for Chechnya with IDs of such representatives, and also aid these representatives in leaving the territory of Chechnya after their term of visit expires or in prolonging the term of their visit, if necessary.
6. In case of leaving the place of residence with the purpose of living at another address, including rented apartments, INGO representatives shall register their documents anew in the Passport and Visa Service of RF Interior Ministry Department for Chechnya in three business days.
7. INGO representatives are registered:
— at the moment of taking up of residence in a hotel by the hotel administration in case they have a respective permission of Passport and Visa Service of RF Interior Ministry Department for Chechnya (representatives must fill in a questionnaire);
— at the moment of taking up of residence in apartments owned by organizations or natural persons by the interior authorities (representatives must file an application in due form).
8. Prolonging of term of registration for INGO representatives registered at a hotel or by a receiving organization shall be performed in the Passport and Visa Service of RF Interior Ministry Department for Chechnya.
9. Authorities and organizations that registered an INGO representative shall send registration documents to the Passport and Visa Service of RF Interior Ministry Department for Chechnya in no more than a day after the registration takes place.
10. Personal and representative cars of INGOs, in case they are registered abroad and visit Chechnya for terms of more than three days, are to be obligatorily registered at the Chechen Customs Service.
11. If the INGO representatives do not abide by the regulations on their registration and reception, and/or breach the regulations of presence and moving around the Chechen territory, they are subject to administrative responsibility in due order, stated in the RF legislation.
2. The control over observance of the laws of RF and of the present Regulations, as well as detection of breaches thereof by the INGO representatives is provided by authorities stated in point 1 of section 3 of the present Regulations.
The migration service of the republic, administrations of cities and regions, other organizations, and natural persons that contact INGO representatives must immediately inform the local interior authorities in writing about any breaches of the Regulations committed by the said representatives.
3. According to the Law of RF «On RF State border» of 01.04.93, No 4732-1, regiments of Federal Border Service located in Chechnya, aided by Federal Security Service, are to detect cases when foreign INGO representatives try to leave Chechnya and then RF with IDs that are either expired or null and void and investigate such cases.
If Federal Border Service detects cases when foreign INGO representatives move around Chechnya without registered documents, they must inform Federal Security Service and interior authorities about such cases so that the latter may take appropriate administrative actions or criminal prosecution against the foreign INGO representatives involved.
4. INGO representatives with forged, null and void documents or without documents, as well as those who committed breaches of passport and visa regulations in force in Chechnya are detained, in due order, in a detention place of interior authorities for purposes of identifying their person, place of permanent residence and citizenship.
After the proceedings are over, the interior authorities send such persons to embassies or consular authorities of the countries where these persons are permanent residents so that they will be able to enjoy the appropriate protection and aid for returning home, if there are no grounds that forbid it.
The expenses on detention and sending of such persons to their countries’ embassies are to be paid by INGO representatives personally.
Such expenses may be borne instead by organization or persons receiving or inviting such INGO representatives.
5. If the authorities in charge of the above-mentioned issues detect cases when INGO representatives breach the regulations on presence of INGO representatives in Chechnya stated in international agreements, laws of RF and in the present Regulations, the Government of Chechnya may consider the issue of cancellation of the permission of the INGO involved to engage in humanitarian activities in Chechnya.
on the Order of the Government of the Chechen Republic
as of 30.05.01, No 22
(Temporary Regulations on activities of international non-governmental organizations and their representatives on the territory of the Chechen Republic)
Federal Assembly of Russian Federation
State Duma Deputy
Deputy Head of the
Committee for CIS and relations with compatriots Igrunov V.V.
Executed by Ye.Yu.Burtina (tel. 973-54-74)
Of Russian Federation
Your application on the issue of discontinuing the registration of A.Yu.Ionova in the City of Grozny has been considered.
The effective legislation of the Russian Federation states that the citizens of the Russian Federation are discontinued their registration at the place of permanent residence according to their applications filed at the local registration authority (located at the previous place of residence) or according to their applications for registration at their new place of residence.
The letter of Passport and Visa Department of RF Interior Ministry of February 26, 1998, No 16/707 was only effective temporarily, and has not been used since the restoration of registration authorities in the Chechen Republic.
Head Kikot V. Ya.
InteriorMinistry V.Ya. Kikot of 19. 10. 2001, NoàÉ / 2924
My assistant, S.A. Gannushkina, received an application by a famous Chechen writer and journalist Tamara Chagaeva, as of now resident of Kabardino-Balkaria.
She is very concerned with the situation related to the issuing of foreign passports to forced migrants from the Chechen Republic that settled in Kabardino-Balkaria.
The situation is very serious as the people have to wait for several months for replies for their application filed to the Passport and Visa Department of Chechnya in order to finally get the reply that the Interior Ministry Department for Chechnya has no records for the people that filed the application as these records were destroyed during the military actions in Chechnya.
The latest development made the situation even more serious, as the Passport and Visa Department officers of Kabardino-Balkaria, willing to speed up the replies, handle the applications for the replies in sealed envelopes to the applicants themselves. The applicants, on their own, carry these envelopes to the Passport and Visa Department of Chechnya, yet, as the order in Chechnya is far from stable, such voyages may lead to deaths or maiming of people. For example, to quote T. Chagaeva, not so long ago M. Muskiev, visiting Grozny, has been nearly shot down, his companion was wounded in the leg and the car they traveled in was heavily damaged by grenade splinters.
I am also more than troubled by the situation. I think that the solution to it may be the following. The Passport and Visa Department of RF Interior Ministry has to gather the information from Chechnya about the existence of the Interior Ministry archives and compile a list of such Departments the archives of which are destroyed and send this list to all the regions of Russia. Doing this will prevent the unnecessary job of sending the request to Departments that haven’t got archives.
I kindly ask you to voice your opinion on the issue.
to President of RF V.V. Putin
of 14. 06. 2000, No àÉ/ 810
I’d like to draw your attention once again to the state of affairs of issuing documents for inhabitants of the Chechen Republic.
According to the current order, the inhabitants of the Chechen republic that left the republic due to military actions there are asked to apply for the issuing of temporary IDs, passports, as well as for stapling of new photos in their documents to the authorities located on the territory of Chechnya, and only there. Yet the people that have no documents cannot travel to Chechnya. There occurs a contradiction between the necessity of getting a document on the Chechen territory and the possibility of getting there without documents.
The result is that in every case one has to apply to the RF Interior Ministry in order to solve the problem of issuing a document if one is a former Chechnya inhabitant.
I think that it would be useful to develop a special process of issuing of documents for inhabitants of the Chechen Republic that live temporarily in other regions of Russia at the place of their actual residence and to make this process known and used by the local interior authorities.
Reply to the letter by acting Head of Passport and Visa Service
of RFInterior Ministry Yu.I. Sharogorov, ‹16-Ê 1404
Your letter, addressed to the Office of President of RF, has been considered.
The issuing of documents for citizens that temporarily left the Chechen Republic is performed by the interior authorities according to the effective legislation.
Issuing of passports instead of lost ones is performed in due order by the local interior authorities at the place of permanent residence.
The citizens that do not have registration at the place of permanent residence are to apply for issuing of passports at the place of actual residence.
The RF Interior Ministry considers it thus unnecessary to develop a special process for issuing of documents for citizens that were forced to leave their permanent residence in the Chechen Republic.
My name is Erzanukaev Arbi Zayndnevich, I was born on June 14, 1972. My permanent residence is in the Chechen Republic, I live temporarily in St.Petersburg. I am registered in police precinct 62, Kalininsky district, the city of St.Petersburg.
Passport and Visa Department
Of Russian Federation
109240, Moscow, Verkhnyaya Radishchevskaya street,4, build. 1
11.04.02 No 16/ Ê – 629
for No EA/3378 as of 11.02.02
Moscow Committee for Education
On the order of admission of children into
not let into school ‹8 in Nalchik, September 3, 2001
However, assistant of the prosecutor of regiment ‹ 20102 captain of justice
Yu. Milostivy, is of different opinion. On April 7, 2000, he rejected a claim to initiate criminal case, telling the plaintiff that “the result of precise bombings was the destruction and damage of houses, including the houses in the streets Dostoyevsky, Mayakovsky, Bolnichnaya and Pervomayskaya.”
The head military prosecutor of the Department of Control of Law Enforcement during the investigations of military crimes of the Main Military Office of Prosecutor
Mr. S. Bykov also doesn’t express any doubts about the fact that bombing did take place. His reply states that “according to the data from the register of military actions of the Staff, the front air force did bomb these targets on October 19 and 29, 1999.”
As the high brass of the military say that there was no bombing of Urus-Martan on October 19, there are local checks going on. No later than on July 21, 2000, the results of such checks allowed the Office of Prosecutor of Chechnya to initiate a criminal case under article 105, part 2, points (a) and (e) (premeditated murder of two or more persons committed by universally dangerous means), and article 167, part 2 (premeditated destruction of property committed by universally dangerous means, with grave consequences) of the Criminal Code of the RF.
Among others, A.M. Khamzayev was granted the status of injured party on March 1, 2001 under the said criminal case and according to his complaints.
A representative of the Office of Prosecutor-General, of Office of Main Military Prosecutor and of the Office of Prosecutor of Chechnya, Mr. V. Ten have acknowledged, during the hearing of the case on March 16, 2001, that there was actually a bombing of Urus-Martan on October 19, 1999, and that the results of the check performed by the military are false. He also acknowledged the existence of the right of the injured parties to compensation of moral and proprietorial damage under condition that during the hearing of the case there won’t be a proof to the fact that the bombing was made under “extreme need” conditions.
A reference to the notion of “extreme need”, after all the statements of the military, would have been a high cynicism and would look like nonsense. General Manilov and others would then have to explain – how it may be that the commanders do not know what actually happens in Chechnya.
The hearing of the civil case of A.M.Khamzayev, due to absence of a representative of the Government of RF and Ministry of Defense, were postponed until May 11, 2001.
When the hearing began on May 11, it became clear that the judge, Eugenia Karpushkina, is determined to reject the claim of the plaintiff. She hurried the plaintiff, overruled most of his questions to the defendants, was considering another case at the same time, and demonstrated her disinterest in the process in every way she could. This behavior of E. Karpushkina was quite different to the ones that were there in other hearings, when the court was very interested and requested the necessary documents from the offices of prosecutors and even data on average price of a square meter of property in Russia. All this made the plaintiff believe that the decision of the court will be in his favor.
Miracles are, however, rare in this world. So judge Karpushkina, who rejected many a case of a plaintiff left without a roof over his head, denying them even minimal compensation, doesn’t look like a miracle maker.
The demand of Abdulla Khamzayev of professional hearing of the case and of stopping to write the decision beforehand was rejected by Karpushkina in a very bold way – she said that she is writing a decision for another case. This astonished even the veterans of the court, who were quite used to Mrs. Karpushkina peacefully snoring through the passionate speeches of many a plaintiff.
Contrary to the situation of previous hearings, there were present two representatives of the Government and Ministry of Defense, Mr. D. Mityurich and
Mr. I. Yevdakimov. Neither of them was able to answer even the simplest question, it seemed that neither of them have ever read the case. The representative of the Ministry of Defense denied that there were bombings of Urus-Martan on October 19, 1999.
The representative of the Office of Prosecutor-General, of the Office of Head Military Prosecutor and of the Office of Prosecutor of Chechnya, Mr. V. Ten have again acknowledged that there were bombings of Urus-Martan on October 19, 1999. Yet he made a bold suggestion that the air forces that bombed the city belonged to another state, and even suggested that it was possible that the air forces that bombed the city belonged to separatists. It is general knowledge, however, that separatists have no air force. And at the same time V. Ten supported the claim of A.M.Khamzayev to overrule the rejection of a decision of the assistant of military prosecutor of regiment ‹ 20102, captain of justice Milostivy, dated April 7, 2000, to initiate a criminal case concerting the bombing of Urus-Martan on October 19, 1999.
The court rejected the claim. Moreover, E. Karpushkina stated in the decision that she has got no authority to overrule the decisions of military prosecutors.
Abdulla Khamzayev is going to sue in the European Court.
The Memorial Human Rights Center
and Civic Assistance Commitee