EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

List of NGOs Endorsing the Alternative Report (on 31 May 2008)

INTRODUCTION

PART I. General Background Information and Preliminary Remarks
General Trends Effecting Racial Discrimination and the Fight against Discrimination
The Role of the Federal System
The Role of the Passport system
The State of Aliens and Former Soviet Citizens
The Role of Anti-Extremist Legislation and Anti-Extremist Policies
Information relating to Article 1 of the ICERD : Article 1, par. 1 : Article 1, par. 2 : Article 1, par. 3 : Article 1, par. 4

PART II. Information relating to Articles 2-7 of the ICERD
Article 2, par. 1
Article 2, par. 1 (a) : Discriminatory Activities of the Law-enforcement Agencies and Their Officers : Campaigns against Certain Ethnic Groups : Discriminatory Provisions of the Federal Legislation : Privileges Granted to Members of the Cossack Movement
Article 2, par. 1 (b) : Official Co-operation with Radical Nationalist Organizations : Official Support to Cossack Movement : The Return of Ingush Internally Displaced Persons to the Prigorodny District of the Republic of North Ossetia - Alania
Article 2, par. 1 (c)
Article 2, par. 1 (d)
Article 2, par. 1 (e)
Article 2, par. 2
Article 3
Article 4
Article 4 (a)
Article 4 (b)
Article 4 (c)
Article 5 (a)
Article 5 (b) : Violent Actions of the Military and Law-enforcement : Refusals of Law-enforcement Agencies to Provide Equal Protection for Victims of Violence or Intimidation
Article 5 (c)
Article 5 (d) 'i'
Article 5 (d) 'iii' : Non-recognition of Russian Citizenship
Article 5 (d) 'iv', 'ix
Article 5 (e) (i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)
Article 5 (f)
Article 6
Article 7

RECOMMENDATIONS : Discrimination-related Legislation : General Policies : Protection of Certain Groups : Judiciary and Law-enforcement : Education and training



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The joint Report of RF non-governmental organizations covers the period of 2003 - 2007. Within these years the situation in the country was changing rapidly, and the general trends meant strengthening of factors conductive to discrimination in combination with deterioration of conditions for combating it.

The problems of racist violence, all forms of discrimination and hate speech have grown dramatically in scope and acuteness. Racial discrimination in various forms and manifestations has been increasingly gaining public approval and notably support from public officials. Simultaneously, hate speech previously used by marginal authors and organizations, is now widely perceived as something acceptable.

There are a number of mechanisms within the Russian legal system for combating racial discrimination and incitement of ethnic hatred. The Constitution guarantees equality of rights and freedoms and these guarantees are reproduced in the current legislation. The Constitution and laws also contain general guarantees of judicial protection of human and civil rights and freedoms. In 2003, the federal law for the first time officially defined the term "discrimination'; however, this definition is hardly consistent with the requirements of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD).

In practice, the state has apparently become more active in opposing racist violence and hate speech. Top officials have made a number of statements in which they acknowledged the reality of ethnically motivated mass violence and incitement of racial hatred, and condemned such phenomena. The number of criminal cases on charges of incitement of racial and ethnic hatred has increased significantly. Governmental authorities become more and more active in using such tools as suspension or termination of mass media outlets or NGOs for their usage of hate speech. However, such counteraction remains quite selective.

However, the concept of these activities has changed substantively. It is defined as "counteraction to extremist activities' and develops exclusively as the fight against "extremism', thus dragging the issue into political domain, leading to selective and discretionary application of law and shifting the focus of preventing and eliminating discrimination from protection of individual's rights and dignity to a fight against those whom the state deems its opponents.

This approach undermines the effectiveness of potentially powerful mechanisms for combating ethnic violence and hate speech. A more negative effect results from the ambiguous position of the state which encourages various manifestations of radical nationalism and racial discrimination.

Some positive changes should be mentioned also. The situation in zone of the Ossetian-Ingush conflict in North Caucasus has improved significantly; the problem of Ingush internally displaced persons is close to being resolved. The fabrication of criminal cases by planting drugs or ammunition on people belonging to certain minorities has become drastically smaller in scope. One can also hardly assess as a positive shift the virtual disappearance of discrimination in granting the statuses of refugees and forced migrants since the government stopped granting these statuses. The problem of Meskhetian Turks in Krasnodar Krai has decreased in scope, but this can be hardly considered a positive achievement since the only cause was the emigration of most Turks to the USA.

At the same time most problems of the previous period are still persistent. As before, legal remedies against racist discrimination are basically weak and really inefficient. The opportunity to employ them exists rather in theory than in established practice. This can be explained by a number of factors, including the disparity of substantive and procedural legal norms, drawbacks of the legislative acts in force, the lack of judicial and enforcement practice.

A significant factor is also the lack of official and public interest in the very issue of combating ethnic discrimination and general lack of public demand for the relevant legal mechanisms. The state and society express their concern only about encroachments on public order and political stability, but not against individual's rights and dignity. The state prefers to address the problems in terms of the "fight against extremism', "interethnic conflict', "regulation of migration' and, hence to neglect and hide the very theme of discrimination.

All in all one can conclude that the state does not make sufficient effort to effectively combat discrimination and to establish relevant remedies against it. On the contrary, governmental bodies systematically discriminate on ethnic ground against certain categories of population or encourage discrimination. Ethnic Chechens outside Chechnya are systematically discriminated against, persecuted and subjected to restriction of rights; The nation-wide campaign of persecutions against Georgian citizens and ethnic Georgians raised particular concern. A significant problem is also discriminatory treatment by law-enforcement agencies of ethnic minorities, primarily people originating from the Caucasus and Central Asia as well as the Roma people. In fact, the country faces an anti-migrant campaign launched by the state, which results in discretionary administrative restrictions of foreigners' rights and contributes greatly to the general growth of xenophobia. Since 2005 a wave of demolition of Romani villages and evictions of Roma people swept over the country. The existing legislation on the legal status of foreign citizens and registration by place of residence and sojourn encourages discriminatory behaviour of the enforcing agencies and officials.

List of NGOs Endorsing the Alternative Report (on 31 May 2008)

1. Human Rights Centre "Memorial' (Moscow)
2. Information and Analytical Centre "Sova' (Moscow)
3. Civic Assistance Committee (Moscow)
4. Centre for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights (Moscow)
5. Foundation "For Civil Society' (Moscow)
6. "Tajikistan' Foundation (Moscow)
7. Antidiscrimination Centre "Memorial' (Saint-Petersburg)
8. Moscow Helsinki Group
9. Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and Far East
10. L'auravetl'an Information and Education Network of Indigenous Peoples
11. Inter-regional Human Rights Group - Voronezh /the Black Soil Region
12. International Youth Human Rights Movement
13. Youth Network against Racism and Intolerance
14. All-Russian Youth Public Organization "Young Europe'
15. Interregional Youth Human Rights Group
16. Autonomous Non-profit Organization "Lawyers for Constitutional Rights and Liberties' - JURIX (Moscow)
17. Citizens' Watch (Saint Petersburg)
18. Center for Social and Labor Rights (Moscow)
19. Youth Human Rights Group "The System of Coordinates' (Vladimir)
20. Ryazan Human Rights School
21. Ryazan Regional Branch of the All-Russian Public Movement "For Human Rights'
22. Karelian Regional Branch of the Inter-regional Organization "Youth Human Rights Group' (Petrozavodsk)
23. Krasnodar Krai Non-governmental Organization Youth Group for Tolerance "ETHnICS' (Krasnodar)
24. Kola Assosiation of Women Lawyers (Murmansk)
25. Murmansk Memorial (Murmansk)
26. Murmansk Youth Human Rights Group (Murmansk)
27. Amnesty International - Murmansk
28. League of Saint-Petersburg Female Voters
29. Human Rights Organization "Soldiers' Mothers of Saint-Petersburg'
30. Vorotynsk Local Public Organization for Support to Migrants "Vorotynsk-Resettler' (Kaluga province)
31. Kaluga branch of the Movement "For Human Rights' (Kaluga)
32. Mordovian Republican Human Rights Center (Republic of Mordovia)
33. Youth Human Rights Group - Povolzh'e (Nizhni Novgorod)

INTRODUCTION

1. This report was compiled by the Human Rights Centre "Memorial' and the Information and Analytical Centre "Sova' in collaboration with the Civic Assistance Committee (Moscow), Centre for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights (Moscow), Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and Far East, the Foundation "For Civil Society' (Moscow), "Tajikistan' Foundation (Moscow), and the Antidiscrimination Centre "Memorial' (Saint-Petersburg). The Report was approved by the Russian Anti-Discrimination Initiative, a network of Russian NGOs and some other non-governmental organizations.

2. The report addresses the situation during 2003 - 2006, i.e. the period, covered by the Russian Federation's 18th and 19th periodical reports, and 2007. The authors of this NGO report welcome the RF official report (which consolidates 18th and 19th periodical reports; CERD/C/RUS/19 dated 23 October 2006) and share many of its evaluations and conclusions. We agree that certain positive changes in the national legislation have taken place in the recent years and that the government has started to combat extreme racist activities in a more active way. Nevertheless, the given NGO report is an alternative to the official one. We did not see our objective as a confrontation with the official position or refutation of the governmental information or conclusions. The goal of the report was to present the views on the situation different from the official ones and to employ alternative sources of information. We also tried to avoid duplication of general data used in the official report.

3. In compiling the report, the authors used the following main sources of information: complaints of people who considered themselves victims of racial discrimination and applied for help to human rights NGOs, judicial and administrative cases entailed from these complaints, regular monitoring data, analysis of the domestic legislation and judicial practice, official statistics (when available), official statements and responses to the parliament deputies' and NGOs' inquires, mass media publications. [1] The collected data enable us to state that the legislative, administrative and judicial mechanisms of combating racial discrimination in Russia remain inefficient; in a number of situations the Russian Federation is egregiously violating its obligations under the ICERD. The Russian Federation is inadequately implementing ICERD and is not taking the necessary measures envisioned in the Convention, which are quite enforceable under current conditions.

PART I. General Background Information and Preliminary Remarks

General Trends Effecting Racial Discrimination and the Fight against Discrimination

4. In 2003-2007, ethnic discrimination, racially motivated violence, xenophobia and hate speech were manifesting themselves on an increasingly wide scale and in a variety of forms.

5. The general trends in the recent developments of the state and society mean the strengthening of conditions which produce various manifestations of racial discrimination and at the same time reduce possibilities to combat them. The major institutional and ideological trends can be described as follows.

6. The political regime in Russia is becoming more and more authoritarian. This process leads to restriction of civil freedoms, shrinking room for public politics and free discussion of societal problems, reinforcement of bureaucratic system, primarily controlling and repressive mechanisms, and liberation of any government department from public control. Of particular concern is the impunity of governmental officials who commit crimes, which is most obviously shown by the events in Chechnya.

7. The constitutional principle of the supremacy of the law is turning into fiction in the course of real politics and public administration; activities of the official authorities are subordinate to demands of political and administrative expedience. Discretionary and selective application of law quite often becomes discriminatory on various grounds, including ethnicity. The judicial system is losing its independence and becoming an annex to and an instrument of the executive authorities. Systematic wrongful judgments passed by the judiciary on the order of executive authorities or for their own corruption reasons discredit the entire judicial system and the concept of justice, as well as the very idea of protecting rights and resolving public problems on the basis of the law.

8. The opportunities and capacities of civil society are being reduced; political and non-political associations are subjected to pressure and various restrictions or become dependent on the state. The government has de facto control over the majority of the mass media. Thus the chances for people to protect both their own and other people's rights, to discuss societal issues and influence the official public authorities, are gradually being eliminated. The government almost exclusively determines the agenda for public discussion; in terms of discrimination, only offenses against the state and public order are deemed important by the authorities.

9. The state actually rejects its former social obligations, including a number of welfare programs for socially vulnerable groups (in particular, victims of the past repressions, indigenous peoples and internally displaced persons); under such conditions it is impossible and irrelevant just to raise the issue of securing equal opportunities.

10. The official propaganda resorts increasingly often to the ideas of nationalism, xenophobia and isolationism. Apart from that, the government gradually declines to recognize and support the country's cultural pluralism. The anti-immigration and :anti-terrorist; campaigns provoke various forms of xenophobia, aggression and discrimination. Implantation into the public mind of views about Russia as a country in a hostile environment entails attacks against the very idea of international standards and international co-operation in the sphere of human rights. Deterioration of Russia's relations with its neighbours is projected back into the country: the crisis in relations with Georgia in the fall of 2006 resulted in the persecutions of ethnic Georgians, while the exacerbation of tensions with Estonia in 2007 provoked public appeals to discrimination against Estonians which the official authorities neglected. [2]

11. All above processes have a negative impact on the society. The Russian society, while getting more and more heterogeneous and competitive in social and economic terms, learns to ignore the law and resolve problems "informally', quite often by abuse of power, violence and discrimination. The society is getting atomized and losing its civil solidarity; people are getting used to seeking benefits from others, e.g. the so-called illegal migrants' deprivation of rights. Such a population is easily manipulated from different sides, including the government, and eagerly accepts xenophobic and isolationist ideas. Racist declarations and publications, which in the 1990s could appear only in marginal press, have currently become a norm for the mainstream media; the content and rhetoric of official statements are evolving in a similar way. The very raising of the issue of equality, justice and non-discriminations becomes inherently alien to such society.

The Role of the Federal System

12. Since 2000, Russia has experienced a considerable re-centralization of power, which resulted in changes in the role and importance of the regional legislation and regional executive authorities. In particular, the regional laws have been basically brought in line with the federal ones. The procedures of forming governmental bodies of federation units have been changed. However, many problems, primarily abuse of power by law-enforcement agencies and restrictions of the right to free choice of residence, manifest themselves basically in the same scale with the same acuteness. If compared with the previous years the central rather than regional authorities are now much more responsible for such a state of affairs.

13. Despite many symptoms and manifestations of centralization the federal administration in many cases grants free discretion to regional authorities in many areas in exchange for their loyalty, thus allowing them to ignore the law. This is most evident in the case of the Chechen Republic. In terms of discrimination, such an approach was clearly demonstrated during the expulsion of the Avars from the village of Borozdinovskasya in June 2005. The central authorities connived with the discriminatory treatment of Chechens by the Kabardino-Balkarian authorities and of Meskhetian Turks by the government of Krasnodar Krai.

14. Although many regional laws have been amended, some legislative acts negatively affecting human rights and leading to racial discrimination remained untouched. Rostov Oblast, Krasnodar Krai, Stavropol Krai and Kabardino-Balkarian Republic still preserve their restrictive laws and regulations on residence registration.

15. The Federal Law No. 122-FZ :On Amending Russian Federation Legislative Acts and Invalidating Certain Russian Federation Legislative Acts in Connection with Approval of Federal Laws "On Amending and Supplementing Federal Law "On General Principles of Organization of Legislative (representative) and Executive Authorities of RF Subjects' and "On General Principles of Organization of Self-Governments in the Russian Federation'; dated 22 August 2004 (came into force on 1 January 2005), which is colloquially known as the "law on the monetization of benefits', has cardinally reduced the state's social obligations and delegated much competence related to social policies and social welfare down to the regional level. As a result, regional authorities again introduce statutory restrictions on the access to social rights for those without residence registration in their federation units. Since refusals to register were in many cases discriminatory, that meant that the decentralization of social policy gives rise to discrimination as well.

The Role of the Passport system

16. The institution of an individual's registration by place of residence and sojourn has been and continues to be one of the major instruments of ethnic discrimination and the source of the most acute problems in this area. Russian nationals as well as aliens are legally obliged to get registered by the place of their permanent residence and temporary stay. Under the Russian federal legislation, the registration though being obligatory is of a notifying character. The latter follows from Article 27 of the RF Constitution, which guarantees for everyone who stays legally in the Russian Federation the right to move freely and choose the place of residence and stay. According to the law, registration is not a legal circumstance that creates rights or duties under the legislation in force; therefore registration or its absence may not constitute either a restriction or precondition for exercising rights and freedoms. Formally, absence of registration constitutes an administrative infringement with no other legal consequences for an individual.

17. In reality the system of registration functions in a different way, creating conditions for human rights violations. In practice, residence and sojourn registration restricts the right to freedom of movement and choice of place of residence. There are a number of formal and informal restrictions on both types of registration created by direct official prescriptions or by technical limitations. Most often a person fails to get his or her registration because housing owners refuse to grant a documentary consent to their tenant's registration, though letting him/her move in de facto. Sometimes authorities deny registration under a number of false pretexts (e.g. insufficient dwelling space, absence of kin ties between the owner and the tenant) or bind it by illegal requirements (eg. to prepay for utilities or to get registered at the military commissariat). In addition there is still a practice of tacit prohibition to register certain population groups.

18. In practice, the institution of registration technically becomes a condition for the individuals to enjoy their rights: acquisition of the citizenship and formalities in this connection, employment, marriage registration, participation in elections, access to health care, secondary and higher education, pensions and social allowances. A person can be put on the social services' list as a pensioner only if he or she has a registration by place of stay or residence (temporary or permanent registration), while the pension itself can be assigned only at the place of residence (permanent) registration. A citizen cannot actually receive a passport without a registration either when he or she reaches the age of 14 years or in case of a passport loss or damage [3] , cannot pay taxes, register a vehicle, obtain a driving licence, etc. Often judges refuse to accept a complaint if a plaintiff has no registration by place of residence.

19. The system of registration by place of stay can function only on condition of support from an active police control system and severe sanctions for the absence of registration, since there is, in principle, no other motivation but the punishment for a citizen to get a registration. :Controlling the fulfilment of the requirements of the "passport (registration) regime'; is one of the main objectives of the police, and the respective measures include regular checks of personal identity papers and registration certificates and searching the premises where unregistered persons might live.

20. Restrictions and measures of control are to a substantial degree targeting ethnic minorities originating from the Caucasus, both from the North Caucasus within the RF and from the independent states of the South Caucasus, from Central Asia as well as the Roma people.

21. The institution of residence and sojourn registration is conductive to ethnic discrimination of three types:
1) The system provides for a number of express and concealed pretexts to deny registration both by the place of residence and stay. Under certain circumstances the local authorities can either refuse to register persons belonging a certain ethnic group or give advantages in registration to persons of a particular ethnic group, while restricting registration for all others.
2) Absence of registration is used as a pretext for the restriction of certain civil rights, and sometimes those restrictions are selective on ethnic grounds. In other words, ethnic discrimination is camouflaged as a restriction or denial caused by the lack of registration.
3) Control of the registration regime is usually selective. In particular, as a rule, the passports of those people who have a different appearance from the majority are checked in the streets more frequently than those of others.

22. Besides, strict police control and official statements against so-called "illegal migrants' (i.e. people without registration) entail other forms of everyday discrimination and restrictions. People tend to avoid contacts with those who are the most probable target for police and administrative checks. They are often denied housing and other services, they are less likely to be hired and more likely to be fired.

23. In the 2000s the role and importance of the passport system has been undergoing certain changes, which are rather contradictory.

24. On the one hand, the passport system's importance has been decreasing for RF citizens. Previously, former USSR citizens were to get registered on the same grounds as RF citizens and passport system restrictions were basically targeted against those whom RF authorities did not recognize as Russian citizens. In 2002, the federal law on the legal status of foreign citizens was enacted and became the basis for new repressive and restrictive mechanisms. In December 2004, the term within which RF citizens were allowed to stay without registration in places other than their official residence, was extended to 90 days, thus "passport regime checks' with respect to Russian citizens lost their sense to a major extent. Also in 2003, Article 19.15 of the Code on Administrative Violations was amended to exclude the possibility of interpreting that provision as citizens' obligation to always keep their passports on them. The RF Housing Code adopted in 2004 abolished the linkage between the available registration and right to use housing (which was implied by the former housing law and implemented in practice).

25. On the other hand, in 2003 the federal legislators raised significantly, i.e. several times, the size of penalties for residing or staying without a passport or registration. Adoption of Law No. 122-FZ "on benefits monetization' in 2004 and delegation of a great deal of competence in social policy down to the regional level enabled authorities of federation units to make both de jure and de facto the registration by place of residence a prerequisite of access to social rights. In particular, since January 2005 (when the law came into force) in many regions families without residence registration were deprived of the opportunity to receive pensions, child allowances and have their children admitted to pre-school educational institutions. Payments of child allowance to large families by place of factual residence, which existed in the past, were ceased. In Moscow and Moscow Oblast persons without local residence registration lost their public transport privileges. Those measures had a grave impact, in particular, on internally displaced persons.

26. Campaigns against "illegal migrants' affect RF citizens as well, since the police check people primarily on the basis of their physical appearance.

The State of Aliens and Former Soviet Citizens

27. The way ethnic discrimination and hate speech in Russia manifest themselves is to a major degree determined by the state of aliens and former Soviet nationals who actually reside in the RF, but have failed to confirm their citizenship.

28. After the Soviet Union's collapse, the USSR Law "On the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens in the USSR' of 1981 could not be automatically extended to the former Soviet nationals who stayed in Russia but were not Russian citizens and was not applied to them, except for citizens of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Therefore, former Soviet citizens (excluding citizens of Baltic states since 1993, Turkmenistan citizens since 1999 and Georgian citizens since 2001) continue to enjoy the right of visa-free entry to the RF. Till late 2000 the term of stay in Russia was not limited for them and the same rules of registration were applicable to them as to Russian citizens.

29. According to Article 62, part 3 of the RF Constitution, foreign citizens and stateless persons enjoy rights and bear responsibilities on an equal ground with the RF citizens, except for cases established by federal laws or international treaties. Thus, the lack of legislative restrictions means that former Soviet nationals in the RF were to enjoy basic rights on an equal footing with Russian citizens. Until adoption of the new law on foreigners in 2002, the RF had no laws restricting foreigners' labour rights. They could lawfully come to Russia and reside in the country. But because of passport system restrictions most of them failed to get registered by place of residence and stayed in Russia either with a temporary registration or without registration at all.

30. In 2002, Federal Law No. 115-FZ "On the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens in the Russian Federation' was adopted. This Law does not differentiate between aliens already residing in the country and newcomers to the RF; actually the Law did not provide for any transition period. Only the obvious minority of those who resided in Russia without Russian citizenship, i.e. those with permanent registration, could actually obtain residence permits. Thus, hundreds of thousands of former Soviet citizens who had been living in the RF for years and lost all contact with their country of origin found themselves in a position of illegal migrants. The same happened to USSR citizens who had been residing in Russia since before the Soviet Union breakdown, but, in violation of law, not recognized as Russian citizens because of the absent Russian propiska (registration by place of residence). Another aggravating factor is the campaign led by the RF Ministry of Internal Affairs and aimed at revising and canceling upon formal pretexts Russian citizenship of those people who have obtained it outside Russia in compliance with the RF law on citizenship of 1991.

31. In practice, there has been created a large category of actually outlawed people deprived of any social prospects. However, current events show that the state does not strive to expel people from Russia. In reality they have the opportunities to survive in Russia even being deprived of rights; some permanent residents were really deported, but such cases are a rare occasion. However, the problem of people who have lost their legal status upon enactment of the 2002 law on foreigners remains unresolved. Available opportunities of legalization turn out to be extremely limited in practice; all changes in law facilitating the access to citizenship or obtaining work permits pertain to people who either have had permanent registration in Russia before or are newcomers to the country.

32. The Russian legislation on foreigners is repressive in its nature, bulky and creates difficulties both for aliens and for the state machinery. The 2002 federal law on the legal status of foreign citizens basically establishes procedures for foreigners' registration and sanctions against those who fail to comply with the respective requirements. Both the federal law on foreigners and other pieces of legislation are very vague in determining foreigners' rights; the major lacunae relate to education and health care rights. Such a situation creates conditions for discrimination on grounds of citizenship.

33. Enforcement of the legislation on foreigners requires powerful control and a repressive apparatus. Many people unwillingly become lawbreakers and, consequently, are permanently deprived of rights and subjected to sanctions. In addition to former Soviet citizens permanently residing in Russia, labour migrants are also pushed out of the legal domain to a great extent. Being vulnerable and under threat of disclosure and deportation, they are severely exploited by employers, police and official controlling agencies.

34. The repressive machinery operates in unselective and cruel ways towards those whom the official authorities identify as violators of rules. For most violations of rules of sojourn in Russia people can be punished by expulsion or deportation from the country and prohibited entry thereto for five years. Quite often courts make rulings on expulsion or deportation without investigating all the factual circumstances of the case. The principle of non-separation of family members is violated frequently: the fact that the accused has dependents in Russia is ignored, as well as the fact that his/her spouse, children or parents might be Russian citizens. Sometimes people residing in Russia for 10 years or more are expelled.

35. The general dynamics of the law and law-enforcement can be deemed positive, i.e. an extremely rigid repressive system established in 2002 is gradually getting a bit softer and more flexible. There have been some positive changes in the legislation. Bilateral and multilateral treaties on the simplified acquisition of citizenship concluded in 1995-1999 between Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Belarus have really started to apply. Since 2005 the denial of emergency medical aid to foreign employees has almost stopped. People detained for violations of rules of sojourn are allowed to make a telephone call to their relatives or friends and tell them about their place of detention.

36. Amendments and supplements to the Federal law on the legal status of foreign citizens and the Federal law on RF citizenship of 2002 have turned out to be inconsistent and contradictory. In some aspects they improve the position of foreign nationals, while in other they make it worse or devaluate the results of improvement.

37. On the one hand, supplements to the Law on citizenship made in November 2003 opened new opportunities by adopting simplified procedures of obtaining citizenship for former Soviet citizens, and the number of people who acquired citizenship has grown materially (from about 24 thousand in 2003 [4] up to 361,952 in 2007 [5] ). However, those changes did not pertain to most of those who had lived in Russia without permanent registration before July 2002.

38. The Federal Law "On Migration Registration of Foreign Nationals and Stateless Persons in the Russian Federation' dated 18 July 2006 which came into force on 15 January 2007 simplified the procedure of obtaining work permits, made registration of foreign employees by place of sojourn truly notifying in nature and cancelled the obligation to be registered in a dwelling only. The number of foreigners working in Russia legally has increased up to 2,150,000 within 8 months of 2007 compared to 817,000 for the same period of 2006. [6] The number of foreigners registered as migrants have also increased from 2,600,000 to 6 million during the same period. [7]

39. However, these changes affect only those who come to Russia, but not those who have lived here. Amendments to Federal Law "On Amending and Supplementing the Federal Law "On the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens in the Russian Federation'; also adopted on 18 July 2006 cardinally changed and simplified the procedure of obtaining temporary residence permissions (this is a necessary stage for obtaining residence permit and eventually Russian citizenship), thus a major obstacle to legalization of former Soviet citizens was removed. Besides, regional quotas for foreign residents entitled to a visa-free entry to the RF and willing to obtain temporary residence permission or work permit were cancelled. However, new amendments were adopted in December 2006, and they specified that quotas were cancelled only for participants of the Federal program on the repatriation of "compatriots' to Russia. In addition, holders of temporary residence permissions have lost their automatic right to work and currently they need a separate permit to get employed. Apart from that, Government Resolution No. 683 dated 15 November 2006 established a minimum share of foreign employees (i.e. foreigners employed on the basis of work permits) in retail trade at markets at a level of 40% from 15 January to 1 April 2007 and 0% from 1 April till the end of 2007. Correspondingly, Government Resolution No. 1003 from 29 December 2007 established the share of foreign employees in retail market trade as 0% for 2008. In the meantime, low-skilled work at retail markets was one of the major branches where labour migrants and Russian residents with undetermined status could gain some livelihood.

40. It is also noteworthy that the government has almost stopped applying the RF Law "On Refugees' of 1993. In 2006 the refugee status was granted to a mere 140 persons while 475 refugees were registered with the Federal Migration Service (versus 8,725 in 2003). [8] Thus the problem of ethnic discrimination in granting the status of refugees, described in the Russian NGOs Alternative Report of 2002, has almost disappeared. [9]

41. Also vanished is a similar problem of discrimination in granting the status of "forced migrant', which was to be given to RF citizens forced to leave their place of residence either in the RF or abroad as a result of persecutions. From the end of 2002 till the end of 2006, the overall number of people with the status of forced migrant decreased from 491.9 thousand to 107.6 thousand [10] ; correspondingly, the funding of the forced migrants accommodation dropped from 991.6 to 206.4 million roubles [11] (from 29.9 to 6.0 million Euro, according to the actual exchange rates). In 2006, not a single applicant was granted the status of "forced migrant', in 2007 - 51 persons got the status [12] ; at the same time those who received this status earlier are gradually losing it since it is usually granted for a term of 5 years (thus, 55.5 thousand people had their status cancelled in 2006 and 33.4 thousand in 2007). [13]

42. Public policies towards foreigners and ethnic discrimination are interconnected in several respects. The legislation on foreigners per se is neutral in the sense that it contains no restrictions and preferences on ethnic ground. However, first, control over compliance with the legislation is inevitably selective. Subjected most often to checks and punishment (in particular, ID checks in the street) are people whose appearance, skin color or language differ from those of the majority. As, for example, the 2006 campaign of persecutions against ethnic Georgians demonstrated, the repressive mechanism can be easily used against a certain ethnic group. Secondly, people deprived of a legal status or likely to lose it are vulnerable to abuse of power and exploitation. The situation of labour migrants, basically from Central Asia, is particularly hard. They often work without any safety precautions, are subjected to cruel exploitation akin to slavery, and to degrading treatment and violence by representatives of authorities and employers. Thirdly, on the initiative of the state, the country actually runs an anti-immigration campaign. A number of official statements and mass media publications emphasize the ethnic "otherness' of the so-called "illegals' and, hence, the campaign targets primarily ethnic minorities.

43. Discrimination against foreigners lawfully residing in the country, exclusively on the grounds of their citizenship, also becomes more frequent. People residing in Russia by virtue of temporary residence permissions are deprived, by law, of the right to choose their place of residence: they are not entitled, otherwise than in certain cases specified by the RF Government, to work in other regions of Russia. Since the beginning of 2007 they have also lost their right to work and now they have to obtain separate permits. In December 2006, certain provisions were added to Article 83 of the RF Labour Code, pursuant to which a labour contract with a foreign citizen was subject to termination if it were necessary to bring the number of foreign employees in compliance with quotas established by the RF Government for certain economic activities. In violation of the Constitution, foreigners' freedom of movement and their labour rights are restricted not by law, but by RF Government resolutions. The Government, regardless of any law, establishes the list of territories with a special regime for foreigners' visits and determines enterprises and organizations which are not allowed to employ foreign citizens.

44. Employers prefer to deny employment to foreigners living in Russia with residence permits, though the law does not restrict their recruitment and labour rights. Prohibition for "foreign employees' (i.e. foreigners staying in the country on the basis of work permits) to work in 2007 at retail trade businesses affected in practice also foreigners residing in Russia either temporarily or permanently. An interesting fact is that Deputy Head of the Federal Migration Service Vyacheslav Postavnin said expressly in his interview that "from 1 April [2007] not a single foreigner shall work at retail markets'. [14] And also authorities in certain regions start practicing discrimination in the access to social rights (admission to nursery schools, access to medical aid) against foreigners permanently residing in Russia, though the law does not provide for such restrictions. Russian authorities de facto take measures to enable all children, irrespective of their citizenship, to have primary and secondary education (thus, the Ministry of Science and Education regularly issue relevant orders). However, foreigners permanently residing in the RF are discriminated against in terms of their access to higher education.

The Role of Anti-Extremist Legislation and Anti-Extremist Policies

45. Russian legislation has always contained and still contains a number of provisions aimed at combating racial discrimination and fueling of hatred. For a number of reasons, these provisions are applied to a limited degree; besides, many of them are far from being perfect. However, the 2002-2007 legislative reforms aggravated the situation considerably by creating a new public policy model. Its fundamentals are established in the framework Federal Law "On Counteraction to Extremist Activities' of 2002 (with subsequent amendments); other legislative acts, including the Criminal Code, have been brought in line with that Law. The Law identified as the main target of counteraction not discrimination, racist propaganda or racial violence, but "extremist activities' (or "'extremism). "Extremist activities' are not defined as a set of characteristics, but described by a list of actions, and this list can be easily changed in different ways in case of need. The list is quite inconsistent and heterogeneous, in particular - in terms of the degree of danger of a certain action for society; it ranges from terrorism to hindering the work of public agencies through violence; while the degree of public danger is not mentioned anywhere.

46. One cannot deny that the state is intensifying its fight against "extremist activities' and, in course of this, really combats racist crimes and other wrongdoings. However, the reduction of the state's policy in countering racism and racial discrimination down to the "fight against extremism' has a number of important negative consequences.

47. First, the problem becomes politically tinted: the term "extremism', by default, is attributed to activities of opponents to the government. Secondly, the attention of law-enforcement agencies and the general public thus moves aside from the state's activities, which are frequently discriminatory in nature. Thirdly, the combination of socially dangerous acts such as armed riot with nonviolent discrimination within the same notion of "extremist activities' inevitably leads to a situation where counteraction to routine discrimination will not be (and is not) considered a priority. Fourthly, racist offenses are intermingled and confused with offenses of other types.

48. Fifthly, a broad and vague definition of extremism allows and presumes discretionary and selective law-enforcement subject to the current needs of the official power. In practice, anti-extremist provisions are applied as an instrument for suppressing any protest. There are a lot of examples when the law is applied arbitrarily with respect to persons, organizations and mass media outlets opposing local or federal authorities, and penalizes these critics for actions which cannot be considered unlawful. Such cases of misusing the anti-extremist legislation grow in frequency and, in addition to other negative consequences, discredit the fight against racism in the eyes of society.

49. The government and majority of society perceive counteraction to discrimination as a task exclusively for the state (particularly, when discrimination is regarded as part of "extremism'). Self-regulatory structures of civil society (such as the media community) are not effective in this area. The legislation obstructs the use of civil law litigation against discriminatory treatment.

50. The official policies with regard to public associations including those which are active in the areas relating to discrimination leads to their division into three categories. The first one are the organizations which are definitely loyal to the existing political regime and which benefit from governmental support (amongst those are the pro-Kremlin youth movements like "Nashi' ("Ours') and some organizations affiliated with the Public Chamber). The second category consists of those which are political opponents of the regime and which are regarded as "extremist' or suspected in "extremism' (some youth organizations of an anti-fascist kind). The third group are independent, but not oppositional non-governmental organizations which are also under suspicion and are increasingly removed from any constructive co-operation with the government (this category embraces almost all traditional human rights movements). Such a division does not in general increase the effectiveness of civil society's anti-discriminatory activities.

Information relating to Article 1 of the ICERD

Article 1, par. 1

"In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination' shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.'

51. According to Part 2 of Article 6 of the RF Constitution, "every citizen of the Russian Federation has all the rights and freedoms on its territory and bear equal duties stipulated by the Constitution of the Russian Federation'. Part 1 of Article 19 stipulates that "all people are equal before the law and in the court of law'. Part 2 of Article 19 states that "the state guarantees the equality of human and civil rights and freedoms regardless of gender, race, nationality [that is ethnic affiliation], language, origin, property and employment status, residence, attitude to religion, beliefs, membership in public associations and any other circumstances. Any restrictions of the citizens' rights on social, racial, national [ethnic], linguistic or religious grounds are forbidden'. According to Part 3 of Article 19, "man and woman have equal rights and liberties and equal opportunities for their pursuit'.

52. Thus, Article 19 does not contain the term "discrimination', and the contents of Part 2 of Article 6 and Article 19 can be interpreted in different ways. The first sentence of Part 2 of Article 19 hardly implies either a clear and unambiguous prohibition of any encroachment on equality of rights and freedoms or the state's obligation to eradicate violation of equality. The second sentence of the same part imposes a ban only on "restriction of rights', only on the closed list of five grounds. The Russian legislation and judicial practice do not provide for a clear interpretation of the term "restriction of rights'. Moreover, Part 3 of Article 19 and the 2001 Labour Code also introduce the concept of "equal opportunities for pursuit of rights and freedoms'.

53. Part 3 of Article 37 of the Constitution stipulates that "everyone has the right to... remuneration for work without any discrimination (diskriminatsiya) whatsoever...'. federal and regional laws, but without a definition and interpretation either.

54. There is no special anti-discriminatory legislation in the country. There are no other legislative acts that contain any definition of direct and indirect discrimination. The drafting and adoption of anti-discriminatory legislation were not included in the law-making plans of the RF State Duma of the 4th (2004-2007) and earlier convocations.

55. Thus, the notions of "discrimination', "restrictions of rights, "legitimate or illegitimate distinction' remain unclear for both professional lawyers and for the general public. There are no official explanations on this matter issued by the Supreme Court Plenum and no definite position of the legislative power and the law-enforcement agencies. The Civil Procedural Code establishes the rights to bring civil actions in cases when personal rights and freedoms are violated by governmental authorities, local self-governments and their officials. The law also equates, by default, the creation of obstacles to an individual's enjoyment of rights and freedoms, or illegal imposition of a duty or responsibility, or unlawful penalization, with violation of rights. Nevertheless, a similar term "restriction of rights' is understood in juridical practice predominantly as a direct and overt obstruction to realization of concrete rights by certain individuals or social categories. An illegitimate distinction resulting in negative effects for an individual or people concerned, that cannot be clearly determined in this sense as a direct violation of rights (for instance, in cases of discretionary powers, official control or supervision), is usually not perceived as 'discrimination'.

56. A major problem for Russia is hidden or multiple forms of discrimination. These kinds of distinction, exclusion or preference may be practised on the basis of other criteria - as a rule, related to the present or former place of residence in a certain region and citizenship. Overt restrictions on these grounds may be actually aimed at racial (or ethnic) minorities. Restrictions against certain social categories in practice may be applied selectively, on the ground of personal ethnic affiliation.

57. Notions of "race' and "racial' have a limited application in Russia and traditionally associate with biological origin, physical appearance and skin colour. Distinction by origin and culture is usually defined by term "ethnic'. Therefore, hereinafter notions of "racial discrimination' and "ethnic discrimination' are used as full synonyms.

Article 1, par. 2

"This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens.'

58. Discrimination, i.e. an arbitrary and unjustified distinction on the grounds of citizenship, in the Russian Federation is closely tied with ethnic discrimination (see the Introduction, Section "State of Foreign Citizens and Former Soviet Citizens'). Actions against "illegal migrants' are often ethnically selective; repressions against certain ethnic groups are justified by combating "illegal migration' (shown, in particular, by the situation with Georgians and Meskhetian Turks).

Article 1, par. 3

"Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as affecting in any way the legal provisions of States Parties concerning nationality, citizenship or naturalization, provided that such provisions do not discriminate against any particular nationality.'

59. Acute problems have been generated by arbitrary refusals of the executive, in violation of the RF Law "On Citizenship of the Russian Federation' of 1991, to recognise Russian citizenship for several categories of the former citizens of the USSR, who differ ethnically from the majority of RF population (see below the section related to Article 5, par. (d) 'iii').

60. The pressure on Georgian citizens and ethnic Georgians in October-November 2006 showed that the repressive mechanism used by the state to pursue its migration policies can be easily aimed at nationals of a certain country and representatives of a certain ethnic group. Some Russian top officials announced their plans to actually bar the possibility of naturalization of citizens of a certain country, i.e. Georgia. These statements have not been fully implemented (see below the section related to Article 2, par. 1(a)), but such an outcome was potentially real.

Article 1, par. 4

"Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.'

61. The law and political and academic discourse in Russia see as the categories which need special protective measures, 'small indigenous peoples' (this term is close to the concept of indigenous populations in international instruments; the definition of that term is set forth in the relevant federal law; see below the section related to Article 2, par. 2) and 'small ethnic communities' (this notion is not clearly defined either in law or in theoretical debates). Though present in the RF Constitution, there is no definition of "national minorities' in the federal legislation. Special measures of compensation are discussed only in respect of 'repressed peoples', i.e. ethnic groups that were forcibly displaced in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1991 there were adopted the respective federal law and by-laws on individual ethnic groups; certain measures were taken to give compensations to the victims of deportations and their descendants. There is no discussion of the issue of the protective measures in respect of the population categories who have become victims of the racial discrimination under other circumstances (forced migrants, certain national minorities).

PART II. Information relating to Articles 2-7 of the ICERD

Article 2, par. 1

"States Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races, and, to this end:'

62. The equal rights provisions are stipulated in the RF Constitution as a general principle lacking sufficient definition (see the section related to Article 1, par. 1 of the ICERD).

63. The equal rights provisions of the RF Constitution are reproduced in a whole number of legislative acts: the 1994 Civil Code (general equality of persons participating in civil relations); the 2002 Civil Procedural Code (equality of citizens before the law and in court); the 1995 Family Code (the ban on restrictions of rights related to marriage and family life on the grounds of social, racial, national [ethnic], linguistic and religious belonging); the 2001 Labour Code (equality in employment); the 1996 Criminal Code (equality before the law); the RF Law "On Citizenship of the Russian Federation' of 2002; the RF Laws 'Fundamentals of the Russian Federation Legislation on Citizens' Health Protection' of 1993 and 'On Medical Insurance of Citizens in the Russian Federation' of 1991 (equal access to healthcare); 'On the Civil Service System of the Russian Federation' of 2003 (equal access to civil service); "On Fundamentals of Civil Service of the Russian Federation' of 1995 (equal access to civil service); 'On Fundamentals of Municipal Service of the Russian Federation' of 1998 (equal access to municipal service); the RF Law 'On Militia' [On the police] of 1991 (the principle of equal protection of human and civil rights).

64. Article 426 of the RF Civil Code establishes the institute of "public contract', i.e. an offer of goods or services by a commercial entity to unlimited number of consumers, prescribes the seller's duty not to draw distinctions between consumers, i.e. not to deny goods or services to any consumers or set different prices and other terms of transaction for different consumers, if the law does not allow granting preferences to certain categories of consumers.

65. The RF Law "On Education' of 1992 though secures equal access to education, but does not guarantee equal treatment in academic activities. A whole number of important legislative acts do not contain any provisions on equal rights and banning of discrimination. This list includes the 1999 Federal Law "On Fundamentals of Federal Labour Protection Policy' (tackling issues of physical safety only), the 1992 RF Law "On Protection of Consumer Rights', RF Laws "On Forced Migrants' and "On Refugees' (the both of 1993). The important point is that the 2004 RF Housing Code speaks generally only about "recognizing the equality of participants of relations regulated by housing law' and contains no anti-discrimination provisions.

66. Though many legislative acts do have provisions asserting the principle of equality, and certain laws (2001 Labour Code and 1996 Criminal Code (the version of 2003)) directly prohibit discrimination, the legislation does not provide for an overall ban of discrimination and there is no juridical practice of combating discrimination (see sections related to Article 2. par.1 and Article 6).

67. Meanwhile, the state not only fails to take adequate measures to combat discrimination, but also in many cases itself practises, sponsors or tolerates systematic and mass discrimination. Of deep concern is the fact that discriminatory actions often take place in the form of coordinated repressive campaigns targeted at certain ethnic groups or population categories. Federal and regional authorities, municipal bodies, as well as their officials, contribute to these campaigns, which are sometimes also supported by some civic associations and mass media. One should mention the campaign against Georgian citizens and migrants from Georgia in October-November 2006, pressure on Chechens residing outside Chechnya, mass evictions of Roma people and systematic violations of rights of Meskhetian Turks and other minorities in Krasnodar Krai.

68. Both governmental and non-governmental agents in different situations employ similar methods to restrict rights of persons belonging to the discriminated groups. This is the reason why peculiarities of discriminating campaigns against individual groups and general problems will be described separately; though general problems concern many categories of the population, they may be traced in separate campaigns as well.

Article 2, par. 1 (a)

"Each State Party undertakes to engage in no act or practice of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions and to ensure that all public authorities and public institutions, national and local, shall act in conformity with this obligation;'

Discriminatory Activities of the Law-enforcement Agencies and Their Officers

Racially selective detentions and ID checks

69. Ethnic profiling in this area manifests itself in selective and disproportionately frequent detentions of persons belonging to the so-called "visual' minorities (that is, persons with a distinctive physical appearance, easily identifiable as natives of the Caucasus and Central Asia and as Roma), unlawful and unprovoked use of violence toward detainees and extortion of money.

70. This practice is directly provoked by repressive and restrictive legislation on foreign citizens' legal status, as well as the system of registration by the place of residence and stay for Russian citizens and aliens.

71. From May to September 2005, the mode of conduct of policemen in the Moscow underground transit system was monitored within a joint project of the Open Society Justice Initiative', independent non-for-profit organization "Lawyers for Constitutional Rights and Freedoms' (JURIX) and the Lamberth Consulting. This Moscow Metro Monitoring Study employed for the first time outside the USA and United Kingdom a methodology known as observational benchmarking. The data of over 1,500 stoppings at 15 Moscow underground stations were analyzed, as well as the information received from interviews with 367 passengers selected from all those who were stopped by police. [15]

72. The above data showed that persons visually perceived as originating from the Caucasus or Central Asia, whose share of all metro passengers did not exceed 4.6%, accounted for 50.9% of those stopped by the police. In other words, non-Slavs, on average were 21.8 times more likely to be stopped (and 85 times at a one metro station!) than others. This disproportion recorded by the Moscow metro study is so high that it cannot be explained on non-discriminatory and legitimate grounds of law-enforcement.

Racially selective large-scale policing campaigns

73. Since spring 2002, the Ministry of Internal Affairs has been regularly conducting allegedly anti-crime campaigns under the slogan 'Tabor' (the name for a Romani encampment) in a number of Russian regions. These campaigns usually entail mass checks of the documents and housing of people identified as Roma and sometimes displacing them to whatever part of the Russian Federation in which they were last registered. Since July 2002 such operations have been carried out both in individual regions and on a nationwide scale. In particular, two "Tabor' operations were conducted in Saint-Petersburg in May and June 2004 and entailed serious and mass human rights violations (unlawful detentions, beatings and illegal seizure of property). During that operation in early June 2004 a Romani encampment in Leningrad oblast was burnt to the ground. The 2006 "Tabor' operation was also of a vast scale; comments made by police spokesmen and mass media expressly confirmed, as before, that the campaign targeted solely the Roma people.

74. Information on similar police campaigns targeting against other ethnic groups occasionally leaks to mass media. The essence of such campaigns is to check persons of a certain ethnic origin for involvement in criminal activities. Thus, the issue is related not just to surveillance of the already known criminal groups. Individuals are stopped for check-up, detained and have their fingerprints taken basically on the grounds of their ethnicity. Such practice was confirmed by the secret RF Internal Affairs Ministry Order No. 273dsp (i.e. confidential) from 18 April 2006 allegedly on "combating ethnic criminality'. In particular, in May and June 2006 the "Kura' (name of the river in Georgia) operation was implemented against Georgians in a number of Russian regions (Moscow, Chuvashia, Rostov Oblast, Krasnodar Krai and others). Also in November 2006 mass media published a copy of the order of the Moscow Head Internal Affairs Department dated 1 September 2006 on conducting operations with respect to Ingushs. [16] The document's authenticity was neither directly confirmed nor denied by the police officials; while police officers have confirmed unofficially that such orders were issued regularly.

75. In August 2005, prior to celebrating of the Kazan Millennium the police undertook raids against local Chechens in Tatarstan capital city. The operation objective was to clean the city of Chechen natives for the period of festivities. The police focused primarily on students' hostels where Chechen students stayed. According to the "Memorial' data, within that month officers of a special police detachment with dogs and armed with submachine guns broke into the hostel several times a week and detained young Chechens. They were taken to police stations and ordered to immediately leave the city. Officers of the Regional Department for Combating against Organised Crime also intimidated owners of apartments rented by Chechens. At police stations those owners were threatened to have a criminal case instigated against them under a charge "for aiding and abetting terrorists' unless they got rid of their tenants as soon as possible. [17]

76. Heads of city or district police departments regularly initiate check-ups (sometimes with fingerprinting) of residents belonging to certain ethnic groups, most often Chechens. For example, in November 2005 in Pustoshka town of Pskov oblast the local police requested all Chechens residing there to have their fingerprints and photographs taken voluntarily. [18] Fingerprinting of persons coming from Daghestan, Chechnya and Ingushetia for many years has been a precondition for obtaining either permanent or temporary registration in Moscow. In early May 2007 Volzhsky city of Volgograd oblast witnessed mass detentions of Roma followed by forced fingerprinting; local authorities confirmed conducting the "Volcano' operation, in which police officers were ordered to detain all "Gypsies and homeless people'. [19] On 19 October 2007 the information emerged that some schools in Khimki city near Moscow received letters from the local police department requesting to submit lists of children coming from the Caucasus and Central Asia with home addresses and character references. According to data collected by journalist Alexander Minkin, that was the content of inquiries sent to school principals and signed by the city criminal police head and such request was explained by the "implementation of anti-terrorist measures'. [20]

Fabrication of criminal accusations

77. Fabrication of criminal accusations is the most cruel and cynical form of persecution. This practice affected basically Chechens and Tajiks (the latter are mostly labour migrants from Central Asia). Accusations were fabricated by planting drugs or ammunition in individual's pockets, personal belongings or housing and then "finding' them during personal or house search. Fabrication of accusations against Tajiks seemed a way to raise the crime detection rate in the fight against drug trafficking. [21] Fabrications of cases against Chechens were performed as mass campaigns following the largest terrorist acts in Russian cities. Fabrications against Chechens lost their mass scale in early 2003; and fabrications against Tajiks basically came to naught in summer 2005 after official protests of Tajikistan. [22] Since then there have been just a few instances of planting drugs or ammunition (see below for examples in Section "Discrimination of Chechens').

78. Accusations based on planting drugs and ammunition, despite some minor differences, were fabricated following several standard patterns. Persons to be checked were identified and detained. Chechens were usually detained at home, while Tajiks - often at their workplaces or sometimes when crossing the border. People were taken to police stations with a promise to let them go right after the ID check. At the police stations policemen more or less skillfully planted "incriminating evidence', usually drugs or several cartridges. Attesting witnesses chosen in advance were waiting nearby, and those fake evidences were found in their presence. A false protocol fixed that the accused had been detained in the street instead of being taken to the police station from their home or workplace, otherwise it would have looked quite improbable that a person going to the police station would put drugs or ammunition into his pockets.

79. The detainees are often beaten up to make them incriminate themselves and sign confessions. Detainees' relatives are usually not informed or are intentionally misinformed of their location to impede the arrangement of detainees' defence. In court when judges decide on police investigators' applications for selecting pre-trial restrictions they adjudicate exclusively arrest and custody and totally disregard evidence and testimonies in favour of the accused as well as the arguments of their defence lawyers. They take into account only the ethnicity and lack of registration, which is construed as a pre-requisite for escaping the court proceedings. The court fails to explain how the available registration can prevent the suspect from escaping.

80. Defence attorneys' complaints of police illegal actions and the State Duma deputies' inquiries to the public prosecutors' offices with a request to supervise the cases and punish those guilty of illegitimate detention methods receive standard frivolous and unfounded refusals.

81. There is not a single verdict of innocence in such cases. The court always supports the prosecution and does not care about the absence of relevant evidence. At best the accused can get a probation sentence. Also several cases were terminated at the investigation stage, usually those were cases against relatives of VIPs.

Campaigns against Certain Ethnic Groups

The anti-Georgian campaign of 2006

82. In late September 2006 relations between Russia and Georgia deteriorated dramatically. The RF Government imposed a number of economic sanctions against Georgia, in particular, the postal communication and transport connection between the two countries were completely ceased. Russia completely stopped issuing any visas to Georgian citizens. In early October 2006, the official authorities in most Russian regions undertook repressive measures against Georgian citizens and ethnic Georgians. In Orenburg and Kirovsk Oblasts, Bashkiria, Nizhny Novgorod, Krasnodar, Cherepovets, Tomsk, Irkutsk, Krasnoyarsk, Ekaterinburg, Omsk, Ivanovo, Kazan and Rostov-on-Don law-enforcement agencies conducted operations named "Georgian', "Migrant', etc. All law-enforcement services, i.e. Ministry of Internal Affairs, Tax Service, Migration Service, Economic Crime Department, and Federal Security Service were engaged in mass check-ups of individuals with Georgian surnames, in their detention and deportation. Governments of several regions, i.e. Chuvash Republic, Perm Krai and Pskov Oblast, avoided participation in anti-Georgian actions. By mid-November the campaign was basically wound up and the check-up scope decreased down to a previous level. However, the transport and postal connections between the RF and Georgia still have not been resumed (on March 2008).

83. Georgian citizens residing or staying in Russia were subjected to wide scale checks. Compliance with the rules of sojourn in the RF and legality of labour activities were announced as the target of such operations. Actually those checks were ethnically selective and effected RF citizens of Georgian origin, ethnic Georgians - third country citizens, stateless persons and refugees from Abkhazia who had come to the RF in 1992-1993.

84. Numerous evidences confirm that those actions targeted exactly migrants of Georgian origin and check-ups were specially organized, since they followed the same pattern in different regions of the country.

85. The police and migration service checked places where migrants from Georgia might be: check-ups took place in the street, in residential premises, at enterprises and organizations. On 7 October in Moscow the police checked IDs of the parish people in the Orthodox church which held services in the Georgian language and had a basically Georgian congregation. [23] The same day the police riot squad (OMON) checked documents of visitors to the Georgian consulate, and four of them were detained.

86. In a number of cities like Moscow, Kaluga, Ivanovo, Nizhny Novgorod and Ekaterinburg, the police tried to collect information on pupils with Georgian last names via school administrations. Those actions were explained unofficially by the necessity to identify pupils' parents without a registration. In Tomsk, the police collected data on university students of Georgian origin. After critical publications in the press the leaders of Moscow's Main Directorate of Internal Affairs declared that those actions were not authorized by their superiors and were initiated locally. However, none of those who had initiated such checks was held liable.

87. Georgian citizens subjected to checks were usually detained and expelled from Russia under the pretext of violating the rules of stay in the RF and lacking work permits. Detentions and expulsions were carried out under a simplified procedure with lots of violations. In particular, during checks and detentions the police often destroyed papers, including passports, visas and other documentary evidences of the legality of detainees' stay in the RF. Subjected to detention and deportation were those who had valid visas and registrations, as well as RF residence and work permits.

88. Russian citizens were also falling victims to this campaign. In particular, Dato Berulava (born 1970) has lived in Moscow since 1993 and been a RF citizen since 1998. He did not get a RF citizen's passport in due time and had a USSR citizen's passport with a certificate of RF citizenship. On 5 October 2006, he was stopped in the street and police officers destroyed his certificate of RF citizenship and confiscated his Soviet passport. On 6 October, the Nagatinsky Court of Moscow adjudicated his expulsion, though in Moscow Dato Berulava had the wife and two minor children (aged 6 and 8), both citizens of Russia. On 10 October, Berulava was deported to Tbilisi, i.e. before the expiration of 10 days within which he was entitled to lodge an appeal against the judgment. Police officers also threatened his wife (a stateless person) with deportation, if she dared to complain. Representatives of the "Civic Assistance' Committee applied to the RF General Prosecutor's Office and following its protest the deportation decision was withdrawn. Six months later Dato Berulava returned to Moscow, while all that time he had to stay in the Tbilisi airport supported by local charity organizations.

89. The time limits for custody envisaged by the law were exceeded regularly. Persons detained in the streets were gathered into large groups and taken to courts which within mere minutes and without any defence lawyers, passed judgment on the expulsion from Russia. Often detainees were not allowed to enter a courtroom and had to stay in a corridor or even in a police vehicle. Courts refused to investigate the circumstances or take into account either the fact that a detainee was married to a RF citizen, had a family and children who had grown up in Russia and were Russian citizens or the absence of any violations by the people sentenced to deportation. Many were expelled immediately without giving them time to appeal against the deportation judgment.

90. According to the Georgian consulate in Moscow, about 1.500 Georgian citizens were deported from Russia from late September to the end of 2006. Half of them were deported to Georgia by an aircraft of the RF Ministry for Emergency Situations and the rest were sent via third countries. Just in November Russia deported 940 natives of Georgia. [24] According to a special committee of the Georgian Parliament, by 15 January 2007 Russian courts passed 4,634 judgments on expulsion or deportation of Georgian citizens, of which 2,380 were deported and the rest left Russia at their own expense. [25]

91. During the campaign temporary detention centers for aliens to be expelled were overcrowded and accommodation conditions were extremely unsatisfactory. People there were poorly fed, deprived of necessary sanitary conditions, medical aid and legal support. As a result at least three people died in custody.

92. Representatives of human rights organizations from many regions witness that they have seen orders to check Georgians coming to the local internal affairs departments either from Moscow or from their regional superiors. Apart from the above checks, these orders include check-ups to be performed in various institutions, universities, secondary and nursery schools. In particular, in Saint-Petersburg and Leningrad Oblast the anti-Georgian campaign was conducted on the basis secret Order No. 0215 of 30 September 2006 issued by the regional Head Internal Affairs Department. The Head Internal Affairs Departments of Saint-Petersburg and Leningrad Oblast also sent to their divisions the requirements to the effect that the latter were obliged to submit daily reports in a special format on the number of Georgian citizens committing various legal offenses.

93. It is important that the documents of the Head Internal Affairs Departments of Saint-Petersburg and Leningrad Oblast mentioned that all check-ups and deportations were agreed in advance with regional courts.

94. In addition, police and other agencies (tax, sanitary and fire safety inspectorates) checked small and medium businesses employing ethnic Georgians. Authorities also checked the legality of establishment of small and medium, and sometimes even large businesses owned by Georgian citizens or ethnic Georgians. In particular, the tax inspectorate audited the income of well-known writer Boris Akunin (a pen-name of Georgy Chkhartishvili) and the RF Audit Chamber checked the Fine Art Academy headed by Zurab Tsereteli. Such audits frequently resulted in suspension or liquidations of businesses. In Moscow the Georgian cultural center was audited and subsequently closed.

95. Authorities announced vociferously their checks of casinos and other places of entertainment in Moscow and some other cities under a pretext that those companies, as asserted by law-enforcement agencies, were controlled by the "Georgian organized crime'.
The Head Internal Affairs Department of Sverdlovsk Oblast compiled lists of all ethnic Georgians with gun licenses registered in the Department; they were invited to police stations to discuss and explain the reasons for buying firearms. [26]

96. In the course of anti-Georgian campaign top officials made essentially racist statements. For example, on 29 September, the Director of the RF Federal Migration Service Konstantin Romodanovsky declared that Georgians were especially crime-prone and violated the migration law several times more often than natives of other countries. [27] On 5October his deputy Mikhail Tyurkin told about plans to cancel quotas for temporary residence permits and work permits for Georgian citizens. [28] Obtaining a temporary residence permit is a prerequisite stage for getting a RF citizenship, thus, the above step would mean a direct violation of Part 3, Article 1 of the Convention. Since June 2006 the RF Government has in fact acquired the right to establish quotas of work permits for different countries wherefrom labour migrants come and not just for RF regions. However, laws on foreign citizens' legal status do not provide for any limitations on granting temporary residence permits depending on the country of origin.

97. In practice, by the end of 2006 no quotas for work permits and, moreover, temporary residence permits depending on migrants' country of origin had been established. However, the declaration of intent to discriminate migrants from Georgia in terms of their legalization in the RF and access to Russian citizenship had its effect. According to human rights organizations, in October 2006 migrants from Georgia were in fact denied work permits and temporary residence permits, while after November 2006 the Migration Service has started creating additional obstacles for Georgians to obtain such permits.

98. At the beginning of the anti-Georgian campaign the FMS announced the forthcoming establishment of a special structural unit to be in charge of migrants from Georgia. Finally, that unit was not created, but some regional migration service departments (e.g. in Saint-Petersburg) introduced special procedures for working with Georgian citizens and set up separate reception hours.

99. During the anti-Georgian campaign top officials made ambiguous statements which were indirectly supportive of repressive measures. In particular, at the meeting with the heads of State Duma parliamentary factions the Russian President Vladimir Putin endorsed restrictions imposed on gambling business and declared the necessity to support "native population' in small wholesale business at marketplaces. [29] Those statements per se were neutral and did not mention any ethnicity. However, they were made in a quite definite context. Proposals on limiting the gambling business were put forward in the context of fight against "Georgian criminal bosses' who allegedly controlled casinos, while "protection of native population' had been discussed since September 2006 upon ethnic scuffles in Kondopoga city, on the initiative of radical nationalist organizations protecting "Russians' from "non-Russians'. The fact that the president and other top officials accepted and mastered the agenda and language of nationalists looked like the authorities' support of the latter and was perceived as such by leaders and participants of radical nationalist movements, who soon afterwards held their demonstrations under slogans "The President is with us!'.

100. Further official comments also sounded as an indirect support for discriminatory measures, since they came down to explanations about ordinary regular checks without any ethnic targeting, while incidents discussed by human rights activists and press were just occasional excesses of the enforcement. The absence of punishment for those guilty of exceeding their authority was also a clear approval of their actions.

101. On 26 March 2007 the Republic of Georgia filed a complaint to the European Court on Human Rights against the Russian Federation for violation of a number of articles of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms together with the ECHR Article 14 prohibiting discrimination. Also in April 2007 twelve applicants from Georgia assisted by the human rights organization "Georgian Association of Young Lawyers' filed a complaint to the European Court against Russia for violation of the same ECHR articles (Chokheli et al v. Russia, case No. 16369/07). All applicants legally resided in Russia and had valid documents; however they were detained and expelled from the country for multiple violations of the law.

Evictions of Roma

102. Mass evictions of so-called "Luli' Gypsies (a group of Roma originating from Central Asia) took place in Moscow, Saint-Petersburg, Arkhangelsk, Vladimir, Nizhny Novgorod, Surgut and other cities. Sometimes the police just destroy temporary Roma encampments, thus forcing them move elsewhere; this happened not once in 2002-2004 near Saint-Petersburg.

103. In 2006 a wave of demolitions of Roma villages swept over the country. Such demolitions took place in Kaliningrad Oblast, Ivanovo, Tyumen, Cheboksary, Tula Oblast, Ekaterinburg and Chudovo in Novgorod Oblast. Houses where people have lived for decades with consent or even on the order of authorities were destroyed, many residents had "propiska' (registration by place of residence) in those houses. Evictions were carried out with intentional cruelty, with arson and bulldozers, and whole families with small children were literally kicked out into the street.

104. Each of these events is driven by local governments' and construction companies' interest in vacating land plots they need for construction. All over the country, real estate titles of the majority of people owning houses and cabins are not properly legalized, often through the fault of authorities. Local governments can actually seize houses and household land plots from the people to satisfy the interests of large developers. The primary target here is the most vulnerable group deprived of public support, i.e. the Roma people. Even a duly legalized title to land plots presents no obstacle for eviction, and that was proved by the incident in Kaliningrad Oblast.

105. Demolition of Roma settlements is usually accompanied by an anti-Roma campaign in press and blatantly racist statements of the local officials.

106. In addition in some cases Russian houses in the same situation (like two non-Roma houses in Dorozhny village, see below) were not subject to destruction, thus making it possible to consider the demolition of Roma houses as discriminatory.

107. The most outrageous incident took place near Kaliningrad in Dorozhny village. This Roma village located in Guriev District of Kaliningrad Oblast was finally demolished in May-June 2006. The authorities made about 40 families homeless.

108. The Roma people settled in Dorozhny after the enactment of the 1956 USSR Supreme Soviet Decree on Gypsies' abode. In 1956, a group of Lithuanian Roma were given land plots and had to settle at that very place. Dwellers of the village had registration by place of residence there. By 2005 most of them managed in a judicial proceeding to have their title to their homes recognized by usucapion. But then the regional authorities' policies changed, the prosecutor's office contested the earlier court judgments recognizing the title to realty. Beginning from December 2005 those houses were adjudicated "ownerless' and "illegally built' though the people had lived there for the last five decades, and the first demolitions took place in February 2006. Then the authorities under various pretexts started canceling residence registration. Without registration people became deprived of almost all rights; since many of them had no foreign passports or no means of subsistence, they could not leave the enclave Kaliningrad Oblast.

109. The administration of Guriev District where Dorozhny is located called that operation a "sanitary mop-up of the territory'. Houses were demolished by bulldozers in the presence of armed riot police squad and representatives of the State Drug Control Committee. [30] The demolition was broadcasted by local TV Company "Cascade'. Over 200 people, including children, were kicked out into the street. Since then many have been living in the open, in tents. Kaliningrad Oblast authorities refused to discuss the problem with Roma leaders and human rights activists; houses were demolished although court rulings on demolition were appealed against and an urgent complaint was submitted to the European Court on Human Rights. [31] Governor Georgi Boos appeared on local TV and declared that since the village was allegedly a hotbed of crime, he was prepared to "root it out with hot-tongs'. [32]

110. The city administration of Arkhangelsk city succeeded in evicting Roma from their village and expelling their community from the city where the Roma moved in from Volgograd in 2004. The Roma lawfully legalized the lease of a land parcel at the city outskirts and started construction on this territory. But in October 2004, the Arkhangelsk administration issued an order canceling the allocation of land plot for housing construction and tried to annul the Roma's registration by place of residence. That decision was unsuccessfully contested in court. The City Hall supported by local mass media launched an anti-Roma campaign, while the Arkhangelsk Oblast prosecutor's office actually did nothing to protect the Roma. Pushed by the city administration (which threatened to demolish their houses and have them deported) the Roma community was forced to give up their homes and leave the city in July 2006. They never received any compensation for the eviction promised by the city administration, which just paid for their railway tickets to Moscow.

Discrimination against Chechens

111. Chechens in Russia outside Chechnya are subjected to pressure and persecution in many forms. Similarly to the previous period, RF authorities demonstrated their intention to force the Chechens out to Chechnya; local authorities used all methods to prevent Chechens from settling in the territory they controlled. Such pressure on Chechens can be partially explained by the fact that many police officers have had missions to Chechnya in recent years for different terms.

112. According to NGOs estimates at the moment the number of former Chechnya residents who may be classified as "internally displaced persons' vary from 300,000 to 500,000 people. These include all people forced to leave the Chechen Republic since 1991 up to now who have failed to find permanent housing and employment and get access to adequate medical care and social welfare. Most of them still cannot integrate in Russia. Apart from that, a lot of ethnic Chechens who left Chechnya before 1990s or were born outside it live in many places all over Russia. Internally displaced persons are the most vulnerable category amongst Chechens, but even Chechens with a stable social status are discriminated against.

113. The government is resolving the housing and other social problems of basically those arrivals from Chechnya who were granted the status of forced migrants. Meanwhile, since mid-1990s this status as a rule was not given to ethnic Chechens. [33] Besides, people who had their dwellings destroyed during the war in Chechnya can obtain compensation. However, not more than one third of the victims have got the compensation [34] ; the amount of compensations is relatively small [35] and anyway is insufficient for purchasing or building a new dwelling. Besides, the mechanism of compensation is discriminatory: those people who stay in Chechnya may claim several times more than those who have left for other places (for more details see the section relating to Art. 5(e) of the ICERD). A small number of people who had fled Chechnya (about 700 persons) were settled in so-called Centres of Temporary Accommodation (i.e. hostels) belonging to the Federal Migration Service. Most of these people, i.e. almost all arrivals from Chechnya who did not have the status of forced migrants, have been evicted from these Centres in the recent years. Until 2006, the courts ruled in favour of displaced persons and shared the opinion that those people could not be evicted without providing them with another accommodation; nowadays the position has changed and evictions are total. [36]

Denial of registration by place of residence and sojourn

114. The problem of Chechens' registration is real and acute in all regions outside the Chechen Republic. Housing owners often refuse to give Chechens even temporary registration and prefer either to reject problem-making tenants or let them move in but without any registration. Even if landlords are ready to offer registration to Chechens, they need a very strong motivation, knowledge of laws and energy to make police agencies register a Chechen family in their dwellings. Besides, this procedure is time-consuming. Quite often police officers regularly visit houses with Chechen tenants and offer all sorts of trouble to their owners. Even with housing owners' consent the struggle for registration can last for months or even years.

115. Three brothers Ahmed, Ramzan and Bislan Mukhadievs having fled from war rented a single room in Elektrogorsk town near Moscow together with their wives and obtained a temporary registration there. In 2003 the internal affairs department refused to register them and the women had to leave, while the young man preferred to stay, no matter what, since they thought that their lives in Chechnya would be at a greater danger. Since then the brothers have been seeking to get registered. The head of passport office would not explain his refusal to register brothers. At the same time a police team regularly came to the apartment occupied by the Mukhadievs, threatened them and each time fined for the absence of registration.

116. On 23 February 2005 members of the RF Human Rights Council under the RF President Svetlana Gannushkina and Oleg Orlov met with Kirsanov, a public prosecutor of Pavlovo-Posad District, and with lots of effort managed to persuade him to enforce law in respect of the Mukhadievs. They were given a six-months registration. In the fall of 2005 they were again denied registration and this time had to seek it with the help of top officials of the RF FMS. But even that step has failed to preclude new denials and the Mukhadievs until now have to obtain registration with much effort.

117. To hamper the Chechens' registration, passport office employees often invent requirements absent in the registration regulations. Thus, a resident of Grozny Said-Magomed Shaptukaev who lived in Moscow after a kidney transplantation surgery could not get registered at his friends' apartment. Passport office people told him that he needed to prove his kinship with the apartment owners and obtain an authorization for registration with the Housing Policy Department of the city administration. Those demands were totally absurd and illegal, but only a superior agency could prove that to the passport office people after human rights activists applied there for help.

118. Forced migrant from Chechnya Tamara Alautdinovna Marzieva, mother of four children, two of them disabled, was denied registration by the Moscow state organization "Moszhilservice' (in charge of managing municipal housing in Moscow), which justified its refusal by the insufficient size of the residential space.

119. In Moscow the Chechens' registration, even if granted, is arranged as a humiliating ritual, including registration authorization by the police station head, special check for a criminal past, compulsory fingerprinting, taking full-face and side profile photographs. Sometimes getting consent of the Federal Security Service and the military enlistment office is required. Even if registration is granted, practically all Chechens are recorded in separate files as potential suspects. Similar practices exist in a number of other regions. In Kazan, all Chechens are obliged to re-register themselves each year; as a part of this procedure they have to write a report explaining why they stay in Tatarstan.

120. Chechens are often subject to degrading ID and registration checks. Policemen also regularly visit apartments or houses where Chechens inhabit for examining whether the dwellers were really staying there and to what extend them seemed politically reliable. Chechens are routinely checked outdoors. They are also often subject to administrative arrests under various pretexts, for instance, allegedly for foul language in a public place. Worse, many ID papers including birth certificates and passports can be issued in Chechnya while trips to this region are costly and risk-bearing. As a result, many males and young boys have to stay at home while females earn money since police treat Chechen women better than men. However, no Chechen woman has a guarantee against troubles during police checks. The 13-years old daughter of Malika Mintseva who has been living in Moscow for several years was repeatedly detained in the street, taken to a police station and was not allowed to ring her mother. Once the detention lasted for almost 24 hours; the girl was taken to a hospital for homeless children and was to be sent after a medical examination to Chechnya to her place of registration. The personnel at the hospital let the girl call her mother and the principal of her school; then she was released. [37]

Dismissals

121. Refusals to employ Chechens or illegal dismissals happen fairly regularly. Quite often the initiative does not come from employers, since they are regularly pressurised by law-enforcement and security services, i.e. they are either "not advised' or expressly prohibited to hire Chechens.

122. In November 2005, 16 Chechen drivers were fired simultaneously from a taxi company No. 20 in Moscow, and the company management told them directly that it was the Federal Security Service order. Later the Federal Security Service representatives denied their involvement in that dismissal, while none of those Chechens, including permanent residents of Moscow, was re-employed. Several Chechen women who were under patronage of the Civic Assistance Committee in Moscow were in series fired from a sewing workshop, a store, and an office where they were just cleaning after having failed to find a job according to their qualifications. [38]

123. On 25 March 2006, the passport service checked IDs of workers at the Lenin Cultural Center in Elektrogorsk near Moscow. Upon the check, almost all workers, most of whom were migrants from Central Asian countries without work permits, were let free. Four were detained, all of them Russian citizens: Ingushs - Mahomed Tarchkhoev and Jabrail Veliev and Chechens - Ali Mustakhadjiev and Khalid Azmatkiriev. They were released only two days later and all that time they were never fed. After that Mustakhadjiev and Azmatkiriev were fired. The foreman told them that Federal Security Service officers threatened the owner to close his enterprise if he had Chechen employees.

124. Human rights organizations' experience shows that it makes absolutely no sense to file any enquiries to the Federal Security Service or complaints against it. One never gets any response or explanation; the heads of local Federal Security Service departments utterly ignore all calls and requests to explain the demands of their subordinates.

Fabrication of criminal accusations

125. From autumn 1999 till mid 2003, fabrication of criminal accusations was systematic and looked like a series of mass campaigns initiated from the top after the terrorist acts in Russian cities. In particular, in autumn and winter of 2002, after the hostage taking in Dubrovka Theater, dozens of people whose relatives fell victim to fabricated accusations complained to Moscow human rights organizations. Since mid-2003, such fabrications have been no longer massive in scope, but individual incidents still happen. In 2003, when talking to HRO representatives some police offices confirmed confidentially that they "no longer received such orders' [i.e. to frame Chechens up]. Fabrication of terrorist cases became widely spread and replaced planting of drugs and ammunition. In cases when the involvement of detained young Chechen males in a terrorist act cannot be proved, evidences of minor crimes are invented as before. Usually the police plants weapons or drugs.

126. It is indicative that on 6 April 2005, the Chechen Republic President Alu Alkhanov said to the INTERFAX News Agency that he planned to appeal to the RF law-enforcement agencies with a request to revise criminal cases against Chechen residents charged with drug and ammunition possession, since corruption scandals in police exposed the practice of fabricating such accusations.

127. Aindi Turluev, aged 49, was arrested on 19 May 2003 at the passport office of Moscow police station No.174 on a drug possession charge.

128. Aindi, a former director of a restaurant in Grozny, wanted to launch his own business in Moscow. He thus needed a registration by place of residence in the city. He was invited to visit the head of passport office of the police station No.174 on 19 May 2003 to be questioned about his registration. Aindi had to solve some very urgent problems at that time, so he called the police to reschedule the meeting, by the police boss insisted on his coming. During their talk armed people came to the room and seized Aindi, and then drugs were found in his pocket. The verdict of Butyrsky Court of Moscow was 9 months imprisonment. The staff of "Civil Assistance' Committee has known Aindi Turluev pretty well since late December 1999, and their history of relations with Aindi is sufficient to convince them that he has never ever dealt with drugs.

129. Brothers Ahmed, Ramzan and Bislan Mukhadievs have been renting a room in Elektrogorsk town near Moscow since 2003. In the morning 17 July 2003, policemen came to the apartment where the Mukhadiev brothers rented a room. They locked the Russian neighbours in the next room, raised the Mukhadievs from bed and showed them boxes with the explosive blocks and detonators. Then they handcuffed the brothers and put the TNT blocks under a bathtub and in both rooms. When policemen realized that the neighbours were Russian, they removed the explosive blocks from their room and invited them as attesting witnesses. Initially they planned a charge of attempt to blow up a power station; then the charge was changed to possession of explosives. During the judicial proceeding the investigator police captain Artyom Mitrokhin admitted that he had no reasons for searching and detaining the Mukhadievs other than their ethnicity and his superiors' order. In addition, two different detention records were found in the files. Nevertheless, two Mukhadiev brothers were convicted under Article 222, part 2 of the RF Criminal Code "acquisition and possession of weapons' for the term of "already endured punishment', i.e. after 9 months of pre-trial imprisonment they were released in the courtroom.

130. The case of Zara Murtazalieva is an example of a fabricated terrorism charge. A young woman of Chechen origin (born in Chechnya in 1983) found a job to Moscow in an insurance company. On 4 March 2004, Zara was detained near her office in the center of Moscow, but taken to "Prospekt Verdadskogo' police station at the city outskirts. Two packs of "Plastit-4' explosive were supposedly "found' in her bag while her fingerprints were not detected on the device. The Federal Security Service people pressed on Zara's friends and their parents to force them give testimony against Zara. The court declined all the defence petitions. Despite evidence of tampering, Zara Mourtazalieva was sentences on 17 January 2005 to 9 years imprisonment for conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, involvement of her friends in terrorist activities and storage of explosives.

Situation of Meskhetian Turks (Meskhetians) and other minorities in Krasnodar Krai

131. The acuteness of this most striking problem of racial discrimination in Russia has been diminishing since 2004 due to a gradual emigration of Turks from Krasnodar Krai to the USA. However those Turks who stay in the region continue experiencing the same difficulties. Similar discriminatory policies are still pursued in respect of other minorities in the region - Armenians, Kurds, Yezidis and Hemshils.

132. The Meskhetian Turks, or Meskhetians, are Turkish-speaking Muslim people deported in 1944 from South Georgia to Central Asia; the total of over 300,000 Meskhetians reside within the former Soviet Union. In 1989—1990 and later about 90,000 Meskhetians were forced to leave Uzbekistan, fleeing from violent ethnic clashes. Approximately 60,000 of these sought refuge in the Russian Federation (one of the USSR constituent republics at that time), over 13,000 fled to Krasnodar Krai.

133. Regional authorities of Krasnodar Krai refused to give propiska (now a registration by place of residence) to Meskhetian Turks. Under this pretext the Turks were not acknowledged as RF citizens and many of them had to legalize their citizenship in other regions of the country. Krasnodar Krai is the only region in Russia where Turks having no local registration by place of residence are en masse deprived of the main civil and political rights. They may not get or renew (in case of a loss or damage) their personal documents (primarily a passport). Their marriages are not officially registered and recognized. Turks are consistently denied access to justice: local judges refuse to accept Meskhetian's suits and complaints under various false pretexts. In many cases it is fair to say that Krasnodar Krai's courts showed a biased attitude to Meskhetian Turks which appealed against unlawful refusals of local police to register them by place of residence. Quite often courts passed judgments against the plaintiffs, thus ignoring the requirements of law. Turks are completely denied access to the social welfare system and health case insurance. They are not entitled to any education above secondary level. Meskhetians are regularly subjected to checks by police officers and fined for the absence of registration. Authorities always conduct mass checks of the "passport regime', including searches in residential houses.

134. Since 1992, regional authorities officially identify Turks as an ethnic category subject to a special treatment. In practice that means that the ethnic group has been denied access to registration by place of residence. Subject to a similar discriminatory treatment are those Meskhetians who have obtained the RF citizenship and are registered outside Krasnodar Krai, but actually reside there. Krasnodar Krai officials often declared that they would make life unbearable for Turks and other "illegal migrants' to force them to leave the region.

135. The RF President, Government and prosecutor's offices failed to respond to both anti-minority statements and unlawful actions of Krasnodar Krai top officials. Moreover, representatives of the RF President's Administration repeatedly declared that there was no disagreement between the federal and Krasnodar Krai authorities in terms of migration and ethnic policies.

136. In 2004 the U.S. government extended the United States Refugee Program to the Turks residing in Krasnodar Krai and started granting them the status of refugees for entry to America under the "Priority 2' mechanism, i.e. as members of a separate group subject to persecutions. By mid-2007, over 12,000 people left for the U.S. and about one more thousand were awaiting departure. However, many Meskhetians residing in the region would not apply for a refugee status for various reasons. In addition, the U.S. authorities denied admission to the American territory to over 2,800 Meskhetians.

137. Many of those who were denied admission to the U.S. had been granted refugee status earlier, family members and close relatives of many others had already moved to the United States and many had sold their houses and other property anticipating departure. Previous favorable decisions were revised in absentia, under a pretext that many Meskhetians submitted fake documents confirming their residence in Krasnodar Krai. Meanwhile, many of those who have been rejected are in fact Krasnodar Krai residents. These people, left without valid documents, property and livelihood, find themselves in the most vulnerable position. Those of them who want to have their RF citizen's documents regained for permanent residence in Russia face bureaucratic resistance. Krasnodar Krai administration regularly declared that it welcomed migration to the USA as an opportunity to clean the region of the unwanted community. Thus, those who are either denied entry to the U.S. or do not want to go there are put by local authorities and police under psychological pressure to make them leave. All previous restrictions and prohibitions are still in force; administrations continue pushing Turks to finally evict them from the region. They would not be registered; they would not be given new passports. Law-enforcement officers execute records of administrative offenses for the absence of registration and judges adjudicate fines and penalties. At court hearings they are often denied the assistance of an interpreter and defence attorney. And administrative pressure on other ethnic groups in the region has also increased.

138. The situation of such minorities as Yezidis, Kurds and Hemshils is similar to that of Turks. According to the 2002 census the number of Yezidis[39] in Krasnodar Krai reaches 4,400; according to Yezidi activists, their number can exceed 5,500. Of them about 1,500 - 2,000 people still have no local registration and most of these have no recognized Russian citizenship either. Many of the latter came to the region in 1988-1991, basically from the area of the 1988 Armenian earthquake. Approximately 500-600 Yazidis residing in Neberdjaevskaya village since late 1980s have no local propiska and are not recognized as Russian citizens. Therefore, similarly to Meskhetian Turks they are deprived of most rights. Several hundred Hemshils who came from Kyrgyzstan in 1990-1991 (in 1944 Hemshils were deported from South Georgia concurrently with Meskhetians) are also in the same position. And also various groups of Kurds who came at different times to Russia from the countries of Central Asia and South Caucasus have no registration and legal status. In particular, about 250 Kurds who came basically in 1988-1991 to Platnirovskaya village of Korenovsk district are still deprived of the permanent local registration and are not recognized as Russian citizens. All these groups are treated similarly to Meskhetians, the only difference is that regional authorities did issue any regulatory acts which would identify Kurds, Yezidis and Hemshils as targets of a special policy.

139. Policies towards Meskhetians are usually justified by the fact that those people were deported in 1944 from Georgia and that many Meskhetians would like to get back to that country. However, any migration to Georgia must be only voluntary and Meskhetians are not obliged to go anywhere. In addition, the prospects of their "repatriation' to Georgia are dubious because of the economic disorder and political instability in that country. The Georgian repatriation law passed in July 2007 contains requirements of submitting applications for repatriation, which are difficult to comply with, prescribes the permission-based procedure for granting the repatriate status and offers the authorities an absolute discretion on the issue of status, does not determine the content of that status and says nothing about the Georgian state's obligations towards the repatriates.

Discriminatory Provisions of the Federal Legislation

140. Two federal laws contain provisions, which have characteristics of an overt racial discrimination, i.e. they set differentiation on ethnic grounds aimed at or resulting in restrictions on exercise of rights and freedoms. Both provisions are discriminatory more in formal rather than in substantive terms, since though of a discriminatory nature, they do no real material harm to individuals. These statutory provisions are important as indicative of the legislators' negligent or incompetent attitude to discrimination problems.

141. The first provision relates with "national-cultural autonomies' (NCA). NCAs are civic associations established on ethnic grounds on the basis of the special law (Federal Law No. 74-FZ "On National-Cultural Autonomy' of 17 June 1996) aimed at developing language, culture and education of the relevant ethnic groups. Meanwhile, "ordinary' public associations can also engage in the same activities related to language, culture and education, and NCAs' rights are limited compared to "ordinary' public associations and procedures of their establishment are rather complicated. Until November 2003, the Russian legislation provided for no restrictions in terms of what groups were entitled to initiate the NCA establishment. In compliance with the amendments enacted by Federal Law No.136-FZ :On Amending and Supplementing Articles 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 20 of Federal Law "On national-Cultural Autonomy'; from November 2003, "autonomies' may be established only on behalf of groups "being a national minority on a relevant territory', while the law fails to determine neither what a "minority' is nor the indicators of that "situation'. Thus, the law introduced a restriction on the NCA establishment, i.e. in respect of enjoyment of the constitutional right to freedom of association, on ethnic ground with no constitutionally meaningful goals. In addition, another amendment to that law passed at the same time prohibited the establishment of multi-ethnic NCAs.

142. The second provision is included in the federal on compatriots abroad.

143. The Federal Law "On State Policy of the Russian Federation towards Compatriots Abroad' of 1999 introduces a special legal status of "compatriots abroad' applied both to Russian citizens and certain categories of foreign citizens and stateless persons. The law guarantees support of the Russian Federation to "compatriots' in enjoyment of certain rights as well as provides for certain privileges in maintaining their relations with the Russian Federation. Article 1 of the Law introduces a restriction on granting the "compatriot' status on ethnic ground. Descendants of Russian citizens, citizens of the former USSR, as well as emigrants from the Russian Empire/the USSR/the Russian Federation, relating to "the titular nations of foreign states' are not entitled to claim the compatriot status. Article 2 defines the "titular nation' as an ethnic category, or "a part of the population of a state whose nationality defines the official name of a state'. The status of "compatriots abroad' is not connected either with the citizenship or naturalisation procedures; but it directly relates to exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms. As it is formulated in the Law, it does not allow qualifying "compatriots' as racial and ethnic groups requiring protection, therefore it does not justify the exemption on ethnic ground.

Privileges Granted to Members of the Cossack Movement

144. Since late 1980s the Cossack movement has been advocating the revival of a specific militarised corporation that existed before 1917 and nowadays is claiming special and group rights for its participants. The Cossack organisations represent themselves in different ways: as a specific "ethno-cultural community' (and, quite often, as a part of Russian people too), a public movement, a corporation with a special semi-official status. In the 1990s the RF government granted the Cossack movement a number of privileges for the corporation and its members. Entry to the Cossack movement membership is not free. Most Cossack organizations admit only people of Orthodox faith and loyal to the ideology of Cossackhood. And most Cossack organizations also prefer people of Russian or "Slavic' origin; the largest and oldest union of Cossack associations, the Union of Russia's Cossacks, expressly specifies Russian ethnicity as one of the criteria of admission to the Cossackhood. [40]

145. The 1991 RSFSR Law "On the Exculpation of the Repressed Peoples' determined the Cossacks as a "cultural ethnic entity' and equated them with ethnic groups repressed in the Soviet period. RF Presidential Decree No. 835 "On the Governmental Register of Cossack Communities in the Russian Federation' of 1995 approved the semi-official status of Cossack organisations. Presidential Decrees No. 563 and No. 882 of 1996 granted to members of Cossack communities a special privileged access to governmental and other kinds of civil service. A number of presidential decrees dated the same period provided for agricultural land allocation to Cossack communities and recognition of their special semi-official status. Some regions (subjects of federation) allocated to Cossack organizations land plots for free (and perpetual) use. In particular, in Stavropol Krai the special land fund for Cossack communities included 43,703 hectares of agricultural land. [41] Article 10, part 5 of the 2002 Federal Law "On Agricultural Land Turnover' provides only for the possibility of leasing out (and not just granting as before) government-owned and municipal agricultural lands to Cossack communities. In practice, no material changes have taken place in the situation of Cossack land use, while the issue of changing the status of land from free and perpetual use to lease remains open. Apart from that, Cossack organizations have received and continue receiving direct and indirect material support from public authorities in a number of federation units; three regions have launched special Cossack support programmes.

146. Presidential decrees of 1996-1999 establishing a special privileged access of Cossacks to public service, special status of selected, so called "register' organizations and procedure for awarding Cossack ranks and grades were renewed and thus confirmed in March 2005. Another Federal Law No. 154-FZ "On Civil Service of Russian Cossacks' dated 5 December 2005 was also enacted. The law did not mention the issue of Cossacks' ethnicity and funding of Cossack organizations. The Law has regularised to a certain extent official recognition of Cossack units, i.e. first they get registered as non-profit organizations and then a special government body keeps records thereof in a special register. Members of organizations listed in the register, who agree to join public service, can have a special access to the civil service under contracts arranged between a Cossack society and a governmental body. Though the Law professes the constitutional principles of equal access of all RF citizens to the civil service, in reality a special privileged procedure is established for members of "register' organizations.

147. The Law confirmed the procedures established in the 1990s on the basis of presidential decrees. The Cossacks benefit from a special access to all kinds of public service (governmental, including militarised, and municipal). The Cossack societies, which are included in the register, may conclude special agreements with the authorities on the service and offer their candidates to certain positions. In practice, a number of subjects of federation apply a previous system of hiring Cossacks under contracts with Cossack organizations to special municipal squads in charge of guarding public order and environment protection. No full and accurate data on the number of Cossacks thus admitted to the public service are available. Since Cossack communities position themselves as ethnic organizations and are recognized as such by the state, we can admit that this situation is characterized by racial discrimination.

Article 2, par. 1 (b)

"Each State Party undertakes not to sponsor, defend or support racial discrimination by any persons or organisations;'

Official Co-operation with Radical Nationalist Organizations

148. In some cases local authorities support racist organizations though, probably, often they are not fully aware of that. Clear evidence is unhindered functioning of numerous training camps and "military-patriotic' clubs, which offer combat training to members of such organizations. Such places shall be subject to governmental control, but the latter is very inefficient. This is particularly true for rather frequent situations when civilians are trained in using firearms [42] ; in such cases one should admit that certain officers directly assist in combat training of racists.

149. The army or law-enforcement agencies usually do not know the names of such officers, but that is not always so. The Chairman of Coordination Council of Primorsky Krai Police Trade Union Dmitry Dmitriev is one of the well-known leaders of neo-Nazis in Primorsky Krai. Till mid-2007, i.e. before the group was split, he had been the leader of the Far East division of "Slavic Union' and organized a neo-Nazi "Russian March' in Vladivostok on 4 November 2006.

150. There are evidences of the explicit co-operation of the official authorities with organizations not as odious as neo-Nazis, but also notorious for their racist actions. For example, the Eurasian Youth Union (EYU) is known for the assaults on its political opponents and religious minorities. Nevertheless, the RF President's Administration maintains relations with EYU. For example, EYU leaders were invited to the meeting with Vice-Premier Dmitry Medvedev and Deputy Head of RF President's Administration Vladislav Surkov held on 31 January 2006. [43]

151. The "Mestnye' (The Locals) movement sponsored by the Moscow Oblast government many times ventured covert appeals to discriminate against ethnic and religious minorities, their raids at street markets in search of "illegal migrants' often led to scuffles. Nevertheless the FMS used the "Mestnye' as an auxiliary force in their checks of markets, while during those checks the "Mestnye' held up xenophobic posters. In response to criticisms the Director of FMS General Konstantin Romadanovsky declared that the FMS would continue engaging the :Mestnye; in its work. [44]

Official Support to Cossack Movement

152. Throughout 1990s and early 2000s, a significant part of incidents involving violence or harassment against ethnic minorities in Russian southern regions was related to the activities of organised groups which identified themselves as "Cossacks'. Despite the radical nationalist spirit of many leaders and rank-and-file members of Cossack units, authorities have granted them some official functions and powers. In a number of regions (e.g. in Krasnodar Krai) Cossack units have been granted the right to conduct operations jointly with law-enforcement agencies.

153. After 2003 members of Cossack organizations have also participated in several major incidents involving threats of violence against ethnic minorities. The most notorious was the events in Yandyki village in Astrakhan Oblast in August 2005 where Cossack activists took part in preparation of an anti-Chechen pogrom. [45]

154. On 4 August 2005, the Don Cossack Voisko (host) (the main official so-called "register' Cossack organization of Rostov Oblast) was declared "afoot' and marched to Remontnoye village where, according to the Cossacks' information, ethnic Chechens raped the daughter of the settlement chieftain. About 400 Cossacks went to the place. The Cossacks demanded punishment of the guilty and appealed to evict all Chechens residing in the area. The "afoot' command was called off since upon Cossacks' arrival to Remontnoye the police told them that the rapist had been detained. The Cossacks demanded to evict the family of the young man accused of rape and that Chechen house was put under the police guard. The Deputy Oblast Governor, himself a Cossack activist, publicly endorsed the Cossacks' position. On 7 August 2005 it became known that the Cossacks declared their plans to patrol all areas of Rostov Oblast where the share of "persons of Caucasian extraction' exceeded 5%.

155. On 25 June 2006, in Salsk town of Rostov Oblast two groups of young Russians and Daghestanians had a fight, in which one participant, a Daghestanian, shot another one, a Russian. The police detained the shooter. Later it was reported that three more participants of the scuffle, ethnic Russians, had been hospitalized. Leaflets with anti-Daghestanian slogans were immediately spread in the town, inviting everybody to join the meeting to "protect our rights'. On 29 June 2006, at 7 pm about 250 people, including many Cossacks, gathered in the square in front of the town hall office for an unauthorized meeting. The following days other protest actions were held in the town and oblast; they were supported by activists of the Movement against Illegal Immigration (DPNI) and there were voiced appeals to discrimination against non-Russians. None of the organizers of those actions were held liable. On 8 July 2006, a meeting of Don Cossack Voisko was held in Starocherkessk (Rostov Oblast). The audience debated the events in Salsk and adopted an address to the leaders of executive and legislative authorities of Rostov and Volgograd Oblasts, the Federal Migration Service top officials in charge of Rostov Oblast with a demand to restrict migration on the territory of those regions.

156. On 13 February 2007, the chieftain of Novoaleksandrovsk-Kuban district of Terek Cossack Voisko 36-year old Andrei Khanin was assaulted in Novoaleksandrovsk town of Stavropol Krai and shot point-blank three times; 17 February 2007 Khanin died. Local Cossacks interpreted the assault as revenge to Khanin on the side of "Caucasian ethno-criminal groups'. Some Cossack leaders, in particular, connected the assassination with the chieftain's conflict with the director of Novoaleksandrovsk meat processing factory whose last name was Golua (born in Georgia or of Georgian origin). Several hours after the shots unknown people started smashing the factory director's home. On 14 February, Cossacks from the entire Stavropol Krai as well as from neighbouring Krasnodar and Rostov started flooding into the town. At the same time additional police forces were moved to the town. Cossacks contented themselves with a rally in Khanin's support at the district administration office on the Novoaleksandrovsk central square. About 500 Cossacks took part in the rally and demanded the resignation of the local administration head. However, on 20 February 2007 the leaders of Terek Cossack community distributed a statement to the effect that the case of chieftain Khanin's murder had no "inter-ethnic implications'.

157. Since 2005, Cossack organizations have been increasingly actively co-operating with the Movement against Illegal Immigration (DPNI) and organized neo-Nazi groups. In late August 2006, the "National-Socialist Society' started collaboration with Taman division of the Kuban Cossack Voisko. In Saratov, the local Cossack chieftain Andrei Fetisov is concurrently a leader of the DPNI local branch. Co-operation with Cossacks enables DPNI activists and neo-Nazis to join officially authorized Cossacks patrols. [46]

158. Nevertheless, federal and regional authorities patronize the Cossack movement without reservations. In the above incidents members of Cossack organizations were never held liable.

159. In early May 2007 upon a new aggravation of relations between Russia and Estonia the chieftain of Stavropol District of Terek Cossack Voisko (included in the official register) Mikhail Serkov issued an order "to identify Estonians residing in the Krai and create the most unfavorable conditions for their stay in Russia, their business or other activities'. [47] Both the district and regional prosecutor's offices refused three times to initiate a criminal case. [48]

The Return of Ingush Internally Displaced Persons to the Prigorodny District of the Republic of North Ossetia - Alania

160. In this case one can admit a significant progress in resolution of this formerly acute problem. In the aftermath of armed clashes between Ingushs and Ossetians in the Prigorodny raion (district) of North Ossetia in October-November 1992, dozens of thousands Ingushs sought refuge in the neighbouring Republic of Ingushetia. For a long time the displaced persons were not able to return to the places of their former residence because of the resistance of local authorities and the population. The governments of Republic of North Ossetia - Alania and the Republic of Ingushetia were regularly negotiating the general normalization and the return of people who had fled the conflict zone. The process of return started in the second half of 1990s and goes on until the present despite numerous difficulties. In total, around 21,000 displaced persons have resettled back to the Prigorodny raion; in part, they returned not to the places of their former residence, but to the enclaves at the border with Ingushetia. Besides, many displaced persons have agreed to settle independently on the compensation they are given. About 9,000 displaced persons still stay in the Republic of Ingushetia; many of them refuse to resettle to new places and wish to return to their former residence. [49]

161. The mostly substantive positive developments took place in 2005-2007. There were adopted new federal normative acts on resolution of conflict's consequences, and the special Inter-regional Department of the Federal Migration Service was established. Basically, roads and infrastructure were reconstructed in the Prigorodny raion. Those people whose houses had been destroyed in armed clashed were offered subsidies for the reconstruction or purchase of new dwellings. The size of these subsidies (from 700,000 to 2,000,000 roubles) is noticeably more than of the sums given to the victims of warfare in Chechnya or of natural disasters in other places of the Russian Federation; and the authorities have really started the payments.

162. In the meantime, the regional and local authorities were and still turn out to be unable to to fully secure public order, prevent ethnic discrimination, segregation and violent actions in the places where the Ingushs live. Three settlements in Prigorodny raion (Oktyabrskoye, Ir, and Yuzhnoye) are still officially closed to the returning Ingushs. In 2005-2007, more than 20 local Ingushs or comers from Chechnya were abducted within the Prigorodny raion, and the investigation was unsuccessful. Following the terrorist act in Beslan (the hostage taking and siege of the school) on 1-3 September 2004, Ingush students of secondary and higher educational institutions of North Ossetia being subjected to a powerful covert pressure, were forced to leave their schools and universities. However, one should do justice to North Ossetia leaders who managed generally to prevent anti-Ingush publications in local press and preclude large-scale acts of violence. Also in some cases, Ingushs who were seeking treatment were denied health care in the medical institutions of Vladikavkaz (the capital city of North Ossetia).

Article 2, par. 1 (c)

"Each State Party shall take effective measures to review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists;'

163. In all situations listed above in the section related to pars. 1(a) and 1(b) of Article 2 of the ICERD, the federal governmental agencies do not take the necessary steps to revise all laws or regulations, which may create or perpetuate racial discrimination. In particular, there is no discussion and revision of passport system rules, legislation on the legal status of foreigners, on refugees and forced migrants and practice of enforcement thereof, housing and labour legislation and its enforcement.

Article 2, par. 1 (d)

(d) Each State Party shall prohibit and bring to an end, by all appropriate means, including legislation as required by circumstances, racial discrimination by any persons, group or organization;

164. The term "discrimination' is not widely used in the Russian legislation. It is not used either in Article 19 of the RF Constitution describing the principle of equal rights and freedoms, nor in almost all other articles providing for constitutional bases of an individual's legal status. This term is mentioned only in Part 3, Article 37 of the RF Constitution, according to which everyone is entitled to remuneration of his/her work "without any discrimination whatsoever'. The notion of "discrimination' is also employed in individual federal laws, though without any definition or explanation. The list of such laws includes, for example, the RF Labour Code of 2001, Fundamentals of RF Legislation on Citizens' Healthcare of 1993, RF Criminal code of 1996 (version of Federal Law No. 162-FZ dated 8 December 2003, Article 136), Federal Law "On Civil Service of the Russian Federation' of 2004, etc. Unfortunately, in 2004 Law No. 122 "on benefit monetization' removed the only statement containing the notion of "discrimination' from the RF Law "On Education' - there was removed par. 22 of Article 50 of the Law which declared, inter alia, that the state implemented targeted programs to protect children from all forms of discrimination.

165. The RF has neither an express and overall prohibition of all forms of discrimination nor any specific anti-discriminatory legislation. The RF has no legislative acts containing any definition of direct and indirect discrimination. The RF legislation and even academic publications have no elaborate definitions of such notions as "equality of rights and freedoms', "equal access', "equal opportunities', "restriction of rights', "deprivation of rights', "lawful or unlawful distinction'. Neither does the Russian legislation contain such related notions as "coercion to discrimination', "instigation of discrimination', "segregation' and some other.

166. The only exception here is Article 136 of the RF Criminal Code, which for the first time tried to define "discrimination'. In compliance with Part 1 of the article's amended version (Federal Law No. 162-FZ of 8 December 2003) "discrimination' means "violations of human and civil rights, freedoms and lawful interests on the grounds of gender, race, nationality [ethnicity], language, origin, property and official status, residence, religion, beliefs, membership of non-governmental associations or any social groups'.

167. This attempt is less than successful. Rather than define "discrimination' through its specific forms (any "distinction', "exception', "restriction' or "preference'), the lawmakers equate it to such notions as violations of rights, freedoms and lawful interests. Moreover, the lawmakers fail to explain what a "violation' means in this context. In the meaning of international legal instruments, "violation of rights and freedoms' can be the purpose or effect of discrimination, but not the form. [50]

168. The 2001 Labour Code (came into force on 1 February 2002) prohibits any form of employment discrimination both at the stage of job application and at any subsequent stages of labour relations and provides for preventive and protective mechanisms. However, the Labour Code also fails to define discrimination. The wording of discrimination prohibition used in the Labour Code looks far from optimal and narrower in its sense than the requirements of Article 5 (e) of the ICERD. Article 3 of the Labour Code does not allow restrictions in "labour rights and freedoms' or "granting privileges', thus distinction, which is not essentially a "restriction of rights' (for example, getting a certain job with a certain employer is not an individual's right) can hardly be recognized a discrimination. The same article says that distinctions, exceptions, preferences, and restrictions of employees' rights, which are based on specific requirements established by federal laws for certain occupations or necessitated by the state's special care for the well-being of individuals in need of social and legal protection, are not considered discrimination.

169. According to the Labour Code, anyone who considers him/herself a victim of discrimination in recruitment and employment is entitled to take the case to court. Until October 2006, one could complain about discrimination to a labour inspectorate, but this opportunity was lifted by the Federal Law No. 90-FZ from 30 June 2006. The Labour Inspectorates (established in 1994 as a federal structure, since 2004 are regional branches of the Federal Service for Labour and Employment) is entitled to supervise the policies of employment and employees' treatment at workplace; labour inspectors may issue orders that are binding on employers, file complaints to public prosecutor's offices or apply to court. However, these instruments and remedies have not been used with regard to discrimination, so one cannot assess their effectiveness as well as the consequences of the elimination of the right to apply to a labour inspectorate on the issues of discrimination.

170. The Federal Law "On Advertising' of 2006 prohibits using in commercial advertisements the indecent and offensive images, comparisons and expressions, including in terms of gender, race and ethnicity. The 1995 Federal Law on Advertising contained a similar prohibition. An obvious lacuna in the legislation is the absent ban on discriminatory advertising not related to commercials, for example room-for-rent advertisements. Meanwhile, advertisements with overtly discriminatory criteria, classifying people seeking jobs or dwelling for rent on grounds of ethnicity, are quite common.

171. Generally, there is nothing to suggest that Russian legislators and law-enforcement agencies have any definite position on equality before the law and the ways to combat discrimination. Neither the State Duma of 4th Convocation (2004-2007) nor the previous Dumas have had drafting and adoption of anti-discrimination laws on their working plans.

172. In Russia most legal provisions covering equality and discrimination are substantive norms, and the legislation clearly lacks sufficient procedural guarantees against discrimination. There are some judicial, criminal and administrative remedies to prevent and eliminate discriminatory practices, but they are inefficient and can be employed in theory rather than in practice (for more details see the section related to Article 6).

173. Since June 2006, actions similar to discrimination as defined in Article 136 of the Criminal Code have been included in the definition of "extremist activities', the fight against which is regulated by the Federal Law "On Counteraction to Extremist Activities'. Extremism is, apart from many other things, a "violation of human and civil rights, freedoms and lawful interests depending on social position, race, nationality [ethnicity], religion affiliation, language or attitude to religion' (version in force since 12 August 2007). The Law "On Counteraction to Extremist Activities' basically targets a type of activities totally different from non-violent discrimination (see below, section related to Article 4 of the ICERD) and the new provision concerning discrimination obviously does not fit the definition of extremist activities. Since the time that norm was included in the law (summer 2006) it has never been applied in practice.

174. Fighting discrimination by civil law remedies in court is practically nonexistent, though in theory such opportunities exist in the constitutional provisions on equality, the Labour Code and other laws (for more details see the section related to Article 6). Most often people defend in court their specific infringed rights, rather than sue against discriminatory treatment as such.

175. Article 136 of the Criminal Code "Violation of Human and Civil Rights and Freedoms' (version of December 2003) envisages criminal liability for "discrimination, i.e. violation of rights, freedoms and lawful interests of an individual and citizen, based on his/her gender, race, nationality [ethnicity], language, origin, property and official status, residence, religion, beliefs, membership of public associations or any social groups'. Part 1 of this article provides for a punishment ranging between a fine of up to 200 thousand rubles and imprisonment of up to 2 years. Part 2 provides for a punishment for the same offence by someone in an official capacity within the range from a fine of 100 thousand rubles to imprisonment of up to 5 years. Since 2003, Part 1 of Article 136 has been subject to private-public prosecution (i.e. a prosecutor opens criminal investigation on the victim's application), and Part 2 is subject to public prosecution.

176. Article 136 is applied in rare individual cases: full official statistics on its application are not available. It became known only that in 2005 and 2006 no cases had been opened under that article. The possibility of applying Part 1 of Article 136 in respect of an indefinitely broad range of charges regardless of the degree of public danger hinders its application. At the same time, the disposition of Article 136 potentially impedes attempts to fight discrimination through civil law remedies, because judges can justify rejection of a civil suit by saying that discrimination cases are beyond the competence of civil proceedings, since any discrimination is a case for criminal proceedings. Similar difficulties may arise in attempts to apply administrative proceedings.

177. Russia lacks effective administrative anti-discrimination mechanisms, though in theory prosecutors and executive authorities responsible for control and supervision over consumer protection, housing, labour relations, and advertising, may take measures against discriminatory treatment. However, only a few examples of such actions have been reported. The Federal Antimonopoly Service has responded at least thrice to complaints on discriminatory advertising and banned such advertisements. Also at least once the Moscow Government department responsible for control of the city consumer market has responded to a complaint on customers' discrimination in one of the bar chains and made the owners stop such practice.

178. Not a single Russian law expressly provides for any specific disciplinary liability of public officials for their discriminatory behavior or racist statements. According to Article 18, Part 1 of the Federal Law "On the Civil State Service of the Russian Federation; of 2004, "a civil servant must: <...> make no preferences to any civic or religious associations, professional or social groups, organizations and individuals (item 4); <...> demonstrate respect to moral customs and traditions of the peoples of Russian Federation (item 10); take into account cultural and other peculiar features of different ethnic and social groups as well as confessions (item 11); to promote inter-ethnic and inter-confessional harmony (item 12) ...'

179. In theory this provision can be applied in case of government officials' discriminatory behavior or racist statements. However, there is not a vestige of evidence that such possibility has ever been used in the RF. The same situation is true for militarised structures (armed forces, security service, and interior) and municipal bodies.

180. In the Russian Federation public prosecutor's offices constitute a separate system of state bodies. Among the tasks of public prosecutors are: a) general supervision over the compliance of governmental and non-governmental bodies with the Constitution and federal laws; b) general control over the state of citizens' rights and freedoms; c) public investigation and support of prosecution in court. Since early September 2007, the responsibility for preliminary investigation of criminal cases within prosecutor's office has been assigned to the autonomous Investigation Committee under the General Prosecutor's Office and to its specialized and regional structures. In the past there was no information on prosecutor's bodies' involvement in cases of ethnic or racial discrimination unless they entailed violence or incitement of hatred. Public prosecutor's offices, like other law-enforcement agencies, are active just in fighting "extremism'. For the time being it is premature to predict the impact of 2007 restructuring of the prosecutor's office on its overall discrimination-related activities.

181. There are no special agencies in the Russian Federation, either at the federal or regional level, in charge of prevention and elimination of discrimination. In theory, the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Russian Federation has the competence to examine any complaint on human rights violations in cases when all other available remedies have been exhausted or in cases of mass and consistent violations. Regional human rights ombudsmen have similar competence. The Ombudsman's Office has not demonstrated any specific and sufficient interest to this area so far. Moreover, the RF Human Rights Ombudsman's Office and regional ombudsmen (except for Arkhangelsk Oblast Ombudsman) showed extreme indifference towards mass evictions of the Roma and destruction of Romani villages in 2005 - 2006.

182. Russia has no special anti-discrimination or equal opportunities programmes. Declarations of government officials on the necessity to secure equal rights irrespective of ethnicity have almost stopped; there are just statements on combat against "extremism' and racist violence.

Article 2, par. 1 (e)

(e) Each State Party undertakes to encourage, where appropriate, integrationist
multiracial organizations and movements and other means of eliminating barriers between races, and to discourage anything which tends to strengthen racial division.

183. Ethnicity-based public associations of minorities, normally, co-operate among themselves and with non-ethnic NGOs. In principle, the state encourages co-operation of NGOs speaking on behalf of different ethnic groups. Federal and regional authorities take significant effort to encourage all sorts of coalitions representing different ethnic groups. [51] A multiethnic public organization "Assembly of Peoples of Russia' was for quite a long time supported and promoted at the federal level. Regional authorities also organize or encourage regional "Assemblies of Peoples' (in Tatarstan, Sakha-Yakutia, Primorsky Krai, Kurgan and Chita Oblasts, etc.). Sometimes other names are used for such organizations, and municipal authorities often support this sort of inter-ethnic co-operation too. The main activities of such coalitions include holding, jointly with authorities, conferences and seminars to discuss "inter-ethnic relations', conducting folklore festivals and fairs, as well as adopting statements on various current policy issues.

184. Nevertheless, problems of social barriers between ethnic groups do exist and they have little to do with NGOs activities. Social barriers are created and reproduced to a certain degree as a result of general repressive trends of the state machinery and its incapability to pursue integration policies for different ethnic groups, in particular immigrants. Propaganda of "peoples' friendship' is combined with powerful factors of a totally opposite effect, namely, many components of domestic policies actively support ethnic and religious xenophobia and intolerance. These mechanisms are quite obvious and are actively discussed by NGOs, mass media and academic experts, while the power ignores them.

185. On top of the list are the passport system and repressive mechanisms established by the 2002 Federal Law on foreigners. The groups covered by restrictions and subjected to social expulsion (all former Soviet Union citizens who have failed to obtain or confirm with valid documents their RF citizenship, refugees, comers from Chechnya, Roma, Meskhetian Turks in Krasnodar Krai) are deprived of rights and brought to the focus of law-enforcement's attention. As a result, the public mind gets used to perceiving these groups as hostile to the majority of the population or as criminals, at best - as a potential source of problems for anyone who deals with them. It perpetuates alienation and social exclusion and strengthens xenophobia.

186. Organised political activities on ethnic (as well as on religious and professional) grounds are actually not allowed in Russia. The Federal Law "On Political Parties' of 2001 envisages that among all public associations only political parties may take part in referenda, elections and electoral campaigns and only federal political parties may exist. Political parties may not be established on the grounds of professional, racial, ethnic and religious belonging (Art. 9, part 3). Such grounds are understood as any indication in the organisation's charter or programme to the protection or expression of the respective professional, ethnic etc. interests.

187. There is also the problem of hate speech in public sphere. The government addresses this issue and interprets it as a "fight against extremism' (for more details, see the section related to Article 4 of the ICERD).

Article 2, par. 2

"States Parties shall, when the circumstances so warrant, take, in the social, economic, cultural and other fields, special and concrete measures to ensure the adequate development and protection of certain racial groups or individuals belonging to them, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. These measures shall in no case entail as a con sequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.'

188. Article 69 of the RF Constitution guarantees the rights of small indigenous peoples, Article 71, par. 'c' puts "regulation and protection of the rights of national minorities' within the competence of the federation. Article 72, par. 'b' imposes jointly on the federation and its subjects (regions) obligations concerning the "protection of rights of national minorities', and par. 'm' - the "protection of the traditional habitats and traditional way of life of small ethnic communities'. On the basis of Article 69 the Federal Law "On Guarantees of Rights of Numerically Small Indigenous Peoples' of 1999 was adopted. This law provides for some advantages in employment, land possession, exploitation of natural resources, taxation and participation in local self-government for the persons who belong to numerically small indigenous peoples and carry out traditional economic activities. The law also establishes the right of the regions to adopt additional protective measures in favour of these people. The legislation of some Russian regions admits special rights of the aboriginal groups to using and disposing of land and natural resources.

189. However, Federal Law No. 122 dated 22 August 2004, known as the "benefits monetization law' cancelled the provision of Article 4 of the Federal Law "On Guarantees of Rights of Numerically Small Indigenous Peoples', according to which governmental bodies and local self-governments secured the rights of small indigenous peoples "to their own original socio-economic and cultural development and to protection of their traditional habitat, traditional way of life and economic activities', thus canceling the public authorities' obligations towards indigenous peoples. The same law cancelled provisions, which guaranteed social welfare and medical aid benefits for indigenous peoples, as well as quotas of their representation in regional and local representative bodies. Russian Government's normative acts contradict the 1999 Federal Law On Guarantees of Rights of Numerically Small Indigenous Peoples', particularly with respect to land property, hunting, fishing, and thus actually nullify the privileges in employment, access to land and other natural resources, taxation.

190. Also in 2000 and 2001 two other basic federal laws on numerically small indigenous peoples were adopted: "On General Principles of Organization of Communities of Numerically Small Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and Far East' and "On Territories of Traditional Nature Exploitation for Numerically Small Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and Far East' respectively. These laws remain declarative and are basically not enforced, particularly the law on territories of traditional nature exploitation. The main reason for that, apart from direct counteraction of executive authorities at all levels, is that according to these laws the indigenous peoples' traditional life must have been based on the institute of free-of charge and perpetual use of land, but that institute was cancelled by the 2001 RF Land Code, which was approved later and thus has a prevailing legal force. The official report of the Russian Federation on the implementation of the ICERD contains no information concerning fulfillment of the CERD Concluding Observations on the Russian Federation from 2003 (CERD/C/62/CO/7); in item 20 of the Concluding Observations the Committee expressed concern about the difficult situation facing indigenous peoples and requested additional information on impact of the Land Code of 2001 on the property rights of indigenous peoples.

191. The new RF Forestry Code No. 200-FZ from 4 December 2006 endangers the very existence of indigenous peoples. It contains just a general declarative provision on protection of indigenous peoples' habitat, while at the same time cancels the principle of free-of-charge use of forests and establishes conditions for unrestricted privatization of forests and their almost unrestricted commercial exploitation.

192. The federal programme "Economic and Social Development of Numerically Small Indigenous Peoples of the North till 2011' provides basically for the development of social and educational infrastructure in the places where Northern indigenous peoples live. The RF Government's Resolution No.478 from 25 July 2007, the programme's duration was reduced to 2008. This change was justified by the assessment presented in April 2007 by the Russian Ministry of Economic Development at a sitting of the RF Government according to which the programme was considered of low efficiency. The Association of the Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation estimates the cost-efficiency of this programme as quite low, since the programme is fulfilled under the principle of "patching holes up'. On 21 November 2007, the Governments' Order No.1661-r affirmed the Concept of the Federal Targeted Programme "Economic and Social Development of Numerically Small Indigenous Peoples of the North till 2015.' The RF Ministry of Regional Development was ordered to draft this programme and submit it to the Government, but this has not been done so far. On the contrary, the Ministry of Regional Development suggests declining the very idea of targeted programme in favour of direct subsidies to the regions from the federal budget. Currently, elaboration of the methods of these federal subsidies' calculation and distribution is under way. Some experts conclude that budgetary subsidies transferred to regions in accordance with certain life quality indicators cannot be a substitution to the targeted programmes for indigenous peoples. There is a risk that the funds would not reach indigenous peoples proper.

193. The RF also revised its policy in respect to victims of past political repressions, including persons subjected to deportations on ethnic grounds. Federal Law No.122 of 22 August 2004 on so-called "benefits monetization' amended, among many other Russian laws, the RSFSR Law "On the Exculpation of Repressed Peoples' of 1991; according to these amendments the state was discharged of the responsibility to compensate the moral harm inflicted by political repressions, while payment of compensations (renamed into "social support measures') was delegated to regional authorities with a discretionary right to determine the form and scope of such measures.

194. The federal authorities have not taken any measures to restore the violated rights and to improve the situation of those categories, which had become victims of racial discrimination and mass abuse of power. These include citizens of the former USSR who have not been recognized as citizens of the Russian Federation contrary to the law, internally displaced persons and refugees from outside the former Soviet Union who were denied the relevant status and protection.

195. In particular, according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, at least 100 thousand Afghans, who have been denied refuge in Russia, have been staying there for many years. They reside in Russia illegally and the authorities consistently try to expel them. These people include Afghan citizens who were taken as orphans to orphanages and boarding schools of the former USSR in mid-1980. Though these people have lived in Russia for over 15 years and lost any ties with Afghanistan, they are denied citizenship on the grounds of having had no registration by place residence or permanent propiska all that time. According to the Russian Federal Migration, most of those Afghans have no grounds to be granted refuge since there is no reason for current Afghan authorities to persecute them. Though such assertions are not true, in 2006 the Russian authorities stopped extending temporary refuge in Russia to those very few Afghans who had been granted such refuge before. Courts dismiss claims against the FMS. [52]

196. About five thousand former Soviet citizens who fled from Azerbaijan in 1989-91 still stay in Moscow region. For the past 15 years both federal and Moscow authorities have failed to provide their housing and final legalization. Hotels, which accommodated them in the past, were privatized and many refugees were kicked out into the streets. [53]

Article 3

"State Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction.'

197. The Russian legislation does not contain either any notion of segregation or prohibiting provisions.

198. In numerous Russian regions there are cases of forced segregation of Roma people in schools, public and municipal hospitals (including children and maternity hospitals), private and municipal saunas open for public. Segregation of Romani villages is a special problem, since local authorities usually ignore their troubles with water and electric power supply, sewage and roads.

199. In a number of cases children from ethnic minority and migrant families are sometimes put in separate school classes, irrespective of their actual level of academic knowledge and abilities, merely on the grounds of being "non-Russian', "non-resident' (there have been no examples when children of Russian migrants would be put into such classes). In these specific "reserves' children study in worse conditions and get lower quality education.

200. Over years until 2006 students in secondary school No. 11 of Nizhnebakanski settlement (Krymsk district of Krasnodar Krai) were divided into "Turkish' and "ordinary' classes. Students of "Turkish' classes usually got training of a lower quality. Such separation of special classes was established exclusively on ethnic ground, notwithstanding the knowledge of Russian language by Meskhetian children and without their or their parents' consent. Identical practice existed in schools of Kholmski settlement in the neighbouring Abinsk district and ceased to exist only upon emigration of most Turks to the USA. More often segregation is covert, i.e. teachers simply ignore students of minority groups (Turkish and other) and just automatically move them from one class to another without giving them any knowledge.

201. Similar practices take place in some schools which have many Roma students. The ratio of Roma students and Russian students in the secondary school of Nizhnye Oselki settlement in Leningrad Oblast is about 100 to below 70. Roma students have just five teachers while 21 teachers work with Russians. Most Roma children attend primary school only and then quit the school; only in 2004 a single (fifth) secondary school class was established for them. Classrooms for the Roma students are separated from the main school building and are located in a poorly fit-out and unheated barracks. All Roma who go from primary to the secondary school are combined in a separate class no matter how few of them there are. When the school has any festivities, pupils from the "Russian classes' celebrate them in their own main building, while Roma children (both primary and secondary classes) stay in their barracks.

202. Similar situations were reported in the Republic of Tatarstan, Novosibirsk, Perm and Sverdlovsk Oblasts. Several schools are also segregated on ethnic lines between Ossetians and Ingushs in Prigorodny district of North Ossetia.

203. Principally, one can also employ the terms "the crime of apartheid, "similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination and "systematic oppression' introduced in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of 30 November 1973. They cover such practices as "denial of the liberty of person', "infliction of serious bodily or mental harm, infringement of freedom or dignity, subjection to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment', "arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups' (Article 2 clause 'a'); "measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country <...>, in particular by denying <...> basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work <...>, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence' (Article 2 clause 'c').

204. Persecutions of Chechens across the Russian Federation, the anti-Georgian campaign of 2006, discrimination against Meskhetian Turks in Krasnodar Krai fall within these definitions. Actions against these groups include frivolous detentions and arrests, refusals to register by place of residence or stay, threats to oust the people from the places of their residence, fabrications of criminal cases, firings and refusals in employment, refusals to admit to schools, colleges and universities, refusals to draw up passports and other personal papers, non-recognition of Russian citizenship with regard to Meskhetian Turks.

Article 4

"States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organisations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:'

205. Issues addressed by Article 4 of the ICERD constitute a crucial problem for the Russian Federation. And these problems have becoming more and more acute in the recent decade.

206. Since 2003 the mass media (particularly major national newspapers) consistently publish lots of materials aimed at discrediting certain ethnic and religious groups, primarily people originating from the Caucasus and Central Asia as well as Muslims in general. Part of these publications is overtly racist, and their number is growing. Notably, in the recent years there were attacks in mass-media also on the indigenous peoples of the North; that was provoked by the struggle of NGOs representing these people for the rights to the territories of traditional settlement and for the compensation of these lands' industrial exploitation. [54] Anti-migrant rhetoric partly substitute explicitly ethnic phobias, and the very term "migrant' in most cases is charged with ethnic implications and is far from coinciding with the word "immigrant'. [55] Governmental officials, law-enforcement officers and parliament members more and more often venture racist statements.

207. Assaults motivated by racist attitudes and neo-Nazi views have become systematic, and according to the data available, their number has grown recently at least 20% a year. Mass ethnically motivated disorders lately happened twice a year. Ultranationalist organizations generate and broadly distribute racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim printed, audio and video materials, and use Internet in an increasingly large scale.

208. Such crimes have been recently persecuted and prevented more actively, but the scope of such counteraction still falls far behind the number of racists' crimes. Besides, as mentioned above, in some cases the state directly or indirectly sponsors racist organizations.

209. The Russian legislation as far back as the Soviet times followed to a certain extent the principles of ICERD's Article 4. That legislation had been improving gradually, but since 2002 upon enactment of the Federal Law "On Counteraction to Extremist Activities' the focus of governmental policies has shifted.

210. Until 2002, the counteraction to manifestations of racism and discrimination was based on the constitutional provision, which prohibited "propaganda or agitation inciting social, racial, national or religious hatred and enmity'. That provision, with minor adjustments in terminology, was reproduced as a basic principle in criminal law, which considered a motive of national [i.e. ethnic], racial or religious hatred and enmity as an aggravating circumstance of any crime (par. "e' of Article 63, part 1 of the 1996 RF Criminal Code). Public incitement of such hatred and enmity was also qualified as a crime.

211. The 2002-2007 legislation reforms created a principally new scheme. The target of counteraction is determined in the framework Law "On Counteraction to Extremist Activities', and other laws, including the Criminal Code, have been brought in line with that framework law. This target, i.e. extremist activities (or extremism), is not defined as a set of characteristics, but is described as a simple list of actions (thus such list can be modified at discretion, and it was significantly changed twice since 2002). The list is quite inconsistent, in particular, in terms of danger a certain action's for the society; it ranges from terrorism to hindering the work of public agencies through use of violence; in the meantime, the degree of danger such violence could pose is not mentioned anywhere.

212. The following items in this definition are more or less anti-racist: