Website of the President of Russia: Commissions and Councils

Meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

2025-12-11T17:35:53+04:00

Vladimir Putin held an annual meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights via videoconference. The meeting took place on the eve of Human Rights Day, which is observed internationally on December 10.

Council Chairman Valery Fadeyev delivered the keynote report on its performance. In their remarks, Council members addressed issues such as assistance for participants in the special military operation and their families, the rehabilitation and employment of veterans who have sustained the most serious injuries and become disabled, the work of jury trials, and the granting of pardons to certain categories of individuals with disabilities and women with children ahead of the New Year holidays. They also discussed palliative care, the resettlement of compatriots to Russia, the relationship between art and the state, as well as matters related to the implementation of artificial intelligence in various fields, the use of electric bicycles and scooters on city streets, and much more.

* * *

Excerpts from the transcript of the meeting of the Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues, good afternoon.

We are holding this meeting on the eve of Human Rights Day. Of course, this is a date that matters not only for this Council, but for the Russian society in general, and for those who have been serving this important and relevant cause in the regions, as well as at the federal level.

I would like to thank you and your colleagues, I am referring to human rights commissioners, volunteers and activists from NGOs, for remaining in touch with people at all times and for catering to their needs. You have been helping bring about not only punctual and responsive solutions to the challenges people face, but also devise system-wide solutions.

It is for this reason that people trust you and appreciate your efforts. I know that the mission you have is not easy. After all, people come to you with their grievances and their resentment, at a time of outrage or desperation. To hear what a person has to say, offer comfort and achieve justice and tangible results – all this requires a lot of patience and goodness. You and your colleagues have been up to this formidable task. Thank you very much for that.

The Council’s primary mission, as we have defined it quite a long time ago, consists of asserting social and economic rights of our people and developing the civil society. Today, our country has set forth its goals and performance indicators in national projects. This week, we had a detailed discussion with our colleagues from the Government and the regions on carrying out these projects.

I would like to reiterate that there are always people, their interests and needs, behind plans and figures. We must understand how specific outcomes as set forth on paper are felt in real life, and how it all works in reality, how efforts to fulfil our plans affect people and what bearing they have on the wellbeing of Russian families.

This public monitoring and control over national projects and the state’s overall socioeconomic policy are among the key objective for this Council.

In addition, I am certain that you will continue paying close attention to upholding the rights of special military operation participants and their families, those who lost their close ones, while also supporting combat veterans, helping them adapt and find their bearings as civilians.

Today, we will discuss what needs to be done for those taking part in the special military operation and the counter-terrorist operation, for our veterans.

A number of other serious issues are also on the agenda. These include social support for families with children, employment and rehabilitation for people with disabilities, improvements to the palliative care system, and the effectiveness and safety of modern technologies, including artificial intelligence.

It is important that the Council’s voice in defence of human rights remains persuasive and authoritative at the international level, and that you do not overlook the persecution of individuals on the basis of nationality, religion, language or other grounds.

I would also like to note the Council’s uncompromising stance in defending the interests of our compatriots abroad and its intolerance of Russophobia as a manifestation of nationalism and racism.

Your, sadly, late colleague Kirill Vyshinsky played a particularly significant role in this area. Thanks to his efforts, a number of legislative measures were adopted to ensure that those involved in unlawful actions against Russian citizens and compatriots abroad are brought to account.

Colleagues, our Council is, first and foremost, an advisory body. However, following your recommendations, a lot of practical measures have been undertaken which have a positive effect on the realisation of citizens’ rights.

For example, regarding combating telephone and internet fraud, you proposed a number of concrete solutions. These include blocking calls from unfriendly states when they are made for criminal purposes, introducing call labelling, and imposing stricter requirements on employees of government bodies, banks and telecommunications operators when communicating with customers.

All of these have been taken into account and are being implemented by the Government. As you know, the first package of measures to protect citizens in the digital environment has already been adopted. A second package has been developed and is now in the process of discussion and approval, and a third is planned for the near future. These measures are based, among other things, on your initiatives.

Furthermore, elections of State Duma deputies will be held in 2026. I am counting on your active participation in monitoring compliance with citizens’ electoral rights.

You have extensive experience in this field; and a permanent working group has been established for this purpose. Every year, during elections and votes at various levels, you visit at least ten regions and hundreds of polling stations. A report is published by the Council based on the monitoring results.

One of the Council’s systemic priorities is to support the non-profit sector. Following our discussions this year, the Presidential Grants Foundation has created an open data aggregator on the activities of non-profit organisations. Its aim is to increase transparency and trust in their work, as well as facilitate interaction between organisations and citizens. We will consider what additional steps need to be taken in this direction.

Let us get down to work.

<…>

Vladimir Putin (Responding to Kribrum CEO Igor Ashmanov, who talked about challenges related to using artificial intelligence in the social sector, education and public administration, including when replacing officials with robots is used as a tool for shedding responsibility. As an example of serious risks associated with switching to a paperless document flow, Igor Ashmanov referred to a fire in the Republic of Korea which led to the unrecoverable loss of databases on public services and public sector employees.): Thank you very much, Mr Ashmanov.

This is an important and extremely challenging matter, as you have said in your remarks by highlighting some of its aspects. I think that even those who know little about these topics can understand this. After all, it is increasingly obvious that we need to address these issues, even if it remains to be seen how. In fact, rejecting the use of these tools would mean losing everything we treasure. We could lose it all unless we harness the potential of big data and everything that comes with it.

At the same time, if we use this technology carelessly, we risk losing everything we hold dear, including our identity. This could lead to the dispersion of big data, place it in the hands of those who might exploit this information for malicious purposes, to say the least.

Of course, the situation with education is also clear. We cannot afford to lose a whole generation of our young citizens who will simply press buttons instead of thinking critically or being able to solve basic equations in mathematics, physics and chemistry, or knowing their history well.

This is a formidable challenge. We must avoid a situation where we have about two dozen people forming a thinking elite and creating something, and the masses whose only skill would be to press a button. This is a very complex matter, and it is patently evident that we must address it.

Of course, the principles of using this technology matter in the decision-making process. Artificial intelligence may offer hints or prompts, and sometimes these suggestions can be even better than what a human can suggest. Better than a decision made by a human himself.

However, in this regard, I completely agree with you: specific individuals must assume liability for taking the final decision; simply stating that it was a prompt from artificial intelligence should not be accepted. Responsibility in the decision-making process must rest with specific individuals. This will require specialists to double-check, recalculate and review any decision. This is a matter of ensuring that people bear personal responsibility, especially regarding decisions which have a direct bearing on security and the way people live. You have mentioned an example… In Korea, or where did this fire happen? But even without a fire, there are many issues requiring a responsible approach to the decision-making process.

This is to say that all I can do is thank you, Mr Ashmanov. Please, submit your proposals as quickly as possible. Make no mistake, we will use them and involve you in our work to finalise decisions and draft laws and regulations.

Thank you very much.

<…>

CEO of the White Internet autonomous non-profit organisation Elina Sidorenko: Mr President, I would like you to consider the following issue, if possible. Next year may be declared the Year of Unity of the Peoples of Russia at your initiative. There are over 270 spoken languages in Russia. Regrettably, these ethnic groups have no opportunity to develop their cultural and linguistic identities within AI-assisted language models. It would be appropriate and timely to create a system or launch a state programme for supporting national language models of the peoples of Russia, considering that no country in the world has implemented such models, especially in the context of the upcoming Year of Unity of the Peoples of Russia.

This would allow our children, who often use AI today, to further develop and support their cultural identity while requesting and receiving information in their native languages.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Regarding the 270 languages, there may be more, as it is very difficult to accurately count them because of certain nuances. But your idea of using artificial intelligence to support language models seems to be very good. It is certainly important for us, regardless of the year you have mentioned, and it should certainly be done. First, in this diversity lies our strength, and second, when people know that they can do things in their own languages, the language of interethnic communication will be regarded differently, with pleasure and without any pressure, but because this is necessary for interethnic communication.

Overall, many relevant provisions have been enshrined in our Constitution. This is extremely important for our diverse country. In fact, this is important for all linguistically diverse countries. You know that I have recently visited India, where 1.5 billion – 1.5 billion! – people live. Only one third of them, 500 or possibly 600 million people, speak Hindi, while the rest speak a variety of languages. And they often do not understand each other.

Preserving unity in diversity is extremely important for large countries, for civilisational countries, such as India, which is a civilisational country in the direct sense of the word, as well as for Russia. Therefore, I support your idea, which we will certainly try to implement.

Thank you very much.

<..>

Vladimir Putin (Responding to remarks by Komsomolskaya Pravda frontline reporter Alexander Kots, who detailed his work in the Kursk Region, which was attacked by the Ukrainian Armed Forces in 2024, highlighting the plight of civilians who finally saw the region’s liberation after being evacuated from areas of hostilities and losing their homes. He explained that to obtain certificates for purchasing new housing, officials must first inspect the condition of their original homes, which remain in areas that are still unsafe. Alexander Kots also mentioned an initiative put forward by Kursk Region Governor Alexander Khinshtein to use drones for conducting these inspections.): Thank you for raising this issue. It is indeed a pressing matter. When I speak with our military, including high-level commanders, they report finding many civilians in the combat zone as our troops enter towns and cities. When asked why they did not leave when they had the chance, their answer is very simple: “We were waiting for you. We were waiting for our troops, for the Russian troops.”

Naturally, we must do everything possible to help these people rebuild their homes. I can assure you that everything will be restored. The questions of how and how quickly are crucial. However, I think that the method suggested by Mr Khinshtein probably won’t work in every case, as a proper assessment requires assessing the structural integrity of building foundations, among other things.

That said, you are certainly right that in obvious cases – where buildings have been completely destroyed, which is most of them – we could potentially apply Alexander Khinshtein’s suggestion, using methods that have been implemented elsewhere. In any case, I give you my absolute promise: I will issue instructions to the corresponding services, as soon as today or tomorrow, to explore this possibility and report back. Not just the possibility in theory, but its practical applications for the Kursk Region.

<…>

Thank you very much indeed. I want to thank you for our long-term collaboration throughout this past year, and for your invaluable work here today. I sincerely hope, and ask, that you will continue this work in the coming year.

Please accept my sincere greetings on the upcoming New Year.

All the best. Thank you.

Winners of the 2024 Russian Federation National Award in science and technology, literature and the arts, and for outstanding achievements in humanitarian, human rights and charity work announced

2025-06-10T14:55:53+04:00

The winners were announced at a special briefing by Presidential Aide Andrei Fursenko, Presidential Aide Vladimir Medinsky and Presidential Adviser and Chair of the Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights Valery Fadeyev.

The 2024 National Awards in science and technology were awarded to:

Nikolai Kuznetsov, department head at St Petersburg State University, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics;

Nikolai Makarov, Director of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Archaeology, Doctor of Historical Sciences, full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences;

Maxim Nikitin, Senior Researcher, Head of the Laboratory at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (National Research University), Doctor of Physics and Mathematics.

The 2024 National Awards in literature and the arts were awarded to:

Yury Polyakov, writer, playwright;

Tamara Purtova, Director of the Polenov State Russian House of Folk Art;

Alexei Shalashov, General Director of the Moscow State Academic Philharmonic;

Alexander Chaikovsky, composer, Artistic Director of the Moscow State Academic Philharmonic.

The 2024 National Award for outstanding achievements in humanitarian work was awarded to:

Alexander Chubaryan, Academic Director at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of World History, Doctor of Historical Sciences, full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

The 2024 National Award for outstanding achievements in human rights work was awarded to:

Natalia Karpovich, Head of the Association of Large Families of the City of Moscow, a regional public organisation.

The 2024 National Award for outstanding achievements in charity work was awarded to:

Georgy Stolyarenko, General Director of the Centre for Diagnostics and Surgery of the Posterior Eye Segment.

The President signed the respective executive orders on awarding the 2024 National Awards in science and technology, literature and the arts, and for outstanding achievements in humanitarian, human rights and charity work.

Meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

2024-12-20T15:32:36+04:00

Vladimir Putin held the annual meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights.

The meeting was held via videoconference and was timed to International Human Rights Day. The main report was delivered by Presidential Adviser and Chair of the Presidential Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights Valery Fadeyev.

Excerpts from transcript of meeting of Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues,

I am delighted to see you. Greetings on International Human Rights Day, which we mark today, on December 10. I would like to address those who are engaged in this noble and important activity in the regions and at the federal level – human rights commissioners, volunteers, active members of NPOs, and media professionals.

You are well aware of the people’s concerns and needs, you maintain constant direct contact with them, while support, assistance and engagement with the people’s problems remain an unconditional priority.

I know that it is sometimes very difficult to ensure a just solution to the problems people bring to you, yet you manage this in most cases, always trying to do as much as you can. Of great importance for the effectiveness of your activities are your prestige and the trust people have placed in you thanks to your hard daily efforts, as well as your persistence and ability to uphold your views, convincing others and finding mutually acceptable solutions and compromises.

The main thing is that you are always on the side of truth, on the side of the interests of a person and a citizen. There is a powerful word in Russian, zastupnichestvo (advocacy), which certainly describes your efforts. I would like to express my gratitude to you for your unwavering responsiveness to the needs of our citizens, for your compassion and generosity of spirit.

I would like to welcome new members to our Council: Rector of the Higher School of Economics Nikita Anisimov, Chair of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia Sergei Chernogayev, and journalist and member of the St Petersburg Legislative Assembly Alexander Malkevich. You all have a wealth of experience in your fields, and I am confident that the Council will benefit from such outstanding professionals and active citizens as you.

Today, people need your assistance and support in dealing with concrete problems, primarily in the realisation of their rights to housing, work, leisure and a decent pay and pension. The social dimension has been a major focus for the Council for many years.

I would like to mention at the outset that you are actively involved in helping the participants in the special military operation and their families. It is very important that in doing so, you closely collaborate with the Civic Chamber, volunteer organisations and the Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation.

Members of the Council are helping residents in the areas that are under enemy fire. They are working extensively to provide our heroes on the frontline with all they need, including with the so-called people’s defence industry products. I have mentioned earlier that this is a real industry, and we need to actively utilise its resources.

You regularly visit our historical territories of Donbass and Novorossiya, and you know the needs of their residents. We will certainly discuss all of these matters today. I would like to emphasise the importance of your efforts in documenting human rights violations by the Kiev regime, as well as its war crimes. You keep the international community informed about this.

Colleagues,

I would like to emphasise that despite the well-known external restrictions and the challenges we face, our country and our state are meeting all their social commitments. For instance, in the next three years, we plan to allocate a quarter of all budget spending for this purpose. Though, 'investment' would be a more appropriate term here instead of ‘spending.’ When we spend money on wages and pensions, on healthcare, education, culture, and sports, we are, in fact, investing in human capital and the preservation of our nation.

Ensuring that people live more active, healthier and longer lives is of fundamental importance – this is the name of one of our national projects. We have recently discussed the work to be done to implement these projects and to achieve national goals at the meeting of the Council for Strategic Development.

National projects are centred around the individual, the interests of Russian families, and concern almost every aspect of society. They constitute a programme of action for the entire country, for our entire society until 2030. I believe that our Council will also decide on its hands-on participation in implementing these ambitious plans.

One of the most important tasks is, as I said before, to preserve lives and keep people healthy, which implies the smooth operation of primary healthcare, the development of high-tech medicine, and the provision of medicines. All this should be available in every region of Russia. The Council always keeps this under review. If you have any proposals, I am ready to listen and discuss them with my colleagues in the Government. I know that there are always numerous issues in these areas.

You remain engaged in subjects pertaining to education, including general school, working together with the Ministry of Education, regional authorities, as well as teachers’ and parents’ communities. Much has been done to promote the prestige of the teaching profession. The teacher’s personality, outlook, ability to uncover talent and support students’ aspirations for growth are of great importance today. All of this is closely aligned with the realisation of the child’s and the teacher’s rights.

<…>

Alexander Ionov: Russia is the leader in upholding the citizens’ legitimate interests and rights. Our country has established and successfully operates both public and civil society human rights protection institutions.

Unfortunately, for a long time, biased organisations operated in our country, which were funded from abroad and used by the United States as a tool in waging a global hybrid war. Today, however, new human rights NGOs are emerging, which are setting clear and fair objectives of supporting and assisting various groups of the population.

Mr President, renowned Russian human rights advocates and activists, members of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights and the Civic Chamber, have decided to establish an autonomous nonprofit organisation called National Human Rights Committee.

The information policy of unfriendly countries towards Russia and our allies remains well-coordinated, well-funded, and includes the blocking of Russian information resources. However, the global human rights architecture is now shifting towards the world majority.

The standards imposed by the collective West erode cultural identity and destroy traditional values. Unfortunately, international organisations that are controlled by and depend on their sponsors fail to report horrific human rights violations in Ukraine, where thousands of individuals accused of ties to Russia remain behind bars and are subjected to torture.

This is not limited to Ukraine. Simply having connections to Russia can lead to imprisonment or placement on an international wanted list at the request of the United States. Cases involving activists such as Omali Yeshitela, Dimitri Simes, and Scott Ritter prove this. Unfortunately, I myself am also on an international wanted list at the request of the United States.

In order to further advance the international human rights efforts, I would like to ask you to support the creation of an international nongovernmental organisation within BRICS with an eye towards establishing a new global humanitarian architecture. Under the auspices of this organisation, a multilingual human rights monitoring portal will operate, providing publicly accessible information about reports on human rights compliance across various regions.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding the new organisation, the new centre, I fully agree with you and your assessments of what the situation was like before. Truth be told, many people in the previous system did honest work and tried to address issues inside the country as best they could, but we both know that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

When we talk about funding human rights activities, we need to create a mechanism for using funds allocated either by the state or public organisations or our companies. This mechanism should draw a line between the use of funds and the source of funds. We need to establish a mechanism or a system that would use the resources independently.

I understand that this is no easy task, but something we must strive for. No matter how much we anathematise things that happen with human rights abroad – let’s face it, we do need to do that, because this is also part of the information confrontation that we cannot avoid, so we must respond to that. However, our main objective is to ensure the protection of human rights in our own country.

This, I believe, is my mission as well, and my key responsibility as the head of state. This responsibility is shared by the Presidential Executive Office, the judiciary, and the Prosecutor’s Office. Yet, no matter how hard these official bodies may try to address these issues, a significant and meaningful portion of this work lies with nongovernmental organisations, because they operate outside the rigid confines of official standards, requirements, and regulations. They act with genuine intent. People feel it and respond positively to NGO activities.

Ultimately, the shared goal of NGOs and government bodies is to meet the needs of the people. This is our common mission. So, the main focus of our work should be serving the people of the Russian Federation. Let’s put our heads together and think about it, alright? Of course, we are willing to support your efforts and will do everything necessary to make sure that the new National Human Rights Centre operates effectively.

You mentioned that you are, unfortunately, on a wanted list at the request of the United States, but you should not regret it. We all live and work here. Let them figure things out among themselves first. Next thing you know, they will be putting each other on wanted lists. However, that is their problems, and we will focus on addressing ours.

<…>

Igor Ashmanov, President of JSC Kribrum: I would like to speak about the situation in the digital sphere and the protection of people’s rights in the digital environment.

You have said that we continue to streamline the digital sphere. You have recently signed the much-awaited law on strengthening the legal protection of personal data. As you remember, it took nearly two years to adopt that law because digital businesses strongly pushed against it. Thankfully, it has now been adopted.

That is very good, because it is the first level of attack for phone scammers and recruiters. Phone recruitment and scamming begin with the establishment of trust because the callers know people’s personal data, including not only names, patronymics and family names but also their address, family status and even their credit contract numbers. Nevertheless, the adoption of the law has not settled the problem of phone scamming and attacks.

According to Interior Minister Kolokoltsev, these criminals stole over 150 billion rubles from our citizens last year alone, and the figure for this year is expected to be between 200 and 300 billion rubles. These figures have been confirmed, in particular, by Sberbank, which makes its own assessments.

So, the first issue I would like to speak about is this. More cases have been reported where people acting “under the influence,” as the Interior Ministry puts it, have lost their apartments. When placed “under the influence,” these people can act contrary to common sense for weeks, and no amount of persuasion can convince them to stop doing what they are doing.

However, the problem is more than just material damage, even though it is huge and keeps growing. It is actually an instrument of war which the Kiev regime is using against our people. It is organised state-run crime, because all these call centres are located in Zaporozhye, the Kharkov Region, and so on, and are operating with support from the state and the Security Service of Ukraine. It is obvious that the purpose of these activities is not only scamming but also recruitment, intimidation of the families of our military personnel, harassment, and so on.

As a result, our people have developed a fear of telephone calls. They are genuinely afraid of answering unknown callers. In fact, many are not aware of the number of such calls. According to the Interior Ministry and Sberbank, between 10 and 20 million scamming, recruitment and other criminal calls are made every day.

What is so important about them? First, an overwhelming majority of calls are made from Ukraine. Second, we are talking about the so-called IP calls via the internet. This means that their accomplices in Russia reroute these calls via conventional telephone networks.

This year, the Federal Security Service has, at long last, started combating these private data processing centres with multiple SIM boxes, specifically, routers where thousands and tens of thousands of SIM cards are installed. In spring, they arrested dozens of people and confiscated 200,000 to 300,000 SIM cards, which had been sold to scammers. These accomplices essentially operate within our territory, taking money stolen by Ukrainian scammers to help them steal more from our citizens.

Investigators step in when there is an attempt to seize property. We should realise that mobile operators, or their partners in specific territories and regions, inevitably facilitate this tremendous volume of calls. Understandably, we need to take action regarding this. Technical systems for facilitating operational activities make it possible to locate these private data processing centres. This work should continue.

To be frank, we believe that the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) now has sufficiently powerful technical means to counter these threats. These systems make it possible to block this tidal wave of telephone calls from Ukraine or, at the very least, to slow it down. This is important because their number would decrease significantly. Yes, this will be a struggle between the shield and the sword; they will sneak through backdoors and start calling from Finland or Norway. Nevertheless, we believe that this should be done.

There might be a minor problem with legitimate calls, including the operational activities of our special services or their relatives. However, their number is absolutely insignificant compared to this tidal wave. We should simply create a different technical environment for them, and this is also possible.

In addition, it is important to realise that by doing this, these impostor recruiters are actually waging a war against our people. Most of them pose as someone in authority calling from a government agency, a bank, or a state body – an official, an investigator from the prosecutor’s office, a representative of public services, and so on.

This is what we probably need to do: all officials should be instructed to make calls to citizens only from listed official numbers – or even from landline telephones only. Bank managers and government officials should not be allowed to make work calls using whatever is convenient – their mobile phones during lunch breaks or even WhatsApp or Telegram, as many tend to do now. By doing so, they are in fact making life easier for scammers posing as officials to deceive people, thereby undermining the authority of the state.

Naturally, this can only be successful if we make the use of spoofed caller ID information illegal. Formally, mobile service providers are not allowed to do this, but if they do, it is just an administrative offenсe. This regulation does not include individuals, so technically, they can legally do it. This means private data centres are allowed to do anything, when normally, scamming should be illegal. There is no valid reason for spoofing one’s caller ID, and helping scammers to do it is the last thing we should do.

Accordingly, the Council asks to instruct the Ministry of Digital Development, the Government, and Roskomnadzor to consider three motions: blocking or slowing down the wave of calls from Ukraine, making caller ID spoofing a criminal offence and creating a pool of official telephone numbers for officials.

And the last point. I would like to thank you for mentioning the Digital Code. This is very important because, besides adopting the laws in question – they are good, but this is being done out of urgency, because we need to quickly plug the holes – we need to finally create a well-structured code so that society, individuals and digital businesses have a clear understanding of what is allowed and what is not allowed in our country. This process seems to have been stalling over the past year; there doesn’t seem to be any movement there. Could we possibly spur this process?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you. The digital environment and citizens’ rights are a boundless issue. Problems related to citizens’ rights are encountered at every stage in the development of the digital environment − this is undeniable.

As for those who fall “under the influence” – of course, I will definitely bring this to the attention of the Prosecutor General’s Office, law enforcement and regulatory agencies again. I will definitely point this out to them again.

Indeed, there is malign influence from Ukraine; we know this for certain. In fact, that country has elevated this to state policy and is using it as one of the tactics to attack us, to attack our population. This is often done directly by state bodies or agencies controlled by the Ukrainian government. This is definitely one of their lines of attack.

Therefore, Roskomnadzor and our other agencies will certainly receive relevant instructions. This will include blocking actions, once we think through the details. Of course, operational activities will not be affected, but with regard to individuals, users, we need to look into this again.

The three points that you mentioned and asked for relevant instructions to be issued will be combined, and an instruction will be formulated.

As for the Digital Code, we will also try to give an additional push to this work. Thank you.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: (commenting on a statement by Moskovsky Komsomolets reporter Yeva Merkacheva about the status, role and development of trial by jury) Thank you very much for raising this issue.

I will begin with a brief comment. Of course, trial by jury is a sufficiently democratic institution of the justice system, and it has a good history in our country. This is obvious. Its introduction in the Russian system of justice has led to the emergence of a constellation of absolutely outstanding lawyers.

The reason for that was that it was possible and necessary to influence the decisions of the jurors on who was guilty and who was not guilty, on whether they were guilty or deserved leniency. To influence people who were not professional lawyers, it was possible and necessary to speak not only convincingly but also eloquently. That is why we had Plevako, Aleksandorv and a host of other remarkable lawyers, of whom our history of law and justice is rightfully proud.

But the history of the use of that system is more complicated than it may seem at first glance. I would like to remind you that Koni, for example, who convinced the jury to declare Vera Zasulich not guilty even though she had shot Trepov, was eventually fired and worked as a defence attorney, if memory serves.

So, it was quite difficult to organise the jury system in the broad sense of the word and in accordance with the laws that were in effect back then. Koni did not violate any laws but acted in keeping with the law. Yet he was asked to leave his position nevertheless, and he complied. This calls for careful scrutiny. In itself, trial by jury is a good institution and should certainly be promoted.

You have also mentioned our realities. To begin with, what is the current reality? It is the reality of the special military operation. However, we have not reintroduced capital punishment, although I can assure you – and you definitely know this too – that a large number of our citizens and politicians raise this issue time and again. We have not done this even in conditions of hostilities, and these are very serious hostilities. On the contrary, we have adopted a series of decisions aimed at making our system of justice more humane and, as I have mentioned, we are reducing the number of people in prisons and detention centres.

Moreover, in the case of broad use of trial by jury, members of the jury will find it extremely difficult to attain justice in some of our entities and territories, which I would like you to remember when you speak about our realities. That is what they are now. Even professional judges sometimes find it difficult to attain justice. They sometimes need to move trials to other regions of the Russian Federation from the ones where a crime was committed. So, it will be extremely difficult in serious cases.

Nevertheless, you are right. Just like you, I support the idea of broader use of the trial by jury system. We will move towards that goal by all means. But our movement should be adjusted to the existing reality, which you have mentioned. It should also be adjusted to the readiness of our society for broader use of this institution. At any rate, I agree with you that we should use it and make broader use of it, or else our society will never be ready for it. We will certainly move towards this goal together with you.

<… >

Marina Akhmedova, editor-in-chief, Regnum: Mr President, good afternoon.

This year, members of the Human Rights Council worked in the Kursk, Bryansk, and Belgorod regions. We went to the Kursk Region immediately after the enemy offensive began to find out what the residents needed. From then on, we worked alongside volunteers in temporary accommodation centres. We bought, collected and delivered [humanitarian supplies], and that wasn’t really anything worth mentioning – it’s just that we could not stay in Moscow when our country and people suffered like that.

We met so many different people. One of them, Roman Yatsenko from the Kursk Region, the father of five children – when Ukraine launched the offensive, he was in Moscow at work, but he immediately left for Sudzha and reached his home. He evacuated his own children under fire, while foreign mercenaries were shooting, not really caring that they were shooting at small children.

We met young men and women who were returning to the most dangerous areas to evacuate old people, total strangers. We met Imam Isa Salimsultanov, who had evacuated over 500,000 people, all of them Orthodox believers. There was not a single Muslim among them. Unfortunately, we also met people whom we could not help because it was too late. All we could do was listen while they talked.

We regularly visit the Belgorod Region and work in an evacuation hospital, where fighters are brought from the frontline. I always see doctors there dead on their feet, but they keep working because we Russians are in the habit of asking ourselves: who, if not me?

I saw doctors who extracted drone fuses from wounds with their bare hands. Once a soldier with a fuse in his body was brought to the hospital, and protocol required summoning a sapper group, but there was no time because the soldier was bleeding profusely. The young surgeon told everyone to leave the operating room and stayed with the wounded man. I asked him if he realised that he could die trying to save a total stranger or lose his arms. He said he had made a conscious choice, that he felt like a soldier at that moment and had to behave like a soldier. And he added that victory will definitely be ours. We petitioned for him to be recommended for a decoration.

My colleague Belekhova and I visit the Donetsk People’s Republic to process appeals from military personnel. I went to one military unit – I actually told you about it last year, and when I started visiting there and meeting the soldiers, they appeared quite confused and intimidated. Now they are completely different people. They have learned how to fight, and they are very effective. I visited them in October, and they told me they were just doing their job the same way they had been working back home, operating machines at factories, teaching in schools, or working on projects as engineers. Their goal is to do their job as well as possible.

In my mind, all these people and places have blended into a kind of hum of time, the current of our life over the year. But what was its meaning? I talked with Valery Fadeyev about meanings and achievements, and he said that the most important achievement of our time is that we have managed to survive and influence the world order, although they are trying to destroy us from all sides.

I believe you understand this very well as a person who took over the country when it was literally falling apart, and managed to preserve it. Right now, the idea of defending our country brings us together, and many realise that nobody will defend it if they do not.

As a nation, we have set a course for victory. When you oppose aggressive countries or toughen the nuclear doctrine, of course, it is a little frightening, but we are not just passive bystanders. We support you. We are there with you and all around you. Victory is what we wish for deep within. I believe that when we get together next year, we will be able to congratulate each other on our victory.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, thank you very much. As far as I understand, you did not want to report a problem or make a proposal but wanted to express…

Marina Akhmedova: … our support.

Vladimir Putin: I understand. I heard you. Thank you very much for your support. Thank you for doing this work. I do not know if the surgeon you mentioned has been nominated for a state award. He should be found and nominated for it. It is a distinctive trait of many of our people to keep things they do at the call of the heart private. It is extremely important.

I was just talking to a colleague of ours who spoke about the jury trial. When the jury trial was just established, many went to court as if it were the theatre. I am not exaggerating. Because a completely new instrument of justice was brought to life – publicity in the broadest sense of the word. You had to influence the jury. You had to be eloquent and convincing. An entire constellation of outstanding Russian lawyers emerged as a result.

This is generally good, and we are rightly proud of it. But most people are far from publicity when they serve their duty. The men at the frontline have no time for publicity. Sometimes they risk every second – they risk their lives and health, but they push forward and liberate the territories and our people on the so-called new territories that are historically ours. They are fulfilling their duty to the Motherland and, of course, they need help and support.

You mentioned toughening the nuclear doctrine. We are not toughening the nuclear doctrine. We are upgrading it. And generally speaking, we need to improve Oreshnik rather than the nuclear doctrine. When you think about it, the advancement of modern weapon systems has almost eliminated the necessity for the use of nuclear weapons.

This is why we are rather careful across all sectors. I would even say we are restrained. But where it is necessary, we show the will at the state level and at the level of Russian citizens who live here and want their children to live here and consider Russia their Motherland, and are willing to do everything for it to grow stronger.

I would like to thank you for doing such a responsible and very important part of the work that you do. Thank you.

<…>

Vladimir Putin (replying to remarks by Yan Vlasov, Co-Chair of the All-Russian Union of Patients’ Public Associations, who drew attention to the issue of providing patients with affordable innovative medications. This problem arose because foreign companies are conducting virtually no clinical research in Russia today, and it will take a long time to replace these medications. He suggested that the Government establish medication affordability criteria for the Russian market and the country’s patients; this concerns new innovative medications. He also suggested including representatives of the patients’ community in the relevant commission under the Health Ministry): I believe that both of these measures would be correct. Regarding the elaboration of criteria, I believe that they are available. But, if you believe that this is not enough, and that they need to be upgraded, then we should do this.

Nothing prevents us from including representatives of public organisations in this commission. They will assess this situation from another perspective, from the patients’ standpoint.

I will therefore advise the Health Ministry to start work on your proposal.

<…>

Alexander Kots, war correspondent from the Komsomolskaya Pravda Media Group: Mr President, you have just said that we are liberating our people in the course of the special military operation. I would like to say a few kind words about them.

We have been advancing all year long; this advance is more active in some sectors and is slower elsewhere. The number of incoming refugees therefore tends to increase. They are our people to the core. These unfortunate people whom we are now evacuating from Selidovo and whom we evacuated earlier this year from Avdeyevka deliberately stayed behind. They suffered terrible hardships, lived in basements and cooked meals on bonfires. They did not want to retreat to Ukrainian territory. They wanted to remain on Russian territory, they waited to be liberated, to welcome our units, to enter Russian territory, to obtain passports of the Russian Federation’s citizens and to become full-fledged citizens of our country.

I receive photographs of the temporary accommodation points to which people are relocated. I suspect that the conditions in the basement in Selidovo were better than those of their current accommodation. When we begin to ask and contact various officials, it becomes clear that it is not even the republic or the region responsible for financing the temporary accommodation points in Russia; rather, it is the city. This is a frontline city with no financial resources. It cannot provide decent accommodation, not because the people there are heartless, but simply because they lack the means. However, this issue is probably not just a city problem, but a federal one. There are thousands of people who come to us.

At present, we know little about the refugees from Artyomovsk or Popasnaya, and only some details about Avdeyevka, likely because we lack an authority that is strictly responsible for refugees. Perhaps not a specific Ministry for Refugees, but a department within the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection. Perhaps we could address this. We should consider the successful performance of the Defenders of Fatherland Foundation and the Centre for Unified Support for Military Personnel and Their Families, and create a similar centre for refugees. There will be thousands more, as we still have many liberated cities ahead of us. It is crucial that people who remained there to join the Russian world are not disappointed.

These include image-related points: when people regain an ability to communicate, they start calling their friends in Ukraine who have relocated there. The refugees in Ukraine have little to boast about either. We need to promote the idea that the Russian world welcomes its members hospitably, cordially, and sincerely, without engaging in bureaucratic football. People who have already endured several months of hardship are forced to navigate a maze of bureaucracy, running around offices to secure basic necessities, such as enrolling their children in school, finding housing, and re-registering cars from Ukrainian to Russian plates. I believe that if there were an organisation like the Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation, where these refugees could seek assistance, it would be very beneficial.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you for drawing our attention to this. I know that it is a big problem that cannot be settled easily. First of all, the situation with refugees looks much better in Russia than in Ukraine, where people who wish to enter the Russian Federation have to look for various roundabout ways through Türkiye and other countries. We are aware of and register this flow.

As for people from the front line who are living in poorly organised temporary accommodation facilities, we must look into this problem, and we will certainly do so. As for assigning it to the Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation, I do not think that is appropriate. The Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation should take care of the defenders of the country, which it was set up to do.

However, the issue you have raised is clearly very important. We need people who want to live in Russia and are trying to implement their plans to live and to build a future for themselves and their children in Russia. We should certainly support such people, which is obvious. I will definitely draw our colleagues’ attention to this. We should probably consider assigning this task to organisations that are directly involved in such matters.

I would like to once again thank you for what you are doing. Your work has always been important, but it is even more important in the current situation.

One of the speakers has said that the goal of our work is to establish and strengthen a new world order. This is important, but it is not our goal. Our goal is to strengthen Russia, to defend it and to protect its future. We are working towards this end in a number of spheres.

Of course, the crucial events are taking place on the front line in the zone of the special military operation. However, in order to attain all its goals, the country must work effectively in all the spheres we discussed today. As I said, the contribution of NPOs and volunteers may be more important in some spheres of our common work than ever before in our history. Of course, there have been similar situations in our history, but our work is critically important now because our connection to the people, awareness of the situation in the country, and the search for more effective support instruments are of major importance. Our common work will hardly be effective without a caring attitude to the people, which no bureaucratic bodies but only organisations such as yours can provide, organisations where people do not work for a wage but out of the goodness of their hearts. I would like to thank you for this. We will do everything in our power to support you.

I wish you a happy upcoming New Year! Thank you.

Vladimir Putin signed executive orders on National Awards of the Russian Federation

2024-06-12T11:34:53+04:00

The President signed executive orders on awarding the 2023 Russian Federation National Awards in science and technology, literature and the arts, and outstanding achievements in human rights and charity work.

The 2023 Russian Federation National Awards in Literature and the Arts have been awarded to Ildar Abdrazakov, Andrei Korobtsov and Konstantin Fomin, as well as Olga Taratynova and Boris Igdalov.

The 2023 Russian Federation National Awards in science and technology have been awarded to Mikhail Kovalchuk, Yevgeny Adamov and Vladimir Asmolov; Sergei Gauthier, Marina Minina and Mogeli Khubutiya; as well as Pyotr Chumakov.

The 2023 Russian Federation National Award for outstanding achievements in human rights have been awarded to Yulia Belekhova.

The 2023 Russian Federation National Award for outstanding achievements in charity work has been awarded on Nikolai Slabzhanin.

As per tradition, the President will present the National Awards on Russia Day, June 12.

Meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

2023-12-22T21:24:39+04:00

The President held the annual meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights, via videoconference.

Excerpts from transcript of meeting of Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues,

I am happy to welcome all of you to our meeting, which is traditionally held on the eve of Human Rights Day. This date is certainly important to each of you, our Council as a whole and, I think, for our society as well.

I know that you not only analyse law enforcement practice, law-making and other issues of general nature, but also spend much time and effort helping people in specific situations; you respond to their requests to help them find a fair solution to their problems.

Of course, I am grateful to you for your caring attitude to this cause, for your sincere generosity, patience, your ability to convince others in your position, and, if necessary, your firm stand and persistence, and a striving to listen to all parties and to find compromises.

All these traits are of tremendous importance in the human rights cause. You have these traits in full measure and achieve a lot because of them. Thank you and your colleagues at both the federal level and in the regions – for your much needed and noble activities.

I would also like to tell you that the Council has undergone a planned rotation. The relevant executive order was signed recently. The Council now includes five members – they are prominent people in the field of human rights and civil society development. I would like to wish you success and, most importantly, to join the Council’s current determined effort as soon as possible.

Colleagues, at our meeting a year ago we had an in-depth discussion on issues that are particularly important in our uneasy times. The discussion was lengthy and frank. Much has been done to address almost every issue you brought up: instructions have been given to the relevant ministries and departments, while the regional authorities received recommendations. Much, as I said, has been done while some issues are still being looked into. Today, we will listen to detailed information about the status of the instructions.

One of the major and traditional efforts of the Council’s activities is protection of people’s social rights. This year special attention has been given to teachers’ working conditions, including their salaries, efforts to improve prestige of teaching, and the level of equipment at educational establishments.

I believe our Council needs to keep addressing these issues. For example, you came up with a proposal to prepare a new single social sciences textbook and later joined this work. Of course, this deserves support. I believe your experience in human rights activities is definitely needed here.

Today, of course, one of the main issues the Council is addressing is support for our servicepeople, our men and women on the frontlines, our heroes. Present here are Council members who have been to the special military operation zone more than once.

At the previous meeting you raised the issue of targeted support for the participants in the special military operation and their families. This year, the Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation was established, with its branches opened in every region. It is important that you work closely with them.

I am aware that you regularly go to Donbass and Novorossiya, meet with local people, know what their concerns are. I ask you to speak openly and in detail about matters that need additionally consideration and resolution.

Colleagues, on December 10, it will be 75 years since the UN adopted its Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Unfortunately, we are observing this anniversary against the backdrop of the continuing degradation of the international system for the protection and promotion of human rights. Its institutions, which are being de facto controlled by the West, demonstrate political bias, hypocrisy and undisguised selectiveness. Thus, for eight years we have seen how helpless they are and how directly they ignore glaring violations as regards the people of Donbass.

These structures not only “fail to notice” but also even encourage manifestations of Russophobia and support the countries that are hurrying to win first place in this disgraceful competition of Russophobes.

As you know, Russia has withdrawn from a number of international human rights organisations. However, this does not mean that we are rejecting the principles of the Declaration. On the contrary, we are willing to cooperate with any interested country or partner and find solutions to create an effective, fair, and equal system for the protection of human rights.

As we have noted, civilian institutions are more flexible and, hence, better adapted to a prompt search for possible solutions in this area. The Council has already taken certain steps in this respect. Thus, it hosted an international conference on this subject in November. Needless to say, it is necessary to continue the intensive effort in this area.

I would like to emphasise, in particular, that our Council has noticeably increased its influence in the past few years. Much is associated with its name and many people in both public organisations and government structures take into account the Council’s opinions. This is primarily facilitated, of course, by your focus on the essence of the most complicated problems and your ability to hold a dialogue with different departments and civil society agencies and jointly achieve concrete results.

I would like to wish you success in these endeavours in the interests of civil society and all Russian people. Let’s discuss issues that you consider the most important today.

Now I would like to give the floor to Mr Fadeyev.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: (Commenting on the report by the Chair of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights Valery Fadeyev who spoke about migrant labour and environmental issues, in particular, those related to Lake Baikal).

Mr Fadeyev, there is something to be said on each issue, and we will discuss. The format does not provide for a detailed discussion of every report delivered since there will be a lot of speakers, but there are some issues I must comment on. Migrant rights is a very pressing issue and this is understandable, and, of course, I agree that it is necessary to maintain a balance – an ethno-cultural balance – in this respect.

Of course, everything that is taking place in this area is primarily dictated by the interests of the economy, the shortage of workers but it is certainly necessary to make these people ready for work. We must attract the kinds of workers that are in the interests of the Russian economy. This is most important. This means that these people should know the language and ethno-cultural aspects of our country. They should know our traditions and so on. They should know our laws and respect them.

We are working on this in cooperation with our colleagues from the CIS countries, from Central Asia. You could not fail to notice – and this is public knowledge – that we are opening Russian schools there with instruction in Russian and conducting other events. But this does not rule out that all people arriving – I will repeat it again – must comply with Russian laws and respect our cultural traditions, traditions of our people and so on. That said, we should also guarantee their rights like a civilized country.

This is a huge set of issues, and it is very important for us to resolve them comprehensively, while giving priority to the interests of the citizens of the Russian Federation in all areas – let’s be straight about this. I would appreciate if the Council continued working to this end.

As for Lake Baikal, it is a very important issue as well. Here we need to strike a balance between the interests of people living in this region and the need to protect the lake. In general, many issues there require constant attention, considering this lake is our national treasure.

As for human rights in Novorossiya, in Donbass and the adjacent regions, we must take it extremely seriously. This issue will require professionalism and persistence because those who don’t want this would rather the problems not be noticed at all. But we know that problems exist and so we certainly need to deal with them.

<…>

Vladimir Putin (Commenting on the speech of Alexander Tochenov, president of the Centre for Applied Studies and Programmes, executive secretary of the Council. Mr Tochenov addressed, in particular, the Council’s relationship with the authorities, assistance to participants in the special military operation, and responsibility for actions performed by representatives of law enforcement agencies that may be qualified as “torture.”): Mr Tochenov, thank you very much.

A couple of comments if you do not mind.

You said that sometimes a faster response is needed from various government and management bodies. I do not remember whether we discussed this or not. I think we need to do our best to ensure that our agreements take the form of Presidential instructions, and then the Control Directorate and the Presidential Executive Office as a whole will get involved in this issue. And it seems to me that then we can enhance the quality of the Council’s work even more, because there are certain deadlines for acting on a Presidential instruction. You, and I see that the Council is working very actively, will act essentially on the Presidential instruction, issued in a proper way. I believe this would qualitatively improve and help you in your work and would improve the work of the Council itself.

Also, I would ask for your continued support of the Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation. You know, the Foundation does not directly manage money, it has no money, but it has a very important function – to monitor how the state responds when providing assistance to participants in the special military operation and members of their families, whether the state achieves the goals that it sets itself in this area. It is necessary to get feedback from those people for whom the Foundation is designed, for whom it is intended – the target group of participants in the special military operation. The State Duma is also thinking about this, as well as the relevant ministries and the deputy prime minister in charge of the social sector. And I would ask you not to forget this area of activity under any circumstances.

Now as for the problem of torture, no matter how unpleasant it is to utter the word, still I have to. Of course, we need to continue monitoring the situation in this area, without any doubt, and identify any such ugly acts, if they occur, in our penitentiary system and in general in the activities of law enforcement and special agencies. We definitely need to keep an eye on them.

Otherwise, if we miss anything here even for a moment, we will have very serious consequences from the point of view of both the unity of our society, which is very important, and the social justice that you are talking about. Many things will look different for us, and our self-assessment will be completely different, which will not allow us to achieve the results we need in many areas of our activities and development.

This also applies to the timing of preliminary investigation. There were many decisions here, I will not dwell on this issue now, but not everything has been resolved. People are still under investigation for years, this is unacceptable, it should be monitored very carefully.

This is a very important area of work, as well as digitalisation, education, environment, non-profit organisations, and the attitude of financial institutions towards them. I cannot see any minor issues. I want to thank you for doing all this. Thank you.

<…>

Chairman of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights Standing Commission on International Cooperation in Human Rights Kirill Vyshinsky: Good evening, Mr President.

With your permission, I will start with what we discussed during the same meeting a year ago. We agreed that a very high wave of Russophobia had risen in the countries of the European Union and the so-called collective West. We asked you then to instruct officials to study thoroughly our legislation, introduce a legal definition of Russophobia and provide for the possibility to toughen measures against it legislatively.

During this year, we held several roundtable discussions with lawyers, our colleagues from the State Duma, as well as ministries and departments that directly deal with issues of law and order.

For all the difference in our legal approaches, we still agreed that Russophobia was really a serious problem, that it had practically turned into a discriminatory ideological agenda. It is actually aimed at dehumanising the citizens of the Russian Federation, our compatriots – all those who associate themselves with Russia and the Russian World, broadly speaking.

Owing to your instruction, serious work was carried out on a large scale. We know that a big package of draft laws has been prepared by the State Duma and it is now undergoing expert review in the Government. We are hoping that this package will be soon implemented and amendments on tougher measures against Russophobia will be introduced in our laws.

But these are measures we are taking inside the country, being well aware of the fact that far from abating, this wave has become even bigger now.

Here is the clearest example and I am sure you know about it. We are well aware that even special instructions have been issued in this regard. I am referring to the situation with our citizens living in Latvia on temporary residence permits. They had to go through a rather humiliating process of taking a language exam.

But, most importantly, they had to fill in absolutely humiliating forms to demonstrate their disloyalty to the Russian Federation. Let me repeat that they are citizens of the Russian Federation living in Latvia in accordance with Latvian laws, on Latvian territory with residence permits.

As a result, in accordance with the information of the Foreign Ministry, over 3,000 people or 3,255 to be precise, have now found themselves in a situation where they may be forcedly deported from Latvian territory starting December 1.

Let me repeat that I know that a special meeting of the Russian Federation Security Council was held, and special instructions were issued to all competent departments and the heads of the regions bordering on Latvia. However, I would still ask you to pay attention to this problem once again because we may face a situation where Latvian court bailiffs will simply bring people in wheelchairs to the border.

Maybe it would make sense to organise a direct line of the Red Cross that people could simply call if they were evicted by force. They could use it to report that this is happening to them and receive some initial organisational assistance right on the Russian-Latvian border. But, let me repeat that this is a particular case of Russophobic manifestations. It shows that they are gaining momentum.

In Germany, our citizens, living there on residence permits or due to some other circumstances, our citizens, simply Russian speakers that moved there at one time, have their bank accounts closed. Confiscation of cars with Russian license plates, Russian registration is common knowledge. Let me repeat that it will only get worse. This is what we think and our view is shared by many people, including NGOs that are dealing with the problems of our compatriots living abroad.

I think it is very important to emphasise repatriation from unfriendly countries. In effect, our compatriots are finding themselves there in the extreme situation where they are starting to be forced out of their homes or deprived of some social guarantees, even the ability to exist in the infrastructure of the countries where they lived. They are ready to move to Russia but are facing a big tangle of complicated problems.

I think it is important to give them a signal that we are waiting for these people from unfriendly countries, and also to let them really hear the words that should have been voiced openly a long time ago. It is simple: home is best, come back, the country is waiting for you.

We all remember well the processes that took place in the late Soviet years and the early post-Soviet years. We remember this largely economic migration. I think that the time is ripe for the reverse process. We will be waiting for people ready to return to Russia from the states that are unfriendly for the time being, which, unfortunately, are growing in number. If this message works, if it is voiced and heard, I think we will receive some serious human capital. These people are socially active; they made a life for themselves in a different environment, created some businesses and jobs; they have serious experience and know innovative technology. In brief, they will certainly not be idle in our country.

I think the country is ready to give them this signal. Therefore, I would like to ask, if possible, for you to issue an order introducing the concept of “repatriation from unfriendly countries” and maybe creating some infrastructure so that this process could receive serious support from the state.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you, Mr Vyshinsky.

We know what Russophobia is; we have been experiencing it for a long time. This attitude was especially pronounced in the Baltic countries; they were doing it for the whole world to see, long before the special military operation. The special military operation has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Some politicians may have decided to take advantage of Russia’s special military operation to achieve their political goals at home. This is their business, and it does not make them look any better, of course. There is also no doubt that any country, Russia included, when it comes to immigrant workforce, any country wants, quite legitimately, such people to respect the host country’s traditions and culture, including its language. I mentioned this at the beginning of our meeting,

But when it comes to the category you just mentioned, these are, first of all, the people who lived there in the Soviet time, and often, due to various circumstances of previously living in one single country, they ended up where they live today, and their children were born there, and so on. So of course, their status as “non-citizens” has no place in the legal plane of most civilised countries – this bizarre invention of those who claim to be democracies is undeniably ugly, and it is now evolving on a bigger scale. We all see this clearly.

It has always been our view that, in the modern world, a person can choose the country where they want to live – if it is their choice, if it did not happen for objective reasons such as moving around in the Soviet Union. In general, if a person decides to live in another country, it is their choice.

But what you have said, what we are facing, these processes certainly require closer attention. We are compelled to adjust our relations with the countries where such things are happening, and we need to show consideration in regard to people who want to return to their historical homeland.

We certainly need to take some systemic measures here. And Mr Vyshinsky, you are right, we need to think about this. We will formulate our approaches to these processes accordingly. On the other hand, if people want to stay but are being expelled, there is nothing we can do about it either. Nonetheless, we will need to create conditions for these people as well.

Let us think about how to respond to what is happening together – with you, with the Council for Human Rights, the Foreign Ministry, and the Russian Government.

I do not think that those who pursue such a policy will be blessed with happiness. As far as a I know, the Russian-speaking population accounted for about 40 percent in Latvia; I do not know how many there are now. But there are certainly a lot of them. If the country pursues a policy like this with regard to people who want to live there, who have worked there and created added value for that country, if these people are treated like dirt, then surely these governments will face the same dirt in their own countries in the end.

Vladimir Putin (commenting on the remarks by Ulyanovsk Region’s Commissioner for Children’s Rights Yekaterina Smoroda on schooling problems): Everything you said is extremely important.

School is a very sensitive and important sphere of society and public administration. It is about teaching, textbooks, salary, and the prestige of the teaching profession. As for homeroom teachers and regulating their activities (I made a note for myself for further reference), we will by all means take a close look at it. I will instruct the ministry accordingly, and the Presidential Executive Office will review it as well.

I was taken somewhat aback by what you said about reporting. Everything related to computerising teachers’ work was aimed at lessening the burden of their work and cutting red tape. You have mentioned mandatory computerisation. Frankly, it struck me as a very strange, unexpected and perfunctory approach to IT development. I will definitely discuss this with the minister, I promise.

Let us talk some more about the acute issue of the children of migrant workers. It is a challenging issue, and I have jotted down everything you said almost to the letter. We need to think about ways to resolve these issues. Migrant children should attend school, but this process should not affect the quality of education of our children, the children of our citizens. This is a separate issue, and we cannot pretend it does not exist. I will issue an instruction to draft proposals accordingly, and I hope you will take part in developing these solutions. Separate groups can be formed to address this issue. There is a lot that can and should be done in this regard, except one thing which is to pretend that the problem does not exist. They do exist, that is true, and you are absolutely right.

Now, with regard to numerous attempts to discredit teachers and educators. Without a doubt, this is an important and delicate area that should be subjected to regulation by the latest available means, especially considering that we live in a modern information society. Shouting and banning things alone will not solve anything. No need to get into the details now.

The issue that you have raised is probably among the most challenging issues, but we absolutely need to protect teachers from unwarranted interference in their lives and from undue pressure in the information space. Again, we need to think and make appropriate decisions that will improve the situation in terms of protecting teachers' rights.

Vladimir Putin: (Commenting on the remarks by Olga Demicheva, head of the Doctor Liza’s Fair Aid International Charity Foundation, which touched on the problem of organising social and medical assistance for people of no fixed residence): The topic you have raised is very sensitive. People who find themselves on the street due to various circumstances – I will not discuss the reasons behind this right now – without a place of permanent residence and often without work, of course, need special attention from society. After all, perhaps the fault for what happened is largely their own, but it is also the fault of society as a whole. This means that society as a whole has allowed people to get like this, that is the point.

If that is what has happened, then we all must think of ways to fix this to the extent possible. Let us look at the experience of the Tyumen Region and think together how it can be used and extended to the entire country.

Thank you very much for raising this issue. I would like to ask you to continue working on this topic with your colleagues from the Government and the Presidential Office and to convey to them everything that you consider necessary in order to make appropriate adjustments in this line of work.

Vladimir Putin (commenting on Archpriest Kirill Kaleda’s speech on perpetuating the victims of political reprisals): You know, when we speak about victims of political reprisals, we are referring to many different people. Some of them really opposed the Soviet system. Others supported the system but landed in prisons for different domestic political reasons. Some of them were accused, rightly or wrongly, of taking part in some internal political groups that were fighting each other and were arrested because of these clashes. Some of them fell into this category by sheer accident. All this matters, but some things are more important for us in this respect.

It is more important for us to prevent any repetition of this in our national history because it inflicted enormous, hard-to-correct damage on our people and our state. The lack of law per se in resolving human destinies is unacceptable if we want our country to have a future. This is really important, and thus, the conclusion – this work should definitely continue.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: I would like to thank all of you for your hard work this year, and to ask you not to slow the pace of this work. You see how important it is for the country, and maybe even more important for those you help.

Thank you very much, and Happy New Year to you.

Thank you. Goodbye.

Council for Civil Society and Human Rights meeting

2023-02-16T12:14:08+04:00

The President held an annual meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights, via videoconference.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues.

First, I would like to congratulate you on the upcoming Human Rights Day. By tradition, our meetings are timed to this event. It directly concerns each of you, as well as the council's experts, consultants, and office staff.

Your joint work to protect the rights, freedoms and lawful interests of the people is a continuing operation. For many of you, these multifaceted activities – it would be no exaggeration to describe it like this – have essentially become your destiny, a calling and a life-long mission that inspires others. You are putting your heart into this work, sparing no time and effort to help those who need care and support. I would like to sincerely thank you for this very responsible and noble mission.

It is gratifying that you do not relax your activities in the areas that the council continuously keeps in focus. These include education, healthcare, environmental protection, children’s rights and digitisation – there are many questions here.

I know you have finished working on the draft concept of the protection of human rights and civil freedoms in the digital space of the Russian Federation and a plan of measures on implementing it. Your interested, persistent participation is also important in resolving problems of providing medications for all categories that need them, but primarily, of course, cancer patients.

Both the federal Government and the regional authorities implement the majority of the council’s recommendations. This shows that the analysis of conclusions and expert examinations you suggest has become more thorough.

Today, we are planning to discuss the development of legislation on non-profit organisations, ensuring citizens’ rights in the legal process, preservation of the cultural heritage and many other issues.

A big bloc concerns the special military operation (SMO). Since the first day, Mr Valery Fadeyev and the majority of the council members have held an abundantly clear civic position. They have been explaining the true reasons and need for the SMO, countering overt racism and aggressive Russophobia, blatant lies and mean, very mean and sneaky fake stories that are spread by foreign media and other propaganda resources.

Your work on upholding the rights and the truth, the rights of our people, the residents of Donbass, our cultural heritage and traditional values is of great significance.

Importantly, you continue exposing the crimes of the Nazi regime that has asserted itself in a neighbouring country. We have emphasized many times that for eight years the rights of the residents of the much-suffering Donbass were completely ignored by the international community, the so-called international community.

In the meantime, our council has addressed this issue many times. It sent information to the corresponding international institutions that are called on to ensure, support and promote human rights, but they, at any rate most of them, that are now acting as accusers, pretended to have become blind or deaf all of a sudden.

It was only after the start of the SMO that the UN HRC, the Council of Europe and other so-called human rights organisations suddenly “saw the light” and began to shamelessly demonstrate what I would call their cynical bias, and to attempt to shift the blame ‘from a sick head to a healthy one’, as they say in Russia.

All this meant that these organisations were unable to perform their chartered tasks. Due to their obvious bias, Russia has had to cancel its membership in a number of them.

I believe that our council, as an institution dealing with a broad range of public organisations in Russia and abroad, could become an efficient international platform for discussing human rights issues and the protection of these rights in the modern world.

The existing approaches require a comprehensive analysis because they are being used to achieve quite different goals, far from constructive ones. Thus, we are seeing that human rights doctrines are being used to destroy the sovereignty of states and justify Western political, financial, economic and ideological dominance.

Colleagues,

I would like to thank you for your active assistance to our citizens living on the new territories. Some of you have become a true voice of the people there. Thus, journalist Marina Akhmedova has worked in Donbass since 2014. With the start of the SMO, she has visited the frontlines more than once, I know this, and organized humanitarian aid to the residents of liberated Mariupol and Volnovakha.

I would like to note that this year the membership of the council has changed significantly. It includes well-known people, such public opinion leaders as Yelena Shishkina, member of the Presidium of the Free Donbass public movement, and Olga Demicheva who heads the Doctor Liza’s Fair Aid Charity.

This organisation – we know it well – provides treatment for critically ill children from Donbass and helps the evacuated. At one time, Doctor Liza – Yelizaveta Glinka – was the first to raise this issue at council meetings. She was also the first to take these Donbass children for treatment, literally during shelling, to put it straight.

I hope your experience and knowledge will be helpful for our new territories in developing civil society institutions and a modern non-commercial sector.

I consider it important for the new council to continue contributing to the tasks facing the country and society, to work persistently and boldly, to raise problems that concern people and to resolve them in cooperation with the authorities.

These times are really not easy, and your opinions, positions, public speeches and statements must certainly be verified. They must work to unite our society. In fact, this is what is taking place now.

Let us start our work, please.

Mr Fadeyev, you have the floor, please.

Chair of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights Valery Fadeyev: Thank you, Mr President.

Mr President, colleagues,

The council has been focusing on the main and most complicated circumstances in the country.

The special military operation. Many council members have repeatedly visited the SMO zone, and you, Mr President, have just mentioned this. Our colleagues are working with refugees in the Russian regions. The council has established working interaction with the authorities and civil organisations in the new regions of Russia. Today, council members will share their impressions with us.

Both before and especially after the accession of the new regions to Russia, the council recorded evidence of crimes committed by the Kiev regime as regards civilians. The council is sending relevant notices to over 1,800 addresses – international human rights organisations, European parliament deputies, and editors of leading Western media. As of today, they have recorded 4,334 VSU (Armed Forces of Ukraine) shells and rockets in Donetsk, Ilovaisk, Gorlovka, Makeyevka, Rubezhnoye, Svatov and other residential areas. This shelling was not part of the hostilities. It was targeted not at military facilities but at civilians, residential buildings, schools and hospitals.

In autumn, we sent information to human rights organisations about harassment of civilians in the Kharkov Region, executions in Kupyansk, the shelling of a crossing in Kherson, and executions of Russian POWs, and we have not received an adequate response so far. There are some letters from the Vatican, the Red Cross, and some European parliament deputies, but international human rights organisations remain silent.

The lack of response shows that international human rights institutions are politicised and biased and that actually they are not performing their functions. The Western community renounced any defence of the rights of Donbass residents in 2014, but the urgency of this problem has become even more obvious with the start of the SMO. Our council will continue seeking the fulfilment of their charter tasks by the UN Human Rights Council, the Council of Europe and other international institutions.

However, at the same time we have launched an international dialogue on the need to modernise and reform these institutions. At the Petersburg Judicial Forum in June of this year, we held the first roundtable discussion on this issue. Despite the statements by our German partners about their intention to discontinue the work of the Petersburg Dialogue Forum, we are trying to preserve these contacts. We have just held a conference in Yaroslavl, in November, on humanism and human rights, together with our German colleagues, as well as representatives of China, Argentina, Uzbekistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Iran.

Next year will be 75 years since the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is a fundamental document. It was important for building the postwar world order. However, now the West often uses it to impose its values. New Western values that are in vogue have been brought to the point of absurdity. They are simply destructive. They will hardly be accepted in other parts of the world but they can do much harm.

The source of these values is not accidental. The Western concept of rights and freedoms is based on the understanding of a person as an autonomous individual. But individualism is not the main value for many peoples and civilisations, for most of them. National models must take into account religious, historical and cultural peculiarities.

At one time, conceptual regional human rights documents were created, for instance, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. Note the word “peoples.” The charter deals with sovereignty, the freedom of peoples from external oppression – Africans have not forgotten colonial times. There was the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. It codified, in part, a certain view on family values and these are, of course, traditional family values.

However, instead of welcoming this approach, this diversity – democratic diversity – Western political institutions are ignoring these documents. The West is demonstrating its scorn for the countries of the so-called Third World even though the bigger part of the world population lives there.

It is necessary to seek genuine universality, to seek what unites people rather than separates them. All participants in this work must enjoy complete equality.

Mr President, I would like to ask you to support our joint effort with the Foreign Ministry in this area, in part, on the sidelines of the BRICS and the SCO summits. I have already held preliminary consultations with the Foreign Ministry, with Sergey Lavrov.

Partial mobilisation. At the beginning of the partial mobilisation, there was confusion within military enlistment offices. In the very first days, the council outlined the problems and demanded strict adherence to mobilisation rules. Thus, citizens were mobilised not in accordance with the Executive Order and Law on Mobilisation. Fulfilment of certain plans cannot justify violations of the law. Mistakes were corrected, including individual mobilization cases.

In October, the council drafted a report on implementing the Executive Order on Partial Mobilisation. We received a detailed reply from the Defence Ministry and the relevant State Duma Committee on each item. The council retains control over all of these issues.

Legal gaps were revealed. The council looked into the ambiguous opportunity for alternative civilian service under mobilisation. In November, this ambiguity was removed. There were complaints about the remuneration of mobilized personnel – there was a considerable difference in the amount of payments depending on the region of the Russian Federation. Mr President, you corrected this situation with your decision.

However, our colleagues are reporting, including our new council member Alexander Kots, that nothing was deposited on the accounts of some people for four months, and some others did not receive their regional supplements. This is not a mass phenomenon, but it is necessary to deal with these things on a case-by-case basis.

There were quite a few cases where gear was overpriced – both when mobilised personnel bought it themselves and when the regional authorities bought it on a large scale. In general, this problem was resolved as well – the interested government institutions acted promptly. That said, some units still face problems with providing mobilised personnel with winter gear.

Currently, our focus is shifting to the families of our military personnel. A nonformal approach with a human touch is very important in these efforts. I have no doubt that the new members of the Council – Yulia Belekhova, Head of the Committee for the Families of the Soldiers of the Fatherland; Yelena Shishkina from the Free Donbass public movement; Olga Demicheva representing Doctor Liza’s Fair Aid Charity; the Children’s Rights Ombudsman [for the Ulyanovsk Region], Yekaterina Smoroda and others – will be actively involved in these efforts. They are already seriously engaged in this work.

Now I want to brief you on several other areas of our work.

Digitalisation. Mr President, on your instructions, the council jointly with the Government has developed a concept for protecting human rights and freedoms in the digital space, and work is underway to prepare a draft executive order on this concept. However, already now, without waiting for approval of this concept, several measures could be taken to protect people’s personal data. My colleague Kirill Kabanov will provide more details on this issue.

The law on probation. The council traditionally pays attention to the conditions created for inmates in penitentiaries. The council and the Ministry of Justice have developed a draft law on probation. We are studying the positive experience of re-socialising convicts by involving them in work through penitentiary centres. One positive example is in the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Area – Yugra; we went there to study their experience.

The memory of the victims of political repression. The council continues to take part in implementing the Concept of the Government Policy of Perpetuating the Memory of the Victims of Political Repression. Last November, an interdepartmental working group held a meeting in Tomsk: the NKVD Detention Prison Memorial Museum opened in the city. We continue to work with the Moscow and Moscow Region authorities to create a museum on the Butovo memorial site.

My colleagues will talk about other problems and the council’s efforts to help resolve them.

My report is finished. Thank you for your attention.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Fadeyev, thank you very much. You noted several things, I will not comment on all of them.

As for the problem with military gear, it seems to have already been resolved. Nonetheless, if anything requires special attention, please give me more information and we will sort things out as soon as possible.

A second important topic is providing support to the families of the mobilised people. Of course, this should be a matter of concern for everyone, and the state and I, of course, am counting on your support and your assistance in this work in the regions. This is the sacred responsibility of all authorities at every level, as well as of civic organisations. Of course, this involves several issues from the timely payment of salaries to simply offering help with household chores that many families of mobilised men need. So, I strongly hope these efforts will be cooperative and effective.

As for perpetrating the memory of the victims of political repression, we should not forget by any means about this work. This is a complicated and hard page in our history. History is what it is and nothing should be hidden; I have spoken about this many times. But nothing should be allowed to be used as a tool in a struggle against Russia in general, and today, in particular. However, in objectively appraising everything that is part of our history, we must respond appropriately, including where the efforts to perpetuate the memory of the victims of political repression are concerned.

I fully agree with you.

Vladimir Putin (commenting on the speech by REGNUM news agency editor-in-chief Marina Akhmedova on the shelling of civilians in Donbass and the assistance to wounded soldiers in rehabilitation and prosthetic treatment): I will start with what you began with and will answer point by point.

You spoke about the shelling of Donbass and the cities of Donbass and the lack of reaction from certain and even almost all our – we should put it in quotation marks – ‘Western partners.’ These human rights organisations – as we have finally seen for ourselves – were created not as a tool to protect human rights, but as an instrument of influencing the domestic policy of Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union.

Yes, there are various human rights organisations in the West, but they were mainly created for this purpose. In order to look neutral, they spoke about human rights in their own countries from time to time, but it was an exception. They were mostly in charge of professional work in the Russian and post-Soviet space, this was obvious. This is the first point.

Second, the fact that they have been turning a blind eye to the tragedy in Donbass over the past eight years is the best confirmation to what I, Mr Fadeyev and you have said.

As for the shelling of Donbass cities, you mentioned that your colleague was killed there. Yesterday, Head of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Denis Pushilin telephoned me. It is true, residential neighbourhoods are being shelled. It is impossible that they do not know about it. Everyone is silent as if nothing was happening there. This is horrible.

You said that people in Donbass are treated like second-rate people. You know, I would like to say in this relation: to those who are engaged in protecting human rights – and I just said why, in my opinion, the so-called human rights organisations in the West were created – to them, people mean nothing. They do not really consider these people second-rate; they consider Russia to be a second-rate country that does not have the right to exist. This is the problem and a disaster. This is what we are dealing with right now. We have been dealing with it throughout our history, and it is especially obvious now.

We will proceed from the current reality. There can be only one answer from us: Russia will consistently fight for its national interests. This is what we will do, and let nobody believe otherwise. Yes, we will do it using various means and ways, first of all, of course, focusing on peaceful means. But if we have no choice, we will defend ourselves with everything we have.

With regard to demobilising students in Donbass, indeed, these territories, these republics became part of Russia, so Russian legal regulations should apply to them in full. It is not so straightforward, and is rather a lengthy process that requires a transition period, but there are things that must be done right now, and demobilising students is one such thing. Truth be told, not all Donbass students took advantage of their right to demobilise.

Literally a day ago, I had a meeting with volunteers – perhaps, you took note of it. The winner of the competition is a resident of Donetsk. I had a brief conversation with him after the meeting, and he said that this news was very positively received in Donetsk and Donbass in general, but he knows people, his comrades, who chose not to be demobilised and continue to take part in combat action.

We should definitely look into demobilising some specialists, including medical doctors and prosthetists. But we need to approach matters of support and assistance more seriously. As you may be aware, I met with the mothers of the servicemen who are taking part in the special military operation, and some of them brought up questions of helping wounded and disabled soldiers. What we need to do in this regard is to arrange for up-to-date prosthetics production, to expand the capabilities of specialised enterprises and companies, since we already have them in place. Time has come to expand their operations. This is the first point.

Second, we need to upgrade the equipment and to provide medications to everyone in need. It is necessary to put a rehabilitation system in place and cover travel expenses to the place of rehabilitation and back, because a wounded person, especially a person with a disability, will find it difficult or even impossible to get to a place of rehabilitation on their own. This issue needs to be addressed in a number of ways.

I think we will need to create a special centre within the Government’s social block that will deal with these matters. Also, this kind of work must be done at the level of deputy governors in charge of social issues in all regions. Next, a support system for the people who need state help must be put in place. All of that must be done as soon as possible. We will definitely see to it.

Thank you for raising this issue. The Government will receive corresponding instructions literally today or tomorrow.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin (responding to Commissioner for Human Rights in the Sverdlovsk Region Tatyana Merzlyakova, who shared information about her trip to the special military operation zone, discussed the SMO zone problems, and asked the President about the likelihood of another mobilisation wave): Ms Merzlyakova, first of all I would like to thank you for what you are doing. Your work is extremely important. This kind of work is important at all times, but it is particularly important in the current circumstances.

I am not going to share my assessments of those who, as you said, left the country during the mobilisation drive. It is a separate issue, and we can talk about it at length. You said it was ”not their life.” It may well be that some of them even think that this is not their country. But, again, I would leave it at that.

As for the issues in the special military operation zone, they certainly existed. They are probably still there. And they can arise anytime and anywhere in the operation zone. It is important to keep an eye on these matters, to constantly analyse the unfolding developments and have feedback. This is beyond doubt. Everyone needs this, including our men on the frontline, society, and the state, because that would improve the quality and efficiency of our combat work.

About leaving positions. You are aware that soldiers who try to do that in Ukraine are shot on the spot. More than that, they even conduct mass executions in public, in front of the troops. This is common knowledge. We do not practice anything of the kind, and we do not even have any, as you said, camps or incarceration facilities, or the like. This is all nonsense and fake claims and there is nothing to back them up with.

Here is what I would like to say in this regard. Are there soldiers out there who have left their combat positions? Yes, it has happened. Less and less now. What is the problem? After all, a person who finds himself in a war zone – even after certain training – cannot avoid experiencing certain feelings, which is absolutely normal.

The vast majority of these people return to combat duty of their own accord. The vast majority do so, even after recovering from wounds. Why? Because there is a period of adaptation to the circumstances in which they perform their military duties. To reiterate, we do not see this happening in mass proportions. All you need to do is work with people. What we need here is delicate, calm, and balanced case-by-case work with each individual. Overall, people from the Defence Ministry who are doing this professionally are getting better at it. We do not have any problems with soldiers leaving combat positions. There is no such problem as desertion in the zone of the special military operation.

Yes, there have been such cases and we should not shut our eyes to them. I have already explained and said frankly what it is about. In a situation when there is shelling or bombs falling, all normal people cannot help but react to it, even on the physiological level. But after a certain adaptation period, our men fight brilliantly.

I have repeatedly said that they are true heroes and deserve, as you said, to be treated as such after they fulfil their military duty and upon their arrival from the combat zone. It is absolutely obvious. The country and society, including public organisations, must create the right environment and conditions for these guys. I have already said it and want to reiterate: this also applies to the support and assistance to the families of our military personnel. We must treat them, as you said and I wrote down, as the defenders of the Motherland. This is the environment that must be created for them.

Now about the possible mobilisation and the rumours surrounding it. Look, we have mobilised 300,000 people, our men, our defenders of the Fatherland. Half of them, 150,000 men, are located in the zone of the special military operation; these 150,000, half of all those mobilised, are in the troops. Of those, 77,000, only half, are members of tactical units. The rest of them are at the second and third frontiers and perform the functions of territorial defence, or undergoing training in the operation zone.

Another 150,000, that is, the second half of all those mobilised, are still at the Defence Ministry testing grounds and training centres where they are undergoing additional training. They are the combat reserve, if we can call them that. These are half of those mobilised, 150,000.

In this regard, talk of extending mobilisation does not make sense, and there is no need for it either for the state or the Ministry of Defence at this time. This is what I wanted to say in response to your question.

(Yevgeny Myslovsky, Honourary President of the Anti-Mafia Regional Public Foundation to Combat Organised Crime and Corruption, began his remarks with the statement that “people are expecting results.” He drew attention to the following aspect of the special military operation: the investigation of war crimes by the enemy and the political significance of this investigation. He noted than over 10,000 peaceful civilians had been killed in Donetsk alone. Mr Myslovsky suggested establishing a state commission to investigate these crimes. He also discussed the deployment of law enforcement officers in the newly incorporated territories. For example, he suggested involving experienced veterans.)

Vladimir Putin: Mr Myslovsky, did you mean the results of the special military operation when you said that everyone is expecting results?

Yevgeny Myslovsky: No, I did not mean the special military operation because this is a lengthy process. I meant specific results following the investigation of criminal cases. People say that we are investigating, but that only one verdict has been passed.

Vladimir Putin: I see.

Regarding the lengthy process and the results of the special military operation, this process could be drawn out. You also noted that newly incorporated territories have appeared. Indeed, this is a significant result for Russia, and this is a serious issue. To be honest, the Sea of Azov has become an inland sea in the Russian Federation, and these are serious things.

Yevgeny Myslovsky: This is all correct, but we need to develop this.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, but this is a different issue. In his time, Peter the Great fought to reach the Sea of Azov.

The people living on these territories are the most important thing. The results of the referendum show that people want to live in Russia, and that they consider themselves part of this world, this space, our common culture, traditions and language. This is the most important result, and these millions of people have re-joined us. This is the most important thing.

Regarding criminal investigations, you are right, of course, but to be frank, all of us understand the realities of current developments. It is important to investigate, to record these crimes, especially strikes against civilian and residential areas. You are probably right: perhaps it would be appropriate to set up some joint agency that would address this issue and a state commission.

Let us think about this. I will also ask the Prosecutor-General’s Office and the Investigative Committee to think about this issue. They should consider recruiting veteran law enforcement officers who would like to deal with this issue as mentors or as officials who can look into the available materials. I will instruct the Prosecutor-General’s Office to do this, and we will certainly think about this issue. I completely agree with you that it is necessary to record all this in a professional manner.

Vladimir Putin (commenting on the questions raised in a speech by Doctor of Medical Sciences Yan Vlasov, co-chairman of the Russian Patient Association. These questions concerned, first, doctors’ salaries and raising their professional status, as well as the lack of specialists in field medicine, and the supply of medicines and consumables to the special military operation.): Thank you for the questions raised. They are all important, all of them, without exaggeration.

I will start with the question you ended your speech with, training specialists, especially for field surgery and field medical activities.

Of course, the Defence Ministry believes it is doing well in general. Nevertheless, I will talk to the Ministry’s leaders and the Minister himself about the issues that you raised, and if something needs to be done, I will encourage my colleagues from the Defence Ministry to do it and ensure that it is done. This is the first thing.

The second. Regarding the use of consumables, including those that, as you say, may be sitting in company warehouses, especially if they have not yet expired. Of course, we should deal with this issue, and I will definitely tell not only the Defence Minister, but also the Health Minister and Ms Golikova about this. They have the whole site in front of their eyes; let us find out what can be used and how. We will definitely do this. Especially if something is missing.

Now, regarding the improvement of the medical education system as a whole. I think it is quite serious and thorough. Probably, in modern conditions, in the modern world, everything needs constant attention and constant improvement, this goes without saying, because life is developing at a very fast pace, and new opportunities, technological opportunities are emerging. We constantly talk about this, and this is constantly in the field of vision of the Health Ministry.

If you think that something more needs to be done, additional steps should be taken, including the connection between medical practice and theoretical skills, then, of course, I would ask you to present your considerations in a specific form. I promise you that I will issue this as an instruction to both the Ministry of Health and the Government as a whole, and my colleagues will definitely work it out.

Regarding training and re-training, the Ministry of Health has built an advanced training system. Mr Vlasov, again, if you see that something is not organised here the way it should be, or you have specific proposals on how to fix things or to improve this work, I would be grateful to you if you could submit an outline that can be used to draft a presidential instruction to the Government. We will do this by all means.

It may well be that some professors are detached from reality and from clinical practice. But I know a lot of doctors who teach and engage in practical work and perform surgeries. I am sure you are aware of this; there are many specialists like that. They deserve praise and God bless them. Without a doubt, they need support in order to create and expand their own schools.

Now, regarding what you started with, salaries.

I agree that the remuneration system absolutely needs to be improved, especially in primary care. The Government was tasked with developing common approaches to all regions nationwide to make sure basic principles of remuneration were properly lined up. I completely agree.

Of course, subsistence levels vary across regions. I mean that the cost of living varies and salaries are different, not only in public health, but in other areas as well. This must be taken into account, but in general it is important to make sure that the experiment to level incomes in the healthcare system that the Government has begun to carry out is not forgotten. This is for the future.

I must agree with you that it is important to take steps to support medical workers now, without delay. In this regard, I instructed the Government to draft corresponding proposals.

I would like to inform you that we have agreed – and I supported these proposals by the Government – we need to start from primary care and up. Starting January next year, I asked the Government to start making additional payments to primary care medical staff in central district hospitals, district hospitals and in the EMS system. The additional payments will range from 4,500 to 18,500 rubles depending on the position and job description.

I asked the Government to start accruing these payments from January 1, 2023. If it takes some time to cut through the bureaucracy, then probably they will not be able to do it from January 1, since we are almost in the middle of December, but all the same, the technical issues should be resolved in the first quarter, and the extra payments should be calculated retroactively, from January 1, 2023.

(Kirill Vyshinsky, Executive Director of the Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency, was the next to speak. He spent a year in a Ukrainian prison for his activities as a journalist. In his remarks, he spoke about a wave of Russophobia, primarily in Europe, and cited many specific examples. In his opinion, it is time to assess this phenomenon politically and legally. He believes it is worth either supplementing a relevant article or introducing a new article on Russophobia to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. He said this phenomenon should be classified in legal terms and liability for it should be determined.)

Vladimir Putin: Mr Vyshinsky, with your permission I will use your remarks to re-emphasise one idea. The point is that we did not start the war – you know this better than anyone else. It was started in 2014 after the state coup in Ukraine. It was started at that time by the Ukrainian authorities that came into the corridors of power with the help of this state coup for suppressing the will of the people living in Donbass.

At that time, also in 2014, three foreign ministers – of Poland, Germany and France – came to Kiev and signed a conciliatory document between the then government in Ukraine and the opposition. They signed it as guarantors of peaceful developments. After the state coup was staged, these guarantors forgot that they were guarantors. What were they supposed to do as guarantors? They were supposed to return everything to the legal field and urge everyone to attend general elections and resolve this domestic political crisis by peaceful means. But no, nothing like this was done. Everyone seemed to have forgotten all about this document. When I remind my colleagues about it, including in telephone conversations, they are all silent – they have nothing to say.

After this, hostilities began in Donbass with the use of heavy equipment, heavy weapons and aviation. This was when some European and North American countries could have developed not Russophobic but other phobic attitudes towards those who used force against civilians, against the civilian population. However, nothing of the kind happened. But what was happening all these years? The lawful interests of the people who lived there and the lawful interests of Russia to protect them were ignored. We only got spat in the face in response to all our demands.

This is exactly a covert form of Russophobia. Unfortunately, it has always been present in some Western circles and our neighbours – I am referring to the nationalist circles of Ukraine. It has always been there and you talk about this very vividly. Sometimes I have time, either by chance or otherwise, but sometimes I watch your programmes. They are very convincing and profound, and I would like to thank you especially for this.

Strictly speaking, this is precisely about ignoring our interests, the interests of the people who live in this land. This is Russophobia. They turned everything upside down and do not admit that they failed to fulfill their obligations as guarantors of the agreement between the government and the opposition in Ukraine in 2014. They do not admit that they trampled on these agreements or that the Ukrainian authorities who took power as a result of a coup started these hostilities. They do not talk about the killing of civilians in Donbass. They do not say anything. They only got involved when the special military operation began.

And it started only because we were left with no way to resolve the situation peacefully. Leaving things the way they were was absolutely not an option. However, it was used as a pretext for fomenting anti-Russia sentiment. There is nothing surprising here from the point of view of history. Russia has often been confronted with situations like this.

With regard to the authorities of some of our neighbouring countries, Poland in this case, you are aware of it as a former resident of Ukraine. Polish nationalists are bent on returning their so-called historical territories, that is, taking back the western territories that Ukraine received as a result of Joseph Stalin’s decision following WWII. As you may be aware, these territories were taken from Poland and given to Soviet Ukraine. Of course, the nationalist elements in Poland are determined to take these territories back, and they will strive to make it happen no matter who says what. We see this even in their literature, their reasoning and public speeches. This is what they will eventually try to do; I have no doubt about it.

I have said it before, but I want to say it again: Russia could be the only real guarantor of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty within its current borders. Russia was instrumental in Ukraine obtaining these territories after the World War II. Under Stalin's policy, of course. But it is up to the Ukrainian politicians of the future to decide on this. In my opinion, current politicians understand little about it and are not thinking about it. Although some appear to have begun to think about this. Any kind of active involvement by Ukraine’s Western ally or neighbour in Ukrainian affairs will ultimately be aimed at taking parts of western Ukraine. One can only wish they thought about it and realised what is going on. Well, again, it is up to them to decide.

I agree with your proposal. Let us work it through, and thank you for wording it that way.

We cannot be surprised by isolated elements of Russophobia, including influence on children. We are aware of the fact that in some Western countries, zoo animals are killed, cut up and so on, in front of children. This is something that is absolutely not our culture, the culture of the peoples of the Russian Federation, not only the Russian people, but other ethnicities as well. But these things happen there. They work with the minds of the public in brutal ways. May God be their judge, but I think this will turn against them sooner or later.

(Remarks by director of the GRANI Centre for Civic Analysis and Independent Research Foundation Svetlana Makovetskaya, an expert in Russian civil society institutions’ performance, including with regard to legal issues, covered the problems of institutional building of non-profit organisations. Svetlana Makovetskaya highlighted contradictions between the basic legislation on non-profit activities and the Civil Code and asked the President to instruct the Government together with the Presidential Council for Human Rights and expert organisations specialising in NGO experience to identify a single approach to further legislative progress in the non-profit sector.

However, at the end of her remarks, Svetlana Makovetskaya turned to an issue which she believes to be of concern for a great number of people in the country, namely, the fact that at present the threat of nuclear war appears real.)

Vladimir Putin: I see.

Concerning the threat of nuclear war. Ms Makovetskaya, you are right, the threat is growing, to be honest.

Regarding Russia never using [nuclear weapons] first under any circumstances. Well, if it does not use them first, then it will not be the second to use them either, because in the case of a nuclear strike at our territory, our capabilities will be significantly limited.

Nevertheless, our strategy of using means of defence – and we view weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons as a defence – is entirely centred around the so-called retaliatory strike, that is, we strike back when we are attacked.

There are also tactical nuclear weapons, much talked about recently. The US has large stockpiles of nuclear weapons in Europe. We have never given anyone our nuclear weapons but it is natural that we will defend our allies with all means at our disposal, if needed.

What is the issue here? The point is that as much as in the previous case, when we talked about Russophobia, nobody takes notice nor wants to notice and see what is being done and talked about in the neighbouring countries, in Western countries. I reiterate that we do not deploy or have our nuclear weapons in other countries including tactical weapons, whereas the Americans do – in Turkey and a number of other European nations. They conduct drills on the possible use of these countries’ carriers for American nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, we have never done this so far. This is point number two.

Number three. Have we ever spoken about the possibility of their use? No, we have not. Whereas the former UK Prime Minister, God forgive her, said publicly that she was ready to do that. In response, I had to highlight some issues. Her statement was disregarded by everyone whereas whatever we say is immediately overemphasised, and our statements are used to scare the world.

Therefore, we have not lost our minds, we are well aware of what nuclear weapons are. We have them, and they are in a more advanced and up-to-date condition that the weapons in the possession of any other nuclear power. It is obvious, it is an obvious fact today. Yet we are not going to wield these weapons like a razor running around the globe. However, we proceed from the fact that we have them. This is a natural deterrent which does not provoke an escalation of conflicts but is rather a deterring factor. I hope everyone understands this.

And now regarding your proposals on improving legal regulation and the legal base for non-profit organisations.

I would like to note first that activities of non-profit organisations are vital for our country because – I have spoken about it many times, and I say absolutely sincerely that non-profit organisations are often more efficient in matters where decent, well-trained and sincere officials work hard to get the best result in their work. I mean that NGOs do not operate for money, they primarily work answering the call of the heart, and such motivation to help people, to achieve results in utterly crucial and sensitive social areas is extremely important for the end result.

Therefore, we are interested in laying an effective legal foundation. I will pass on all of your proposals – I take it you have them ready – to the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry will probably start with analysing them with the Legal Directorate of the Presidential Executive Office. I will definitely issue such an instruction and I ask you to hand over your proposals and suggestions to Mr Fadeyev. You are obviously right: it should be done together with the Government, the Human Rights Council and experts like you.

(In his remarks, Chairman of the National Anti-Corruption Committee public organisation Kirill Kabanov raised issues of human rights protection in the digital space. He spoke about personal data leaks from different digital platforms, the leaks which may entail quite concrete negative repercussions for citizens, and about fraud and theft of money. Kirill Kabanov thinks it necessary to set turnover-based fines for companies which allow for leaks of personal data to happen, and also to criminalise illegal turnover of personal data. He also believes that there must be a mechanism for retrieving money stolen by criminals, because the state, including law enforcement agencies, responds to such and similar threats ineffectively and too slowly. Kirill Kabanov asked the President to issue instructions on this issue to the Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media, the Interior Ministry and the Central Bank.)

Vladimir Putin: It is undoubtedly a very urgent issue, you must have heard me talk about it when we discuss the development of modern technologies, artificial intelligence and so on, because many of them are impossible to use, impossible to apply without such data, including personal data. The question is, of course, how to protect this data. It is clearly one of the key questions for progressing on this track which is crucial for the development of the economy and social sphere.

However, as of yet, not everything – I absolutely agree with you, Kirill – has been regulated and, and more regulations are needed. Also, penalties for violations in this sphere should probably be toughened.

Regarding turnover-based fines and criminal liability. As I understood you, you were talking about criminal liability for illegal turnover. But those who use data must know and realise that they are using stolen data, that is certain, because even a good-faith buyer, a bona fide buyer of stolen property, does not know that the property was stolen. The same applies here.

Of course, this must be thoroughly considered. But overall, you are absolutely right, this must be scrutinised and prompt balanced decisions must be taken which will at the same time protect citizens’ rights and will not hamper the development of information technologies which are vital for the state.

Turnover-based fines or something of this kind must certainly be given consideration. There is good reason you mentioned turnover-based fines because for some companies these may be huge, and it is definitely a serious matter. Nevertheless, let me stress again that you are right and corresponding decisions to protect citizens must be worked out and taken.

As to the recovery of assets lost by citizens due to fraud with the use of cutting-edge technologies, there are certain problems here since oftentimes such assets are stolen or people are swindled in such ways and with such means, including with the use of modern technologies, that a person seems to have given something or signed something of their free will. There is a fine line here of responsibility for what is going on. But however fine it may be, it is still there, and in such cases they are fraudulent actions which hurt citizens and violate their rights.

We know that most banks compensate such losses to citizens in most cases. But you are also right in saying that there must a certain system in place, a common approach to solving such issues. Today, most financial organisations set aside approximate amounts to compensate citizens their lost assets. However, these matters should be considered and systemised, therefore I agree with you. Respective instructions will be given to the Ministry of Digital Development, the Interior Ministry and the Central Bank. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: (commenting on remarks by Moskovsky Komsomolets columnist and human rights activist Yeva Merkacheva, who spoke about conditions in pre-trial detention centres for women who have children, on excessively long pre-trial detention before a verdict is brought in, quoting a number of such cases she has knowledge of. Yeva Merkacheva also asked the President to voice his position on bringing back capital punishment since, according to her, many officials have expressed their support for this idea.) Regarding the death sentence. a short while ago Chairman of the Constitutional Court Valery Zorkin spoke about it at the congress of judges. Responding to those who favour the return of capital punishment, he said we would have to change our Constitution to do that. That is why my position has not changed in this regard. This is the first point.

Second, concerning what you started with: women with children and everything related to them, to arrests etc. Ms Merkacheva, you then proceeded with other categories, and this is quite right. Why? Because as soon as you mentioned women with children, honestly, we feel pity for women behind bars, and even more so for the children who were left without their mothers, this is obvious. But we also have other categories of people, of course. Just women without children, are they any worse? Or people with disabilities? There are social justice issues, and we need a uniform treatment of all those categories of citizens. This is the first point.

Second, it is quite obvious that if a person spends five years behind bars in the pre-trial detention centre waiting for the trial, it is an obvious violation of human rights. We have talked about it repeatedly, and I told the leadership of the Investigative Committee, the Interior Ministry and other law enforcement agencies that such practices must be terminated.

There must be deadlines for investigating any criminal case; cases must not drag on indefinitely citing insurmountable objective difficulties. And if an investigation of a case is not completed by the deadline – true, there are some very complicated cases – then either the case must be dropped or at least the suspect must be released without applying other pre-trial restrictions.

There are many different situations in life, Unfortunately, women with children are sometimes used by drug dealers, say, for stashing drugs and so on. There are many real-life situations. Therefore, we must strive to avoid extremes and to have a generally just court and law enforcement system. That is what we must be striving for.

I will definitely issue instructions both to the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Interior Ministry, and I will ask the Supreme Court to analyse practices of this kind.

Concerning the fact that some people are taken to interrogation in handcuffs, especially in cases involving economic crimes, I have no words to characterise it. But I promise you that we will not only focus our attention on that but we will make sure that this practice is definitely stopped.

Will you please write your proposals down on paper and submit them. We will certainly work on that. As I said, I will ask both the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Supreme Court to thoroughly analyse all these issues, and the Investigative Committee, too.

(Olga Demicheva, President of the International Charitable NGO Doctor Liza’s Fair Care, who recently returned from Donbass, said that doctors from the Republican Trauma Centre in Donetsk asked her to tell the President of Russia that they are working, that they will continue to work, that they have considered themselves Russian citizens since 2014. They work under constant shelling, with power cuts, no water, often in cold rooms. They go to work in the morning and do not know if they will return home alive. And yet they do not ask for anything. Ms Demicheva stressed that those people who have been in the Donetsk and Lugansk republics since 2014, who made their choice and who stayed there to live and work, are special people, they are Russia's special value.

Olga Demicheva spoke about the most pressing problems facing Donbass in providing medical care during the transition period. For example, before the special military operation started, humanitarian missions of the World Health Organisation, which entered the territory of the DPR and LPR, provided these republics with diagnostic tests, preventive medicine, medications to treat tuberculosis, HIV, hepatitis C and so on. Now they have left, and the chief doctors of the relevant clinics say that these resources are now insufficient and it is necessary to close this gap. Olga Demicheva also spoke about the assistance needed by Russian non-profit organisations that are now helping Donbass. In addition, she noted that over almost nine years a wealth of experience in treating mine-blast injuries has been accumulated in Donbass and Russian surgeons and traumatologists need to make use of it).

Vladimir Putin: First of all, thank you for continuing the work that was started by Elizaveta Glinka [Dr Lisa]. But the issues are certainly no less urgent, maybe even more acute, compared to the period when your predecessor was heroically engaged in this work.

Regarding the doctors in Donbass. Yes, of course, they have great, serious experience in treating certain patients, especially with mine blast injuries and so on, and we should use this. But at the same time, it is clear that they need to be retrained, to get more knowledge, to gain experience with modern equipment, which needs to be provided there.

Of course, for the most part, doctors, especially those who work in such difficult conditions, are a special kind of people, with a special character and special, noble motivation. They are not asking for anything, but of course, they must soon fully enter our legal field, the field of social protection, salary levels and so on.

All of this, of course, must be done, and we have spoken about it many times. I have talked repeatedly with both the Healthcare Minister and Ms Golikova, who as Deputy Prime Minister oversees this sector. And the relevant plans for work with our colleagues in the new territories are now being finalised and will be implemented. And now, as you know, work is already underway.

Unfortunately, one of their Russian colleagues has just died in one of these territories. It is tragic: it happened as a result of a car accident; the driver could not negotiate a slippery road. But she was there for a reason, not on a tourist trip. She was assisting the local doctors in rendering medical aid, first of all to children, checkups for children. She had been working there for quite a long time.

This ongoing work needs to become systematic. You are absolutely right, thank you for pointing this out, and especially for saying that we need medications for treating socially significant diseases, meaning HIV, tuberculosis, and so on, which used to come from various organisations. Yes, many of them are apparently gone, and this niche needs to be filled as soon as possible, if indeed it has appeared. Judging by what you say, this niche exists. And we will certainly deal with it now, we will by all means.

As for the conditions in which people live and work, this is also an answer to the topic we have just discussed with your colleagues. You mentioned the lack of water in proper quantity and of proper quality. It is the water supply facilities that are controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces that are preventing this water from reaching the million-strong city. This is genocide, this is just a continuation of genocide. No one is paying attention to this, no one. And this is further proof that we are doing everything right. We simply have no choice; we cannot act in any other way.

But in carrying out the special military operation, we certainly have to address current issues, and above all social issues, to support, including, in this case, medical workers in all the areas I have mentioned. We will certainly do it.

Thank you for your attention to these matters, and thank you for continuing, I want to emphasise it again, what your heroic predecessor did.

Thank you very much.

(In his statement, Shota Gorgadze, Managing Partner of Gorgadze & Partners Law Firm, touched on the narrow professional issue of protecting the rights of people who have been declared by a court to be either of limited legal capacity or deprived of such. He stressed the need for a lawyer to be involved in such cases, including by appointment, with the possibility of this lawyer being paid from the budget. He asked the President to recommend to the State Duma that they amend the civil procedure accordingly.

However, Mr Gorgadze went on to raise an issue that, in his words, worries any reasonable Russian citizen. It is not just rabid Russophobia, attempts to turn the image of a Russian into an enemy, but also attempts to ban Russian culture. For example, Mr Gorgadze mentioned the scandal at the opera house of La Scala with the season opening with Musorgsky's opera ”Boris Godunov.“ The Ukrainian ambassador to Italy protested against this. Mr Gorgadze said that Russian culture, which has become part of world culture and which some rather foolish people are now trying to remove from the world's treasury, requires protection.)

Vladimir Putin: Mr Gorgadze, the first thing is to restore the legal standing of those of our citizens who have been declared incapacitated. Of course, I will instruct the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection and other relevant agencies to think about this and propose solutions.

This is not about money. Probably, not that much budget money will be required – how many such appeals could there be? This mandatory participation of a lawyer by order of the state and at the expense of the state, this practice is widely used, and court appointed lawyers are paid, it is true, by the state, but they must protect the interests of the client on behalf of the state. All this can be done.

All we have to think about is the details, which have to do with the following: we do not want this to limit the capacity of those people who need legal protection. What do I mean? I mean that if we are going to make any decision on this, including at the legal level, we cannot restrict the ability of people to, for example, turn to lawyers whose services they themselves would like to use, including lawyers from the very same human rights or non-governmental organizations or specialized organizations. We must certainly think about this. This is the first thing.

Now, the second part of your question on Russian culture. We say “Russian culture” but does Rasul Gamzatov represent our culture or not quite? Or take Gogol. Is he a Russian or a Ukrainian writer?

Of course, this is nonsense. As our famous musician put it, anyone who introduces such restrictions is simply a fool. They are depriving themselves of a part of world culture.

Frankly, I do not even know whether we should counter this in any way. Why? Because anyone doing this is obviously an enemy of our country, and yet they are only hurting themselves. Should we prevent them from hurting themselves? This logic seems convoluted, but I do think it makes some sense. Let us think about it. That said, sensible people, including those abroad, certainly understand the stupidity of what the ruling circles are doing in some countries.

The President of Turkiye, Mr Erdogan, also noted this. He recalled that only the Nazis burned books by classic writers in squares in the 1930s, and he compared it to what is being done to Russian culture today in some states. This comparison makes sense. When people from the outside, not to mention politicians at this level, draw public attention to what is happening, their actions seem to me more poignant than us trying to point out this stupidity that flourishes in some countries.

Meanwhile, what is happening is perplexing; it is surprising but it is true. They are only hurting themselves. We will keep this in mind, as well as what and who we are dealing with. This means that our opinions of their moral qualities are correct. This reaffirms that what we are doing is indeed the right thing.

Valery Fadeyev: Mr President, if we may, another speech; it is very important to us. You recently appointed Yelena Shishkina, a member of the presidium of the Free Donbass social movement, as a representative of the new territories at the council.

Please, Ms Shishkina.

Yelena Shishkina: Good afternoon, Mr President, colleagues.

Mr President, I would like to convey the appreciation of the people in the new Russian regions for the opportunity to return home. We have been moving towards this for many years, and finally, this year it has happened. For us, this is a celebration, so far, with tears in our eyes, unfortunately.

Regarding the regions’ support for the special military operation, nothing needs to be discussed here; our men have been defending Russian territories with weapons in hand since 2014, and women have been forging victory in the rear, and in general, because of the daily shelling of the regions, we are losing civilians every day, we are losing children, we are losing old people. Every person living in Donbass is now a hero. Maria Pirogova was such a heroine. I am grateful to you for noting her contribution to the development of Russia with a state award.

There is a systemic issue, Mr President. On April 7, 2014, Donetsk and Lugansk were declared republics, but in the world community, we remained territories under Ukrainian jurisdiction.

From April 2014 to September 30, 2022, when we became part of the Russian Federation, the people in the Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics, as well as the other new territories, were prosecuted by Ukraine for especially serious crimes. This included doctors, teachers and civil servants who did not accept the coup in 2014 and did not agree with the ruling Nazi regime. These people were convicted, and their sentences came into force under Ukrainian civil codes for crimes like high treason, espionage and the financing of terrorism; these are very serious charges. After reunification with Russia, after returning home, information from the databases of law enforcement officers of Ukraine were listed in the databases of the law enforcement system of the Russian Federation.

This means that today thousands of Russian citizens, people living in the new regions, have a record, convictions for especially serious crimes, which violates their rights as guaranteed under the Constitution. They cannot be engaged in entrepreneurial activities, be foster parents, be elected, be civil servants, and so on.

We cannot file an appeal with the Russian court because, according to Russian law, the courts in the Russian Federation only have jurisdiction over persons who have been illegally prosecuted and convicted by Russian Federation courts. We are dealing with the so-called state of Ukraine here.

Mr President, I kindly ask you to consider the issue of adopting a legal act to not recognise Ukraine’s criminal records or sentences for residents of the new regions who were convicted on political motives.

And regarding sentences, Ukraine has not hesitated to imprison, to hold and torture Russian-speaking residents for the past eight and a half years just because we are Russians.

In 2018, people's tribunals were held in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, which found top political and military leaders of Ukraine guilty of war crimes. We have notified many international human rights organisations of these convictions, but at that time we did not have the instrument for executing them, since the republics, as I said, were not recognised.

Since 2014, war crimes have been recorded in the regions; they have been recorded by law enforcement agencies, and then this work was continued by the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, which also involves the Public Commission, by analogy with the commission in the Soviet Union [in 1942 an emergency state commission to investigate the Nazi invader’s crimes was established in the USSR].

Mr President, an international tribunal against the Nazis was widely announced this summer. Mr Fadeyev came up with a proposal to create an international commission to investigate the Nazis’ war crimes. I kindly ask you to return to this issue. The people of Donbass demand justice, they demand that this justice be restored. We are not asking you to wipe the cities of Ukraine off the face of the earth, we know what this means, we are all experiencing it. We ask that a tribunal be held as a kind of vaccine against Nazism, so this brown plague can be stopped in its march around the world.

The consequences of the crimes committed by the Ukrainian authorities – we are talking about the crimes of the collective West that is fighting against us with Ukrainian hands – include damage in addition to killed and wounded civilians. Public commissions on assessing the damage done by Ukraine’s armed aggression have been operating in the regions for many years. As of today, this estimated sum exceeds 321 billion Russian rubles and this is not a final figure; it grows every day. Moreover, we could not inspect all facilities because there is constant shelling along the frontline and there is no physical access to them.

One of the damage assessment sections includes damage done to the housing of our citizens. For eight and a half years now, many people have been without housing because their buildings have been destroyed by Ukraine and our people have been fighting Nazism. They are homeless. They have to live in temporary accommodation centres, rent flats or go to neighbouring regions. These are working dynasties of miners, teachers and doctors. Donbass is a hard-working region in general.

Here is another point I want to make. According to international legal standards, the state that is guilty of this damage must compensate the state that suffered from it. That state is Ukraine in this case. Since 2014, over 10,000 complaints have been sent to the European Court of Human Rights from the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics. The state of Ukraine was listed as the defendant in all cases, as represented by Poroshenko and then by Zelensky. However, our own experience has made it clear that this court is too politicised, it does not fulfil the functions outlined by its charter and is not a fair instrument of international justice. These lawsuits were not reviewed for a long time and were then returned on unrealistic formal grounds.

Mr President, in this context I would like to implore you to consider the possibility of restoring the peoples’ housing in the region. I am referring to the areas we call historical – before February 24, 2022. These people have been fighting the Nazis without a roof over their heads for a year and a half now. They want to go home, work for their homeland, and to simply live and have children.

It is true that Russian citizens are also in a serious situation, but the residents of these regions are subjected to daily shelling. We are working and fighting for victory on the home front while our men are defending our homeland at the frontlines. We will not let you down. Our fighters asked us to tell you that you can count on them.

Thank you, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: You know, first of all, I would like to say that your men are fighting very worthily, they really set a good example for everyone else. It is amazing! Strong men, real men, this is true. This is the first thing. I cannot help saying it.

Now, regarding the questions you raised on citizens convicted for political reasons, residents of Donbass. Of course, it is necessary to put a stop to these cases and put an end to this in the absence of any actual corpus delicti. I will certainly give such an instruction to the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia. I am sure that this issue will be worked out in the shortest possible time and a decision will be made.

With respect to public tribunals, you said that since 2018 such decisions have been made by public tribunals. Even if something is not implemented today, such decisions would not go amiss, and the neo-Nazi regime and its activities should be judged.

The same applies to compensation by Ukraine for the damage caused to Donbass, the citizens of Donbass, all these territories that are now Russia’s new territories. This would not go amiss. But I agree with you: it is pointless to wait for something from Ukraine and we need to help the people who have lost their homes since February 24, 2014, when these difficult, tragic events began there. I think it may be necessary to create a separate programme to help people – a programme to restore housing.

We are now working in those territories where the hostilities took place not long ago. For instance, there is active work underway in Mariupol, we need to do everything we can so that people do not end up on the street; the Government has received instructions on this. This work is progressing quite quickly. I hope that people who live in Mariupol can see this.

This is happening at the expense of the federal budget, through the federal government, as well as at the expense of some regions, including St Petersburg, whose specialists work in Mariupol and are working hard at it. But we certainly need to launch a programme to support and restore housing in general in these new territories. We will definitely do this and will help people through various channels to restore their rights, including, and above all, the right to a normal life, to housing. We will do all this calmly, in working order, there can be no doubt.

(Alexander Brod, chairman of the NGO Lawyers for Human Rights and a Decent Life, touched on several topics in his remarks. He primarily mentioned the situation in the border regions that are under fire, such as the Belgorod, Kursk, and Bryansk regions. Mr Brod suggested drafting a federal law providing for additional government funds to support the budgets of the regions bordering on Ukraine for rebuilding and repairing the damaged facilities.

He also briefly touched on the problem of Transnistria – an unrecognised territory that ended up under an embargo due to the aggressive actions by Ukraine and Moldova. Over 200,000 residents of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic have Russian passports. They sometimes have problems travelling outside of the republic; they are subjected to humiliating searches at the Moldovan border; at the Ukrainian border, they can be either arrested or denied entry. Moldova has also introduced restrictions on gas distribution to Transnistria.

The next issue he brought up concerned justice. Alexander Brod reminded listeners that Commissioner for Human Rights Tatyana Moskalkova and experts are working on a regulation to create a new international court after Russia withdrew from the Council of Europe. Russians can no longer use the mechanisms of the European Court of Human Rights. In addition, he said he would like the Supreme Court to have more interaction with the Presidential Council and with human rights organisations and experts to discuss proposals for improving Russian justice

Mr Brod also noted that civic election observation has been an effective tool in Russia, and proposed considering further development in this area and expanding civic observation to all stages of elections in Russia.)

Vladimir Putin: I will start where you left off.

I think public control can be used at all stages of the electoral process. Why not? It would make the election process, as you said, more transparent, and the outcome will be more credible, which, in turn, would enhance the standing of any level of government authority that has made it through the election process.

I agree, we need to work it through. I will ask the Government and the Executive Office to consider your proposal and to come up with their proposals.

As for improving the justice system, this is an ongoing process. In this regard, I would like to say the following: indeed, many people have applied to the International Court of Human Rights. But we have the Constitutional Court, and we are not limited to just one justice system. True, we have a single judicial system, this is clear, but the Constitutional Court is a separate entity and people can appeal to the Constitutional Court.

Constitutional Court President Valery Zorkin shared with me the sheer number of cases, even on very specific matters, that reach the Constitutional Court from individuals. However, this does not mean that we cannot consider other institutions to protect individual rights. Of course, we can give this some thought. Please, put your proposals in writing. The Executive Office will review them, and I will issue instructions to other agencies that deal directly with the judicial system.

Regarding the people of Transnistria, the citizens of the Russian Federation and their rights, our actions must be based on reality. We have invariably stressed the importance of respecting the rights of the Russian citizens living in Transnistria to our partners and colleagues.

The socioeconomic situation there is anything but simple, in terms of energy supplies, among other things. After all, we have been shipping gas there for free for many years now. Free of charge. But lately, since the gas lines run through Moldova, we have had issues there because Moldova is dealing with its own difficulties, which are substantial; we can see that in the economy and in the social sphere.

Alexander Brod: Moldova is just blocking gas supply to Transnistria.

Vladimir Putin: Not exactly blocking, because if they did that a portion of Ukraine would stop receiving gas for its power plants. So, the fact is not that they are blocking it, but they themselves do not have enough of it. True, given these circumstances, it is not clear why they store some of that gas, as they say, some of their Moldovan gas that they get from us, in Ukraine. We need to figure this out, and I want the Ministry of Energy to take a closer look at that.

By all means, we will consider your other proposals. Thank you for taking note of that.

Valery Fadeyev: Mr President, thank you.

We have been working for almost three hours now. Thank you so much for the hard work. Together with the Government and the Presidential Executive Office, with the relevant subdivisions and departments, we will prepare all the instructions that have been outlined.

On behalf of everyone, the entire Council, I want to thank you very much. And I hope that we are useful to the country and its people.

Leonid Polyakov: Mr President, may I make a personal request?

Valery Fadeyev: No, no, gentlemen, we are done. The President has another event, and we are already taking advantage of his time.

Vladimir Putin: Go on, please.

Leonid Polyakov: This is a very important issue.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course, no doubt. Please

Leonid Polyakov: Mr President, 15 years ago, at your personal request and direction, I participated in the creation of a new social science textbook. Back then a set was being developed: a social science and a history textbook. It seems to me that today there is an urgent need to create a new set. You noted quite rightly who started the war and when it started. All this should be in school textbooks.

I have a huge personal request for you. Let us start again – the initiative should come from you. Please do it. Let new history and social science textbooks be created as soon as possible, without any delay, bidding or other things. I think there is demand for this in schools.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: All right.

Mr Polyakov, this is a very important issue. You are absolutely right. Thank you for insisting on asking it. The question is indeed of national importance.

History is important for any nation, especially at difficult moments for the country. For us, the time has come for us to be very attentive to history and to the formation of public consciousness using reliable historical data, and it all starts with school, of course.

Therefore, I agree with Mr Polyakov and ask the Presidential Executive Office, relevant government structures, and appropriate departments to not only pay attention to this, but to take the necessary steps together with experts and specialists in order for this proposal to be incorporated in the processes that are underway in this area.

I would like to thank all the members of the Presidential Human Rights Council for the work you are doing. It is always important, but especially now for Russia. I would like to repeat what I said at the beginning: it is of particular importance today, because people who feel called upon to work on issues that are important to society and each individual achieve the best results in the most important areas for society and the state, precisely because it is their calling.

Thank you very much. I would like to express my hope that we will continue this work next year as well. Well, of course, my colleagues from the Presidential Executive Office and those relevant departments you are in contact with one way or another are always at your disposal during this daily joint work.

I wish you all the best and once again I want to thank you for your work.

Thank you very much. Good luck.

Meeting of Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

2021-12-19T16:45:04+04:00

Vladimir Putin held a meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights via videoconference.

Excerpts from transcript of meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Right

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues.

It is a pleasure to see all of you.

We are meeting on the eve of Human Rights Day, which the entire world has been celebrating for over 70 years now. As a rule, we time meetings of our council to this remarkable date. However, you know well that you have to focus continuously on the protection of human rights and freedoms and keep them on the council’s agenda. Each of you is making a tangible contribution to what is truly a noble mission without any exaggeration.

I would like to convey my sincere greetings to you on the upcoming Human Rights Day and wish you success in your difficult but very important and much-needed work.

I would like to emphasise that our Council has one more equally important task. I am referring to the development of civil society. As we agreed two years ago, this task also requires special attention and hard work.

I am happy to note that now the Council is actively dealing with pressing problems that are causing concern in our society.

One of them is protecting people from financial fraud. Criminals have deprived tens of millions of people of their housing, literally leaving them out in the street. The Council persistently raised this issue and eventually amendments were introduced to the law on the activities of consumer credit co-operatives, banning the issuance of loans secured only by housing as collateral. This created a barrier in the way of fraudulent schemes of microcredit organisations.

I will now say what has been done as a result of the Council’s decisions or discussions on issues that really worry our people.

The next thing I would like to point out is that the Council has supported the owners of agricultural lands who had no right to maintain forests on their land plots. Facing huge fines, they had to destroy these forests. The Council’s view on that matter was taken into account as well, and the Forest Code has been amended to allow landowners to keep the forests, which has saved hundreds of hectares of forest.

Another solution to which the Council has contributed was to ensure the compliance of foreign IT companies operating in Russia with Russian legislation. It is no secret that there have been numerous cases of fraud, abuse of our citizens’ personal data and the distribution of illegal content, including content dangerous to children, on transnational online platforms. At the same time, people have nowhere to turn to with their complaints or to demand the restoration of their rights.

On July 1, 2021, we adopted a law stipulating that foreign IT companies must “land” in Russia. Despite its informal name, the law clearly stipulates that international companies working in the Russian segment of the internet must register in accordance with Russian law and open their offices here.

I would also like to mention a solution that concerns a small group of people but is extremely important for every one of them. It concerns children after a retinoblastoma operation. These children need to confirm their disability every year until they grow up to receive financial support for the prosthetic eye care – I remember how we discussed that matter and how our colleagues raised it. The issue has been settled following discussions at the Council, and now the disability certificate the children receive after surgery remains valid until they turn 18.

Our public is greatly concerned about and rightfully brings up issues of environmental protection. In fact, this is taking place all over the world, which we can see and are very well aware of. One of them concerns the gradual phasing out of disposable and intractable goods.

This is a global trend. Russia is also getting ready to fulfil this versatile, multi-faceted task. Traditionally paying much attention to environmental protection, your council has developed proposals and submitted them to the Government of the Russian Federation, which is now working on a corresponding draft law.

All these are examples of meaningful, constructive cooperation between civil society and government bodies on resolving pressing issues.

Once again: environmental issues, protection of social rights, and demographic problems are priorities of our national development strategy. It focusses on people and their requirements. Importantly, these areas play an important role in your work as well.

Colleagues,

As we know, life is not always serene and rosy, especially in our time, filled with new problems, challenges and even threats. In these conditions, a big role is played by the council’s efforts to get to the bottom of various high-profile cases, and include experts and representatives from civil society organisations in the analysis, those that are well familiar with the subjects being discussed.

In general, as I have said many times, you are often more sensitive to the needs of the people, and feel their mood better than even government officials do. You come up with your own approaches following an attentive and detailed analysis.

The council and its commissions announce their position during heated debates as well. Cases that have recently evoked a wide response in society are bound to be raised today. I know that you have analysed them, and your opinion is very important when adopting decisions on ensuring human rights.

I would like to end my opening remarks at this point. I know there are plenty of potential speakers among us, and those who announced their desire to speak in advance. As at our previous meetings, I will try to give the floor to as many of our colleagues as possible who want to speak on various matters. But by tradition, I would first like to hear Mr Valery Fadeyev.

Please, you have the floor.

(In his report, Chair of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights Valery Fadeyev focused on the implementation of the presidential instructions issued a year ago, and on certain items on the current agenda. One of the items concerns the coronavirus pandemic and human rights, in particular, the use of QR-codes in public places and municipal transport. In addition, the issue was raised about enforcing the law on organisations that act as foreign agents, abuse of office and torture in the Federal Penitentiary Service system (FSIN), migration policy, protecting user rights and freedoms in the digital space, and a federal law under which foreign IT companies must open offices in Russia. The matter on benefits for holders of three Orders of Courage was brought up as well.)

Vladimir Putin: As far as I know, you outlined issues that were at the centre of the Council’s attention. I looked at the list of speakers. One way or another, most of these issues will be discussed separately. Therefore, there is probably no need to react to each of your issues now.

However, the last one about providing benefits for the holders of three Orders of Courage deserves, of course, not only to be worked though, but to be acted upon as soon as possible. I agree with you, and an instruction to this end will be issued to the Government shortly.

I am not sure we should be discussing QR-codes or foreign agent registration now. I am sure our colleagues will cover this later. Or, do I need to take these topics and… Then, I think the discussion will be over.

With regard to handling personal data, I fully share your concerns. I myself have spoken out on this many times, and I believe that we must give some thought to how we should organise it.

It is absolutely impossible to move forward without AI technology, which relies on big data, including personal data. We are aware of this, but there is a clear threat from the point of view of ensuring individual rights. The Government has received instructions to this end, and work is underway, even though it is not being conducted the way I, or apparently you, would like, because there are too many leaks. It is absolutely necessary to take proper steps to ensure individual interests and rights. The Government is focusing on this, and our colleagues are working on it, so I hope they will come up with corresponding proposals soon.

As for migration policy, this is one of the most important issues for both the economy and the social wellbeing of our people. You said there are no estimates on how much of a foreign workforce we need. This is not exactly true; estimates are being made, especially in construction. Deputy Prime Minister Marat Khusnullin has repeatedly reported to me on the needs of the construction industry, the construction sector of the economy, for foreign workers, but this is a separate issue.

I fully agree with those who have concerns in this context. Of course, we should cooperate with our colleagues, primarily from the CIS countries, on this. We should explain to those who want to work in our country that they need to prepare for this journey and for their jobs here. They should study the language, our laws and their rights; they should know what our public organisations and government bodies expect from them as regards the observance of the laws and rules of the Russian Federation, and the customs of the people in the territories where they will live.

I can say that we discuss this in considerable detail with our colleagues from the commonwealth countries. I had a conversation about this recently with Uzbekistan’s President during his visit to our country. He said Uzbekistan is also interested in preparing people who plan to move here. He noted that Uzbekistan’s government bodies are willing to promote this process. We are working on this with our other partners: Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. This is why we keep this issue in the focus. This does not mean that everything has been accomplished in this respect. Quite the reverse; this is only the beginning.

As for the tracking of people by various companies, platforms and so on, I fully agree that it is necessary to put things in order there. I will not go into detail now to avoid taking up your time because I must give our other colleagues an opportunity to speak. That said, I fully share your concerns.

Maybe, let us move on and give our colleagues an opportunity to speak. Marina Akhmedova, please.

(Council member Marina Akhmedova spoke about the problems of the homeless and offered some proposals on resolving them.)

Vladimir Putin: Ms Akhmedova, you have raised a very sensitive issue.

I think that, listening to this, anyone born in the Soviet times would recall that we used to call the “ulcers of capitalism” that the socialist system did not have, or almost did not have. There were homeless people then but not so many. And, of course, every municipal or Government official is bound to be ashamed of what is happening in this country.

I think I said at the Valdai Club recently that classic capitalism is gradually disappearing in the international arena because it triggers too many differences and eventually brings itself down.

In our current life, in our reality, we should all feel ashamed when facing the problems you spoke about and the destroyed human destinies you described. We often talk about the bureaucratic callousness of officials but this is about individuals. We have many officials who are conscientious and scrupulous, who are responsible at what they are doing, but of course there are different approaches.

Meanwhile, the state should organise its work properly to be able to render assistance and support to people who have found themselves in such a difficult situation regardless of circumstances, regardless of why it happens. If a person lives on the street without means of subsistence, medical care or housing, this is certainly a special case that requires particular attention from the authorities. I fully agree with you.

Of course, it is necessary to work on everything you have mentioned: registration and registration through the government services website, and so on. But it is perfectly obvious that it is necessary to deal with this problem and deal with it more purposefully with a view to granting practical assistance to a specific person. This also probably concerns hospitals, and not just one or in one area.

Naturally, all these measures require funding. But what, exactly, do we need state funding for? We need it to resolve these urgent problems; these are our people, our citizens. Therefore, we will certainly deal with this, and the Government will receive relevant instructions. It would be great if this problem were resolved as soon as possible, but we will have to plan and monitor the pace of this effort as well. I would also like to ask you not to quit this work.

Of course, it is very important to cooperate with NGOs in this respect, no doubt about this, and with religious organisations as well. I know that all our traditional religions are involved in this work in one way or another. They are helping people, and it is necessary to encourage this as much as possible, to develop cooperation with them and support them in this effort.

Thank you very much. I have made a note for myself. We will work on this.

Eva Merkacheva, go ahead please.

(In her remarks, Council member Eva Merkacheva talked about violations in the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia, including violence towards inmates and torture, reports of which have recently appeared on the internet. She reported on the initiative to introduce amendments to the Criminal Code by adding a separate chapter on torture. Merkacheva also spoke about the large numbers of people in pretrial detention centres, the use of modern technology and tracking methods instead of detention, the creation of correction centre, and equipping prison hospitals.)

Vladimir Putin: This is certainly a very important problem. Of course, I followed what was going on and read this information. We must get to the bottom of it.

The Central Office of the Investigative Committee is conducting a preliminary inquiry into the issues that have become public and are now being reviewed as part of the criminal cases that have been opened.

But, of course, I agree with you that it is necessary to take system-wide measures that would change the situation. Everything you mentioned definitely needs to be very carefully analysed, after which relevant measures can be adopted.

I would like to inform you that, first, the Federation Council has already started introducing amendments to the legislation that actually define the crime of torture. This work is underway. In any event, the Federation Council has raised this issue and is working on it.

Now about other restrictions on freedom – not only detention, especially pretrial detention. Of course, the Ministry of Justice will receive support, and work on the draft federal law on probation will be expedited. These are obvious things – house arrest and the bracelets you mentioned. Everything should be done to monitor a person suspected of committing a crime. But before a court concludes whether the crime was committed or not, there are certainly no grounds at all for putting a person behind bars, in a cell. I assure you that I fully agree with you.

As for compulsory labour, I also think it is possible to broaden the use of this option in sentence enforcement. I would just like to note that this instruction has already been given to the Government and, moreover, the Government has endorsed the concept for developing the penal and correctional system of the Russian Federation up to 2030. One of its main areas is broader use of compulsory labour. Work is underway on all these issues and will be stepped up after our today’s meeting, while relevant instructions will be adjusted accordingly.

Thank you very much. No doubt, this is a very important issue for all of us. Such things are absolutely unacceptable. What is there to say? You are saying the right things. It is necessary to work on this consistently and get results.

<…>

(Irina Borovova raised the issue of observing human rights during the COVID-19 vaccination campaign and introduction of electronic certificates and QR codes according to the bill that the State Duma is considering at the moment. She specifically drew attention to cancer patients. Irina Borovova also thanked the President for the Fighting Cancer programme.)

Vladimir Putin: Ms Borovova, as for the Fighting Cancer programme, it is one of our top priorities in public healthcare exactly because this disease poses a significant threat to a great number of our citizens. It is what we have been working on together, including with representatives of the medical community. This programme is the result of our collaboration with you and your colleagues.

It is important that this programme receive the necessary funding on time and in full. Judging from what I see, it will happen. These funds must be spent efficiently. This is the first point.

Second, concerning vaccination certificates, as you know they only serve as proof of vaccination. We also know that almost all countries have chosen the same path, all countries without exception that have the opportunity to vaccinate their people. Still, we have to proceed very carefully, weigh out every step and understand what is happening. The entire procedure must be perfectly clear and transparent. It must not create any additional problems for people.

There is more to it, though. Some people are opposed to vaccination and object to any restrictions. And those who support vaccination receive jabs and demand, including from officials in their regions, that they be guarded from the unvaccinated. You see, there are certain issues in society that also need to be addressed. At any rate, we must make decisions carefully.

I agree with you that before introducing any restrictions on public transport, we must fully consider the consequences and check if the transport system is ready. We must not restrict people’s rights, on the one hand, while ensuring their security and safety. Therefore, before we issue any final decisions, they must be exhaustively discussed.

This law is, to a great extent, a framework law. Of course, it still needs to be thoroughly reviewed by regional officials as they will be granted significant authority with respect to final decisions. I hope that will be the approach we take. I mean that we will, in cooperation with the professional community, find a solution that can guarantee the rights of all citizens.

Thank you. We will work on this extremely carefully and make sure that no hasty decisions are made.

<…>

(In his remarks, Kirill Kabanov focused on violence among teenagers and young adults, noting that negative and aggressive behavioural scenarios are being widely broadcast in the digital space, online communities and teenage groups, and emphasised that this negative and dangerous behaviour infiltrated Russia from the West and its culture. Kabanov suggested a number of measures to prevent this, including raising the professional level of teachers, creating school mechanisms for eliminating conflicts and reinforcing state bodies’ efforts to prevent juvenile delinquency.)

Vladimir Putin: I think everyone understands that you touched on a very important and sensitive matter that worries everyone without exaggeration.

The bullying you mentioned and the promotion of Western culture, although this has nothing to do with culture, in our society, and these behaviour patterns are often promoted by social media.

Western parliamentarians are now actively discussing the impact of these international platforms on the minds of younger people and their personal development, and their negative impact on the psyche of teenagers and children. We, too, should step up and take a closer look at that. Europe is paying much attention to this, and the United States is beginning to raise these issues at public or parliamentary platforms.

So, the issue that Mr Kabanov raised is extremely important. Of course, it requires a comprehensive approach which is what this proposal is all about as far as I can see.

Of course, I agree that the proposals regarding preventive measures should be considered and supported. This includes additional measures, such as introducing educators who are now becoming available at schools, and more should become available, training and retraining of teachers, and so on. We must implement and improve measures to prevent juvenile delinquency in the broadest sense of the word. Of course, we should proceed with caution given the young age of the people we are talking about, but we must do it nonetheless. I fully agree. We will work on this.

<…>

(Pavel Gusev spoke about the law on foreign agents in the media, which he described as one of the most controversial laws, listed its shortcomings and proposed creating a separate working group with the participation of corresponding parliamentary committees, journalist unions, and the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights in order to deal with the issues that are haunting media outlets recognised as foreign agents.)

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much, Mr Gusev.

Here is what I would like to say. Of course, the incidents that you cited are comical, and the overreaction you noted is obvious.

Of course, we should pay attention to what you said, including the way this document was drafted, meaning that it was not discussed with the professional community. We must do more than just note this. This work must be done and we must see how it works and what it leads to.

However, Mr Gusev, you are well aware of how our media are being treated in foreign countries. They are declared foreign agents, summoned to courts, called in for questioning and face imprisonment if they do not show up.

You and I have known each other well for a long time now, and we understand what this is about. We must ensure freedom of speech and, to a certain extent, the inviolability of people who talk about the flaws of our society, the imperfections of our state apparatus and the governance system, and questions that arise during election campaigns. No doubt about it. What we need to do though is protect ourselves from potential external interference in our domestic affairs. We need to protect ourselves from anyone using any kind of tool in Russia to pursue their goals that have nothing to do with our interests. This is what we are talking about.

Of course, this is a delicate job. When it comes to the media, we need to proceed with caution so as not to “de-energise” or “blunt” the tools that we absolutely need to uphold our own interests, to move our country forward, and to develop democratic institutions, as well as to make our society and economy more competitive as well as to be able to move forward. To reiterate, we must prevent the use of any tool that would ultimately get in the way of our development or lead to the destruction of our country and our society. We need to be subtle and proceed with caution.

I agree with what you said. Let’s get back to this issue together with the professional community and develop, as far as practicable, concerted decisions. I do not think I need to go into detail now since you are aware of my position; I tried to express it again just now. We will be moving along this path.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

<…>

(Kirill Vyshinsky said the Human Rights Council Commission on International Cooperation, which he heads, centres on helping the largest community of our compatriots in Donbass exercise their rights and protecting Russian citizens and our compatriots’ rights in the CIS and non-CIS countries. He also talked about participating in Russian elections and a variety of benefits that Russian citizens, in particular, residents of Donbass who do not have residence permits in Russia, are unable to access. Mr Vyshinsky also mentioned Russophobia citing the Baltic states, Ukraine and the United States as examples. He emphasised that Russophobia is being formalised in many areas of life, including at the state level, as some kind of discrimination against language and social spheres, among other things, which could even lead to genocide, and asked the President to issue instructions to develop and introduce the concept of genocide or appeals for genocide against Soviet (in historical terms) and Russian multi-ethnic people into Russian law.)

Vladimir Putin: Thank you, Mr Vyshinsky.

With regard to improving the voting process for our compatriots abroad, I agree that we need to give it a thought and take the necessary measures, even though it may cost us extra. I think you are right.

Wherever they may live, Russian citizens should be able to enjoy the rights of our citizens in full. The same applies to social rights and benefits. I will definitely instruct the Government to work this through. I hope we will come to concerted decisions.

I must say the same thing about Russophobia as the first step towards genocide. We are well aware of the current developments in Donbass which are very reminiscent of genocide. We need to proceed with caution so as not to devalue these concepts, but they still must reflect the realities of unfolding events. Let’s think about this.

Mr Vyshinsky, as someone who deeply engages in this matter, what do you think about the situation in Donbass?

Kirill Vyshinsky: You see, my evaluations are based on evidence. My colleagues, friends and acquaintances who live in Donbass – of course, they are used to what is happening there, including the shelling attacks – say that the situation has worsened over the past 30–45 days.

To reiterate, they are brave people, and they have been living in these circumstances for more than seven years now, but they remain calm. But, you know, such an escalation always makes you wonder: why is this happening, why now, and what for? To reiterate, the people in Donbass remain confident that they will cope with this, but they are seeing a deterioration of the situation. The number of shelling attacks is up, and the targeting areas are getting closer, for example, to Donetsk. To put it in simple terms, things do not look good.

Vladimir Putin: Good. Thank you.

<…>

(Igor Ashmanov described the newly developed concept for protecting civil rights in the digital space, the risks of digital discrimination against citizens, and oversight of access to digital means of production. He also covered social media and mentioned a volunteer civic project that the HRC came up with in cooperation with the Civic Chamber, parent associations, and so on. The issue is about content which is harmful and dangerous, primarily for children and young adults, which is considered unacceptable in Russia, not by law, but because all digital developers have agreed that this content is unacceptable. Plans are in place to make it a civic project based on the Public Centre for Internet Technology and the Regional Public Centre for Internet Technology, and to reach an agreement with the majority of Russian digital platform developers to the effect that they voluntarily agree on which content listed on the common ethical platform is unacceptable.)

Vladimir Putin: Of course, the issue that you raised is important and sensitive, and we discussed this at the beginning of our meeting. Again, I will not say anything new. Believe me, I am very worried about this as well. I totally agree with you.

Let’s consider how to act in concert with the participants in this process. Let’s face it, attempts have already been made, including at the suggestion of the Presidential Executive Office, whereby our main companies have created an alliance which engages in developing certain corporate behaviour guidelines with an eye towards ensuring interests and rights of our citizens. Above all, we are talking about content that can be harmful to young adults, children and teenagers. So, I agree with almost everything that has been said here. I suggest that we keep working on it. Please, draft it properly, and I will issue corresponding instructions for the Government and legislators.

Igor Ashmanov: Mr President, maybe a civic project does not need to start with presidential instructions to the Government, because it is a civic project after all. I believe your approval is enough to get it going.

Vladimir Putin: You see, approval alone is usually not enough, because you also need administrative support. This is what I was taking about, and I am willing to do so.

Thank you.

<…>

(Nikolai Svanidze raised the issue of the developments around Memorial. The Prosecutor’s Office called on the court to shut down International Memorial and the Memorial human rights centre and asked the President to take control of the matter. In addition, Mr Svanidze spoke about the detention of Professor Sergei Zuyev, who is accused of an economic crime. Mr Svanidze said this was a harsh pre-trial restriction considering Zuyev’s health.)

Vladimir Putin: Thank you, Mr Svanidze.

Of course, I paid attention to the media publications on Memorial and, naturally, asked my colleagues for additional information on what is going on there.

I know you may not agree with this, but I would still like you to know about this and listen. What documents did I receive regarding the court trial? Incidentally, it is not yet over, and we should monitor these proceedings. I hope they will be unbiased. But what did I pay attention to, and what documents was I given for reference? As for the international organisations Memorial is trying to defend, they are blacklisted in Russia as terrorist and extremist organisations. Of course, this issue requires additional study. I know that some colleagues, including Council members, claim that a number of these organisations do not fall into this category, for instance, Hizb ut-Tahrir and Tablighi Jamaat, among others. But this is a separate topic. In any case, as of today, these organisations are recognised exactly as extremist and terrorist.

The second problem is that unfortunately Memorial has repeatedly committed violations, and, as the document given to me reads, it did so defiantly. Its violations were blatant.

Finally, there is one more aspect linked with the activities of Memorial, which indisputably is one of the most reputable organisations, and this is how I have always treated it. You mentioned that Holocaust Day has disappeared from the list of observed dates for some reason. Frankly, I fully agree with you. Yes, of course, millions upon millions of members of other ethnic groups in addition to the Jewish population of Russia and the Soviet Union experienced violence at the hands of the Nazis. But these are absolutely obvious things, the atrocities against the Jewish population, and, of course, we should not forget about this as part of the general picture of crimes committed by the Nazis in the world, including our country. This is perfectly obvious.

But what would I like to draw your attention to in this context? You also said that Memorial is the main guardian of the memory of the victims of political repression in the Soviet Union. Indeed, this is how I always saw it. But, since we have already raised this subject, I would like to mention studies, some of which were conducted by Israeli specialists. They found the names of such people as Pyotr Petrovskis, Lisovsky and Kovalevsky in the list of those whom Memorial numbers with the victims of political repressions, Soviet political repressions. The first one, Pyotr Petrovskis, served the Germans in the police. He detained and escorted Jewish prisoners to the place of their execution and later on boasted to his neighbours. There is specific evidence of this, and here are his exact words: “Today, this revolver…” I will not quote the words of this criminal, but he went on to say how many Jews he had killed – a hundred people. The second one, Ivan Lisovsky, began his career in 1941 as a gang leader of a group of undertakers that shot Jews. Later he served in the Latvian police and was a direct participant in the murder of 11,000 Jews.

One more man was also found to be involved in these atrocities as regards Jews in Ludza. He killed 800 people.

Therefore, Memorial itself should make its current activities fully meet the noble goals that it declared to be the main area of its work and should prevent anything similar to what I have just mentioned.

I can name the author of this study. He is Aron Shneer. He is one of those who studied this part of the activities as a professional. I think we can trust this source.

Overall, I believe you are right in drawing attention to what is happening in this area, including the activities of Memorial itself in general. I will certainly take a close look at this once again.

As for the pre-trial restriction for the man you mentioned, from Shaninka, it is necessary to have a look at this. Here I cannot but agree with you again. I do not see any need to keep a man behind bars for the offenses he is charged with. So I will definitely look at his case once again.

Thank you very much.

<…>

(Alexander Sokurov became quite emotional as he proceeded to express his point of view on multiple issues, starting with a letter from the people living in an old village in the Leningrad Region, which may be destroyed if the authorities go through with their plan to build a transport interchange there. He also brought up Russia’s federal structure, problems in the North Caucasus, a number of regional border conflicts, human rights concerns, support for the Russian North and its culture. Alexander Sokurov ended his remarks by saying: “I apologise for speaking so long and so passionately, too passionately. I am sorry.”

Vladimir Putin: Indeed, an apology is in order. An apology is in order, Mr Sokurov, because those were not remarks, but a manifesto, a heap of problems and fears harboured by some of our citizens. It is always like that. Some of these problems and fears, perhaps, relate to things that lie on the surface and are hypertrophied, others have been picked in a very strange manner and I do not understand what they are about at all.

For example, you said that all our republics have an ethnic aspect to them now. Was it any different before? Was it any different in the Soviet Union? The only difference is that now they cannot leave the single state, whereas back then they could do so without any restrictions.

Towards the end, you said we should let everyone who does not want to live with us go. How do you know who wants to live with us and who does not?

Alexander Sokurov: Let us check it out.

Vladimir Putin: We did already during the voting on the Constitution, among other things. Take a look at how people vote. We can debate this issue if you like and as long as you like. But I assure you that the overwhelming majority of the people realise what kind of trouble they will face if they act differently. By the way, the Chechen people know this better than anyone else in the Caucasus.

You mentioned diversity and cited Daghestan as an example. A very good example, by the way. Daghestan is a multi-ethnic republic. What are you suggesting? To divide Daghestan? Or, take Karachayevo-Circassia. Should we divide Karachais and Circassians? There are many issues there, I am very well aware of them. We have 2,000 territorial claims in our country. Mr Sokurov, do you want to see a repeat of the Yugoslavia scenario on our territory?

Alexander Sokurov: No, my suggestion is to think. Our Constitution is 100 years old, and our nation-building is 100 years old as well.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Sokurov, this is not a discussion, but an exchange of views. Otherwise, it will become like a talk show with us talking over each other non-stop.

I have known you for a very long time now, and I have a lot of respect for you, because you always speak your mind. Frankly, though, you are not always accurate in what you say. Certain things should be properly considered and reviewed first, such as relations among the Nakh people. Please take these matters seriously.

To reiterate, there are 2,000 territorial claims in Russia. “Do not trouble trouble,” as they say. These matters must be taken very seriously. And talking about this lightly for everyone in our country to hear is not something that even you should do. I assure you that these are dangerous games, we have been here before. And like I said in our previous discussion, people of our age will not go to war.

Do not worry about our army. It is doing fine, it is developing. An organisation as complex as an army, with almost a million service members, cannot go without issues. But if you look at our army of the mid-1990s and today's army… Just look at what those who have declared us an adversary are saying about our army. You will get an idea of the distance covered by our army, its current status and what we can count on in the near future.

Then, things like who is living off our allowance. You can think whatever you want about Belarus, Belarusians, or the leadership of Belarus, but to say that it lives off our allowance is incorrect, Mr Sokurov. It is unseemly to say so in public. This shows disrespect for the entire nation and the entire country, which is part of the Union State. This is a delicate and lengthy process that requires exceptional competence and patience, and respect for your partner. We will not get anywhere if we act differently. And we can only strive for one thing which is mutual understanding and building these relations on a mutually beneficial basis, which would lead us to better overall competitiveness and to overcoming the issues facing our peoples. So, these matters should be tackled with caution.

The same applies to the fact that we must support the Caucasus which is part of the Russian Federation. There is another approach, where people professing extreme views – we have them, too, unfortunately – say: “Let us disband everything and live the life that we want.” We are already living the life that we want. “We will let those who do not want to live with us go.” Again, what makes you think that the overwhelming majority of the people in the republics do not want to live with us? Probably, there are some people of that kind. The bloodshed of the mid-1990s – early 2000s showed us what this can lead to. Do you want this? We do not.

So, letting people professing such views go is a very dangerous thing. It can end very badly. And we have done a lot to step away from this dangerous line. Do not push us back there. Do not.

With regard to us feeding or not feeding someone, disbanding or not disbanding, are the Russian people, whose interests you just mentioned, interested in the disintegration and collapse of the Russian Federation? Will it then be true Russia, which was originally built as a country of multiple ethnicities and religions? Do you want to turn us into the Grand Duchy of Moscow? Well, this is what NATO wants.

Alexander Sokurov: I would like to suggest that we think about what is happening in the country and how it operates. I suggest that we do some thinking, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Sokurov, no one is against thinking. Before saying this, you should have given it more thought. Come see me, I have not seen you in a long while. You know how I feel about our meetings and discussions. I am always delighted to have a conversation with you.

But before you say such things publicly, you should think carefully. Please do not be mad at me, because these are very serious matters.

Alexander Sokurov: It is always better to be straightforward about things.

Vladimir Putin: Well, some things can be put bluntly, but others are better off not talking about. Some matters are highly sensitive. Call me, come over and we will have a discussion. No question about it. It is just that these are very subtle and delicate matters. You can hurt people’s feeling very easily.

Alexander Sokurov: I agree.

Vladimir Putin: This will hinder rather than help our constructive efforts.

With regard to your request concerning the village of Luzhitsa, of course, we will work on it. I will do so by all means, I promise. This is the Kingisepp District, correct?

If there is the slightest chance to build this traffic interchange at another location, we will, of course, have it built elsewhere. I agree.

Thank you very much.

<…>

(Genri Reznik raised the issue of foreign agents, noting the imperfections of the relevant law, in particular regarding research organisations as well as his colleagues in the legal profession. According to him, the enforcement of this law must be adjusted. He asked the President to create a corresponding working group that would include representatives of professional communities: the academic community, the media community, politicians and State Duma members. Genri Reznik disagreed with the premise that Russia had “become hostile to the entire world”, and any funding coming from abroad is toxic and it is presumed from the onset that it is used to harm Russia.)

Vladimir Putin: I would like to say the following in this connection. I will start with the thesis that you have clearly formulated when you said, “Russia has become hostile to the entire world.” This is not true. Russia has not become hostile towards any part of the world. A certain part of the world considers Russia to be its adversary. Have we ever in our strategic institutional documents written down that we designate someone as our adversary? No, we have not; it is we who are being declared an adversary. Why? There is a very simple answer. Let us look at the mid-1990s and early 2000s. By the early 2000s I had already purged everyone; however, in the mid-1990s we had career officers of the US Central Intelligence Agency, as it was later found out, as advisors and officials in the Russian Federation Government. The US subsequently brought criminal charges against them for violating the US law and participating in the privatisation while they worked in our country as CIA officers. This is just one example, but there are many more in reality.

Thus, first, everything in this area was under the control of certain countries. US specialists were posted to the facilities of our nuclear weapons complex. They used to come to work there every day, from morning to evening, they had a desk with a US flag on it. They lived and worked there. They did not need such subtle instruments of interference in our political life since they had an overall control anyway.

The situation has certainly changed: the country has become different, it has become more independent, more sovereign, our Armed Forces capabilities are growing, and the attitude towards Russia has begun changing.

Let us recall the attitude towards Russia’s first president Boris Yeltsin. Everything was fine, everyone happily clapped him on the back. But as soon as he raised his voice in defence of Yugoslavia and spoke of the illegitimate actions (and we understand that those were absolutely illegitimate actions which violated international law regarding Yugoslavia when it was being bombed without any authorisation from the Security Council, it was a gross violation of international law, you know and understand it too well whatever anyone present here might say), so as soon as Boris Yeltsin raised his voice in defence of international law and the rights of the people of Yugoslavia to be treated in a civilised way, the attitude towards Russia changed instantly as well as towards Boris Yeltsin personally. We know this and remember it very well.

Thus, as soon as Russia began to declare its interests, to state that it has them, began building up its sovereignty, the economy and military capabilities, a need arose for different instruments to influence our domestic politics, including fairly subtle instruments via different organisations that are funded from abroad. As both you and I know, we did not invent anything new here. I think, such a law has been in effect in the United States since 1938 or 1937, and remains in force now. And when they say that it is old and was passed a long time ago – yes, it was passed some time ago and in this sense it is old, but it is being enforced today, including with respect to Russian organisations.

Can you imagine a Russian NGO somewhere in Europe or in the US with a critical stance towards those countries’ policies? It is impossible even to imagine it. Our registered media outlets are designated as foreign agents there. As I said earlier during today’s discussion, they are detained and questioned, and threatened with a possible prison term.

What we are doing is nothing but a light reminder of what is being done in other countries to protect their sovereignty and their domestic policy. You know that our law does not prohibit the activities of those organisations; it does not. Nevertheless, I have repeatedly said so at our previous meetings and I want to say it again that I agree with you on some points. Of course, it is necessary to clearly delineate research activities and why they are treated as political.

Although, do you know what is happening? Let’s say certain decisions are made regarding those organisations that are funded from abroad and engage in political activities. Their funding channels are cut to a certain extent – and there immediately spring up others, or those organisations that were never involved in such activities but are interested in additional funding, get it and begin to adapt their activities to work off the funds, or they become a kind of a hub to channel that money to other structures.

So, Mr Reznik, we have to look carefully, we must respect ourselves and must not allow anyone to interfere in our affairs. However, I cannot but agree with you that we have to look very carefully into those documents so that they are legally substantiated and do not harm us, so that the concepts are never replaced with something else and do not prevent patriotically-minded people with a critical view of the developments in the country from effectively performing their activities in the interests of our state and people.

Thus, let us analyse all that again, I agree, let us look into it and work on it, maybe within specially established structures. And if there are any extremes or excesses there, they must certainly be corrected, I agree with you. Thank you very much.

<…>

(Andrei Babushkin began his remarks by talking about Russia’s small indigenous peoples, in particular, their traditional occupations and preserving language diversity. He also brought up the issue of protecting citizens’ rights when residential housing is built and allocated, establishing correctional centres within the Federal Penitentiary Service and other issues concerning convicted persons.)

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much. I will not list everything you have brought up that needs our joint efforts. All of that is important, and we have to look at the list of diseases for possible release from imprisonment for two categories. I agree with you, we must look into this, so there is nothing to comment on; we need to carefully examine this.

As to the new testimony on the past criminal cases you mentioned – a person has served 15 years in prison and then all of a sudden decided to testify – we have to be very careful here. I will not even comment on this, as I am sure you understand what I mean. Thus, everything has to be checked, of course. The only thing to be done in this respect is drawing the attention of the Prosecutor General’s Office. I promise that I will do that.

Finally, the rights of the indigenous peoples of the North. I absolutely agree this is an issue that requires our constant attention. If you feel we are not doing enough here, I promise to you that such instructions will be prepared. I will get back to this matter and see what has been done and what has not, or has not been done in full, as we had agreed. This is a crucial issue of a principled nature, and everything we agreed on when taking administrative decisions must be enforced.

Thank you very much. I think it is time for us to finish. I want to thank you. I understand that you are tired, but you cannot deny that such a substantive discussion of all the issues raised during our conversation today is much needed. I really hope that we will continue this work next year.

On my part, I will do everything in my power to fulfil the agreements reached during our discussion today to the fullest possible extent. I hope that we will keep working as constructively and intensely in the upcoming year.

I want to thank you for this, for our joint efforts, and wish you all the best in the coming new year.

All the best. Goodbye.

Amendments to the Statute on the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

2021-02-20T09:07:22+04:00

Vladimir Putin signed Executive Order On Amendments to the Statute on the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights Approved by Executive Order of the President of the Russian Federation No. 120 of February 1, 2011.

The Executive Order specifies the areas of activity for the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights.

In particular, the Executive Order introduces a separate clause to the Statute dedicated to the Council’s areas of activities. The clause states that the Council’s primary activities include promotion of civil society institutions, provision and protection of personal, political, economic and labour, social and cultural, and environmental rights and freedoms of the people and citizens. In addition, the Council for Human Rights will contribute to ensuring and protecting human rights and freedoms in the information environment, defend Russian nationals’ rights abroad and assist in improving mechanisms of legal protection of rights and freedoms.

Meeting of Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

2021-02-01T19:54:22+04:00

On Human Rights Day, Vladimir Putin chaired a meeting of the Councilfor CivilSociety and Human Rights, held via videoconference.

Excerpts from transcript of meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues.

I would like to welcome all of you to our regular meeting, traditionally held on Human Rights Day.

Each of you and the Council in general, as well as other national human rights organisations, are making their contribution to protecting human rights and freedoms. I believe this is a vitally important and noble mission that is in high demand in society. It requires painstaking daily work, extensive knowledge, patience, generosity, and an ability to conduct dialogue and to defend one’s position in a well-substantiated way. Quite often, this also calls for courage and resolve.

I would like to note that precisely such people have always worked and continue to work in all line-ups of our Council. Friends, I want to sincerely congratulate you on Human Rights Day. I wish you every success in achieving the goals of your human rights activity.

Today, we will have to work remotely. We rarely meet in this format, but I can already see that quite a few people would like to speak. As agreed, Valery Fadeyev [Presidential Adviser and Council Chair) organised this work at the Presidential Executive Office. I have a very long list here, but I did not compile it. It was done by our Council’s Head and Presidential Adviser on these matters, who is in charge of this work. But I want to address all our colleagues ask you to keep it brief because we will work for about two hours. Otherwise, the focus of attention will shift, although we usually work slightly more than two hours. More of our colleagues from the Council will be able to speak and set forth their viewpoint on matters of common interest, if all of you keep your remarks as brief and concise as possible.

Colleagues,

The pandemic has become a serious challenge for this country and the entire world. It has compelled people to analyse and even revise many key principles of social communication. Relations between the state and the people have also acquired new dimensions.

As you know, our struggle against the common threat under the motto We are Together has united representatives of practically all levels of authority, volunteers, non-profit organisations and thousands of caring and responsible people. That said, people were not only ready to take part in the joint efforts but also started voicing new demands to the state, especially as regards their rights in healthcare, education and protection of personal data.

In conditions where all countries have to seek a balance between the inevitable but forced restrictions and the basic freedoms, the expert estimate of our Council has been and remains in great demand. We all see what happens in some countries where the so-called lockdown rebels emphatically protest against the necessary steps by the state. It is essential to understand what is happening, what is necessary, as well as a professional assessment. To my knowledge, the council has already done much in this area. In part, it presented its report “The Lessons of the Epidemic in the Context of Human and Civil Rights and Freedoms” and today we will certainly discuss its main points.

Of course, I would like to thank you particularly for your active participation in the work on the Constitutional amendments. I know that people have different attitudes to this but the Council has made its contribution to this work and I would like to thank you for this, as well as for your assistance to citizens in exercising their rights during the nationwide voting.

I think we should also review the issues on which the council could focus its efforts in the near future.

One of the topical issues is, of course, the healthcare system and patients’ rights. This is about the quality and timeliness of medical aid.

Of course, the state is doing a great deal to make this work smoothly and beneficially for the people, but there are still setbacks here. This is obvious and I also know about this. Therefore, the work of human rights agencies is certainly in demand here as well, and not only because of the spread of the coronavirus.

I would like you to focus on the protection of human rights in primary healthcare, which is the closest to the people, and continue monitoring the provision of elective medical aid under individual plans, including, of course, oncological patients. In general, it is necessary to continuously analyse the organisation of elective care for patients with dangerous and chronic diseases.

There is still much room for improvement in humanising justice. We speak about this at every meeting. The council has many experienced lawyers and they made a number of proposals at the previous meeting. Not all, but some of these proposals enjoyed support and must be carried out.

Another important topic is the advantages and risks of digitisation. E-services are no longer a task for the future but an efficiently operating sector that is gaining momentum. New opportunities and new interests are being created. That said, the appearance of new interests is accompanied by the emergence of new threats.

Human rights and artificial intelligence is an area that has not yet been studied and comprehended in full. Therefore, what we need now are professional recommendations on how to develop digital services further, preventing the risks of human rights violations as regards confidentiality, privacy protection and freedom of expression. Incidentally, public opinion polls show that people are very concerned about the protection of personal data.

Our council deals with all these issues. It has been recently joined, among others, by specialists in this sphere. I believe this will considerably enhance its expert potential.

In short, I would like to repeat that we have a large backlog of topics for discussion. Let us go over to reports and remarks.

(Adviser to the President and Chair of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights Valery Fadeyev was next to take the floor. He reported on the fulfilment of the President’s instructions of a year ago, the work of the Council and several problems to which it pays special attention.)

Vladimir Putin: I will give a very brief response to the most sensitive issues that were voiced now. I cannot reply to everything for lack of time.

As regards online education: it is extremely important. I have already said at the recent meeting with volunteers, and recalled the position of the UN, and its Secretary-General, who says that we may lose a whole generation because the pandemic is doing enormous damage to the entire process of education, primarily affecting, of course, school-aged children. At this point, it is very important to have access to up-to-date methods of gaining knowledge: this is the so-called hardware that costs a lot, computer equipment as such and all kinds of software, broadband internet access and so on – we have seen many problems related to all this.

At the same time, our country proved to be better prepared than we had even expected ourselves and better than many other states for the transition to the online format not only in education but also in other areas. Although this is not enough, and I fully agree with you on this point. We will work on this issue. The Government has a plan of action. I will not list everything here since it is all publicly available. We will work on this.

As for the stratification of school children – some are doing better and some are not, it is necessary to consider these expanding opportunities of today and tailor teaching methods accordingly.

Now a few words about foreign agents and individuals that may fall and will fall in this category. Those who proposed this report that it is linked with an attempt to avoid mentioning a relevant legal entity as a recipient of funds from abroad. Some people are simply inventing new ways of getting money from abroad for their activities. This is the first point.

Now the second point. Let me repeat again: we still proceed from the assumption that this does not lead to any bans on behalf of the state. So, if you think that there are risks in it and if the judicial explanation of this law is not clear enough on the important items of this law, it is certainly necessary to work on it, I agree.

As for foreign agents in the public councils of government authorities, this sounds pretty strange, of course. I just cannot imagine foreign agents in the US coming and demanding that they be allowed to take part in the public council of the Department of State, silly as it sounds, or the Department of Homeland Security. You understand that this is simply ridiculous and impossible to imagine. We can imagine that such issues are being discussed here but to assume it’s possible there – I can’t imagine.

Don’t forget the recent events that are familiar to everybody when our citizens were kept behind bars there. Incidentally, they were accused of being foreign agents without any grounds. They were kept in prisons and threatened with long sentences.

Nevertheless, I agree with you that if there are certain risks in this, we should look at them carefully. It is necessary to make sure that this does not limit people and their activities. We have always assumed that this is linked with only one goal – to ensure non-interference of foreign states in our domestic affairs. This is something they are actively working on. We do know this: they are actively working on this. How? They are giving money to promote their agenda in our domestic political life.

On the one hand, we must protect ourselves against this, and on the other, we should not enact excessive restrictions. I agree with you on this. Let’s think it over. I will ask the Executive Office and State Duma deputies to think about it. To be honest, I do not even know who initiated this, but we will certainly look at it more carefully.

Now about the blocking. Of course, I see the risks involved in blocking foreign networks that are being used by thousands of Russian citizens, including those, as you said, who are earning money through them. Indeed, it is necessary to act with caution in this respect. Although you showed yourself what our so-called partners are doing: they are engaged in censorship. This is an absolutely obvious thing that any sensible person understands. This is censorship, a field of information confrontation. It is not us who is doing this. I am pointing this out; please note that this is not us. But we have to react to this somehow, we must respond.

Let’s do it to avoid shooting ourselves in the foot. Let’s develop our own services and our own networks, provide quality services at home and not restrict people in areas where it makes absolutely no sense. I have always believed that any of our response actions should not harm ourselves.

<…>

(HRC member Kirill Kabanov raised the issue of ensuring the protection of Russians’ digital rights in the 21st century and, on behalf of the Council, asked the President to instruct the Government to develop, together with the Council, a draft concept for ensuring the protection of human and civil rights and interests in the digital landscape.)

Vladimir Putin: Mr Kabanov, you are unfair to us in not seeing that the government is concerned about this. Not just the government – the people are concerned. The state takes the cue from the people’s needs and demands.

I have already mentioned opinion polls. They suggest that what people are concerned about the most with regard to their rights are their health and healthcare rights; education, their rights in education is in the second place; and the third concern is the protection of their personal data and all things related to their personal lives, in this area, among others. That is, people are really concerned about it.

You said society is not aware of the threat, but it is. And the fact that you are doing this professionally is just great, thank you very much for that.

If you follow the developments, Sberbank recently held an international event on artificial intelligence, and all the participants, literally everyone, highlighted this problem there, and so did I. I completely agree with you, I fully agree with you: we cannot make such fundamental decisions or adopt some of our fundamental conceptual documents in the field of artificial intelligence and the digital economy without resolving problems and without creating the necessary regulatory framework to ensure people’s interests and rights in this domain.

Kirill Kabanov: And security.

Vladimir Putin: I fully agree.

You asked for an instruction – in fact, the Government is working on this, but, apparently, we need to bring to the Government’s attention – I will definitely do this – the fact that they need to attract your groups and specialists like you, who are working on this independently of the bureaucratic organisations. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I will definitely do it, I promise.

<…>

Galina Osokina: On the threshold of the New Year, I would like to start with this beautiful tradition, the Wishing Tree. As you know, Mr President, I took a bauble from this tree and realised I was not able to make this wish come true. A 97-year-old woman from Stavropol Territory dreams of speaking to the President of Russia by phone. As we have already scheduled a meeting, I decided to give this bauble to you. Perhaps it is not possible now, but I think we will be able to fulfil this woman’s dream.

Vladimir Putin: About this elderly lady who wants to talk to me, of course, I would be happy to talk to her, only you did not give her phone number.

Well, then, give me her number. Can you give me her phone number?

Galina Osokina: There is no phone number. It only says that she wants to talk to you and her last name. Natalya Donskova, Stavropol Territory. We can find her anyway.

Vladimir Putin: Donskova.

We always find fault with our law enforcement system. Let us ask them to do something good: ask the director of the Federal Security Service or the Internal Affairs Minister to find Ms Donskova.

Galina Osokina: Stavropol Territory.

Vladimir Putin: Stavropol Territory, Natalya Donskova, 97 years old, isn’t she?

Galina Osokina: 97 years old.

Vladimir Putin: I think our colleagues can hear us. Please help us find Ms Natalya Donskova.

<…>

(Pavel Gusev spoke about the work of journalists at public events and the obstacles Russian journalists encounter in some countries.)

Vladimir Putin: Mr Gusev, you have said that the Law on Mass Media must guarantee freedom of information, but at the beginning of your statement, you said that journalists present their views on developments. Is this just your position? So, should journalists offer their views on developments or only provide objective information about them?

Pavel Gusev: Above all, they must provide information.

Vladimir Putin: I see. So, it was a slip of the tongue, so to speak. Good.

Pavel Gusev: Yes, it was.

Vladimir Putin: This is not the point, though. The point is, actually, that you are right. The truth is that no matter whether the events are authorised or unauthorised, journalists must have a right to freely report on them and to spread this information. You pointed out that this practice has been developed, by and large, in Moscow and Moscow Region and asked for the plenipotentiary envoys in the regions to be instructed to analyse this experience. I promise that this instruction will be issued. Our colleagues are most probably listening to us right now. I can assure you that I would like people of your profession to be able to work freely so that I too can have access, including via the mass media, to reliable, objective and prompt information about developments in the country. This is very important. We will definitely look into the matter.

Now about the work of our journalists abroad. Yes, we can see that in many countries, at least in those that are developing their relations with Russia as a potential competitor or even an adversary, we can see that some countries’ doctrines openly define Russia as a geopolitical adversary, which I regard as absolutely unacceptable. Unfortunately, this is not our choice, but this is indeed how it is in some countries. They start putting pressure on our journalists, because despite their proclaimed commitment to freedom of the media they actually pursue a different course, a course of promoting their own information content in the interests of their domestic and foreign policies. They are using this as an instrument for attaining their objectives on the international stage, in this case, regarding Russia.

You have said and asked for Foreign Ministry support. The Foreign Ministry is already doing this. But I think that this is not enough. Our public organisations, including the journalistic community, should work directly with their colleagues abroad, telling them that only by pooling the efforts of the entire journalistic community throughout the world, at least the independent-minded part of the journalistic community, will it be possible to attain the goal the people of your profession set themselves, that is, to objectively inform their compatriots about developments, so that life becomes more interesting, brighter and more substantive and aimed at removing any elements that prevent us from moving forward.

In other words, I will issue additional instructions to the Foreign Ministry, of course. But I would also like to ask you to encourage your colleagues and the entire journalistic community to make use of public organisations to show what is really happening in this extremely important, delicate and professional, I would even say highly professional sphere, which ordinary people sometimes find extremely difficult to comprehend.

When we come across obvious facts of infringement on the rights of the journalistic community, or at least the rights of our journalists abroad, we must respond to them quickly and as harshly as possible. I fully agree with your on that. We will be working together.

<…>

(Natalia Yevdokimova spoke sharply of the problems faced by NGOs recognised as foreign agents.)

Vladimir Putin: Ms Yevdokimova,

I can see that you are a straightforward person, committed to seeing all the institutions in Russian society – both government agencies and public institutions – work effectively and for the good of our country. I have no doubt about that, believe me.

Moreover, I will say something that is, perhaps, unexpected: I am sure that those people or organisations (the people working in them) that receive money from abroad for certain purposes, they also, as a rule, are very decent, honest people who are making an effort to address certain issues and challenges facing our country. Because they have failed to find any other sources of funding, they receive this money from abroad and believe that, relying on these resources, they can resolve some of the tasks facing our society.

Our people are all honest, kind and well organised in doing their work, but those who pay them, as a rule, are guided by other goals. They are not interested in strengthening Russia, but in deterring it. This is the real point of the problem.

One of your colleagues has just spoken about attacks on our journalists abroad, about limitations put on their work, and the sometimes brutal violence used against them, as well as criminal prosecution. This is further confirmation that what I am saying is actually true.

But there is something you are absolutely right about – there is this whole plain where we are active, also jointly with our foreign partners, because there can certainly be public organisations in other countries, as well as honest and decent people who unite in professional communities that do not know state borders. I am referring to healthcare, and environmental protection, protection for mothers and children, maybe, and so on. There are many tracks for this kind of activity. I certainly agree with you. I have always thought, sincerely, and I still think that it is certainly a sensitive sphere that requires precise and clear legal approaches, and an understanding of what is written on paper – and what is being actually implemented. I would like to assure you that I will do everything in my power to straighten out the system if it is getting out of hand.

We need to protect our domestic interests and internal policy from interference, on the one hand, and on the other, to give people the opportunity to work without looking over their shoulder. Let us take another look at this. The heads of the Executive Office can hear us now, and I am sure that the State Duma leaders do too. We will all look at this again. We do not want to stifle or repress anyone, but we want to protect ourselves from interference. Look at what happens in some countries. I will not even go there now, so as not to waste our time and to give others the opportunity to speak. But I have heard you.

<…>

(Kirill Vyshinsky spoke about the discrimination of compatriots abroad, especially in Ukraine and the Baltic countries, about world digital platforms that censor Russian content and the need for regulations that would compel large foreign internet platforms to register as entities in the Russian legal field.)

Vladimir Putin: Mr Vyshinsky, the first idea you proposed is to formulate rules for criminal prosecution for limiting the activities of for taking other illegal actions against our citizens, including journalists, abroad. This is possible, of course. In fact, these laws are in force and are based on an existing legal foundation. But of course, it is possible to create some special standards. How effective would this be regrading those who are doing this abroad? Though it would still be a tool of a kind.

I cannot say that I am ready to start this now, but I understand the concept and agree with you in principle that it may exist.

As for the second part – YouTube and the like, their servers are located abroad and the special services of the countries where they are located are using all this. They use this in competition and are doing so in bad faith. Many people – hundreds of thousands and maybe even millions all over the world, including this country, do not even suspect that they are an object of manipulation.

Needless to say, we must impose all these restrictions if they are feasible, without hurting ourselves. Of course, it is necessary and possible to upgrade the legal foundation, and the work of these organisations on our territory. It is certainly worth thinking about this, and I will instruct my colleagues in the Executive Office and the Government accordingly, by all means. Let me assure you, they are already thinking about this. But it is perfectly obvious that this needs to be done (it is difficult and will require financial investment and time). It is necessary to eliminate our rivals’ technological advantage.

They are using the technological advantage that they have gained over the years. Unfortunately, we did not pay enough attention to this in our country. Now we understand the real urgency and importance of this area of work. As you can see, we are working on the internet and artificial intelligence. We have every chance to make a serious, big leap forward. We will work on this and create new opportunities. This is the main point; this is what we must deal with.

As for a legal foundation, it must certainly be adjusted, I agree. Let me repeat that we will work on this. Thank you for paying attention to this issue.

<…>

(Nikolai Svanidze focused on several high-profile cases, in particular, the case of Alexei Navalny.)

Vladimir Putin: Now, with regard to the above high-profile cases and the poisoning of the well-known person in question. A probe is underway. We simply cannot do this as part of a criminal case because there are no materials. The Prosecutor's Office has repeatedly asked its colleagues to send at least their official findings in writing. By and large, it would be nice if they let our specialists work on the case, which I asked for. They are ready to go to France, Germany, or the Netherlands to talk to the specialists who claim that poisonous agents were found. However, nobody is inviting us. We invited them to come here. They would not come. They do not let us have access to official materials or biological materials, either. What are we supposed to do?

Nikolai Svanidze: Mr President, sorry to interrupt you. But the man almost died.

Vladimir Putin: I know.

Nikolai Svanidze: Can we open a criminal case here?

Vladimir Putin: No, we cannot. If a person almost died, it does not mean that any such occasion can be used to open a criminal case. However, a probe is underway, Mr Svanidze. I asked for this, and the Prosecutor's Office and the Investigative Committee are on it. The materials that are at the disposal of our investigative bodies are being analysed. We are ready to do this.

I have said this to my colleagues many times, and I want to say it to you again. You are aware of it. The high-profile murder of Galina Starovoitova, also a St Petersburg resident. The killers were found, held accountable and put behind bars. The murder of Nemtsov. Recently, I discussed this with my colleagues. There may be certain aspects that need more of our attention, but, in general, everything is clear, the perpetrators were identified, as well as those behind the hit order.

Nikolai Svanidze: The ones who ordered the hit were not.

Vladimir Putin: They were sentenced to fairly harsh punishment. They are all in prison, behind bars.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Svanidze, we are ready to work on this case as well, but will someone give us the materials please? No one can explain why they cannot do so. I asked them, “Why don't you give us the materials? Is it a problem for you to send us a piece of paper, or what? Where is the Novichok? Show it to us.”

Nobody gives us anything. Most importantly, they cannot tell us why. I recently spoke with a colleague and asked him to give me the papers and documents. To no avail. They sent everything to the OPCW. We are willing to meet with them here. Let them come, bring the materials and show us the Novichok.

Clearly, it could be anything. We have had cases of poisoning in our recent history. Let us look into that. Show us what this is. However, nobody is giving us anything. Mr Svanidze, this is the problem. We would be delighted to investigate this case, and do so thoroughly.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: In any case, everything should end on a positive note. During the discussion, one person mentioned our grandmothers, and I tried to protect them by saying that we are proud of our grandmothers and grandfathers. At the beginning of our conversation, someone also said that she spoke with an elderly woman, Natalya Donskova.

I asked our colleagues in law enforcement to find her. They did. You know, everyone in our meeting will keep me honest, so to speak: what happens next is not a trick I had up my sleeve. I want to tell you who Natalya Donskova is.

She was born in Essentuki on September 8, 1923. She is a veteran of the Great Patriotic War; in 1941–1945 she fought on the frontlines and was a medical worker. She was not yet 18 years old when she joined the Red Army and fought the entire war with the 8^th Guards Army. She started her combat career as a rank-and-file soldier and ended as a First Sergeant in the medical service, helping doctors treat wounded and seriously ill patients. Putting her own life in jeopardy, she saved the lives of others and performed surgery. Natalya donated blood dozens of times. She took part in the battles of Stalingrad and the Kursk Bulge, and fighting in Ukraine and in Europe. She entered Berlin with the 8^th army, 88^th division.

Donskova was wounded twice during her military service. By now, she has been awarded 22 medals, including the Medal for Combat Merit, the Marshal Zhukov Medal and the Order of the Patriotic War.

Let us try to contact Ms Donskova and talk to her. Do you have her phone number? Please, dial it. Thank you.

Shall we wait a minute? Who asked me to talk to Ms Donskova? Please raise your hand. Show it on the screen please. We have many images, it is hard to figure out which is the right one immediately.

What is your name?

Galina Osokina: Galina Osokina.

Vladimir Putin: Ms Osokina, what shall we say to Natalya Donskova?

Galina Osokina: It should be said that she is a wonderful woman who lives everyday with this background and these achievements. Let us just simply wish her good health and promise to celebrate her centenary with her.

Vladimir Putin: All right.

Naturally, this is the first time I have seen this biography reference. It is not a big surprise. These are the grandmothers and grandfathers we have.

But hers is a surprising biography. Natalya Donskova was a medical worker and this is so topical today. She fought in the most difficult places: Stalingrad, the Kursk Bulge, Ukraine and Europe. She went all the way to Berlin. This is incredible! Quite a surprise!

(Telephone conversation with Natalya Donskova.) Hello! Ms Donskova, good afternoon. Yes, Putin speaking. Yes, this is I. Ms Osokina said you wanted to talk with me. Yes, I am listening.

Ms Donskova, Essentuki has become so beautiful. Your city has become so nice. Essentuki has become a wonderful city because you and your generation, people like you ensured our victory in the Great Patriotic War, and we have managed to fully use the results of this victory. However, relying on what you have done we must do even more than you did.

I read your biography. It is surprising. We wish you health and all the very best. Thank you, Ms Donskova.

We just had a meeting with the members of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights. We sincerely wish you the best of everything.

You are not just a nurse. You are a nationally merited person. I have now read your biography, the main points. I would like to give you a big hug. All the best to you. Goodbye!

(Addressing the audience.) We must applaud Ms Donskova and wish her all the best. (Applause)

Ms Osokina, thank you for paying attention to this.

I would like to thank everyone for our work today. I will try to respond to what was discussed here today.

All the best to you. Goodbye.

Meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

2019-12-11T00:20:50+04:00

In the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin chaired a meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights, a consultative body that assists the President in exercising his constitutional authority in this area.

Participants in the meeting, held on Human Rights Day, discussed a wide range of issues, pertaining, in particular, to the improvement of the judicial system, support of compatriots abroad, and protection of minors’ rights.

Human Rights Day was established in 1950 by a resolution of the UN General Assembly, two years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, colleagues,

Our meeting is taking place on Human Rights Day, which is widely observed at the initiative of the UN General Assembly.

We had quite a few events today. In the morning there was the opening ceremony at the Human Rights House that brought together human rights ombudsmen from all regions of Russia. I think and I strongly believe, and you will probably agree with me, that they do need our constant support. After all, they are working out there on the ground. Protecting the legitimate interests of people around them is an extremely important endeavour. I think that these efforts can yield tangible results.

Over the past year, the Council, its permanent commissions and working groups, have focused on a number of matters that are relevant to both individuals and society in general. Just as before, the Council has also travelled to other regions to hold visiting meetings there.

The Council now has a new chair, Mr Valery Fadeyev. The rotation of its leadership was a natural process. Mikhail Fedotov served in this position for nine years, longer than any other Council chair. Let me emphasise that he made a major contribution to streamlining the Council’s work.

And this work continues. The public and the media are used to hearing S.P.Ch. [the Russian acronym for Human Rights Council]. However, there is another dimension to the Council’s work that is equally important. I am referring to developing civil society.

I believe that the Council must pay special attention and make additional efforts in this area. I hope that Mr Fadeyev will go to great lengths in his efforts in terms of structuring the Council’s works, its agenda, including by relying on the practices inspired by the Civic Chamber.

Colleagues,

In the past three years, a ceremony for presenting the National Awards for achievements in human rights activity and charity work has been timed to coincide with Human Rights Day. It is of great importance to our society, our country and its citizens.

In this connection, I decided to equate the status of the National Awards in these areas with the National Awards for achievements in science, technology, literature and the arts, for achievements in humanitarian work. This applies both to the amount of the award and the awards ceremony itself.

The Executive Order on the 2019 awards was published today. One of the most experienced members of our Council, Maria Bolshakova, won the human rights award.

She has led the public organisation, Union of Russian Military Personnel Families, for 18 years now and, together with other like-minded people, she provides support to families of service personnel who died in the line of duty.

I congratulate you with all my heart. Thank you very much.

The award for achievements in charity work was awarded to Konstantin Khabensky. The foundation he has established helps children with severe brain diseases and is involved in advanced medical training, equipment supplies for hospitals, and so on. The laureate insignia will be presented on June 12.

The Council must take full advantage of its powers and mechanisms and fully utilise the potential of the standing commissions, of which there are 20, including on promoting NPOs, social, environmental, economic and cultural rights, and civil liberties and civic activism.

By the way, I would like to draw your attention to what is happening in sports, and I would also like to ask you for support.

Colleagues,

The work of the Council and its commissions should be made completely open, and broad contact should be maintained with the media. Of course, people should know what our Council is doing, what issues it raises, how it interacts with the government and civil society bodies and, importantly, what it achieves.

I believe that it is necessary to cooperate more actively with the Civic Chamber and federal and regional commissioners for human, children's and entrepreneurs’ rights. Joining efforts – especially when it comes to pressing issues posed by the people themselves – will, I think, help speed up their resolution.

We must do our best to make sure that people trust the institutions created specifically to effectively uphold their rights and promote civil society.

Thank you. That is all I wanted to say at the beginning.

<…>

Meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

2018-12-12T09:34:55+04:00

The President held a meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights.

The Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights is a consultative body that assists the President in exercising his constitutional authority in the area of protecting human and civil rights and freedoms.

* * *

Speech at the meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues,

Today, we bid farewell to Lyudmila Alekseyeva. I think each of you will agree with me that she was a radiant, courageous and strong person. She fought for justice as her conscience dictated. For many years, Ms Alekseyeva participated in the work of our Council, was among us, did a lot to make the Council an authoritative body, and did a lot for the country. I ask you to honour the memory of Lyudmila Alekseyeva with a minute of silence.

(Minute of silence.)

This is the first meeting of the Council after the planned rotation. Over a third of its members are new. I welcome all of you: colleagues with whom we have been working for more than a year, and those who will find new opportunities for promoting the development of civil society and protecting the rights of citizens here in the Council, which I am very much counting on.

The Council includes prominent people, human rights activists, and representatives of a much younger generation. All of you have proved in practice that you can assert your position and defend the interests of civil society.

I also want to congratulate all of you on a significant date which is the 25^th anniversary of our Council. Your work today is even more significant and relevant than when the Council was created, because today we face new ambitious tasks outlined in the May Executive Order related to the country's national development goals for the next six years.

I would like to emphasise that the main thrust of the reform is improving living standards, developing the economy, science and advanced technologies. Achieving concrete results in these areas must be geared primarily to the benefit of our people. At the heart of all our national projects are people but there is something I would like to add in connection with this. All these efforts to transform the country, the new technologies and the new ambitious projects must, of course, go hand in hand with the development of society and the growing maturity of the state. Of course, while addressing the overall objectives for achieving a breakthrough, we should not allow a situation where individuals with their everyday concerns and needs are forgotten about. The Council’s mission today is to help the government and society keep a close eye on these matters.

Colleagues, the Council always takes a pro-active position whenever there is a blatant violation of the rights of Russian nationals, our compatriots, including in other countries as well. Defending the rights of the Russian nationals wherever they happen to be, in any spot on the globe, is our common task. I expect you to come up with your carefully thought-out and constructive proposals to make our joint efforts here effective.

Next, I would like to say that the key activity the Council has to engage in is facilitating the development of civil society. As a matter of fact, this activity is indicated in the very name of our Council and we have to address quite a few challenges, all the more so as in recent years Russian society has become much more energised while public opinion, with the rise of modern means of communication, is becoming an increasingly potent and effective force.

The Council must remain an open and effective forum for discussing and resolving any issues, including, of course, the so-called high-profile topics. I believe some of these topics we will also discuss today.

Thank you for your attention.

Let us begin our work. Mr Fedotov, please, go ahead.

<…>

Line-up of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights approved

2018-12-03T17:44:29+04:00

Vladimir Putin signed an executive order Approving the Line-Up of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights.

Meeting of Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

2017-11-01T13:09:20+04:00

Vladimir Putin chaired a meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights at the Kremlin.

The focus of the meeting was on measures to implement the State Policy Concept on immortalising the memory of victims of political repression.

The agenda also included issues related to the Council’s activities on ensuring citizens’ environmental rights, in particular, access to information on the environment and the construction of household waste processing facilities.

* * *

Transcript of the meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues.

Today we will discuss topics that are in the focus of attention of the human rights community. I strongly hope that our meeting will be oriented at results, as usual, and that we will take the necessary decisions.

However, I propose that we begin by paying tribute to Yelizaveta Glinka and Daniil Dondurei with a minute of silence. We had no opportunity since our previous meeting to commemorate these outstanding, wonderful people who have done so much for their country and society, as well as for this Council. Their death is a huge loss.

This Council focuses on the most acute issues in various spheres, and it greatly contributes to providing an objective view of the situation with human rights. We need this Council to continue to act as a barometer of the public mood and to give priority attention to matters of concern for the majority of people.

Human rights organisations and the state must work together to ensure full respect for these basic rights so that people are confident that their social rights are protected.

At our previous meeting, we discussed matters concerning non-profit organisations acting as foreign agents. Upon my instructions and in line with the proposals that followed and were articulated by many of you present here, the law enforcement practice in relation to such NPOs has been analysed. Tatiana Moskalkova [Human Rights Commissioner in the Russian Federation] and Mikhail Fedotov [Adviser to the President, Chairman of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights] took active part in this work.

The roster of foreign agents was almost halved, with their number down to 89 from 165, which represents only 0.39 percent of the total number of NPOs registered in the Russian Federation. Also, four times fewer organisations were added to the roster in 2017 than in 2016.

Of course, this would be impossible to accomplish without the non-profit organisations revising their positions themselves. As you are aware, to be taken off the roster, an NPO must either stop engaging in political activities or refuse to receive foreign money. NPOs are quite actively taking the second path.

All the more so since favourable conditions have been put in place, so they do not have to look abroad for funding political activities, but can now get financing in Russia. Over 22 billion rubles have been released to promote NPOs over the past five years within the framework of the presidential grant support programme alone, whereas the annual amount of financing has increased seven-fold.

Colleagues, our meeting is held on the Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Political Repression. The Wall of Sorrow memorial will be unveiled today. Its creation is the result of the Council’s activities, as is the elaboration of the very State Policy Concept to perpetuate the memory of victims of political repression.

The opening of the monument is especially important as we mark the 100^th anniversary of the 1917 revolution. I hope that our society will use this date to close the chapter on the dramatic events that divided our country and our nation, and that it will become a symbol of overcoming this schism, of mutual forgiveness and of embracing Russian history as it is, with all its great victories and tragic events.

I have no doubt that the council will continue to work for the unity of our society, to act as an objective and wise arbiter in overcoming all challenges, even the most complicated.

I would like to give the floor to Mr Fedotov.

Adviser to the President, Chairman of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights Mikhail Fedotov: Thank you, Mr President.

Thank you for your kind words about Ms Glinka and Mr Dondurei. Admittedly, both of them were filled with that spirit of self-sacrifice, and today, on the Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Political Repression, we will cover the subject of victims extensively. They were filled with that spirit of self-sacrifice, which drove many Soviet human rights activists who were actual victims of political repression.

Today, we will all participate in the unveiling of a national memorial. However, has the victim rehabilitation process been completed? Not in a narrow legal sense but in the broad human sense? In the sense of restoring what has been lost? Have all of them got back their manuscripts, their good deeds, and their good name?

For example, Andrei Sakharov was awarded the title of Hero of Socialist Labour three times for his scientific research. However, in January 1980, he was stripped of this title for his human rights activities, and this injustice has so far not been remedied. The 100^th anniversary of the birth of Andrei Sakharov is coming soon, and we have concrete proposals on how to celebrate the anniversary of this great scientist and human rights activist.

In a sense, we are all victims of the political repression of the recent past. An amenability to propaganda, fear of superiors, dependency, and intolerance took root deep within us. ”The disunity of humankind threatens to ruin it,“ Andrei Sakharov wrote.

The disunity of society is just as dangerous. Only by means of a candid dialogue, universal propaganda disarmament, respect for human dignity, solidarity in the face of common threats can we achieve genuine rehabilitation of our society and restore its vitality.

Next year the world will celebrate the 70^th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Our Constitution has absorbed the full potential of the declaration but we are still facing many practical problems. This is why we propose drafting a national plan of action on human rights that would envisage long-term legislative and other efforts aimed at achieving real progress in implementing the full range of human rights. At the same time, it will be necessary to create a mechanism for open public monitoring of the national plan.

This plan should also make room for those who consider themselves victims of injustice – injustice committed by judges, investigators, governors, mayors and heads of enterprises and organisations. At this point, I immediately recall the proposal to establish the institution of independent prosecutor made by Tamara Morshakova at our previous meeting.

Regrettably, this idea was not developed further but the problem of restoring justice cannot remain unresolved. This is why there is an idea to try to approach this problem from another angle. If it is impossible to create the proposed institution, we may try to ensure independence for prosecutors.

This is the reason for the suggestion to give prosecutors the right to open criminal cases when the matter deals with the protection of human rights and freedoms, to act in defence of the rights of citizens in all civil suits of any instance, to have access to all materials of a criminal case during pre-trial investigation, and to give preliminary consent to an investigator seeking an arrest or search warrant from the courts. At the same time, it would be useful to introduce an annual report by prosecutors to the public. To decrease the number of victims, it is necessary to raise donations for their defence.

You have just said, Mr President, that the sum of grants to support NGOs has been considerably increased. This is absolutely so, but I suggest thinking about giving the fund of presidential grants the right to receive and distribute, on a competitive basis, not only budgetary funds but also donations of domestic and foreign corporations that are interested in the development of Russian civil society. This is particularly important for human rights organisations because Russian charities are afraid to support them, while taking money from foreign funds means becoming a foreign agent.

Colleagues, we are pressed for time today. At 5 pm, hundreds of people will be expecting us on Prospekt Akademika Sakharova in the cold wind and rain for the opening of a memorial to the victims of political repression. Among them, there will be many former Gulag prisoners, people who are not particularly young, to put it mildly. Therefore, I tried to keep my remarks as short as possible and I am asking all speakers to do the same or, at least, to stay within the allotted time.

I have another request for you, Mr President. Please make time to meet with the Council again in the spring, so that we could report to you on the results of monitoring the presidential election campaign and take our time discussing that issue without being distracted by other human rights topics.

Vladimir Putin: All right, thank you very much.

Some of our colleagues suggested suspending the broadcast, and publishing a written report, a transcript, instead, but I do not see the point of doing so. Let us continue broadcasting until the end of our meeting.

Usually, we do not limit ourselves in terms of time and spend two to three hours discussing matters here. Today, we will keep it short, so what? Let the broadcast continue, if there are no objections, of course.

Ms Alekseyeva, you have the floor.

Lyudmila Alekseyeva: Mr President,

As a human rights activist with over 50 years of experience, I will speak about what concerns me as a human rights activist. I am referring to the pardon procedure introduced by you, Mr President, in late 2001.

It does not involve too many steps, just three. First, of course, the convicted person draws up a request for pardon, and then gets an opinion from the prison administration.

The pardon request and this opinion are sent to a regional commission for pardons and then, with its opinion attached, to the Presidential Executive Office, which drafts a list of pardons to be considered by the President, who, according to our Constitution, is the only person in our country entitled to pardon convicted people.

Everything is right in your executive order: the procedure is not lengthy, and there is not too much red tape. Regional authorities are in a better position to decide whom to pardon, so it is reasonable to delegate to them the right to look into that matter. However, the Executive Order was issued 15 years ago, and we can already summarise the results of the new procedure.

It turned out, Mr President, that you have, of your own accord, transferred the right granted to you and only you, to members of regional clemency commissions, that is people who you do not know at all. Who are these people?

They are appointed by governors, who send their people to such commissions. These are fairly cushy jobs. After all, when someone is put in prison, that person or their families and friends will do their utmost to get them out of there.

I do not want to say anything bad about members of clemency commissions, or the governors. I have known Mr Belykh, the former governor of Kirov Region, for many years, even back when he was just a middling businessman. We also met after he became governor.

I can vouch for him: he did not take bribes; he is just not that kind of person. However, I do not know anyone from regional clemency commissions, even in Moscow. There may well be corrupt people on these commissions. It is just common sense, since these are very lucrative jobs.

Of course, Mr President, you yourself cannot pick people to sit on the clemency commissions, you should delegate this task to someone. However, you can personally pick the people who make such appointments. These must be people who are well known to you and many other people in Russia, with good reputations, so that neither you, nor our fellow citizens have any doubt about their honesty.

In addition, this work should be a civic service, and be performed free of charge. There is much work to do, but, most importantly, it must be a clemency council under the President. Only you have this right, so do not delegate it to anyone. Gratitude for being pardoned must go only to the President and no one else.

Mr President, despite being confined to a wheelchair, I am willing to join such a council, if, of course, you have no objections. Members of such a council should be known to everyone in our country. I even have a list of people who meet these requirements. It includes actress Chulpan Khamatova, State Duma deputy Galina Khovanskaya, senator Vladimir Lukin who is also the former Human Rights Commissioner, Nikolai Svanidze whom many people know from television, and former Human Rights Commissioner for Moscow Alexander Muzykantsky, to name a few.

Tatiana Moskalkova will help you identify such people better that anyone. She knows such people not only from her current work, but also because she was previously involved in pardon- related matters. She is working selflessly and tirelessly in her current demanding post as well.

A few statistics in conclusion. The former Clemency Commission pardoned 36,901 convicts over five years, from 1996 to 2001. At that time, it included people known by everyone – Bulat Okudzhava, Anatoly Pristavkin, Lev Razgon and Alexander Bovin. After this procedure was transferred to the regions, only 890 convicts were pardoned from 2002 to 2016, that is, in 15 years.

Our people have felt pity for convicts since ancient times, calling them the “unfortunates.” You know, peasants in Siberia even left food for convicts at large in forest warden’s huts. This sympathy for the “unfortunates” has continued to this day despite television, which tries to foment in its audience hysterical hatred for everyone and the entire world.

This hysterical hatred is growing throughout the country – the efforts of television are not in vain. But it does not spread to the “unfortunates.” People continue to feel sorry for them and remember merciful rather than stingy rulers. So Mr President, the abolition of the Presidential Clemency Commission did you a disservice. This is all I wanted to say about the pardons procedure. I will just add by asking you to be a merciful President in people’s eyes. Our people greatly value mercy.

Another subject, very briefly. There is a public association – the Congress of the Intelligentsia. Its members are very estimable people. You will see it for yourself from the signatures under this statement that I will hand over to you. About three thousand people have already signed it. I signed it as well.

Why did we write it? Our Duma passes prohibitive laws like hot cakes. But people are not fools. Residents of Moscow, your native St Petersburg and million-strong cities have stopped watching television or are stopping. They are switching to the internet. At the same time, protests are becoming radicalised among the progressive segment of the nation.

I am not a radical by nature. I do not want radicalisation or for protest sentiments to go underground. I have been for openness my whole life, even if it is dangerous. I want our nation, the entire nation – not only those who do not want to think or cannot think – to respect and love the President we have elected. To achieve this it is not necessary to fool us with television.

Enough with all these bans! We already have more bans than necessary for people to breathe freely. And people should not have to leave the country for that reason. Mr President, it is necessary to change the attitude of the authorities to citizens.

We need to be convinced, not cowed. This is more difficult but this is the only way of normalising relations between the authorities and citizens, especially the thinking part of society. Of course, this is always a minority but it is growing.

Why am I telling you all this, Mr President? You know this without me. Therefore, I thank you for your attention.

If possible I would like to hand over to you my letter about Academician Yuri Pivovarov, a statement by the Congress of the Intelligentsia that I spoke about and another two letters that my colleagues in the Council asked to give you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much.

As for the main issue – the need to improve the institution of clemency – probably, or rather definitely, we should be thinking about this all the time. I do not think that the current procedure is perfect. I believe it was established 15 years ago – in 2002.

Let me recall what kind of time that was. It was a time of great trials for Russian statehood and the bloody events in the North Caucasus. I believe this procedure – more administrative in nature – was needed, considering what I mentioned. It is possible to think about restoring the Council. We must thoroughly analyse the practice of the past few years and make this decision without any rush.

I will not say anything about the concluding part of your speech. You are right. There should be fewer bans and all decisions, state acts and the regulatory base should be aimed at resolving concrete problems. This is understandable.

As for specific issues, for instance, whether the Kirov Region Governor is guilty or not, this verdict must be issued by a court. But would you not agree that his explanation sounds strange: a regional governor takes money from a businessman, in Moscow rather than Kirov, in a restaurant rather than an office, and in currency rather than roubles. All this sounds very strange. This is why I think it is necessary to wait for the verdict without getting ahead of things.

Thank you very much for your proposals.

Mr Svanidze, you have the floor.

Remark: Mr President, I am sorry. Could I say just a few words?

Vladimir Putin: No, just a moment. Mr Svanidze will speak now. Let everyone speak – I am referring to those who signed up to make remarks – and then we will move on to a discussion. I hope we will have enough time for that.

Mr Svanidze, please.

Nikolai Svanidze: Mr President, colleagues,

The report that Mr Fedotov will shortly put on your table is rather voluminous with over 30 pages of summarised facts derived from analysis and recommendations. The rest, which, in fact, creates the volume, are attachments to it. I will explain what the attachments are all about.

The issue is about public rallies, in this case, using the rallies of March 26 and June 12 as examples: on March 26, rallies took place in 61 Russian regions. There were 136 rallies, of which 91 were coordinated with the authorities and 45 were not. This is a serious matter. I will say right away, it is better to coordinate than not.

This, firstly, corresponds to Article 31 of our Constitution. Secondly, we have Federal Law No. 54, and thirdly, the ruling of the Constitutional Court of February 4, 2013. That is, the legal framework is substantive, although it needs to be further developed.

In addition, practice shows us that it is better to coordinate rallies. During rallies coordinated with the authorities, the number of violations and detentions tends to be zero. Both sides should be seeking to coordinate such rallies, but the authorities have incommensurably more resources and capabilities. They have a completely different level of responsibility, and the authorities are held accountable to a much greater degree.

The first attachment to the report includes documents showing a variety of ways to deny coordination of rallies in the Russian regions. There is a wealth of information. Unfortunately, it leads to an unpleasant conclusion that the leadership of many regions, including Moscow and St Petersburg, lacks the desire to coordinate political events.

The reasons for refusal to coordinate abound, including the replacement of tiling in Astrakhan, emergency repairs of the irrigation water pipe, sometimes no reasons at all are provided. You just cannot hold a rally, end of story, as was the case in Belgorod.

In St Petersburg, Deputy Governor Serov publicly stated that he did not intend to and would not provide a spot for an opposition rally. This was about Alexei Navalny’s rally, but is there any difference? Neither the Constitution, nor the laws of the Russian Federation say anything about depriving the opposition of its civil rights.

Most often, a cultural or a mass event are cited as a reason for refusal. Usually, such events invariably take place at the same time and in the same place. For example, in Vologda, an art exhibition named Spring Fantasy was announced just in time to coincide with a rally.

Sometimes the local authorities break up authorised rallies like in the village of Selyatino in the Naro-Fominsk district of the Moscow suburbs on October 7, when people protested against the construction of a waste incineration plant. The rally was dispersed by the police under the pretext that a neighbouring school was mined.

It turned out that it was not. There was not even a signal to this effect. We suggest establishing operational and mediation commissions with the participation of the human rights ombudsman at the relevant level for dealing with all issues linked to approvals or coordination. The aim is to have events coordinated in a face-to-face meeting.

During large-scale events, law enforcement should display restraint and resort to force only in response to physical aggression and violence. No shouts or appeals unless these are appeals to direct violence can be considered grounds for detention. There are violations all along the way – from detention to court.

The number of people loaded into buses is double the number of seats in its enclosed section. They are not given water and not allowed to use the toilet. After being delivered to the Directorate of Internal Affairs, detainees have to wait in a cold bus for hours. Attorneys are not allowed to talk to them and they are not granted their mandatory call to their families. Detainees spend up to 48 hours and more in cells that are not designed for long stays.

Courts are a huge problem. The blocking of attorneys and stamped police reports written by different employees with the exact same mistakes are widespread. This is the second attachment, Mr President. There are many such reports in it and you will get the idea. These reports look like school compositions that slacking students copy from each other.

Court hearings based on accusations take several minutes. For instance, 943 administrative cases were reviewed in St Petersburg in two days – June 13 and 14 of this year. Some were done in less than a minute. Unfortunately, this country has an extensive legal practice in this respect.

It is appropriate to recall this today, on the Day of Remembrance of Victims of Political Repression. I have a personal recollection in this context.

A couple of years before Boris Nemtsov was murdered, the justice’s court of Moscow’s Tver District sentenced him to 15 days behind bars for resisting police officials. I was there when this happened on January 2, 2011. I watched the judge – a good-looking woman of about 28, two riot police officers and eyewitnesses. Nemtsov said to them in a cheerful voice, “Guys, you did not detain me.”

They looked down modestly but their testimonies were accepted, unlike the video footage that showed that Nemtsov did not resist. The latter was not accepted and none of his motions were accepted, either. The result was 15 days behind bars. I think our task is to protect the court from profanation, to restore its authority and trust in it.

With regard to mass public actions, our proposals are given on five pages of the report. It makes sense, if we are speaking about first practical steps, to set up a working group to resolve these problems.

But the most important thing, without which all working groups lose their relevance and all our recommendations are rendered useless, is the desire to abandon repressive police tactics, which contradict the spirit and letter of our Constitution. Dissent is not a crime.

The state must not divide society by encouraging a search for enemies, all manner of fifth columns or agents. This is, in the long run, the responsibility of relevant departments and special services. The state must be the guardian of constitutional values, that is, civic freedoms.

Mr President, we were guided precisely by these considerations when we were preparing the report. That is all. Thank you.

But since I spoke little about justice – and it is a very important issue – I would ask you to give the floor to literally two minutes to a specialist in these matters, my colleague Leonid Nikitinsky.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much, Mr Svanidze.

You have raised a most important issue – freedom must be guaranteed and I fully agree with you, we need to analyse the evolving practices.

We have to constantly analyse them and make appropriate adjustments. No doubt, this refers to the practices of law-enforcement bodies and the judicial system.

The only thing that I would like to bring to your attention– and both you and I understand and know this – is that, unfortunately, some groups of protesters or the organisers of these actions are intentionally exacerbating the situation in order to attract public attention.

We understand that in the current situation it is enough to create some information space on the internet, in the media and so on in order to announce one’s position or criticise authorities at all levels, from municipal to federal.

I can imagine how the authorities go to any lengths to drive all these actions away from the central parts of the cities, especially large cities. But it is also wrong to try to interfere with the normal course of life in large cities, blocking streets and other places and inciting aggression or encouraging aggressive actions.

It seems to me that we need to work very closely with both sides of this process. Your objective was to draw attention to the work of authorities and the operation of the judicial system. Let us see, and not just see, but also think and do something that our civil society and, ultimately, the whole country and all of its citizens will benefit from.

Thank you very much.

You wanted to say something.

Stanislav Kucher: Yes, Mr President. I would like to say a few words on the issue covered by Ms Alekseyeva and Mr Svanidze. Here is the situation.

I do not have the official statistics, but over the past year, some 20 people just from my circle of friends and friends of my fiends have decided to leave the country. Most of them are young people aged between 20 and 35 years, who are not interested in politics, by and large.

They are young researchers, business people and culture professionals. Why did they make this decision? I talked to some of them, trying to bring them around. They claim that they sense an atmosphere of a cold civil war and spreading obscurantism, which they fear will only grow stronger after the presidential election.

Each particular case, including the arrest of Kirill Serebrennikov, the hysteria around the film Matilda, including larceny and threats, the situation with Ekho Moskvy and, lastly, the attack on Tatyana Felgengauer or the case of Yury Dmitriyev, who is being held in pretrial detention right now – if we look at each of these cases in isolation, we can see the culprits and reasons for prosecuting them.

But taken together this creates the atmosphere of hatred that Ms Alekseyeva spoke about. Taken together, this creates a feeling that a campaign is underway against dissenting opinions, even if this is not true and there is a clear reason in each particular case.

Mr Svanidze spoke about the atmosphere of hatred and persecution of dissenters. There is this feeling, which is encouraging many young people, some of them the best of the best, to flee the country.

You said some very important things about mutual forgiveness and the need to unify society. We will soon mark a historical date – they say it happens every 100 years – the centenary of the October revolution, or the October revolt that split the country and resulted in terrible tragedies.

Today you will attend a ceremony to unveil a monument to the victims of political repression. I believe it is a wonderful opportunity for you as the national leader to address the people and to call for unification, which cannot be done without stopping the cold civil war and the hysteria of hatred that can have dramatic consequences for the authorities, for society and for all of us, as I see it.

I am convinced that your call would be heeded by those concerned, including state television channels, which are playing a major part in fuelling hysteria. I do not know how this should be done, and I understand that you cannot just say, “Let’s stop this criminal persecution”, but I am sure that your call or your message will be heeded.

Now is the ideal moment to pardon political prisoners or at least to revise their criminal cases. I believe this would be extremely beneficial for society and for its unification in this anniversary year.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much.

Regarding hysteria, I do not think there is much hysteria around, but there have been some outbursts indeed. But they happen everywhere. Loot at the United States. This is where hysteria is riding high.

Stanislav Kucher: Yes, Mr President, but we live in Russia, and I am concerned about Russia more than about the United States.

Vladimir Putin: With your permission, I would like to finish. That was the first thing I wanted to say.

Second. Look at Europe, with Brexit, Catalonia and whatever else, including terrorism and migrants. That is hysteria. Just look at what is going on there.

But outbursts of hysteria are a normal thing. I do not think they are anything to fear or that we should expect to have a complete lull, which has never happened and never will. As for the need to react to these outbursts, this is where I fully agree with you. We need to reduce the negative consequences of such outbursts as much as possible.

You have mentioned some of them – I will not repeat them now. It may sound strange to you, but I agree with your opinion on some of these cases.

Take Serebrennikov. Is he a politician? Is he being persecuted for taking a political stand? No, it is an unpleasant case of financial abuse. Yes, he is a creative person, an artist. You do not know how many people have appealed to me on his behalf.

What about the deputy director of the Hermitage? Or the deputy minister? By the way, the prosecutor’s office is contesting the court ruling in his case. Should we set all of them free? Let us treat everyone equally.

We have no desire to grab or persecute anyone, but everyone must respect the law regardless of their occupation.

You have mentioned Ekho Moskvy. What does it have to do with this? The culprit is a mental patient, so what does freedom of speech have to do with this case? He came from Israel and attacked this journalist.

Ekho Moskvy is financed by the government– there are no such cases anywhere else in the world. Can you imagine such a radio station in Europe or the United States? Impossible.

Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik are being put on a list that is much more serious than the one we have, with very harsh restrictions imposed on them that are not of the moral or ethical order, but are purely administrative and financial.

This does not mean I disagree with the statement in general, although I do know some people who leave the country. Their number has declined sharply lately. People leaving is not good, but on the other hand, Russia is a free country. There is nothing wrong with moving, with going to work somewhere else, then coming back. Many people are returning now, by the way, including people in the creative professions, and scientists – I regularly meet with them.

I do not want anyone to leave. I think that together, with the help of your recommendations, we will be able to ensure that the most valuable people, those who can achieve the maximum effect in their work, use their potential and achieve personal fulfillment here in Russia.

They should be able to use their potential effectively here. Well, if something hinders that, of course, this is what we are here for. It is our job to figure out what this is.

You mentioned a few things, and I made some notes, but I think you should also understand the arguments I made.

Is there anything else?

Stanislav Kucher: I agree with many, Mr President, to cut it short so everyone has time to speak. Yet, even if that guy was an ordinary psycho, those triggers work faster in every ordinary psycho’s head in an atmosphere of a certain kind.

Vladimir Putin: But he did not even live in Russia! He came from Israel.

Stanislav Kucher: It is in your power to call for that atmosphere to change, Mr President. You can do it.

Vladimir Putin: He is an Israeli citizen, he came from there. What are you talking about?

Stanislav Kucher: That does not matter.

Vladimir Putin: What do you mean, it does not matter? Has he lived in this environment, in this atmosphere as you say, or elsewhere? He lived somewhere else. What does the situation here have to do with it?

Stanislav Kucher: I am talking about what is important, something we are both talking about. I think it is in your power to influence the atmosphere in the country. I think it will be very good if you do.

Vladimir Putin: As far as the general atmosphere is concerned, I think you are right that we should do more about it. I heard your recommendation, and I promise I will think about it. No jokes, no irony, I will think about the best time and situation to do this so that this call is heard by as many people as possible. Thank you.

Mr Bobrov, please, you have the floor.

Yevgeny Bobrov: Mr President,

The Council receives numerous complaints from individuals about the shortcomings plaguing the current industrial and household waste management system.

We held a special meeting dedicated to this topic, as well as several working meetings, including with the participation of international experts. We suggest reforming this branch on the basis of legally established priorities with the participation of the public while taking into account the rights of citizens, to make it civilised.

(Next, Mr Bobrov spoke in detail about landfills and the practice of illegal rubbish dumping, noted the ill-considered location of incineration plants, the absence of hazardous waste collection and of a waste sorting system.)

Mr President, the Council recommends suspending the implementation of the Clean Country priority project in the part related to construction of incineration plants. We suggest refraining from building or launching them until waste sorting and recycling become an established practice.

Instead of building incineration plants, we propose developing alternative projects and building infrastructure for segregated waste collection as well as building recycling facilities for making useful products from waste. It is necessary to raise public awareness about the need for separate waste collection through social advertising and awareness campaigns.

We also recommend that you include indicators on waste sorting and modern waste management infrastructure development in the governors’ efficiency rankings.

It is imperative to create a state non-profit system for monitoring the situation regarding waste accumulation and management, while monitoring these indicators at waste sites, landfills and incineration plants and posting them online for everyone to see.

We recommend making it mandatory for the manufacturers to produce easily recyclable packaging and to accept used items, such as batteries, household appliances, glass, or plastic, for recycling and disposal.

Foods with expiring shelf life, which account for about a third of still usable products, can be quickly made available to the social institutions that need them. Such food is now thrown out.

Despite the fact that land for the construction of the first incinerators has already been allocated, neither the Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resources, nor the public have been informed about their detailed characteristics or evidence that they are not health-hazardous.

(Mr Bobrov cited specific examples of poorly selected land plots for building incineration plants and stressed the need for public hearings regarding such projects.)

The conclusion is that Russia is faced with a choice: either we learn from the civilised countries’ experience and introduce an efficient waste recycling system, or we continue to burn waste and follow in the footsteps of the European countries and the US, which took 20 years to understand that incinerating waste is a deadlock that prevents recycling.

Thank you for your attention.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much.

You said we should learn from the civilised countries’ experience. What is their experience? There are about 1,500 successful waste incineration plants in the world. Some of them are at the heart of Europe’s largest cities such as London, Paris and Berlin.

Even Switzerland, a leader in waste recycling, not incineration, still burns 50 percent of its waste and recycles the other 50 percent. Fifty-fifty – this is their experience for the moment.

Another aspect I would like to single out: you said we should stop building waste incineration plants until we teach the people to sort their rubbish. How can we teach them? How long is it going to take?

You see, this is not an easy task. I admit that only a year ago I thought it could be resolved at the local and regional level. Now I realise that this is not enough and we need efforts at the federal level. Some criticise live conferences but this is the way people can bring these problems to our attention. It is important, and this is why we are now considering this problem at the federal level.

However, it does not mean that I am opposed to your proposals. Not at all. We just need to take a closer look, to consider carefully what you just said. If there is another, more progressive, more environmentally friendly way of waste disposal, better than incineration, we should use it. We will definitely look at it. I promise you.

I fully agree with you that we cannot build these plants and decide on their geographic location without consulting the people who live in the neighbouring areas.

As I said, large European cities have historically had such facilities in direct proximity to residential areas, almost in city centres.

But you are right in saying that we are only beginning to address this issue and therefore we have to be very careful. I will certainly make sure we are.

Thank you a lot for your report.

Mr Borisov, please.

Igor Borisov: Mr President, thank you for giving me the floor.

I have just a few words about the elections. I understand we have a very compressed schedule; Mr Fedotov is ready to hand in a full report with 500 pages of appendices.

For the third consecutive year, we at the Human Rights Council monitoring group have monitored the single voting day. The purpose of our observations is to promote the implementation of the people’s electoral rights. I would like to draw your attention to the legal regulation on our monitoring group, which is perhaps the only regulatory document, which says simply, “Promotion of the implementation of citizens’ electoral rights.”

We can see that even the instructions of the parties that send observers offer no such goal. They contain every other possible reason for observing, from collecting data on violations by the commission to promulgating those violations with official statements to the media. But they say nothing about assisting the electoral system; the monitoring group is the first to do so.

As for the monitoring results, we are observing positive changes in our electoral system in response to society’s demands, which are reflected, among other things, in our reports to the HRC. The procedures for organising elections continue to improve, and objectively we feel that the former distrust (mostly for the Central Election Commission) is fading.

We want this situation to continue expanding to all election commissions (regional, territorial, and local), and this process is gradually moving ahead, as we can see. We would certainly like to speed it up, something we are working on.

Our main conclusion in the run-up to the presidential election is that we do not see any problems for the planned March 2018 election, which will be organised under Russian law and in line with international standards.

But as in any society, there are some people who would like to ascribe negative character to indisputably positive trends, using for this purpose (this is my position) even fake interpreters that try to apply to the electoral system the law of the distribution of apples falling from an apple tree in a bid to explain the election results by various mathematical methods, saying that every electoral district should have the same distribution of votes and blaming the electoral system if this is not the case.

Such patterns exist. We tried to analyse the election of the current US President using the same methods. They do not have normal distribution either, but for some reason nobody is dealing with this issue despite the advanced system and technology in the US.

However, we are reproached for not following the laws of the distribution of the normal fall of apples from an apple tree – they fall on different sides. In other words, we believe this is an impossible attempt to apply a mathematical model to the social behaviour of voters. There are different opinions on the matter and I assume they will be voiced today.

Here are the positive aspects we have noted.

First, Mr President, we have made and submitted to you a consolidated report that was compiled by about 30 various NGOs. We have civil society today in its current form and we have come to common conclusions and have written about 20 recommendations.

Incidentally, I must say that Ms Ella Pamfilova, who heads the Central Election Commission, told us that she has already started implementing the majority of recommendations we mentioned to her, without even waiting for this report. Therefore, our positions on the development of the electoral system coincide and we are very pleased about that.

We have also recorded a steady development of the electoral system. I will repeat that maybe it is not going at the pace we expected but it continues moving forward nonetheless. Urgent issues are resolved through the automation of this process: the use of QR-codes, the opportunity to vote at a location without absentee ballots, and video monitoring that was first introduced at your initiative in 2012 and is being developed. We believe it should be developed and it makes sense to install video cameras at the commission.

Notably, the trend of not removing observers from polling stations has taken root. However, most of the lawyers who have evaluated this regulation believe that it is non-applicable altogether.

During the recent elections there were two instances of removal with only one done in line with the procedure established by the law, i.e., through court. Therefore, we need to think about it and decide whether to actually apply this regulation or repeal it altogether. I am referring to the practice of removing observers from polling stations.

Of course, our report does not claim that our electoral system has become perfect. There were certain procedural violations, and we noted them as well.

Nevertheless, we are saying that the procedural violations noted by our council’s monitoring group did not affect individual electoral rights. That is, we have not observed any incidents to this effect.

There are issues and certain challenges that the electoral system is faced with, which we have also seen and noted in our report.

To reiterate, first, video broadcasting is mandatory. We also note the need to regulate the use of video traffic that comes from polling stations.

Today, this traffic is not regulated. However, in accordance with part three of Article 17 of the Constitution, the exercise of the rights and freedoms of a person and citizen must not violate the rights and freedoms of other individuals.

According to our data — I made inquiries with relevant organisations — please note that 950,000 viewings as of September 10, almost a million, were initiated from international IP addresses.

The question is why are such vast numbers of people interested in watching our elections and recording the voters? How could this be further used in light of today’s technology?

My personal concern is that the images of my fellow citizens end up in the wrong hands, and it is unclear how and for what purposes they will remain there.

Moreover, I am aware of at least one instance where a voter simply refused to go to the polls saying that the place was equipped with video cameras. To reiterate, this is an isolated instance. Still, we can assume that such challenges might be used by those who want to thwart the turnout. For example, they could post online warnings to those who do not want to be in the spotlight with their image ending up in someone's hands, like ”Do not go to the polls; cameras are watching.“

Second, we note the municipal filter’s faulty operation. Clearly, this norm will not apply to the March elections, but we also mention in our report that it needs to be further discussed and finalised. I suppose that the working group in your Executive Office, Mr President, will continue to work on this issue with our participation following the March elections.

Cases of abusing the law have not been eradicated, including during the most recent September 10 elections. Some of them call for amending the law. (Mr Bobrov enumerated some of these issues, such as abuses of the rights of observers and media representatives, as well as anonymity of online complaints about violations during elections.)

The proposals that I would like to draw your attention to are also included in the report.

It is imperative to include public monitoring during elections on the list of activities of socially-oriented non-profit organisations. The issue is simple here: if a country is unwilling to feed its observers, another country will. We are all aware of such instances.

We also suggest that the Interior Ministry and the CEC, in conjunction with our Council, develop more detailed instructions for the police, specifying their rights and duties at the polling stations, in order to avoid provocations.

Mr President, in closing, I would like to say that history moves in a spiral, and we must always learn from our mistakes. Currently, in Russia, ”the matter of prime importance is the emergence of independent forces in society, which would set themselves the task of protecting order and counteracting reckless demands and anarchic fermentation of the minds.“

These are not my words. Boris Chicherin, who was a leading Russian jurist and one of the founders of constitutional law, spoke them over 100 years ago. Today, 100 years later, is probably the right time to recall these words, which he spoke on the eve of the revolutionary events that marked the first two decades of the 20^th century in our country.

Also, Mr President, in closing, I would like to hand you two notes covering what I have just said for further study and possible decision making.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Borisov, I will not go into detail.

Obviously, the work that you and your colleagues are doing is extremely important for civil society, for the state, for all citizens, because the relationship between society and government depends on this; trust in society must be rooted in this, or there can be none.

Therefore, I will not go into detail, but my colleagues and I will certainly look at the results of your work. This is also an occasion to once again turn to the current legislation, to law enforcement practice and to administrative procedures. All this will be analysed.

As for recognising organisations that observe elections as socially-oriented non-profits, it is possible to do this, but not those which are financed from abroad. And the method of financing does not matter: whether these are direct transfers or cash.

If they are financed, they cannot be recognised as socially oriented, because they are oriented towards the interests of another state, if they work in the political sphere. On the whole, I think that everyone is interested in having this type of civic activity based on a solid foundation so it can make its significant contribution to strengthening Russia’s statehood.

As for the fact that images of our citizens and voters are collected by someone and used somehow… It is not that bad, but do you know that biological material is collected all over the country, from different ethnic groups and people living in different geographical locations of Russia? But what for?

They do it purposefully and professionally. We are an object of very great interest. Therefore, what I said in the first part and this is all interconnected. We need to treat it without fear. Let them do it, and we must do what we must. Taking into account your comments, we will arrange this work.

Colleagues, we still have several minutes. So, if someone wants to add something, please, go ahead.

Maxim Shevchenko: Mr President, thank you very much for this opportunity.

You are absolutely right. Russia is a free country and the public discourse here is among the freest and most wide-ranging. I have been to many countries. The passions that run high around these debates are a testament to one’s internal freedom and desire to speak up.

I would like to touch upon one topic that is very popular among young people – the blogosphere. YouTube is developing at a crazy rate and the blogosphere is a manifestation of the carnival-like, free culture of criticism and mockery aimed at those in power and the wealthy, which is traditional for the Russian people as well.

There was recently an egregious case where guys from Kemerovo that are very popular on the internet ridiculed one oligarch. A task force flew from Moscow to Kemerovo, broke into their premises and took their equipment.

It would seem that even if this is a civilian suit and someone is aggrieved, usually an inquiry is made on site or some instruction is issued. I believe this egregious case should be properly assessed. It is important to guarantee people the freedom to speak up, joke, criticise and be Russian citizens in full measure, as guaranteed by the Constitution.

And the second aspect that I cannot fail to mention concerns the rights of inmates in today’s prisons. I would like to recall those who are, regrettably, among the most disenfranchised inmates – Muslims. Every arrested Muslim immediately receives a black mark that says he is almost a terrorist, a member of ISIS, and it is possible to do anything with him.

Human rights organisations do not protect Muslims well enough, and the term “political prisoners” is applied to activists who were detained for 20 to 30 days rather than those who have been sentenced to long prison terms. There is much evidence – I can forward it to the Presidential Executive Office so as not to take up your time now – much evidence that people are not allowed to pray, they are forced to eat pork and have their beards shaved off.

The latest outrageous example is the case of an imam from Khasavyurt, the father of seven who has been sent to a penal colony settlement. Under the article in question, he should not be sent more than 400 kilometres away from the crime scene, but this man has been transferred from Khasavyurt to Omsk.

He cannot take care of his seven children, he has been shaved and before the human rights activists interfered, he could not pray or ritualise, even though this is not a high-security prison. I know that you are a merciful person who has always upheld human rights and constitutional principles. I am asking you to take note of these two problems.

Thank you very much, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: I will need the materials.

Maxim Shevchenko: Of course, I handed them over.

Vladimir Putin: Ok. Both these issues need our additional attention. The first case you mentioned is a complete disgrace. If a task force is sent to deal with a personal disagreement, this may mean that law enforcement officers are at the oligarchs’ beck and call. We need to do something about this, but I do not know the details of this case. We will certainly act on this.

Alexander Brod: Mr President, I have sent you a briefing note, Discrimination against Russian Citizens Abroad. We analysed the situation over the past five years and concluded that Russian citizens have been detained, arrested or deported illegally, that their rights in detention places abroad were grossly violated, and that Russian diplomats, public figures, human rights activists and journalists have been persecuted for doing their professional duties. The paper includes a long list of such glaring facts.

So, the recommendations are the following: to create, maybe at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, a working group that would comprise representatives from the relevant NGOs, as well as lawyers to monitor the facts of discrimination against Russian citizens abroad and propose mechanisms for a legal response and for protection in such cases. We also need to consider methods to support the NGOs that provide legal assistance to Russian citizens abroad and to promote the development of these NGOs’ international activities, including at the UN, the Council of Europe and the OSCE. These NGOs also need to more actively promote contact with partner NGOs and the legal community in foreign countries so as to enhance the effectiveness of legal protection for Russian citizens abroad.

Vladimir Putin: To cut a long story short, I think this is a good idea. I believe that this could be even more effective than the administrative measures taken by the Foreign Ministry in such cases.

Please.

Lilia Shibanova: Thank you for this opportunity.

Mr Borisov talked about elections, but he mostly expressed his own opinion. What can I add in this regard?

In our report, we point out that the main problem at elections is the declining, or more precisely, plummeting voter turnout. The voter turnout of 32 percent at the recent gubernatorial election is considered high.

This is an issue of the biggest concern to society. We are losing the institution of elections because people are not using this tool.

What are the reasons for this? We believe the main reason is minimal competition. The second reason is, definitely, declining public trust in election results. As for decreasing competition, there are many issues that need to be discussed.

These include the revival of electoral blocs for small parties, because the vast number of registered parties cannot take part in elections due to unequal terms compared to the parliamentary parties, which enjoy certain privileges. Electoral blocs were stipulated in past legislation. We believe we should revive this system.

Restoring minimum voter turnout requirements that used to be stipulated by law would also make sense with a 25 percent threshold for local elections and a 50 percent voter turnout requirement for federal elections. This would provide a major impetus to all government agencies to promote the elections. What we saw in Moscow was an attempt to lower voter turnout. The same is taking place in a number of other regions. In fact, only core voters were mobilised while the rest were not even aware of the elections.

There is another issue that you can resolve in no time at all. It is a controversial issue, and there has been a lot of talk about it recently within the election commission. I am talking about video monitoring. It was introduced in the last elections, which was a breakthrough that deserves credit, because with 100,000 polling stations, there was no way to monitor the process in a regular way everywhere.

There is no doubt that video monitoring is a unique tool for understanding what happened on election day and for preventing any speculation. Moreover, this unique tool should not only be used for recording how the vote proceeds, but also for analysing afterwards what was actually going on at the polling stations.

You may remember that last time presidential elections in Astrakhan coincided with the election of the region’s governor, and Mr Shein went on a 40-day hunger strike to obtain video footage and analyse it. There was even a documentary, Hunger Strike in Astrakhan, which can still be found online. Being able to obtain footage after the election is a matter of principle for us, since it would enable us to, number one, analyse what happened and, number two, use footage as evidence in court, so that it can be accepted as such in claims alleging electoral fraud.

This is a major issue. A special hearing was held to showcase our findings for one of St Petersburg’s districts, where one hundred people were involved in carousel voting, meaning that they voted multiple times at various polling stations. The materials were analysed and photo images and video footage were sent to court, which refused to accept it. This is a major issue.

The second important issue for us is election monitoring by non-governmental organisations. Mr Borisov was expressing his personal point of view and no one else’s when he proposed restoring civic chambers in their right to monitor elections. No, this right should be restored for non-governmental organisations in general.

What we want is for election monitoring to be a public, not political, process, which means that specialised non-governmental organisations focused on protecting electoral rights should be the ones to be granted this right. This is the main safeguard against fraud.

Of course, there is no way this issue can be resolved by monitors alone, as I said one year ago. Mr President, you also highlighted this point back then. I would like to raise this issue once again. Apart from election monitors, we need to ensure that election commissions are independent from the executive branch. There used to be a legal provision whereby not more than 25 percent of election commission members could represent the executive. Now we have 50 percent.

Despite Ms Pamfilova’s efforts to address this issue, despite her attempts to use her own methods to change the balance of power within election commissions, it would be better to deal with this situation through legislation. Making sure that election commissions are independent would solve this major issue.

I will finish here, because I understand that everyone here has a lot of things to share.

Vladimir Putin: I am sorry, Mr Fedotov is telling me that we have an event outside, and that people are already waiting for us. Unfortunately, we will have to finish this meeting. I beg for your understanding, but we really need to end it here.

However, I would like to respond very briefly to Ms Shibanova. The points she raised are of course all very important. The drop in the voter turnout is a serious issue. That said, it is not happening just in Russia, but everywhere, unless there is some kind of an upsurge due to a specific political context. Voter turnout in Russia is comparable to other countries.

This does not mean, however, that we should sit back and do nothing. I agree with Ms Shibanova in that we need to work with people to show them that elections matter at any level. We must also ensure competition as a way of making people more interested. This is not just about getting people interested, but about electing better representatives who would be more effective in fulfilling people’s aspirations. This is what matters the most.

As for practical matters, such as the revival or creation of blocs, I do not know that the legislation stipulated them. But of course, we need to seriously consider this matter, to weigh all the pros and cons. You believe that party blocs should be reintroduced, but you also said that this issue should be put up for discussion. So, let us discuss it, and let those who consider this idea inexpedient have their say as well.

We must look how this can help our political system. Will it just increase the amount of idle talk, or will it allow people who represent the minority to receive a place in government, where they will put forth their views and otherwise keep the authorities moving at all levels, from the municipal level to the very top. But we need to seriously consider all the possible consequences.

The same is true about the idea that public organisations should be able to nominate observers. On the one hand, this sounds like a good idea, and I would support it, honestly. But we also need to discuss this with political parties, so as to understand their views on this matter.

As for the video recording of elections, I did not know that somebody requested to see the records and then went on a hunger strike when his request was denied. Frankly, this information has not reached me, for some reason, because it was I who had proposed video monitoring. But I believed that it would be streamed online, and that these records can be stored forever. I do not understand the essence of the problem.

Remark: The courts do not accept these records.

Vladimir Putin: The courts do not accept them? I see. All right, we will have to think about this. Frankly, I did not imagine this could happen. I believed that video streaming can be recorded and that anyone will be able to store or use these records. I see what you mean. Honestly, this is completely unexpected. We will certainly analyse this problem.

Thank you.

Colleagues, I am sorry but we need to go now, for it is very cold. We will meet in December next time, or as Mr Fedotov said, next year. We will not procrastinate. I believe our meetings are very useful. Thank you very much.

I take it that we are headed for the memorial unveiling ceremony now. I am not saying good-bye, because we will meet again very soon.

Meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

2016-12-09T17:08:59+04:00

Vladimir Putin chaired a meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights at the Kremlin.

Speech at a meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues.

It is a pleasure to greet you all here at this meeting, which, by tradition, takes place on the eve of Human Rights Day.

As you know, two new national awards were just presented. I want to express once more my gratitude to the winners, and I want to thank everyone who gives their strength and energy to charity, volunteer and human rights work.

We spoke at past meetings about the need for additional measures to support NGOs with a social focus. The Council’s representatives played a very active part in drafting proposals in this area. The authorities have now approved the needed decisions. I remind you that, starting on January 1, 2017, NGOs providing services of social use will gain access to budget-funded service provision in the social sector for a period of at least two years. This will give such NGOs guarantees for stable activity and, I believe, will have a positive impact on the quality of social sector services around the country in general. Of course, we will need to monitor closely the way these new rules are implemented in practice. I hope the Council will give this matter its particular attention.

Overall, the Council’s work concerns a very broad range of areas in public life, from issues concerning migrants to the environment, protecting people’s rights in labour disputes, and concrete urban development policy issues. There cannot and should not be restrictions of any sort here. People must be able to continue raising the issues of greatest concern to them. We must respond rapidly and sensitively to situations in which people encounter injustice, indifference, formalism, or infringements of their rights in all different areas.

The state authorities and civil society are natural allies in achieving these common goals, the most important of which is our people’s prosperity. A constructive, substantive and respectful dialogue between the authorities at the various levels and civil society representatives is always needed and is without question very useful.

The regional dimension of the Council’s work is particularly important. It is essential to know the real human rights situation in the regions, where problems crop up most frequently in this area. I know that in some cases, the Council acts as an arbitrator in conflict situations, when disputes and differences arise, and in this way helps to restore social justice.

I note too the extensive work of the Council and its monitoring groups during the recent election campaign. Your work together with the Central Election Commission was most certainly very important indeed. There is no doubt that any violations during elections or any attempts to distort the results of voting must be prevented.

Public oversight has a tremendous role to play here. It raises elections’ legitimacy and bolsters public trust in their results. It also helps to identify aspects that require additional legal regulation.

I hope that you will continue your work to protect people’s electoral rights and your cooperation with the Central Election Commission during the election campaigns ahead, including in the regions.

I must mention another aspect of the Council’s work – your efforts to immortalise the memory of victims of political repression. We must learn to accept our country’s past as it is, remember the glorious pages, and not forget the tragic pages in our history. You might have noticed that I spoke about this in my Address [to the Federal Assembly], and I repeat it now: history’s lessons should not divide us, but should unite us and help us to preserve civil peace and harmony.

I hope very much that today, as in the past, we will hold a substantive discussion of the matters that require additional attention from the state authorities and require measures. As always, I am sure that you have your own initiatives and proposals on these many issues.

Thank you very much for your attention.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: Colleagues and friends, I am grateful to you for today’s discussion. It was very informative and interesting.

Mr Fedotov [Chairman of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights] said to me in a low voice, “I can see you find it interesting. Why don’t you stay a bit longer?” I would love to stay longer because it is not only interesting but also useful. None of the speakers has made me disagree. True, we need to think some things over, debate some others, but generally, the discussion is very focused and seeks to make our lives better and fairer, make them more fairly structured, most importantly. Let me thank you for this. We will try to work on all of it; though some things do not always work out, we will do our best. I hope we will work together with you because the proposals that were sent here in writing will most likely require your further consideration as well.

In conclusion, I would like to congratulate you on the upcoming holidays. There are quite a few of them coming, and I wish you all the best. Thank you.

Meeting of Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

2015-10-09T16:45:21+04:00

Vladimir Putin held a meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights.

Excerpts from transcript of meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues,

I would like to begin by thanking you for your extensive and substantive work. We have had a detailed discussion with Mr Fedotov [Presidential Adviser, Chairman of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights] of your projects, your work, the difficulties you had and what you have managed to achieve. I am happy to say that you covered a broad range of issues in a variety of areas: education, healthcare, environmental protection, human rights and a number of matters pertaining to the judicial and penitentiary systems. I would like to specifically note your efforts to support refugees and ensure their rights. Primarily refugees from southeast Ukraine.

It is important that the Council’s activities covered not only the capital and major cities, but small towns and settlements as well. You travel to the regions regularly to get to know the situation there. This gives you an opportunity to have a direct exchange with your colleagues and, most importantly, maintain a live direct dialogue with the citizens.

The efficiency of such an approach is obvious. I suggest that today we discuss the results of this work, the proposals that have come up and consider your further action.

Every year a growing number of our citizens join charitable and socially significant projects. Ever more people are trying to become part of various public initiatives. This growing civic awareness is important and needs to be supported.

I would like to stress that the state will continue to pay special attention to the development of human rights and civil society institutions. We have discussed financial matters as well. We all know that we have plenty of problems with the economy in general and with the budget. But we will nevertheless try to maintain a number of programmes that have been launched and are working efficiently. This applies to grants in the first place. In 2015, they will amount to 4.2 billion rubles. There are some regional grants, an area where you and your colleagues manage to work directly with the people. We have agreed to work this out with the Finance Ministry.

Following the results of three contests, non-commercial organisations from 78 Russian regions have already received grants, including in new areas of activity. I would like to remind you that starting from 2015, the list of areas where grants are issued was extended to include such spheres as labour rights protection, search and support for gifted children and young people, and assistance to people with disabilities and pensioners.

Overall, it should be noted that the role of socially oriented organisations, the so-called third sector, is growing all over the world. Russia is no exception here. Today we have over 670,000 people working in non-commercial organisations. Given the existing demand, this is not the limit.

This demand does not only come from those who need support or care. Every year a growing number of our citizens join charitable and socially significant projects. Ever more people are trying to become part of various public initiatives. This growing civic awareness is important, of course, and needs to be supported. This support, as we have discussed, should include encouragement and special notice to those who for many years have been setting an example of sincere and dedicated service to the people. With this in mind, we have resolved to set up an annual National Award of 2.5 million rubles for outstanding achievements in charitable work.

The institution of volunteering and patronage should receive a proper assessment from the state. The same goes for efforts aimed at protecting human and civil rights and freedoms, at strengthening and developing civil society institutions.

Charity, as we all know, is a special type of activity. It does not expect to be rewarded. Overall, this lofty and dignified cause is part of our national tradition, an inseparable part of any civilised society.

However, voluntary help to people around you, the very institution of volunteering and patronage should receive not only broad public acclaim, but also a proper assessment from the state.

The same goes for efforts aimed at protecting human and civil rights and freedoms, at strengthening and developing civil society institutions. Here we have also established a Russian Federation National Award to be presented annually for outstanding achievements in human rights activity and in the same amount as the one for charity.

We are close to implementing another project we discussed earlier and also today with the Council Chairman. This has to do with opening in Moscow of a memorial to victims of political repressions. This is one of the most bitter and difficult pages of country’s history. However, it is just as educational as are the victories and triumphs, and it requires fairness and responsibility as it teaches the current and future generations a very important lesson.

The State Museum of GULAG History held a contest, and some of our colleagues from this Council were on the jury. Of 336 projects, different in idea and design, one was selected with a very concise and meaningful title – the Wall of Sorrow. The memorial is to be erected at the crossing of Sakharov Prospect and Sadovo-Spasskaya Street. I find it symbolic that it will be financed not only by the state, but also through donations.

The role of socially oriented organisations is growing all over the world. Russia is no exception here. The state will continue to pay special attention to the development of human rights and civil society institutions.

I would like to note that the fact that an enormous number of people are willing to be involved in commemorating the victims of repression confirms the timeliness of this idea. It also shows that the people are not indifferent to preserving our common historical memory.

This is a very positive and essential thing. Respect for one’s history, the desire to learn about one’s country, to save and create monuments are all evidence of a mature society and state, which means they are capable of further development.

Let us now proceed to our agenda.

<…>

(Regarding Syria) I dwelt in sufficient detail yesterday on what motivated our actions – other countries have been carrying out airstrikes on Syrian territory without a UN Security Council resolution or a corresponding request from the official Syrian authorities for over a year now. We have such a request and we intend to target terrorist organisations specifically.

As for media reports that civilians suffer, we are prepared for such information attacks. I would like to draw you attention to the fact that the first reports about civilian casualties appeared before our craft were airborne. This does not mean, however, that we should not pay heed to such information. This is exactly why we are establishing contacts between our special services and those of the US and between the Defence Ministry and the Pentagon. This work is underway. I hope it will result in the creation of some permanent mechanism. Meanwhile, we have set up another mechanism – and international one – in Baghdad, which involves several regional countries, and there is a constant information exchange underway there.

<…>

(Regarding human rights organisations, non-commercial organisations, and the law on foreign agents) An overwhelming majority of states, almost all in fact, have a rule that forbids funding internal political activities from foreign financial sources. What I do agree with is that the term ‘political activity’ should not be vague, or stretch like rubber, but it should have a uniform definition. If the term is not precisely defined, representatives of the authorities, the Justice Ministry or anyone else, should not try to make it cover anything they like. I agree that we need to consider this. Mr Volodin [First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office] here is saying that corresponding proposals will be made within the next three months.

Regarding the proposal that we should turn to our philanthropists, to financial organisations and to private businesses for support. Ms Alekseyeva [Chairwoman of the Moscow Helsinki Group] said that in the past, when they were only starting out, there were no other sources of funding but foreign ones, this is true and this is understandable. However, we cannot say that we do not have such sources today. This year we have allocated 5 billion rubles for these purposes. Of course, there is never enough money, and 10 or 25 would have been better, but we are doing what we can. Previously, as you may know, we did not allocate any money at all.

Now about the philanthropists and businesses. I fully support this call and believe that all of us together, and I personally should appeal to them right now publicly. I hope the media will spread this information. I am addressing all our citizens, all businesses and associations to assist non-commercial organisations, including human rights organisations in every way possible. This would definitely benefit the development of civil society.

<…>

(Responding to a statement by Yevgeny Yasin, Academic Supervisor of the National Research University Higher School of Economics). As for raising the role of the state in conditions of a crisis, we all know that even in the most developed markets, with market infrastructure and market economy, the role of the state during a crisis increases. It always happens. We observed it in 2008–2009. There were actually direct appeals for this from the parliaments. And not only appeals – the governments reacted to them.

Incidentally, we did not go for this during the 2008–2009 crisis. I believe you know this, but I will say it again. CEOs and owners of our major businesses would come to ask me to take their businesses for a ruble. Why? The responsibility was great. We did not do it; we offered them help and support, including buying out their debts to foreign creditors. We got everything back with a profit and retained private businesses and a market economy. We do not intend to nationalise anything now either and do not intend to create state capitalism. Moreover, we are even ready to make certain steps towards further privatisation of our major companies. This always raises the issue of not selling cheap. It is not even all about the money received, but about creating a certain economic structure

The most important thing we are trying to do now is to de-bureaucratise the economy and expand the free economic space, reduce all sorts of administrative pressure on the part of the state: legal, judicial pressure, any kind – to protect the entrepreneurs’ rights. As you may know, we have set up a number of structures that are working efficiently, such as the Agency for Strategic Initiatives, and we work directly with business communities and work out all these decisions together. We may not be successful in everything, but in certain things we are, putting it mildly, successful and we are making certain progress.

As for Mr Guriyev, I do not know why he fled; nobody made any claims against him. I think he did not run anywhere; this is just because his wife works abroad, so he found a job abroad and left – they pay him better there, that is all. Besides, these things always look better when they come with some political stand; I think that is the reason. If he decides to return and work here, he is only welcome. He is a smart man and a very good expert – this is true, this is why he probably found a good job, it is also obvious.

<…>

(On compliance with the Minsk agreements) There are things that cannot be interpreted from the left or from the right. There are things that have a single definition. Suppose, one of the items of this agreement says: 30 days after the execution of this document a law on special status should take effect. The law is there, 30 days have long passed. The law is there, but it has not been enacted. All it takes is to sign the law on amnesty, it is there, it only needs to be signed by the president. There is no signature. The same goes for many other issues.

The key issue is a political settlement. What does that mean? The main component of the political settlement is amending the Constitution. This is a search for compromise, but what does it say? Upon agreement with Donbass. There is no agreement. The most pressing matter now is elections. What do the Minsk agreements say? Under Ukrainian law, but with agreement with Donbass. Donbass sent their proposals three times, there is no dialogue. The Rada passed the law, but the law says not to hold elections on the territories of the Lugansk and Donetsk people’s republics. So what should they do? Now they say they will hold the elections on their own.

A solution to this crisis, unfortunately, is still far away, but there are things that let us hope that the crisis may be overcome and, most importantly, there is no shooting today. We will hope that the dialogue between these unrecognised republics and the Kiev authorities will be positive and the main condition for any compromise will be met, the main condition being direct dialogue. We will insist on this and count on the goodwill of both sides.

<…>

I would like to thank you all for the work you have done over the year. As I have said, Mr Fedotov and I have discussed all the areas you operate in. And you are doing it not because we meet here in the Kremlin every once in a while, but because this is what your conscience, your heart tells you to do. I would like to express my gratitude and wish you success.

Thank you very much.

Instructions following a meeting of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

2015-03-20T17:59:08+04:00

Vladimir Putin signed a list of instructions drafted following a meeting of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights on October 14, 2014.

The Government, together with international public organisation Spravedlivaya Pomoshch [Fair Help], has been instructed to organise and finance medical aid, including high-tech medical aid, for children in Ukraine affected by the armed conflict in southeast Ukraine or unable to receive the necessary medical assistance because of the conflict.

The Government has also been instructed to present proposals on provision of temporary shelter, Russian Federation residence permits and citizenship to Ukrainian citizens who received higher or secondary professional education in Russia in 2014 or will receive such education in 2015, and have expressed the desire to remain in Russia.

Instructions to the Government also concern the legal status of journalists working in armed conflict zones and situations and measures for their social support.

The Government also received instructions concerning support for non-profit non-governmental organisations taking part in work to develop civil society institutions and carrying out projects of social importance, the legal status of films that have become part of the national cultural heritage and ensuring the public’s free access to such films, and compliance with environmental protection law at the Wrangel Island national nature reserve.

The Government, Presidential Executive Office and Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights jointly received instructions to draw up a draft concept for state policy to immortalise the memory of victims of political repression and prepare the needed legislative amendments.

The Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights has been instructed to organise public discussion of proposals for improving criminal penalties for corruption-related crimes, propose improvements to the institution of pardons, and draft proposals for holding a civil society forum of the BRICS countries in 2015.

The Foreign Ministry, Russian Human Rights Commissioner, and the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights have been jointly instructed to draft proposals on holding an international human rights forum to examine ways of improving international legal mechanisms for protecting human rights and freedoms.

Meeting of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

2015-03-20T17:59:12+04:00

Vladimir Putin chaired a meeting of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights at the Kremlin.

Excerpts from transcript of meeting of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues.

I am happy to welcome you to our traditional meeting, which is taking place on the eve of the Council’s tenth anniversary.

I would like to begin by saying that in these years the Council has truly become an important instrument for protecting human rights in Russia. It has a very broad range of responsibilities: from performing a general analysis of the situation with human rights in the country and making recommendations to the head of state to providing assistance in specific cases when citizens need protection.

All human rights and freedoms are of supreme value, and this is stated clearly in our Constitution. Represented on our Council are many influential organisations, whose members are authoritative experts on human rights and political freedoms. I would like to begin this meeting by saying that I find it very important that the Council members and their organisations manage to find such a balance between their various activities, between political freedoms, voting rights and social issues.

At the previous Council meetings last year and this year we considered ways to ensure people’s rights to accessible housing, healthcare, the support of young families and orphaned children, issues of domestic violence, the reform of the penitentiary system and so forth.

I am certain that we need to continue this well-balanced work in the future. Unfortunately for the state, it sometimes happens that in the final count a citizen can only rely on people who are doing this work out of idealism and have no ties whatsoever to any official organisations.

The state will continue its support of civil society institutions, it will help them to implement their socially and politically important projects, including by providing funding. In 2013, 2.7 billion rubles [over $66 million] were allocated for this purpose from the federal budget, while the plan for next year is about 4.7 billion rubles.

I would like to touch upon another acute issue, one that can leave none of us indifferent – I am referring to the developments in Ukraine. We have all been following them lately. These developments have revealed a large-scale crisis in terms of international law, the basic norms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. We see numerous violations of Articles 3, 4, 5, 7 and 11 of the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of Article 3 of the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of December 9, 1948.

We are witnessing the application of double standards in the assessment of crimes against the civilian population of southeastern Ukraine, violations of the fundamental human rights to life and personal integrity. People are subjected to torture, to cruel and humiliating punishment, discrimination and illegal rulings.

Unfortunately, many international human rights organisations close their eyes to what is going on there, hypocritically turning away. Meanwhile, look at what is happening now, in the course of the election campaign – and this has to do with voting rights – do we not see it? Those in disagreement are beaten up and humiliated all the time. What kind of democracy is it that is being imposed on this territory?

I know that Council members here have assumed an honest position on this matter; they travelled to the sites and helped those who found themselves in a crisis, sometimes at an impasse. I would like to thank you for this and say that we will support this activity. However, I would like to call on you to be careful – I am referring here to your personal safety as well. This is something I would like to talk about today and to hear your assessments of.

This is all I wanted to say as an opening.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: I would like to briefly respond to what was said here, and then we can have an exchange on these or other issues.

Let us begin with the most pressing, most widely discussed issue – the developments in Ukraine. I fully agree that we need to demilitarise public awareness. However, primarily, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the authorities are not doing this on purpose: first, they are not consciously demilitarising awareness; second, this is very hard to do unilaterally. This takes some goodwill on both sides.

You know, the media has shown over the past few days – today and yesterday – they are celebrating OUN-UIA, this nationalistic, pro-fascist organisation; it is practically an official celebration in Ukraine accompanied by calls for reprisals against representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchy. All this while the Patriarch is doing everything to stop the fratricidal conflict. The Patriarch himself and other Church Primates are doing so much and are being attacked: 18 churches have already been taken away and believers are chased out of churches.

Where are the human rights activists regarding the right to religious worship and freedom of religion? There is almost total silence here, by the way. Not a word, as if nothing is happening, while this is very serious. People are being chased out of churches, beaten up and humiliated and their property is taken away. Therefore, this needs to be done. We should move in this direction because, first of all, one cannot look at what is going on there without tears, and second, the greatest tragedy is unfolding in front of our very eyes.

The greatest tragedy here is the alienation of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples. This is the worst thing. Regardless of all the issues we are facing today, we need to find ways to overcome this. However, I would like to repeat that this has to be done jointly with the Ukrainian authorities. This is the first thing I wanted to draw you attention to.

Regarding the questions that were raised here. Of course, we must and we will help the children and adults who have found themselves in a difficult situation. You know this is not easy. You saw with your own eyes how when we brought some of the children whom we could only help here, we were immediately accused of kidnapping them. These accusations were made several times. I believe some of the children were returned after they got help. If a person does not want to return, we cannot force them and will not do it.

The same goes for medications and food that people in the southeast of Ukraine need so much. You have also seen this for yourselves. We simply could not reach agreement with them on humanitarian convoys to the area. They found all sorts of excuses not to let us in. I will not go into the details of these negotiations. However, we were forced to simply send out the convoys on our own. We let the Ukrainian border guards and customs officers cross over to our territory to inspect the cargo, and they just sat there. They did not inspect the goods. So why were they sitting there?

The Red Cross worked on and off, because they have specific regulations for situations when a country where they propose to perform certain actions does not take part, they don’t not take part either. What are we to do? Where are the medications and food? Should we simply let people die there?

These are all very complicated issues having to do with various aspects, both legal and humanitarian. I am certain that in this case the humanitarian aspect is more important. We cannot sit and watch people die of hunger and cold, as you said here, or without medications and medical aid. Meanwhile I’ve heard complaints about this from our Ukrainian colleagues, as well as from the Europeans and Americans. This is strange, but it is a fact. It is simply incredible, but it is a fact. Nevertheless, we will continue to work patiently with everyone to resolve all these issues, but we should resolve them by agreeing on joint efforts rather than through confrontation.

Now regarding those who would like to obtain refugee status. We will of course work this out. The same goes for funding. We need to fund the humanitarian aid and the accommodation for those who would like to stay. The Government has received corresponding instructions and we have already reached agreement. We will either issue an executive order or amend the law, but we will make the funding available.

Over to gratitude to our employees. This is their work. I will hug and kiss them all. This would be enough for a start. However, we should wait until we see the results. We have to judge by the results. If there is anyone the state should reward, it is primarily people like you. As for those for whom this is just a job – we will not forget them, but we will assess the results.

Regarding those in Ukraine who refuse to provide aid or pay allowances. There is nothing we can do about this. I can tell you in this connection that here too bureaucrats do not always do their job properly in certain situations, while in Ukraine this is even more complicated, and there are all sorts of people there. However, if some bureaucrat, as you mentioned, said that Kramatorsk or some other city is not really Ukraine – well, that person is a fool to boot. Not only did he fail to do his duty, but he is also committing a crime against his own country by knowingly cutting its territory. I do not know if anyone authorised him to say so, but I think this is foolishness. There is nothing we can do about this. What can we do? As I have already said, we can and will render aid and support, and I would like to reiterate that we will try to do this not unilaterally, but jointly with the Ukrainian authorities and the people who live in the southeast of Ukraine.

Now over to the legal issues pertaining to providing advanced medical assistance to people without citizenship. I was not aware the problem even existed. We will try to amend the legal base as much as possible to rule out such obstacles.

Regarding university graduates who would like to stay, who do not wish to return to Ukraine because of the situation there — this is understandable. I also agree on this and we will help them.

Now over to another issue that was mentioned today. Despite all the problems that draw our attention to the developments in Ukraine, that attract public attention, we should never forget our own issues dealing with society and the state in the social, political or any other sphere. Corruption remains a grave issue. We should never forget our own problems and deficiencies. Therefore, all the proposals made here will be at least considered, while we should also try to jointly organise this work.

You spoke in favour of stepping up criminal action against corruption; I am not against it but this needs to be discussed with public organisations, including your colleagues who are present here and represent other areas of human rights, and with experts. In general, I am in favour of increasing penalties for corruption. Of course, we need to remove all loopholes in the regulatory framework in order for all the decisions made earlier to function effectively. And they must not just work effectively, but simply work, period. We need to ensure that everything functions. So I agree with you that we need to conduct such a comprehensive audit along this track. Of course, you yourself mentioned the Popular Front; colleagues there also have certain proposals. Let’s do this together with you, the Russian Popular Front, the public, and government agencies. This will certainly be useful. And let’s see how the work is currently organised and what will need to be done in addition. If we all come to the conclusion that we need to increase liability for these cases, let’s do it. Some things, perhaps, might even be excessive, in my view; I am referring to the possibility – or the impossibility, so to speak – of amnesty and so on for this category of individuals. But if the human rights movement feels that we even need to cancel amnesty provisions for these types of crimes, I suppose we could move in that direction; but I still think that’s excessively strict. However, if you think that needs to be done, let’s do it.

And now, with regard to the victims of political repression. Of course, it’s strange that here in Moscow, the issue of memorialising these victims has still not been resolved. We need to do it, of course. As for the federal targeted programme, at first glance, it certainly appears somewhat comical. When Mr Medvedev was President, he supported it, and later, when he became Prime Minister, the Cabinet turned down these proposals. You know, this is a manifestation of the omnipotence of bureaucracy. There is a certain bureaucratic logic, and it is not at all Mr Medvedev’s fault. I am sure that he is all for focussing attention on resolving these problems.

The point is that there is an established opinion prevailing in the depths of various departments that we cannot endlessly expand federal targeted programmes. Also, there are certain matters that require particular attention and could be best implemented in particular areas: in education, culture and so on. So the goal is not to forget this topic and completely dispose of it, but rather, how to best organise this work. The differing opinions are in conflict with one another. But this does not mean the idea of the federal targeted programme itself is entirely dead; let’s come back to this and think about it together.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: As for the Petersburg Dialogue [the Russian-German public forum], the German side’s logic is that under modern conditions, given our complicated relations with Europe, in order to save the Petersburg Dialogue, it is better to postpone it so as not to harm the process itself. After all, the Petersburg Dialogue was conceived as a platform for interaction between the two nations’ civil societies. Thus, this is a method for finding solutions to existing problems, but that is the logic of our German partners. Well, I suppose there is a rational element to this. If you have a different opinion, go ahead, you can discuss it with your colleagues, including your German colleagues.

chairman of the Council For Civil Society and Human Rights Mikhail Fedotov: Mr President, going back to the topic of the Petersburg Dialogue. When two nations have good, friendly relations, instead of a dialogue, you can simply go to a pub, have a beer and talk about this or that. But when the situation is tense, when the situation is complicated, that is when dialogue is crucial. How else can we talk, if not in a dialogue format?

Vladimir Putin: I will tell Madame Chancellor this; I will see her in a few days in Milan and we will talk.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: (addressing Nikolai Svanidze, who mentioned problems concerning the Crimean Tatars in his remarks) Thank you very much for bringing this issue to our attention. I think that you, I and all objective observers realise that in modern Russia, thank God, there are and cannot be any problems with the Crimean Tatars. There simply are no problems. Decisions such as those that we have made were not taken when they were part of Ukraine. These decisions are of vital importance for the people living there. First of all is the decision on rehabilitation. This is important for people because they do not want to feel like some kind of criminals. They want society to apologise to them. The rehabilitation decision has significance in this sense too in that it is a way of apologising to them. We were not involved in the decisions made back then [the deportation of the Crimean Tartars], but we nonetheless have the right to make our decisions today. We had a duty to do this and we have done so. This is my first point.

Second, as you mentioned, the Crimean Tatar language never had the status of an official language. Now, when official events take place, such as the planned population census, everything will be in the Crimean Tatar language too. This is a fundamental right of our citizens and we will ensure this right is protected.

But regarding the incidents you mention, any incidents must be investigated thoroughly of course. I thank you for bringing this to our attention. This is the first time I have heard about cases of people disappearing.

Nikolai Svanidze: There are cases of people disappearing and direct abduction of individuals by people without any identifying insignia.

Vladimir Putin: It’s hard to understand who could be doing this and why. I don’t understand this at all. What I do know for certain is that we will do what no one previously did for the Crimean Tatars. One of their biggest problems was getting legal recognition of their property and land rights. This is a key issue and we will help them here. We are taking steps to meet their needs.

There are some purely economic and legal problems there, but we will find solutions and not simply leave the situation suspended. Nothing was ever done there to provide normal everyday living conditions for people. We have approved a programme, are making the funds available, and will carry this out. This work involves building kindergartens, medical centres, developing infrastructure and so on. None of this was done before. People arrived and settled where they could. This was essentially squatting, but at the same time, you cannot deny people the right to live on the land where their forebears lived. All of this needs to be put in order and given legal recognition. We have no desire to drive the situation into a dead end. On the contrary, we want to resolve the problems.

But let me note too that we also must remember that the Crimean Tatars share this land with Greeks, Ukrainians, Germans and Russians. This is a very sensitive issue. Not everyone there shares the same views on what is happening with respect to these matters. We cannot do anything that would provoke any sort of interethnic tension. This is a very delicate matter. The threats that exist are not just idle talk but could be very real in the midst of all this situation, and so we must be very careful in our actions. At the same time, we will certainly support the people involved, except for those who call themselves representatives of the Crimean Tatars but in reality are pursuing different goals. There are people who have long been involved in human rights work and defending the Crimean Tatars’ interests, but who have kept their Ukrainian citizenship and are deputies in the Rada [Ukrainian parliament]. They take part as representatives of Ukraine in international events held in other countries, while at the same time claiming to speak for those who live in Crimea and have taken Russian citizenship. This is all a complicated mix of issues. I hope these people will not speculate on their past, their very noble past in some cases, to look after themselves personally now and tomorrow. At the same time though, we are willing to hold contacts with them and try to make some progress.

I am grateful to you for bringing this issue to my attention. Some of these things really do need looking into.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: We would be equally happy to help not only the Crimean Tatars but also the Germans, Armenians and all other peoples who lived there [in Crimea], were deported and suffered. I think that we should do this, but, if you’ll excuse the bureaucratic jargon, I think this should be part of our routine ongoing work.

I worked on the issue of resettling the Germans back when I was still working in St Petersburg. We built whole villages there as part of a joint programme with Germany. In this case we were dealing with Germans returning from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and other Central Asian republics and from other regions. We built these villages and I hope they are still functioning now. I am familiar with all the different aspects involved as I have practical experience with this matter. The big issue is the cost of course. I hope very much that we will finally sort this matter out, taking the position that we have some moral obligations that we have to fulfil despite the never-ending budget constraints.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: I want to say that this meeting has not been in vain. We have not managed to achieve all of our objectives, as you noted, but you also noted that some progress is taking place. We will continue our work together to ensure that we achieve more of what we plan, raise our results. This is very useful and also of great interest. I hope very much that the various matters we have discussed today will be followed up and addressed in proper fashion. I promise you that we will certainly give these matters our attention: interethnic relations, electoral rights – we will of course keep analysing this, and the political and material aspects of our life.

<…>

Stanislav Kucher: My question is a simple one. Many people I spoke with yesterday, who knew I would be at this meeting, asked me to put it to you. Mr President, do you plan to change this system in which everything depends solely on you? And if yes, then how?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, I think you are mistaken. It’s a very common view that everything depends solely on the President, but this is not the case. Many matters are decided without the President’s involvement and come under the responsibility of the various bodies that take the corresponding decisions. This concerns the Government, the courts, and the law enforcement system, and also the regional authorities. This is all the more true of local government, where the state’s involvement is defined entirely through the legal base, and direct intervention would be of little or no help at all in achieving anything there. But many colleagues want someone to be the one who ultimately bears all the responsibility, and so I end up often playing this role.

I don’t resist, because in the end, we all bear our share of responsibility even for what would seem to be not part of our direct jurisdiction. This is true of any country and not just Russia with its well-known historic traditions. For everything to work smoothly and not depend on the people at the top, we need to improve the institutions of civil society, improve our system of democracy, eradicate corruption, which we spoke about today, improve the work of the courts and the law enforcement system and of public administration in general. Our public administration’s quality of work has to improve radically, and discussions such as this one today can help with this, as can the subsequent decisions that we will certainly implement together with your help.

Thank you very much.

Working meeting with Chairman of Human Rights Council Mikhail Fedotov

2015-03-20T17:59:20+04:00

Vladimir Putin had a working meeting with Presidential Adviser and Chairman of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights Mikhail Fedotov.

Mr Fedotov briefed the President on the Council's work since May 7, 2012, and also spoke about its current activities.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr Fedotov, you wanted to talk about your recent work and its results. Please, go ahead.

chairman of Presidential Council For Civil Society and Human Rights Mikhail Fedotov: Mr President, I want to start by giving you a report on the Council’s work over the two years since you assumed Presidency on May 7, 2012. This brochure talks about what the Council has done in these last two years. We have two Council-related events on May 7, because on the morning of May 7, your predecessor and colleague Dmitry Medvedev signed instructions concerning the work of the Council, and several hours after your inauguration, you signed your May executive orders, which included more instructions to the Council. And today, I can tell you what we have done in this respect.

To be honest, not much has been accomplished because we were unable to do many things. And in this brochure, we give a kind of mini-summary of our work. In our work, we are trying not to fall behind our civil society and its development – we do not want to fall behind so that we are on time to provide help. And that is why we face a large number of very serious and very diverse issues.

I will tell you about the issues we have been dealing with in the last month alone. They include affordable housing – we have worked on this in Vladimir, in Vladimir Region. Preserving historical memory – we worked on this in Yamal. Resocialising convicts – we have been doing this in Mordovia. Domestic violence – we have prepared a special project on this topic, because our law enforcement statistics show that our children are becoming victims of crimes that are mainly committed at home. Not on the street, not in schools, but at home. And this means it is the home where we must create an entirely different environment, an environment of intolerance to violence. Ruffians must get what’s coming to them; then they will behave much better. Incidentally, Kazakhstan’s experience with this demonstrates that passing such a law reduces domestic violence by 40%. Forty percent is a very good level.

Vladimir Putin: It is very good. What kind of law is this?

Mikhail Fedotov: It is a law to prevent domestic violence. There is such a draft, it’s ready.

Vladimir Putin: Here in Russia?

Mikhail Fedotov: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: Based on Kazakhstan’s experience?

Mikhail Fedotov: Yes, based on Kazakhstan’s experience.

Vladimir Putin: Very good.

Mikhail Fedotov: And we very much count on your support. This is truly a very important topic because later, the violence spills over.

Vladimir Putin: We understand that this is a very sensitive matter, so it needs to be thoroughly analysed and discussed with the public.

Mikhail Fedotov: Yes, certainly. We have already worked on this.

Also, we worked on issues of Ukrainian refugees. Two days ago, we made a special appeal. Ella Pamfilova, Elizaveta Glinka and our Council – we made an appeal concerning sick children and children in need of immediate medical assistance in southeast Ukraine. Unfortunately, nobody is responding to our appeal; it’s complete silence. There is full understanding on the part of our authorities, but nothing from the Ukrainian side. It’s just astounding; how can this be? We’re talking about children! We’re talking about an entirely humanitarian operation – move the children out of there.

Vladimir Putin: It’s clear that the situation there is complex and the level of tension and antagonism is very high, but naturally, this is a very important humanitarian issue, and I would like to ask you to use your knowhow as a human rights activist to get an answer from your Ukrainian colleagues in an entirely non-confrontational, friendly manner, and to think through, together, how to arrange things to help those children. After all, we are helping the wounded soldiers of the Ukrainian army, we are accepting them in our territory and treating them, sending them back – and overall, doing this with consent from the Ukrainian authorities. I do not understand why, in this case, we cannot come to an agreement even about joint work.

Mikhail Fedotov: I also do not understand why we cannot come to an agreement; we are talking about children. All civilized nations save their children first in case of danger. And isn’t bombing a form of danger? This seems obvious.

Vladimir Putin: I understand, and you know my opinion on everything happening there: government power was taken by force, and now force is used against those who do not agree with this. I feel this situation is totally wrong; it should have been resolved in an entirely different manner. But you may have different opinions, different approaches, much softer and more humane, so to speak, and I very much count on you to succeed in reaching an agreement with your colleagues: Ukrainian human rights activists and the official authorities.

Mikhail Fedotov: So far, we have not had much success, although we are able to have contact with Ukrainian human rights activists – but unfortunately, not with the authorities, and surprisingly, we have been unable to establish contacts with the OSCE.

Vladimir Putin: We will try to help.

Mikhail Fedotov: Thank you, Mr President. That is very important.

And more on the topic of Ukrainian refugees. I was talking with the heads of many regions, and they are working on these problems. Here is what happens. At the Government level, there is a working group headed by [Deputy Prime Minister] Dmitry Kozak. He is dealing with all refugee-related issues. But he is not dealing with issues that are being resolved by volunteers, and volunteers are resolving a large amount of issues; they are very actively involved in this area. The volunteers are coordinating their own work, as much as they can, but they cannot coordinate the work of state authorities.

Vladimir Putin: So they need help?

Mikhail Fedotov: Yes. My suggestion is very simple: include representatives from our Council (perhaps two or three people) in Mr Kozak’s working group.

Vladimir Putin: Very well. The problem of refugees is becoming very massive; we now have more than half a million refugees in Russia. This requires attention and serious resources. For now, it’s still summer, it’s warm.

Mikhail Fedotov: That’s the thing.

Vladimir Putin: But in two or three months, the situation will be different. People cannot be left in tents in that state.

Mikhail Fedotov: Members of our Council have visited many temporary accommodation centres. We have concrete suggestions, we have prepared them, and we are ready to give them to Mr Kozak’s commission.

Vladimir Putin: Very well, I will tell him.

Mikhail Fedotov: That is what we are prepared to continue working on.

Now, an issue that I wanted to discuss with you separately: the problem related to the programme to preserve the memory of political repression victims. Your visit to the Butovo training range in October 2007 served as basis for this programme. Since then, the Council has been working on and developed this programme. But unfortunately, we are seeing some genuine sabotage; we have talked about this with several respected people in the Cabinet as well. They themselves say: we see that there is outright sabotage here, there are people who simply do not want to work on this.

Although I feel that in this case, there is simply a misunderstanding of this programme. After all, this programme does not contemplate removing monuments, renaming streets or closing museums. On the contrary, it means opening museums, building memorials and immortalising the memory of innocent victims – and that includes millions of people.

We were just in Yamal. Incidentally, I was very pleased that a governor ranking was published today, and the governor we just met with, Dmitry Kobylkin, turned out to be in first place. I liked it. I agree that he is truly great, he is very energetic.

Vladimir Putin: He works efficiently.

Mikhail Fedotov: He works efficiently, I really liked it. We came to an agreement about building a memorial museum complex there, at the base they have near the Salekhard airport. But here, we need federal assistance, and for that, we need a programme.

I have brought you a draft federal law on amendments to the law on rehabilitation of victims of political repressions, which dates back to 1991. The idea is as follows. We propose renaming the law – in other words, amending even the name, broadening the subject of legal regulation. So according to our idea, it should be called On Rehabilitation and Commemoration of Victims of Political Repressions. It proposes a special article that will set forth forms of commemoration, but at the same time, it is done in such a way so as not to cause any financial problems. In other words, it says that state authorities and local authorities can get involved and help with preserving the memory of political repression victims. Then it lists the methods. The authorities provide this kind of assistance within their competence, within their budgets. This has been done following requests, including from heads of regions, because they say, “We want to build a memorial and we have the funding to do this. But then the Accounts Chamber comes over and asks on what basis we spent that money.”

Vladimir Putin: I see. They do not have the right.

Mikhail Fedotov: Correct. And the law creates the legal foundation for this work.

Vladimir Putin: Very well.

Mikhail Fedotov: And I really want to ask you, Mr President, to somehow nudge the Cabinet forward in this process. Earlier, you guided them in the right direction on this matter.

Vladimir Putin: They do not need this. But I will talk with my colleagues, with those who are working on it.

Mikhail Fedotov: We propose that the Regional Development Ministry work on this issue.

Vladimir Putin: What is it currently? The Culture Ministry?

Mikhail Fedotov: Yes. But the Culture Ministry does not want to work on it.

Vladimir Putin: You are suggesting transferring it from the Culture Ministry to the Regional Development Ministry?

Mikhail Fedotov: Yes, to the Regional Development Ministry.

Vladimir Putin: But one way or another, it still needs to be discussed with the Cabinet. Such delegation of responsibility needs to be discussed with them. I do not have anything against it, but it needs to be analysed, okay?

Had you ever visited Salekhard in Soviet times?

Mikhail Fedotov: No.

Vladimir Putin: It was a city of barracks.

Mikhail Fedotov: And now, it is entirely different.

Vladimir Putin: It is a northern city, so naturally, it has its own special features, but it is an entirely modern city. If you go to any northern nation, take a look: I think that if it different, then only for the better.

Mikhail Fedotov: It is a very beautiful city. And you know what impressed me there was that it’s very bright and colourful.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, this is important for the North.

Mikhail Fedotov: It is important for the North. Of course, it has polar nights and when you see those beautiful buildings – modern, colourful ones – it is really cool.

Mr President, in this respect, I would like to give two examples. Not just Salekhard, but also Ramenskoye, in Moscow Region, which also painted its old prefab apartment houses in different colours – and it looks completely different. And another example, an entirely negative one, is Chelyabinsk, which I also visited fairly recently, where everything is grey. Perhaps I was in a bad mood, or the weather was bad. But is it so hard to paint grey buildings in different colours?

Vladimir Putin: That also costs money.

Mikhail Fedotov: A person always needs little moments of joy and pleasure. Such bright, multi-coloured buildings bring small pleasure.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Fedotov, I want to return to your suggestion on the law intended to prevent domestic violence. It is very important, and we must carefully look to ensure that it does not give cause to various government structures to meddle in family life. This is a sensitive issue; it must be analysed very carefully.

Mikhail Fedotov: Mr President, this is precisely why the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights is working on this, because we are familiar with this kind of thorough, highly delicate approach.

Vladimir Putin: In addition, I have a question: you said you discussed several important problems – for example, relocating people from unfit housing and so on. How are you dealing with this in the regions?

Mikhail Fedotov: In the regions, we are dealing with this by holding offsite Council meetings and inviting representatives. Usually, these are either top executives or their deputies from the federal executive authorities.

On our trip to Vladimir, Deputy Minister for Housing and Construction and Head of the Federal Housing and Utilities Fund went with us. And Sergei Stepashin came to make a speech. So all this is very serious.

Vladimir Putin: I have a purpose in asking.

Mikhail Fedotov: What is the result of such meetings?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, first – what is the result.

Mikhail Fedotov: Recommendations are the result.

Vladimir Putin: My main question is, how do representatives from the regional and federal authorities react? My understanding is that everything is fine.

Mikhail Fedotov: Very good. Everything is absolutely fine, entirely constructive. And I think our meeting in Vladimir was very successful.

Vladimir Putin: That’s good.

<…>

Ella Pamfilova nominated for the post of Russian Human Rights Ombudsman

2015-03-20T18:00:35+04:00

In accordance with the Federal Constitutional Law On the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin submitted to the State Duma Ella Pamfilova’s candidacy for the post of Russian Human Rights Ombudsman.

Meeting with representatives of Russian human rights community

2015-03-20T18:00:35+04:00

In the course of the meeting, Vladimir Putin approved the proposal of human rights activists to nominate Ella Pamphilova candidate for the position of Russia’s Human Rights Commissioner.

The meeting participants also discussed the development of the institution of human rights ombudsman and increasing the effectiveness of the system of regional human rights ombudsmen.

* * *

Excerpts from transcript of meeting with representatives of Russian human rights community

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, friends,

I asked you to get together today after I received the letter that you all signed. The thing is that the term of office of our current Human Rights Ombudsman is expiring and we need to elect a new deserving candidate for the position. I have read your letter and decided to meet with you in person to hear your ideas on this matter.

This is my opening statement. Who will begin? Please.

chairman of the Presidential Council For Civil Society and Human Rights Mikhail Fedotov: Mr President, there have actually been two letters. The first one, signed by all those present here, our prominent human rights activists who are in one way or another directly connected to the work of our Human Rights Council. In parallel, Elizaveta Glinka came up with an initiative, and she decided to engage in this not only all of us present here, but also all members of the Council. Therefore, there is also a Council appeal, which has already been voted on, and almost 50 Council members have signed it. The idea is the same: the example of the current Human Rights Commissioner demonstrates the qualities that are most important for an ombudsman. Among them are sincerity, devotion to the cause, persistence in defending human rights and freedoms as a supreme value of our state, a spotless reputation, unquestioned authority within the human rights community, negotiating and mediating skills required to deal with the complicated relations between civic society and the state. We are all convinced that Ella Pamfilova is the person who perfectly combines all these qualities.

Vladimir Putin: Is she currently heading any entity?

Mikhail Fedotov: The Civic Dignity national public movement. Last year you instructed this organisation to deal with the distribution of grants among human rights organisations.

Vladimir Putin: I never instructed anyone, you suggested it – I agreed. (Laughter)

Mikhail Fedotov: But you agreed and gave instructions, which is very important.

We have had our first experience, the work was perfectly organised, Mr Lukin also took part in distributing those grants. There was not a single complaint, at least I have not read of any in the media. No scandals, no shouting or hysterics. I think it was all done transparently and fairly, with digniti. We are all convinced that as Human Rights Commissioner Ms Pamfilova can be very useful for our cause.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Lukin, when does your term of office expire?

Human rights commissioner Vladimir Lukin: My term expires on February 17, but by law it expires when the new commissioner is elected and takes the vow — this is when the authority is handed over.

Vladimir Putin: I hope that after this happens you and I will see each other and I will be able to thank you for the years we worked together. Meanwhile, today too I would like to use this opportunity to express gratitude for everything you have done on this difficult, thorny path. It is difficult because you cannot please everyone; you have to be both uncompromising and flexible. Keeping in touch with government agencies, maintaining your authority among various groups is not an easy task, which requires specific qualities.

Mr Lukin, thank you very much. I hope we will talk later. Bearing in mind your experience, your qualifications, I would like you to continue working on some areas, but we will talk about this some other time.

Vladimir Lukin: Thank you, Mr President.

If I may, I would like to say I am very grateful. I remember how you and I met in this same building, and you asked me to start the formalities related to taking up this position. All sorts of things have happened since, but I am grateful to the authorities for treating this new unusual position adequately, as I believe.

I do not recall a case when the President would in any direct way try to influence my work. Indirectly, by giving advice – he did. I am grateful to him for that. This contributed to the normal functioning of a commissioner. I am also grateful to the human rights activists present, who had trust in me from the start. I believe we have not lost any of the trust and respect we have had for each other. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much, again.

What do you think of the proposed candidate?

Vladimir Lukin: As for Ms Pamfilova, as I have already said in public, I find her a very good candidate for one simple reason: among the people (candidates) I know, she is the one who best combines the three very important parts of the job, which she has been involved in.

The first one is that she is a state official, she worked in very important areas of the government and she knows things there firsthand.

The second is that she worked in Parliament for a long time and knows the problems of legislation.

And the third is that she has been long and I would say enthusiastically involved in the human rights movement.

All of this taken together gives me confidence that she will do a very good job.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: This means we agreed. I will of course have to meet with Ms Pamfilova. I believe it would be proper for Ms Pamfilova and Mr Lukin to come to see me together, so that we could have a joint discussion.

Meanwhile, let us agree that the issue is resolved. We need to hear Ms Pamfilova herself. In line with the procedure set by law, she will be nominated candidate for the position of Human Rights Commissioner of Russia.