Website of the President of Russia: Commissions and Councils

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.

Meeting with Chairman of the Human Rights Council Mikhail Fedotov and Human Rights Ombudsman Vladimir Lukin

2015-03-20T18:00:39+04:00

Vladimir Putin discussed the declaration of an amnesty to mark the 20^th anniversary of Russia’s Constitution at a meeting with Presidential Adviser and Chairman of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights Mikhail Fedotov and Human Rights Ombudsman Vladimir Lukin.

Also taking part in the meeting were Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office Vyacheslav Volodin and Presidential Aide and Head of the Presidential State-Legal Directorate Larisa Brychyova.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues,

As I see it, we will continue some of the discussions that we began during meetings of the Presidential Council for Human Rights. Please, go ahead.

Presidential ADVISER AND CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL FOR CIVIL SOCIETY AND HUMAN RIGHTS MIKHAIL FEDOTOV: During your meeting with the Council on September 4, we raised the matter of declaring an amnesty to mark the 20^th anniversary of Russia’s Constitution. You said then that this is something we need to think about, instructed the Council to draft proposals and gave us a deadline of October 15. On October 11, we discussed the draft proposals at a Council meeting. The proposals were approved by the majority of the Council’s members and were sent to the Presidential Executive Office.

We discussed these matters informally before the meeting. There are various points of view and differences of opinion regarding the details. But it is important that there is an understanding that everyone who has taken part in the discussions agrees in principle with the idea that the Constitution’s 20^th anniversary is a fitting occasion to sum up some results and draw a line.

In this respect, I would like to make reference to Professor Pavel Lyublinsky, who wrote 100 years earlier that the positive impact of an amnesty is first in that it has a calming effect and takes some of the antagonism out of social and political relations, and second, it has a strengthening effect in that it raises the moral, religious and other authority of the government that grants the amnesty.

In the context of the decisions that have already been made on reforming the public administration, law enforcement, and judicial systems, an amnesty would be a very logical step. There have already been 16 amnesties granted since the new Constitution came into force. There were even cases of two amnesties in a single year, big amnesties what’s more, concerning up to 700,000 people (the biggest amnesty of all was in 2000). There were also amnesties that concerned only a small group of people, the last amnesty for example, the so-called ‘economic amnesty’.

I have a review drawn up by the Supreme Court. It shows that as at October 1, 2013, 401 people had criminal proceedings against them stopped or were released from prison by the courts on the basis of an amnesty. Only 400 people in other words.

Vladimir Putin: But they are also all people too. The individual fates of each of these 400 people are important.

Mikhail Fedotov: Of course, but the institution of pardons exists for this purpose too. Pardons are a more personalised and individualised institution, whereas an amnesty is a non-individualised act.

I want to note another issue too, what I would call a problem of an organic nature. The matter is that the Constitution contains provisions on amnesties, which are directly linked to the Criminal Code’s provisions, and the Administrative Offences Code also refers to amnesties. In other words, amnesties can be declared for administrative cases, administrative offences too. There is no precedent here as yet, but I think that for all the difficulties, you have to start somewhere, and so one of the measures that we propose concerns an amnesty for administrative offences, in particular, as regards migrants.

<…>

Human Rights Ombudsman Vladimir Lukin: We studied the draft amnesty proposal very thoroughly. Overall, we think it is a good and serious basis to work with. I know there were some comments regarding incompleteness of exceptions to the amnesty, and there are some problems in that area.

But this does not mean that the amnesty proposal itself is not good. It is a good proposal and indeed I think it is one of the best amnesty proposals. An amnesty is indeed an act of state and political nature that demonstrates a government’s strength and generosity all at once.

In this respect, I think the amnesty should be broad and include various different areas. There are of course exceptions that must be considered too, people accused of awful crimes such as paedophilia and so on. But in the case of people whose offences are not very serious, we could take a humane approach towards them, and I think this would only make the country more stable rather than the contrary.

<…>

Vladimir PUTIN: We will be going over the document together with the State Duma deputies, and I ask you to take an active part in this work. Mr Lukin, I ask you too, to work together with the deputies.

I heard what you said about non-violent crimes, and I want to say that this amnesty can apply only to people who have not committed serious crimes or crimes involving violence against the state’s representatives. I am referring to the law enforcement personnel above all of course. I ask you to keep this in mind, and to work out the details with the State Duma deputies.

I agree with you that this kind of action should have a conciliatory effect and should underscore our country’s humane approach. But it should in no circumstances apply to repeated criminals, and it should not encourage new legal violations by giving anyone the impression that you can commit a crime or offence today, tomorrow get the state’s forgiveness, and thus do as you please.

What we need of course is a balanced decision that without question aims to humanise our law enforcement practice. This is my position, and I will be waiting for the final document that you draft together with the State Duma deputies.

Meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

2015-03-20T18:00:46+04:00

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

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

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues,

We have not met since the end of last year. Since then, Valery Abramkin [human rights activist and member of the Council] passed away in January this year. This is a great loss for all of us and for the human rights movement, and so I ask you to honour his memory now.

(Minute of silence)

Thank you.

Friends, we meet regularly, not very often, but nonetheless regularly, and we discuss issues together and try to find solutions to various problems, above all to the problems of concern to our people.

This year marks 20 years since a special human rights body was established. Back in September 1993, during a period of intense political confrontation, the decision was made to set up the Presidential Human Rights Commission. This was done so as to strengthen guarantees of civil and political rights. A decade later, Ella Pamfilova, who is here today, proposed transforming the commission into a council and extending its powers to cover civil society development as well.

Time has shown that this council, which is now formed through more open procedures, reflects Russian civil society in all its diversity. Resolving people’s problems often depends precisely on the persistence of human rights organisations and activists. It is very good to see that you are taking such an active part in the work, are continuing many of the initiatives the council’s previous members began, and are standing up for your position on problem issues.

The NGO sector’s activities are important for the country and for society. There is a need today to protect people’s rights and help them to resolve their social needs. Various public opinion surveys show that social rights are the rights people consider most important. These include the right to free medical care, labour and a fair wage, free education, and social welfare guarantees.

Our central focus must therefore be on people and their everyday cares and problems, and protecting people’s rights in their everyday dealings with state agencies and various organisations. This is all coming to the forefront now, and the human rights organisations need to take this into account and not limit their activities to what is going within the [central Moscow] Garden Ring alone.

But let me add immediately that political rights are without question the basic foundation of any society and state, and they obviously cannot and should not be relegated to some secondary place.

But I cannot but welcome the fact that the council has organised a whole number of activities in different parts of the country. It has held meetings in St Petersburg and Chechnya, and council members have visited Kopeysk, Perm, Yekaterinburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Mordovia, and Karelia. I think this kind of practice and this kind of work are very useful and should continue.

Let me say a few words on another issue. I know that many of you are concerned about developments in the laws on NGOs. In this respect, I think that charity groups and organisations and humanitarian organisations involved in work of public importance should get particular support from the state authorities.

Russia travelled a difficult road to democracy. It required years of transformation, and our people went through trials and hardships. It is therefore especially important for Russia’s civil society to be as independent as possible.

World experience shows that political activity is above all the domain of political parties, and should be funded from within the country. Many countries have taken the step of establishing procedures and mechanisms that do not prohibit NGOs involved in politics from receiving foreign funding, but make it an open, clear and transparent process. This is what everyone is trying to achieve at any rate, a situation where it is clear as to where the foreign funds are coming from and what specific purposes they are being used for.

Russia’s laws have also been designed in such a way as to have NGOs using funds from abroad to carry out political activity openly declare their status. I think this is a completely fair and honest approach. These is nothing unusual here. The important thing is to have clearly thought-out procedures and clear and understandable criteria for putting NGOs under this status.

I agree with those who say that there are problems here. This is indeed the case. I have heard repeatedly from people involved in these areas about cases of people coming and saying, “It’s better if we just give up all our work, because we’ve got nothing to do with politics but formally still come [under this law] and so we’re having problems”. If this is the case then we need to think together about what we can do to avoid this kind of situation.

If you have proposals on how to improve these laws and procedures, I would be happy to listen to them. Let’s work together on finding solutions, all the more so that almost a year has gone by now since the last changes to the law, and we’ve built up some practice in the law’s application over this time.

In fact, not all countries take such a tolerant approach to foreign funding of NGOs. The US, for example, has a much tougher law. India has passed a law prohibiting NGOs engaged in political activity from receiving funding from abroad. They do not have the right to receive foreign funding at all. In an interview with one of India’s main newspapers, Sonya Gandhi, the Indian Congress Party leader and widow of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, said on this issue, “We did not achieve our independence so as to now let the Americans pull our NGOs by the strings.”

A lot is being done to make it possible for our NGOs to operate on Russian money. State financing for NGOs involved in human rights work increased more than three-fold this year, and we allocated more than 3.2 billion roubles [around $96 million] for carrying out socially important projects. The state has never put such levels of financing into this sector before.

This year, many NGOs involved in human rights have already received funds for supporting their projects. We plan to allocate another 200 million roubles [around $6 million] for NGOs involved in human rights by the end of the year, and tenders for the funds’ distribution will take place before the year ends.

Last time we met, Mr Fedotov [Presidential Adviser and Chairman of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights] noted that we need to pay particular attention to human rights NGOs, give them our support, and raised the issue of additional financing for their work. This decision was made.

This practice will continue. In addition to the funds I just mentioned, starting in 2014, we will allocate a further 500 million roubles [around $15 million] a year as grants for NGOs involved in protecting human rights and freedoms.

It is important that this money be distributed autonomously from the state authorities by the NGOs themselves with the participation of human rights organisations and activists and respected civil society experts.

[Human Rights Ombudsman] Mr Lukin and Mr Fedotov therefore decided that the grants for human rights activity would be distributed by the national public movement Civic Dignity, which Ms Pamfilova heads. As I understand it, she initially refused the idea, but Mr Fedotov and Mr Lukin managed to convince her to take part, talked things over and agreed to work together.

Let me say again that the main thing is for all of this work to be as transparent as possible and not look like a case of the state buying someone off and paying for some concrete future result – that’s to put it bluntly. This is absolutely not our intention. Let me assure you, the state authorities have no interest in such a thing.

What we want is for the people working in this sector to feel genuinely independent. I believe that only in this case will they be able to work effectively and draw to the state authorities’ attention the problems and flaws in our own work, and this will only make the country stronger.

In conclusion, I want to highlight too the importance of your participation in the big international summits and events taking place in Russia.

The Civil G20 meeting took place in June. I found it very interesting and I won’t hide that it was useful to have this chance to talk with the participants. We agreed that we would inform our colleagues of the meeting’s results in St Petersburg, where they are already starting to gather now for the [G20] summit. I want to thank all of you for helping to organise this work. It was very useful and interesting.

The next G8 summit will also be preceded by a meeting of our countries’ civil society representatives. I hope the council will be active in helping to organise this event.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Let’s now start discussing the issues that have brought us here today.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: Regarding Syria. If you believe it would help to somehow talk to your colleagues, go ahead – I am prepared to instruct the Foreign Ministry to assist you in establishing the needed contacts with American non-profits and civil society.

In that sense, the situation there is complicated for the US administration. There are organisations that openly state that the evidence offered by the administration is flimsy and does not prove anything. They are saying it is unclear whether or not chemical weapons were used, and by whom. Overall, they have almost expressed our arguments.

Moreover, I would like to point out that we are currently focused on the fact that the US Congress and Senate are discussing authorisation for use of force. But this is a downright substation of common sense, a distortion of the understanding of international law. No congress of any country can authorise something like this. What are they authorising? They are authorising aggression, because anything that is outside the UN Security Council is aggression, aside from self-defence. As you know, Syria is not attacking the US, so there is no question of self-defence, and anything else lacking UN authorisation is an act of aggression.

In essence, the US Congress and Senate are now trying to legitimise aggression, and we are all glued to our televisions, waiting to see if they will get the approval. Instead, however, we should be discussing the fact that this is fundamentally unacceptable.

But that’s how it is. Still, creating contacts would be a positive step. Granted, I don’t think they will lead to the desired effect, but in any case, our conscience will be clean, because we will have done everything we can to prevent this massacre, although it will, of course, happen anyway. Incidentally, I want to point out that the images being diffused – and I just mentioned this to an American journalist – do not show those dead children’s parents. There are no medical personnel. Indeed, they feature no women at all, only big, healthy men.

I already said this and I’ll say it again. It is simply absurd to imagine that Assad used chemical weapons, given that he is gaining ground. After all, this is a weapon of last resort, if you will. And if he is gaining ground, if he has encircled his adversaries in some places and is finishing them off, then they need immediate help. Why do they say there is not a single American soldier on that territory? They believe it is unnecessary, that these rebels will handle things on their own, they just need support with weapons and methods they do not possess – they do not have aviation or rocket technology – and it should be given to them. So they will now give it to them.

I won’t go on, so as not to waste time. And they are lying, of course, shamelessly. I watched the congress debates. A congressman asked Mr Kerry, “Is Al-Qaeda present there? I’ve heard they have gained momentum.” He replied, “No. I can tell you earnestly, they are not.” The main combat unit, the so-called Al-Nusra, is an Al-Qaeda subdivision; they know about this. It just felt unpleasant to me. After all, it is clear… we communicate with them, we assume they are decent people. But he is lying, and he knows he is lying. It is sad.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: Now, regarding the floods. You stated that we were unprepared and so on. That is not quite true. You know, ultimately, a great deal was done there in previous years and ahead of the flood: dams were built, corresponding work was done, evacuation centres were established, and manpower, resources and troops were brought in.

You know, if you look at it from the outside, it resembles a large-scale military operation, with heavy machinery roaring. Of course, things are hard for people, and there is frustration and dissatisfaction concerning how certain things are done there, how people are being supported and so on. But I spoke with local residents who say, “You know, we ourselves did not realise that we live in this kind of country; we truly saw the power of the Russian Government when all this happened.” Thousands of people from the Emergencies Ministry and the Defence Ministry have been working hard. But again, there are still many problems and omissions. Naturally, the supervision by public organisations and NGOs is still in demand.

I said the same thing yesterday at a meeting with journalists. We are not finished after evacuating people from dangerous areas; we cannot just decide that we are done, mission accomplished. No. However difficult it may be, however hard they may be working there, day and night, saving people and their property. We did better in some places than others, but overall, we succeeded. At least there are no lives lost, we did everything on time.

We cannot simply decide that we are done. No, the mission is not yet accomplished; we need to bring everything to full completion. We must accommodate people under normal, humane conditions. And most importantly, we have everything we need to achieve this. We need to provide attention, organise the work competently and react quickly.

But you must understand, the scale of this disaster is enormous; there has never been anything like it. Even at the peak of the flooding in previous years, in the previous decades – they have all been surpassed. We have never had anything like this, and nobody can even understand why. I have already stated that when you look at it from a helicopter, it is as though you are flying over the sea, and I only feel horror at observing the rooftops of houses sticking out of that sea, whose shores cannot be seen. Thus, the fight against this flood is such a large-scale undertaking that it is unlikely we could have prepared for it 100%. But now, we need to work efficiently, and oversight certainly doesn’t hurt.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: I will try to respond to some of your comments, as usual.

Regarding the Internet. You said that many resources are blocked. Of course, we need to look into the technology for executing these laws. Let’s look. You yourself said that theft is a sin, and I think that most people would agree. And we understand that what is happening, or what was happening, is downright theft.

After all, we didn’t come up with this ourselves; over the course of several years, Russian on-stage performance groups and individual artists representing various art forms turned to us with urgent requests to do something to protect their interests. Otherwise, they said, everything would stop completely, they would stop writing books or making films.

You know that as soon as a movie is filmed, it immediately makes its way online and is downloaded illegally. People online say it directly: “download for free.” But what does “free” mean? It means freeloading. Meanwhile, those who invested their money hope to distribute their film, but it’s already clear they are broke and won’t make anything from such distribution.

The same is true of music and others. It is entirely clear that there should be some technologies that do not allow any abuse of laws protecting intellectual property.

I am happy to look into it. I must admit that I have not studied the details, and I am prepared to delve into it and take a look, because this truly is a very important matter. Intellectual rights should be protected, but we should not overdo it, so as not to kill the internet.

This concerns the antipiracy law and several other elements.

You also said that the Internet is a weapon, an uncontrollable weapon. I agree with you on your first point, that it’s a weapon. But I do not agree that it is uncontrollable. Indeed, it is being controlled quite effectively and, in general, we are not the ones with the tools to manage it, when the servers are over there – we have seen this. You may be working in human rights or similar domains, but I assure you, believe me, we have seen the way it is controlled. During election campaigns, we know that our colleagues support this candidate and do not support that one. As soon as something appears online regarding a candidate they do not like – boom! They delete it immediately. It gets posted again, and boom! They remove it again. So it’s very controlled.

Russia Today is getting more and more traffic – this is our TV channel broadcasting abroad in various languages. Just now, as we started discussing Syria… our opponents’ positions are very weak, if we are to be honest. They are flimsy. They only lead to aggression, that’s all. There is no explanation or justification for the aggression, other than that the Syrian army used chemical weapons. But they came to the verdict that they [the Syrian army] used chemical weapons even before the UN inspectors completed their work. It is just unacceptable.

They say the UN Security Council is ineffective or completely dysfunctional. But the Security Council is not there to rubberstamp decisions that are convenient for one side and serve the political interests of one of the participants in this process. If that were the case, the UN would simply need to be shut down; it would be a pointless organisation.

These are global things. But, either way, it is highly controlled. And overall, we need to think about how to make the Internet truly, genuinely independent. Of course, it is much more independent than some other media, but it is still controlled.

Let’s come back to these laws and I promise that we will definitely look into it.

Now, concerning Snowden. This question came up several times. You said it required courage, it was a hard decision to make. Thank you very much for these assessments, but no courage was necessary here and nothing about making this decision was difficult. I already said this yesterday. Russia is a sovereign state; there was no other option in this situation.

I already said this to Russian and foreign journalists yesterday, and I can say it again to you; it seems it will come out, so it is no secret. Snowden approached us at our Hong Kong consulate and proposed that we work together, but not as a spy; he didn’t give us anything, but he offered to work together to fight for human rights and the right to disseminate information, to suppress unlawful activities by the US administration and special services. I asked our diplomatic representatives to tell him that if he wanted to stay in Russia and feel safe here, he could do that, but we would not fight with him. This work is for the human rights organisations (you, who are present here), but the Russian government would not get involved, because it has its own state interests.

We do not want to wreck our relations with the US. We told him he could relax and live in Russia, but we would ask him not to engage in any of these activities. He replied, “No, I am not satisfied with that, I have to continue the fight.” I said, “Then let him go elsewhere and continue it.”

Several days or weeks later, he ended up in a plane and was passing through our nation on his way to Latin America. Here, [Russian comedian] Zadornov, who tells funny stories about Americans, comes to mind. Instead of letting him keep on going and then do the same boorish they did with the President of Bolivia’s airplane – they could have requested the plane to land, taken Snowden off, and that would be it – they scared everyone to death and everyone called us, saying “Whatever you do, don’t let him come to our nation.” So he got stuck in our airport. That was the result. And what were we to do with him?

It is true, our partners tried to pressure us to hand him over. But look, maybe we would have handed him over if we had an agreement. After all, we offered to sign an extradition treaty with them several times. They refused. So we asked them to hand over the bandits serving sentences in their country, who have been involved in crimes, bloody, violent crimes, kidnapping and human trafficking. And they said, “No, they’re on our territory, forget it.” That was their answer: “They are on our territory, forget about them.” Well, okay.

Now Snowden is in our country, and thankfully, he hasn’t killed anyone. They are telling is, “He’s a criminal, hand him over.” But we don’t know whether he’s a criminal or not, and he hasn’t committed any crimes on our territory.

International relations practice requires mutual respect toward one another. And these types of issues are resolved on the basis of reciprocity. Why are they being so snobbish?

So there was nothing complicated in this situation, we simply could not have done otherwise. And that is what we told our colleagues directly: “Don’t insist on this. Let’s sign agreements and work as partners and colleagues.”

We don’t know what he will do next. That’s his choice, his fate, which he has chosen for himself. To be honest, I sometimes think about it. He is a young man, and he has chosen his own fate; what will he do next? How will he live? Where will he go? Will he spend the rest of his life in Russia, or what? But he is who he is: he decided that he must be at the forefront of the struggle.

I’m just telling you about it for your information.

With regard to defending the rights of our compatriots abroad. Of course, in recent years, we have continued trying to organise this work; the foreign ministry and other institutions involved are cooperating and working abroad. This is probably insufficient. If our human rights organisations get their directions, we will certainly support them in various ways.

And finally, regarding our human rights advocates’ possible trip to Syria. I cannot forbid it, but I do not encourage it. It is dangerous; it’s not a walk in the park. And it’s not even a question of American rockets or bombs, although they, too, are not selective enough, they can miss and unintentionally hit something else. But the regular Syrian army is fighting against a wide variety of people. Do you understand? There truly are units… not everyone is like that, but the core combat units consist of Al-Qaeda divisions. They are absolutely unruly and very cruel people. Our journalists were there and saw it with their own eyes. I am asking you not to do this, not to go there. I cannot forbid it, but I do not support it.

In conclusion, I want to say that our conversation and discussion today once again showed me that the work you are doing – many of you are truly doing it because you are driven in your hearts to do it – is very much necessary and in high demand. Without your help and support, not only would we likely be unable to react effectively, but we might not even be fully capable of understanding and learning about problems that people are dealing with.

I very much count on continuing our joint, fruitful work.

Thank you very much. Goodbye.

Meeting of Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

2015-03-20T18:01:11+04:00

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

The Council is meeting for the first time since its membership was renewed. The latest rotation in membership took place based on the results of public discussions and internet voting, in which more than 100,000 people took part.

In accordance with the President’s Executive Order, the Council has 62 members, of which 39 are new members.

* * *

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

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues.

This is the Council’s first meeting since the membership was renewed. Many of you I already know, while for others it will be the first time that we are working together.

As you know, broad discussions and internet voting on the Council’s members took place. I remind you that more than 100,000 people took part in the voting and there were more than 400,000 visits (430,000, I think) to the sites where people could make their vote.

Choosing the Council’s members drew a lot of public interest. This is why Mr Fedotov [Presidential Adviser and Chairman of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights Mikhail Fedotov] and I decided to increase the number of members so as to include all of those who received the most votes, given that people clearly want to see you have a place on this presidential advisory body.

This in turn raises questions about the Council’s management. With this many members, we have to organise efforts in such a way as to ensure that not only does it help me in my work, but that we can have an impact together on the performance of the country’s executive bodies and law enforcement agencies in general.

There are several proposals in this respect. One proposal is to establish a presidium, the membership of which will rotate on a regular basis, or to set up specific working groups for the areas of activity of greatest interest to particular Council members. The important thing in all of this is to ensure that we have direct contact of course, and that this direct contact helps us to carry out the Council’s tasks and objectives.

As far as the tasks are concerned, there is nothing really new here, I think. I hope very much that our work will continue what has already been accomplished over these last years. We must certainly pay attention to all aspects of our life: political issues, the way our society and state are organised, and social issues.

No doubt, people expect that those professionally involved in human rights will be able to give them substantial support, especially at moments when there are breakdowns in the state mechanisms. I look upon our cooperation as a form of direct feedback from Russian society, reaching right to the top level of power, and this enables us to work together on improving our instruments of government and establishing the conditions that will let us solve our country’s problems in our citizens’ interests above all.

I will not make a long speech and want to give the floor now to Mr Fedotov. After that, we will discuss all of the issues that you think most important and fitting to raise at this first meeting.

<…>

You mentioned that we established the Council in 2004. Let me remind you of the circumstances of that time. The situation was very complicated back then. The country had been going through what was in effect a state of civil war, albeit not of an acute form, but nonetheless a very painful and bloody armed conflict. Let me be frank here, as those working at that time no doubt remember, my view often did not coincide with that of the Council members on a number of the key issues concerning our country’s functioning at that time.

Today’s situation is vastly, if not totally, different, although big problems still remain as we can see from the flare-ups in terrorist activity, acts of terrorism, organised crime and so on. But overall, there has been substantial change, fundamental change, I would say. I cannot assert that everything I thought right back then did indeed turn out to be so, but nor can I say that everything the Council members asked or demanded of me was justified.

I remember very clearly my discussions with your colleagues from Europe back then. There were many such discussions, but I remember particularly clearly one discussion when a woman who was very pleasant in all respects – and I am not being ironic here – said that she took a very critical view of what we (Russia and myself) were doing in the Caucasus. She said we were using very harsh methods that are unacceptable in today’s world. I asked her, ‘Look at what they’re doing there. What methods should we use to stop them in your view?’ She said, ‘We condemn their actions too, but we criticise you because this is a part of your territory and you are failing to ensure order there’. I asked her, ‘How can we restore order if we do not use the methods you condemn?’ ‘I don’t know’, she replied.

Why do I bring this up again now? People might criticise a government for its actions, and this criticism might even be fair and justified, but when no one knows what to do there has to be someone willing to take on the responsibility. Do not be offended at me if our views do not always coincide, and I in turn will do everything I can not to take offence at anything I hear from you. But I ask you, please, to do the same for me. Our work together must be direct, open and honest.

Mr Fedotov spoke just before about direct forms of democracy, and said that the way the Council members are chosen is not perhaps the best method: experts should choose experts, but then administrators should choose administrators and so on. It’s a debatable idea. There is no disputing however, that we should develop forms of direct democracy. One possible step in this respect is the idea that 100,000 identifiable signatures collected via the internet on a specific proposal would be enough to have it examined in parliament. Of course, not all issues raised in this way would necessarily concern federal-level matters. They could be regional or municipal issues too, and so we would need to decide the procedures for working with these kinds of proposals.

<…>

(On migration) This is a sensitive, delicate and complex issue. I have already stated my position in the past but can do so again now. Most of the migration to Russia is labour migration, and we need to differentiate between these migrants and our compatriots returning to their homeland.

We know that the Soviet Union’s collapse left 25 million ethnic Russians or those who consider their roots to be in Russia outside the Russian Federation borders. They found themselves beyond our borders not of their own free will, and it is our duty to help those of them who wish to do so, without imposing anything on anyone, to return to Russia.

Labour migrants are another matter. It is not by chance that you, someone from the construction sector, should have raised this issue. We know that many migrants work in this particular sector. Indeed, foreign labour plays a big part in developing this sector and a number of other sectors in our economy. The only thing is we need to ensure that this process does not undermine our country’s own labour market. That is the first consideration.

Second, we need to settle matters concerning the rights and lawful interests of our citizens living in areas with a large inflow of migrants.

Third – not in terms of importance, but simply in sequence of course – is the need to protect the rights and interests of the migrants themselves, and this is also something we must not forget.

A fourth issue to consider is that millions of people from the former Soviet republics who come to work in Russia are not only earning money here and sending it back home to support their families, but are also maintaining ties with Russia and keeping up the interest in Russia. For all the problems that accompany this migration influx, these people are continuing the interest in our culture and our language, and this is one of the factors helping to preserve our common economic and humanitarian space. In this sense migration plays a positive part. At the same time, the migration process is also very complicated. We certainly do need to address the problems it creates, but we must do so very carefully.

<…>

(On the law regulating the activities of NGOs acting as foreign agents) My position was that everything not directly related to politics should be excluded [from this law]. The only purpose of this law after all was to ensure that foreign organisations representing outside interests, not those of the Russian state, would not intervene in our domestic affairs. This is something that no self-respecting country can accept.

I do not think there is anything in this law that contradicts democratic development in our country. But the law should not apply to activities not related to politics. Let’s take another look at it.

I have already discussed this matter with Mr Fedotov. We could meet in a broader format and have an open discussion on the matter. We do not have any issues that are not open for discussion. After all, everything we do, we do with the sole objective of making our country stronger and more stable and effective.

But our country cannot become stronger and more stable by relying on the powers of law enforcement and security agencies alone. It will be stronger if our society is more united, effective and responsible, and if we establish good contact between society, citizens, and the state authorities. In this respect I agree completely with you that human rights activists, who bring our citizens’ problems to the attention of society, play a very important part in helping us to reach our national objective.

Thank you very much for the work together. I am sorry that not everyone had the chance to speak. We have agreed not to take offense at each other.

The meeting is over then. Thank you.

Meeting of Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

2015-03-20T18:01:26+04:00

Dmitry Medvedev held a meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights.

The meeting focused on the Council’s achievements over the past four years.

Among the Council’s successes Dmitry Medvedev named the establishment of Public Television, whose concept was developed with the Council’s active participation, the abolition of the three-year trial period for newly elected judges, and changes in legislation related to the medical examination of persons suspected or accused of committing crimes with the aim of replacing punitive measures.

According to the Council’s Chairman Mikhail Fedotov, the Council held 48 meetings over the course of four years. It has also prepared and submitted to the President 142 reports on various issues.

* * *

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

President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev: Good afternoon, colleagues,

Let me start with a few words about our work together over the last four years. We agreed when the renewed Council began functioning that we would meet more often. I don’t know what your impression is, but I think we have not missed any meetings or events and have been successful in keeping to our plans.

What’s more, the practice of holding meetings in other locations around the country has given representatives of non-governmental organisations not just from Moscow – and there is life beyond Moscow, of course – but also from other places, the Urals, the Volga Region, and the North Caucasus, the chance to take part in our discussions. This was the first time since the Council’s founding in 1993 (it was called a Commission then) that we introduced this practice. I think it has proved its worth entirely and I hope that you too found it interesting and useful to travel to these different places.

Over these last four years, thanks to you and your efforts, I have studied a large number of reports and legislative proposals, coordinated with and approved by the Council. I can say frankly that on some issues I agreed, and on others did not. But whatever the case, many of these initiatives were useful, including in helping me and other state officials to get a better understanding of the situation in this or that area and make a number of timely decisions.

Colleagues, at the very least, there is one thing you cannot deny me, and that is that I have always listened as attentively as possible and have personally studied each of your appeals and letters and issued instructions accordingly to the different state agencies. After each meeting with you I have always been left with such a huge stack of documents on the desk, and I have gone through all of them thoroughly and given the necessary instructions.

As you know, in a number of cases (after making the necessary checks, of course) the state agencies have proposed a different solution, and in some cases the civil service has not always shown its best qualities. It is a big and unwieldy organisation that works at a leisurely pace, to put it mildly, and rather than looking to concerns of substance at times prefers to follow the logic of bureaucracy. But in a number of cases the Council has managed to speed things up, and you have shown perseverance in pushing through proposals based on people’s appeals and public demand.

I will not list all of the things accomplished over this time. The list is long, and so I will just name a few of what I think are some of the biggest achievements to which the Council has made a clear contribution.

Let me start with the recent executive order establishing public television. No matter what one thinks of the need for public television (some people say we missed the boat and should leave it at that, since we don’t need any public television now that we have the internet, and others say that we already have the state channels, which should become public television), the fact is that this institution did not exist before, and now it will. Let’s see how it develops. In any case, this institution’s establishment is also partly thanks to the Council, which was actively involved in drafting its development concept.

I also note the very important proposal about abolishing the three-year trial period for newly appointed judges. This proposal was aimed to make the judges more independent from the court presidents. It was supported and has become law. This proposal came out of our work within the Council and was something that we discussed together.

The Council has also made a positive contribution that is reflected in amendments to the criminal procedure laws, including the right to request a medical examination in order to determine the need to replace detention in custody with some other restraint measure. This particular amendment arose out of the well-known Magnitsky case.

Meetings focusing on one particular area, whether the human rights situation in the Caucasus, the environment, or other issues, have been very useful and produced a range of proposals concentrating on one area. The visits to the regions have also been useful in this respect. I think this practice has proved its value.

This amendment makes it possible for seriously ill people to remain in a hospital or under house arrest rather than be sent to a prison cell.

There were other useful new proposals, too, and also some ideas that were not carried out. Let’s discuss what we managed to accomplish, and what has not been done. Of course these are all interim results, because though my term in office ends very soon, I am sure that the Council will continue to function and, I hope, bring a lot of benefit to the country and its people.

Before I conclude these opening remarks, let me note a few more points. If you allow, I would like to give a few words of advice on the Council’s future work, based on my experience over these last four years.

First, it has often been the case that we have tried to do too much at once and have ended up dispersing our efforts over too many different areas. This is understandable, given that we do not have the chance to meet so often, but it is at times counterproductive. Any authority, even presidential authority, is not enough to be able to solve all the different problems at a single meeting. Meetings focusing on one particular area, whether the human rights situation in the Caucasus, the environment, or other issues, have been very useful and produced a range of proposals concentrating on one area. The visits to the regions have also been useful in this respect. I think this practice has proved its value.

Second, we often kept coming back to cases that have been in the headlines but are nonetheless individual cases. Just to give the most obvious examples, I am thinking of the Khodorkovsky and Magnitsky cases. In some respects this is all justified perhaps, but overall, it sometimes creates the impression that the Council is interested only in addressing the cases most in the public eye.

In this respect, I want to note that the number of people whose guilt or involvement in crime or other circumstances of a case generate doubts and questions, is in reality a lot greater, and we are all well aware of this.

I have received correspondence from many different places, including from our prisons, of course. People have put the question in their letters: ‘Why do you pay attention only to a handful of well-known cases? Who will do something for us, for the other prisoners, for those who feel that they have suffered at the hands of the law enforcement agencies?’ I think that we should remember this, even if we realise that there are some cases of particular significance that probably reflect and determine the general level of law and order in our country.

Finally, life goes on and we can continue our work together through a variety of platforms, including through the Open Government system. I am sure that the need for civil society participation and involvement will grow from one year to the next, and this will require us to keep developing new forms of cooperation. In this respect, I remain at your disposal.

I thank each of you sincerely for your personal contribution to the Council’s performance and for giving so much of your time and your effort to serving the public. I thank you from all my heart for this.

* * *

I listened to all you had to say and want to start now by thanking you once more, because not only have you fulfilled your professional duties, but have done much to help me develop my skills and abilities as a politician. I can assure you that everyone in a leadership position, from a village elder right through to the president, suffers from a lack of tolerance. This is because our position obliges us to make the decisions. But each of my meetings with you has helped me to build up the needed qualities so that now, not only is it a pleasure to listen to you, but I find it much easier to do so now, to listen to what others are telling me, without trying to interrupt, glance frantically at my watch, or jump in to disagree, even though I do often think that not everything you say is fair. This has been a good school for me and I say a sincere thanks to you for this. This is the truth.

* * *

Let me turn now to the subject of our history and the question of a memorial to the victims of political repression, a memorial that would immortalise their memory. I think we do bear the responsibility for not having done this, not seen it through, and I am ready to help carry out this project, no matter where I am and what I am doing, whether in the Government (if I will be working there) or in any other organisation. I am ready to make organisational decisions and help to find the funding, even make a personal financial contribution, if we finalise exactly what the project will look like and involve.

We have had some impact on public opinion over these last years and have brought about some change. I think that credit here goes not only to the Council, and certainly not only to the President, but to all of the efforts and assessments made. You understand that it is not always easy for political leaders to make these assessments. It is easier for public figures, who are expressing their civic position that they are willing to fight for and defend. But it is much harder for political figures or leaders to take such stands because we realise that our society is diverse, variously shaped by the different processes within, and that different people hold different views on the saddest pages of our history. As you know, there were moments when I made remarks that immediately earned me floods of indignant cries: ‘He’s raised a hand against the holy of holies; we laid the foundations of a great economy; they were all saints at the helm then, and if they made mistakes, those were just trifles, just pennies to pay compared to the country we created’, and so on. No, these are not ‘just trifles’, but are things of huge importance for our future, for the future of those who will live in this country.

Regarding our efforts on reform of the courts and law enforcement agencies, I can say one thing, and that is that I am very pleased that we have worked together to get a number of projects through. Some of the new laws are in effect now, some are more effective, others less so. The whole idea that we need better courts and a more effective law enforcement system has now become a subject of discussion not just among the professionals or among civic activists, but has spread throughout society and is very much on the public agenda now. Everyone everywhere is talking about it now. Of course, the new information technology, new media and social networks play a part here. I am bold enough to hope, though, that our efforts have made their contribution too, including the draft laws that I submitted, that you proposed, and that we discussed, approved and put through together. All of this is valuable.

I am ready to continue promote these matters, though taking into account the division of powers between the different branches of power. The Government has broad responsibility and big powers. It deals with practically every area, and so I am ready to keep working in this area too, inasmuch as possible. This goes for modernising the court system and the law enforcement agencies, and for related issues.

”I am sure that the need for civil society participation and involvement will grow from one year to the next, and this will require us to keep developing new forms of cooperation.“

Of course, there are still many regional problems, many problems in the Caucasus. I will not repeat now issues that we have discussed on various occasions, issues on which we agree, other matters on which our views differ. I just want to make a few general points.

First, it is very important to speak openly about what is happening. This should be done not just in the public environment in general, the internet, on TV or elsewhere, but also at forums such as this one. After all, the things we say here will always attract a bigger share of attention – such are the laws of public life — and we agreed earlier that the transcripts of all our meetings would be published for all to see. It’s always the case that a president or other leader’s words always seem to carry more weight. And so we have a duty to be open.

Second, one very important matter is how our positions are received by civic activists, non-governmental organisations, and the regional and local authorities, especially in complicated regions like the North Caucasus. We know that the North Caucasus is a specific region in many ways, and much there depends on the leaders. I am not going to praise or reproach anyone, for I do not have the right to do so in any case and must remain neutral, but let me give one example and say that after the leadership change in Ingushetia, I think you will agree with me that the situation has changed for the better. This is not to say that everything is fine there now. No, things are still difficult there, unemployment is very high, there are still problems, and still bandits to deal with too. But the atmosphere has changed there. This is because our colleague there, Yunus-Bek Yevkurov wants to work.

I would like to see other colleagues work just as energetically as him. What’s more, he is not a coward. You know that an attempt was made to blow him up and that he almost died. Those behind that attack, as I am personally sure, should have been punished, but he did not lay down his arms and say that he would no longer have any dealings with such monsters. He continues to engage everyone in dialogue, even people who, if not actually involved in those events themselves, do not always share his views as the republic’s leader. He offers a good example worthy of emulation.

* * *

On the question of civil liberties, I will not say commonplace words but will just make one point. I do not know who is making a fuss about NGOs being a danger to the state, but I do not think this is serious these days. I don’t think there is anyone now who could say such things in all seriousness. I am sure that everything will be fine, though of course, it all depends on the NGOs and their activeness too.

On the question of International Labour Organisation and other conventions, I will certainly look into the situation with them.

Let me make one more comment regarding the laws on freedom of assembly. Of course, these laws must change too and cannot stay static. The question is one of their application, their suitability, and how scrupulously they are followed. But the thought that comes to my mind in this respect is that, looking at the way civic activeness in our country is increasing – something positive overall – the rules on administrative liability for violations – and violations do occur, let’s not idealise everyone who takes part in meetings and demonstrations – should become a lot more flexible than they are now.

We need a much broader range of liability measures than we have now, so as to ensure effective responsibility while at the same time avoiding heavy-handed sanctions not keeping with the nature of the administrative offences in question. Various countries have their own measures in these areas and enforce them in different ways, and in many countries administrative detention is used. I am not saying this in order to divert attention away from Russia’s own situation, but let’s look too at the way administrative measures and policing practice is used in prominent cases such Occupy Wall Street and so on. The point I want to make here is simply that we need a broader range of legal measures in this area.

I suppose the only thing I absolutely cannot agree with is the statement that freedom of speech on the Internet is at risk. I fully disagree with that. In my view, there isn’t any threat to freedom of speech on the Internet. We may have other concerns, but that is one problem we do not have in our country, and in all likelihood, will never have since overall, you know everything yourselves, you see what people are saying, what they are writing, how they are talking. And the authorities have no intention to interfere.

Another issue is that we are to look at certain absolutely destructive trends – I think you won’t argue that when search engines are used to spread recipes for preparing drugs or creating explosives, the authorities should probably take action as that is not freedom of speech. Let alone paedophilia, child pornography and other crimes that are investigated and very harshly punished throughout the entire world.

With regard to the Foreign Ministry, I am not trying to idealise it. Our Foreign Ministry is what it is with both the strong and rather weak points of the ideas of [its early ministers] Chicherin and Molotov. (Laughter.)

As head of state, I have spoken about this issue many times, but ultimately, here is what I cannot agree with. The Foreign Ministry must certainly hold an adequate position, but believing that the Foreign Ministry stings only those who sting us is not quite fair, although throughout the world foreign ministries are instruments of state policy.

”We cannot have modernisation without support from civil society. There will be no modernisation in our lives if civil society does not strive for it.“

You will surely agree that at some point both the Foreign Ministry and I had to make some rather harsh statements concerning human rights in Belarus and Ukraine. The fact is, it was difficult, because these really are very close nations, and they have even taken offence after hearing our references to various cases examined by their courts, but nevertheless, that was my position, and I gave the Foreign Ministry instructions, stating that persecuting political opponents is absolutely unacceptable, it casts a shadow on both the state itself, as in the case of Ukraine, and on the people who make those decisions. You can hate one another, you can say whatever you want in a polemic fervour and in the passion of a political battle, but when participants in the presidential race, direct opponents in the political process, end up in courts and in jail, this is at the very least very perplexing, even taking into account our rich totalitarian traditions.

As for a hotline within the Ministry of the Interior, I hear you. We will try to push this issue through the Cabinet and, of course, the Ministry of the Interior.

I would also like to say I’m very happy that you mentioned the topic of day-to-day corruption, because I keep talking about it, but very often, it elicits a kind of disapproval, or even a flurry of indignation. Some say, he is talking about this day-to-day corruption again, laying blame on ordinary people because he doesn’t want to turn in his own people, he’s just like all the others. Still, it’s very important to have not only the President and the Government, but also the experts saying that corruption starts on a small scale. When people give bribes to the traffic police or the doctor, they do not think that the ministers or somebody else may be doing the same thing, they simply pay off. This does not mean that we should not fight large-scale corruption, on the contrary, the Open Government session that you mentioned was largely devoted to the issue of large-scale corruption. But in my view, and perhaps I’m wrong of course, but I believe that, strange as it may seem, large-scale corruption is easier to fight than day-to-day corruption. We know that countries which are advanced in their non-corrupt behaviour have first and foremost one thing in common: they have no day-to-day corruption.

I do not know whether we will be able to introduce principles of criminal liability for unlawful enrichment. I do not know, because I do not have absolute certainty that it would be good for our still developing society. Naturally, you may not agree with me, but there is a very shaky division line between criminal liability for unlawful enrichment and the return to a society which imposes absolute [consumption] equality and barracks socialism. I do not want to live in such a society.

That does not mean that we shouldn’t fight corruption, including the cause of that corruption – unlawful self-enrichment. But I have some doubts about introducing this kind of straightforward liability. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps this measure will turn out to be effective and prove to be a good thing, but I have my own understanding of how the criminal sanction system, the penitentiary system, should work.

In any case, the dialogue on this topic is to continue, and the fact that criminal liability for other offences will be introduced, the fact that major expenditures by civil servants will be monitored, is certainly a step in the right direction even with the understanding that it is not a radical step, and it probably involves its own shortcomings.

What I fully agree with is that we are currently doing well with income declarations, or at least the formal side of declaring. Everyone is filing declarations, everyone is at least formally laying themselves bare, and many seem even grateful for the practice now introduced. I should admit that when I was introducing this practice, I spoke with several of my colleagues who came to me and said, ‘What should we do? We have this situation: our wives are earning significant incomes’. I said, ‘Do you feel it is lawful income?’ They said, ‘Yes, we believe it is lawful income, and there are no conflicts of interest. That’s how it was from the start’. And so on. I said, ‘If that’s the case, then you should be happy that at a certain point, you will demonstrate all that, and afterwards, you will not have any more problems’ since credit history is important for everyone. And now, everyone is aware of the situation, some people find it normal, some may think it is power abuse and hate civil servants for it. But in any case, it is in the open. I think that’s very important.

But one thing I heard today that I fully agree with is that we do not have any accountability for conflicts of interest. This is a framework that has already been around for about ten years, and incidentally, I was involved in its creation in 2002 or 2003, I can’t remember which year that law was drafted. Almost nothing has changed. Nobody cares about this conflict of interest. I think that this is a place where we could adopt a stricter approach and perhaps even introduce criminal liability for not declaring a conflict of interest, not only to fire individuals but perhaps in some situations even make them criminally accountable. This is certainly better than just culpability for what somebody earned or somehow acquired.

True, the authorities never want to punish themselves. It’s a common knowledge and it’s true. One can certainly fight corruption without being a member of the Council, but if you find the strength to stay, I would be grateful to you for it, simply because your work as civil activists (all of you are doing it, and quite successfully), your very presence in a presidential council or some kind of expert forum under the Government – it is still a very important objective. It is exactly the kind of contact that is so important for our civil society.

The last thing I want to say is that I would like to agree with the three points voiced by Ms Alekseyeva [Lyudmila Alekseyeva, Council member and chairperson of the Moscow Helsinki Group]. I agree wholeheartedly.

First of all, we cannot have modernisation without support from civil society. There will be no modernisation in our lives if civil society does not strive for it. I am not saying this for the sake of magniloquent words but simply because I myself came to this conclusion during the process of collaboration.

Second, I also fully agree that bureaucracy will never want to reform itself. And this is not a Russian trait, it is not a characteristic of Russian bureaucracy but a feature of any bureaucracy: why reform itself when everything is good anyway, when things work out either way? But that is precisely why we have civil society and communication channels. It is civil society that hounds bureaucracy and the authorities, and as a result, the authorities must make some steps. If the authorities find the courage to respond to criticism, then the authorities and the system of relationships stay in place. Authority cannot last forever so if the authorities cannot find the courage to meet the demands of the civil society, it leads to political catastrophes. We had enough of these catastrophes in the 20^th century. I hope that we will follow the first path.

And finally, the third point which concerns the quality of our Council. You stated that it includes professionals, very different people, but all these individuals are most interested in promoting their ideas and reaching their goals. I also fully agree with this. I admit that it hasn’t always been easy for me to listen to what you say and agree with it, but what you have said has always been absolutely sincere, from the heart, and usually very, very well-reasoned. I truly, genuinely hope that this high-calibre composition of individuals in the Council will be maintained and employed for the benefit of our Fatherland.

Finally, my very last point. If you offer me your help, then I would like to say in return that I am always ready to meet with you, be it within the Open Government platform, or the “buttoned up”, closed, small Government – whichever you prefer – and discuss any subject that you find important for our country.

I want to thank you once again for your help and support.

Meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights

2015-03-20T18:01:29+04:00

Dmitry Medvedev discussed environmental security and protection at an off-site meeting of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights. The meeting was attended by members of the Council, environmental experts and representatives of environmental organisations.

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

* * *

President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev: Good afternoon, colleagues,

We have a tradition to hold our meetings in one of the regions. I think this is useful because our country’s development, the development of civil society and human rights is not limited to Moscow and Moscow-based institutions but exist in all regions across Russia. I think it is beneficial to vary the venue of our meetings and I hope that today we will have a frank and productive discussion, mainly devoted to environmental issues.

The right to a clean environment is a fundamental human right, and creating such an environment is our shared task. The state cannot tackle it without the support of civil society; therefore, it is essential to launch a dialogue on this complicated issue between the Government on the one hand, and the business community and public organisations on the other. Present here today are members of the Presidential Council, experts in the field of environmental protection and representatives of relevant non-governmental organisations. I would like us to exchange opinions on what has been achieved in this area in recent years and what still remains to be done.

I have raised this subject several times at meetings of the State Council Presidium and the Security Council; we held a special meeting of the Presidential Commission for Modernisation and Technological Development of Russia’s Economy, and in June of last year we devoted a month to a series of meetings, events and conferences on environmental issues. I hope that the situation has improved since then.

The issues discussed at the time were included in the list of my instructions following a State Council Presidium meeting. At the time we talked about a need for amendments to environmental legislation, the ratification of the Aarhus Convention and the Espoo Convention. Draft laws on the ratification of these conventions will soon be submitted to the State Duma. At the very least, these are tangible results of our cooperation.

”The right to a clean environment is a fundamental human right, and creating such an environment is our shared task. The state cannot tackle it without the support of civil society.“

As part of implementing these and certain other instructions, the Government submitted to the State Duma a package of five draft laws aimed at creating modern economic incentives, the introduction of green technologies and recycling technologies and improving the efficiency of state environmental monitoring – the latter has already come into force; the draft framework for the Russian state policy on environmental development until 2030 is nearly ready and is currently going through approval procedure.

I will also note that the draft federal law on protecting the seas from oil pollution has been adopted in the first reading, but the parties concerned are not entirely satisfied with it, as far as I was informed. Let's discuss what amendments could be made to this law.

I would like to hear from you how effective you believe the decisions adopted so far have been, whether you believe there is a change for the better, and if not, then what is the reason for that (although the situation is never black and white – it is always much more colourful). In any case, what proposals does civil society have for joint efforts with the state and the business community to address the long-standing environmental problems and try to resolve some of them. In fact, the accumulated problems are very considerable, and it is clear that it will take decades to deal with them.

I am also aware of the major work you are doing to combat the unauthorised rubbish dumping and unauthorised construction in conservation areas, in support of using modern technology and closing or converting environmentally hazardous production facilities. I know that there is a great deal of online activity in this area by volunteers who joined forces some time ago to address various problems, including widespread wildfires, which were a national disaster. All these are relevant and worthy examples of the public taking the initiative and becoming engaged in useful work for the nation.

It is obvious that the repressive approach in the environmental field is not always effective. All the talk that we just have to increase the fines is misguided. It is obvious that there is a need for incentives for businesses to create modern programmes and technology, and conversion to environmentally friendly production. Our companies can understand these arguments. We cannot say that the situation has not changed, especially when it comes to large and successful companies. However, they are not too eager to take these arguments on board.

Therefore, it is important that the dialogue between environmental agencies and the business community continues, including with the active participation of the state, because the economy in our country is to a high degree private. Although some large production facilities are owned by state companies, our economy is increasingly based on private property, and we must agree on appropriate measures with the owners.

An important aspect is environmental education. It is being introduced in all regions, to a greater or lesser extent. In any case, I think we should support such initiatives.

I will now turn the floor over to Mr Fedotov, chairman of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights.

PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR AND CHAIRMAN OF THE PRESIDENTIAL COUNCIL FOR CIVIL SOCIETY AND HUMAN RIGHTS MIKHAIL FEDOTOV: Mr President, colleagues,

This meeting has been planned since July of last year when, as we concluded our talks in Nalchik, you said, Mr President, “Next time, we will talk about the environment.” And so, we are here today. I am very pleased that we have gathered specifically in this plant [Novokuibyshevsky Oil Refinery].

Yesterday, I carefully studied the plant modernisation plans, and came to understand that modernisation is one of the greatest keys to resolving environmental problems. Yesterday, I spoke about this with Mr Simak, who heads the Samara division of the Socio-Ecological Union. We looked at and discussed it together. Ms Skupova – the Human Rights Commissioner in Samara Region – was present as well. We were able to see everything clearly.

But to prepare for today’s meeting, we needed to talk with specialists outside of Samara as well. We had a special meeting in Altai, bringing together about two hundred people – civil activists and experts. We also talked about the fate of Baikalsk and Norilsk, solid domestic waste, nature reserves in the Caucasus, shallow rivers and defenceless forests, particularly hazardous production facilities, and specially protected territories – in other words, we covered all seven areas of Russia’s ecology. All the information we gathered is included in the working group’s report, which I will now give to you, along with the recommendations.

”The Government submitted to the State Duma a package of five draft laws aimed at creating modern economic incentives, the introduction of green technologies and recycling technologies and improving the efficiency of state environmental monitoring – the latter has already come into force; the draft framework for the Russian state policy on environmental development until 2030 is nearly ready.“

I think the situation with protecting nature from the man-made environment is best described as a vicious circle. We see that environmental problems usually result from greed, irresponsibility, sloppiness, arrogance toward others, their rights and legal interests, environmental nihilism, and finally, basic ignorance. And all those same causes make the problems very difficult to solve.

Thus, the reckless pursuit of petrodollars provokes the seizure of territories of traditional nature use. Legal nihilism breeds environmental nihilism, irresponsibility leads to oil spills, and corruption gives rise to all sorts of ills. It is more than a crime, it is embezzlement. That is why I am taking the liberty to confirm that ecology entails more than clean rivers; first and foremost, it requires clean hands and clean thoughts. Where can we find these clean hands? In civil society.

Today, we have representatives from environmental NGOs present here at this table. They are the ones conducting public environmental reviews, but people swat them away as though they were bothersome flies. They are the ones organising the very lessons on ecology that you spoke about, Mr President. They are the ones who stand in the way of bulldozers, stopping them until the prosecutor arrives. They are the ones saving old-growth forests, and are subjected to some very dubious charges, as was the case for Suren Gazaryan and his lawyer Viktor Dutlov, of beating guards and causing 120 thousand rubles’ worth of damage to two sections of a fence by painting messages like “Enough VIP cottages,” supposedly motivated by hooliganism. They are the ones who refuse to accept money from the government and private companies, collecting only charitable donations from individuals (Greenpeace, in particular, favours this ideology), because they do not want to give any cause for suspicion of bias.

We may believe Umberto Eco, who said, “Intellectual function can lead to emotionally unbearable results, because at times some problems must be solved by demonstrating that they cannot be solved. It is a moral decision to express one’s own conclusion – or to remain silent about it. Such is the drama of those who, even momentarily, take on the task of playing the ‘representatives of mankind.’” Those are the words of Umberto Eco.

Environmentalists take on task burden, not just momentarily, but forever. They say “environmentalist” is not a profession but a diagnosis. If that is true, then I think it is a diagnosis of the most useful disease, when a person suffers for all of society. You yourself, Mr President, will easily agree after you listen to these wonderful people.

The human right to a pleasant environment is guaranteed in our Constitution. But why are the residents of Monchegorsk in Murmansk Region, or Karabash in Chelyabinsk Region, or Norilsk or Nizhny Tagil deprived of this right? Don’t the fundamental laws of our nation apply to them? It turns out that they do not, because according to the Constitution, the President of the Russian Federation is solely responsible for determining the guidelines for domestic and foreign policy.

For example, it is the Head of State who approves military doctrine, maritime doctrine, information security doctrine, and doctrine for the development of Russian science. The environmental doctrine was approved by a Government resolution in 2002, but it never really came into force. The Federation Council wrote in 2009 about the fact that it has been “forgotten.”

Forgotten, despite being a strategically important document that, incidentally, was prepared with participation by environmental NGOs. And what happens? The result is that we have no doctrinal basis for developing environmental legislation. And that’s the same as writing a draft Civil Code and forgetting civil law doctrine. This cannot be. That is why one of the Council’s suggestions is to speed up the development of environmental policy guidelines and approve them at the presidential level.

In particular, this fundamental document must reflect the presumption of environmental danger of any planned economic activity and the subsequent obligation for independent environmental assessments and monitoring to be conducted with essential participation by the public. This was already said quite well in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 1992. “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” Today, the famous Russian habit of relying on a bit of luck may be too costly.

It is critical for the guidelines to establish the principle of government contribution to making civil society more environmentally friendly in the spirit of that same Rio Declaration, which states, “Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level.” In my view, the concept of Open Government is just perfect for achieving this goal.

We should also spell out the concrete measures that are intended to increase the efficacy of civil participation in key areas. First of all, it is imperative to create legal conditions that will allow citizens to participate in the adoption and implementation of environmentally significant decisions through surveys, public hearings, referenda, and expert assessments.

A simple example. Beginning in 2007, our Council has been working on the conflict surrounding the Khimki Forest. And I saw for myself that in order for citizens’ opinions to be taken into account even slightly when making environmentally significant decisions, they had to organise and hold rallies, clash with police, get their arms and legs broken, and hold pickets in front of the bulldozers. But people shouldn’t have to be heroes to be virtuous. Your involvement was necessary, Mr President, in order for the cries of public indignation to be heard.

”It is important that the dialogue between environmental agencies and the business community continues, including with the active participation of the state.“

But let’s be completely honest. When the Council brought together the defenders of the Khimki Forest and their opponents from Rosautodor at a round table last year, we suggested they work together to prevent the unlawful felling of trees in the Khimki Forest. Everyone nodded their heads and said, “yes, of course,” but nothing was done. Unfortunately, dialogue is still not popular as a means to resolve problems.

Second, we should take advantage of the alternative civil service in places engaged in environmental policy. In 2000–2005, the Natural Resources Ministry submitted requests for 15 alternative civil service positions in forest stations and 21 at an aviation forest protection base, but only seven people were sent. After 2005, no more requests were made for alternative civilian service members from the Ministry at all, despite the fact that there is insufficient personnel at nature reserves and in national parks.

Third, the Council feels it is important for the guidelines to support environmental and public movements, as well as charitable activities. In particular, our Council suggests that we use the experience of certain foreign nations where citizens have the right to direct some of their tax money themselves, and channel it toward supporting environmental NGOs.

Fourth, we propose that the guidelines talk about creating conditions for developing the traditional environmentally balanced nature use by native minorities. We have the term “Territory of Traditional Nature Use (TTP).” But how is it implemented? In 2009, the Government noted the need to amend the Federal Law On Territories of Traditional Nature Use with the goal of creating model territories of traditional nature use of federal significance.

This was a good idea. What happened? Nothing, zero, no amendments were made. On the contrary, when I looked at the list of sites that were offered to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection in 2010 as sites to be provided for geological exploration by subsoil users, I found nine territories of traditional nature use. I have a question: has oil and gas extraction really become a form of traditional land use among the minority ethnic groups of the North?

Fifth, the guidelines must open the door to a major increase in information transparency and environmental accountability for all major companies in the interest of developing socio-environmental monitoring, which should include public inspections. Unfortunately, in the last decade, the actual role of public assessments and monitoring efforts has only decreased, while the length of fences enclosing hazardous production facilities and unlawfully occupied territories has grown astronomically.

Russia is increasingly becoming a nation of fences. That is why, in working on the draft federal law on public monitoring in the Russian Federation, our Council included specific provisions and paragraphs on mandatory public assessments, mandatory public evaluations, public discussions, initiatives, and so on. The Council feels certain that the guidelines must replace the Environmental Doctrine of 2002, but hopefully, not repeat its unfortunate fate.

We feel that the positions laid out in the Environmental Doctrine must serve as the guidelines for the environmental policy approved by the President and become the doctrinal basis for creating the Environmental Code of the Russian Federation.

Legal experts know that similar comprehensive codes are based on the principles of classifying existing legislation. We already have a whole bunch of isolated federal laws on ecology. I feel it is time to think about creating a Code by codifying them.

The great Mahatma Gandhi once named the seven greatest social sins in modern civilisation. They all relate to our environmental situation: politics without principle, commerce without morality, wealth without work, knowledge without character, science without humanity, pleasure without conscience, and worship without sacrifice. I would add an eighth sin: production and consumption without self-restraint.

Environmental nihilism causes enormous damage – no less damage than the absence of tyre reprocessing plants or used battery collection points. Thus, we suggest placing the greatest emphasis on creating an environmentally conscious culture in our society.

The last thing I would like to bring up is a quotation from the UNESCO 1997 Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generations Towards Future Generations: “Each generation inheriting the Earth temporarily should take care to use natural resources reasonably and ensure that life is not prejudiced by harmful modifications of the ecosystems and that scientific and technological progress in all fields does not harm life on Earth.” On a strictly legal basis, UNESCO’S declaration does not obligate anyone to do anything. But it does not release this generation from its responsibility to future generations.

* * *

Dmitry Medvedev: Today’s conversation has assured me of at least one thing: we cannot progress without each other and have no choice but to cooperate. Sometimes, we have sharp discussions and sometimes we have misunderstandings between – in the broader sense of the word – the authorities and the people striving to protect the environment. But we cannot ignore one another, and that is precisely why we should continue a proper working dialogue which may at times not be easy but nevertheless ultimately productive. I view today’s meeting through that same perspective.

We are at an oil refinery. You have expressed different opinions on how well it is modernising. But let me point out that not everyone wanted to tour it. Perhaps because they didn’t want to get involved in publicising something they do not support as later their names may be used as demonstration of their approval of operation of an environmentally unfriendly enterprise. Colleagues, I still think it would be right to look at what is being done here. Otherwise, all our talks regarding the environment too often end up analysing incidents that are well-publicised but yet very minor in terms of environmental damage, which is really too sad.

I think that the main focus for environmental impact should be aimed at situations like this one. Here, we have heard about Norilsk Nickel – and I completely agree, this is a real [environmental] problem. But when the whole country is involved in discussions over the Khimki Forest, it only benefits the publicity interests of a few individuals. I personally got involved, and I’m glad that it was checked out and so on, but you cannot compare [motorway construction through] Khimki Forest to the damage that a particular plant can inflict.

* * *

You must keep hounding the authorities regarding major environmental problems. I fly throughout the country, no doubt, more than anyone present here, and I really see what is happening; this includes places that are just frightening to see. So those are the places where we must sound the alarm and demand that the authorities take responsibility for the current situation, as well as fixing the damage done by our predecessors. And when we are addressing other problems, I will certainly issue all the necessary instructions. It is wrong if the environmental community and environmental activists are harassed. It’s sad and each and every such fact must be given our attention, although you know, frankly speaking, things like this happen in other nations too, when particular environmental activists find themselves under scrutiny by the authorities.

* * *

Colleagues, all of us at this table are realistic people. This will not be easy for anyone. And let’s admit a fairly obvious fact to one another. Environmentalism has not become as fashionable in our country as it has, for example, in certain European nations. And, strange as it may seem, not just in European states, but in some seemingly underdeveloped places as well. You also know that there are both rational and irrational reasons for this. It is not just the fault of malicious authorities or malicious businesses that are destroying nature.

There are other reasons. We have many resources. People are not accustomed to calculating our natural wealth. Indeed, this is an issue existing at a subcortical level. Our wealth is our downfall, in this sense. So we must do everything to ensure that every citizen of our nation naturally absorbs an environmentally-minded way of thinking and environmentally-focused perception of a wide variety of problems from the very beginning and makes it a daily part of their lives. In this regard, those of you present here have just as much responsibility as the authorities. You use your sharp speeches and complaints toward the authorities to get them moving. I hope you will share your educational mission with the authorities since in my view, all of us must be equally responsible for the general state of life in our country as we are all citizens of this state. True, the authorities have their responsibility and do not have the right to eschew it, but our own, personal civil responsibility is no less important.

That is precisely why I am calling on all of you – colleagues from environmental organisations and my colleagues from the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights – to give this issue some very serious attention and address not only the publicised, high-profile cases that have serious influence on public opinion, but also the frightening, absolutely unacceptable events that nobody is paying attention to; there are far more of them. I am very much asking you to hear what I am saying.

Thank you very much.

I would like to say to all members of the Council that I purposefully refrained from opening now a discussion on other issues for entirely obvious reasons. We will certainly meet and discuss all the other matters concerning the Council’s activities. My term as President is drawing to a close, but our life together is not over, and our meetings are not ending – they will continue.

As I promised, I will personally review all of the materials I have received today.

Meeting of the Council for Civil Society Institutions and Human Rights

2015-03-20T18:01:49+04:00

Dmitry Medvedev chaired a meeting of the Council for Civil Society Institutions and Human Rights in the capital of Kabardino-Balkaria.

Civil society’s role in promoting interethnic and interreligious harmony, as well as in combating terrorism and extremism were the subjects of discussion.

* * *

Excerpts from speech at a meeting of the Council for Civil Society Institutions and Human Rights

President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev: Good afternoon, colleagues,

As agreed earlier, this meeting is taking place in the North Caucasus Federal District. Considering all our current efforts and challenges, I believe this location is well suited to a discussion of the civil society’s role in maintaining ethnic harmony and in the prevention of extremism.

There is another issue that is highly relevant for our country: the harmonisation of interethnic relations. I raised this topic in Ufa recently and discussed it with religious leaders. Today I would like to talk about this matter with you.

I think there are several important aspects here. We must adopt a complex approach in our efforts related to interethnic relations.

Legislative measures are a major theme, including imposing restrictions on holding public office for individuals who have previous convictions for extremist crimes.

Another issue is information. We are doing our utmost at present to ensure that every ethnic minority has its own media outlets, websites and other resources that every nation should have.

The third aspect is personnel. This includes equal access to municipal jobs and non-discrimination on ethnic grounds. We have a problem with that. I am referring to the situation in general, not in any single republic or region, be it in the Caucasus, or in the central area, or in Moscow.

The fourth issue is history. That is also an important topic, because any interpretations that engender negative stereotypes about a particular nation are absolutely inadmissible and dangerous, and can lead to enormous problems.

We could also talk about the situation in the Caucasus in general, as we had planned to. Naturally, we can do it in the context of specific republics. That's why I thought it would be appropriate to meet in one of the North Caucasus republics, which have their own achievements and difficulties.

Another matter: at the previous Council meeting we agreed to review the implementation of my instructions. There are quite a lot of them, several dozen instructions in total. Concrete decisions have already been adopted on some of them, while work is ongoing on the others. No doubt, you will have some questions about this, what has been done and what hasn’t. Nevertheless, I believe that we have achieved success in some areas, in part as a result of the Council members’ initiatives.

In May, a law was passed amending the legislation on children's rights, including the right to communicate with parents in the event of the parents being separated. This is what we have discussed.

On the basis of another initiative put forward by the Council and some Council members, the draft federal law on the basics of health protection has been adopted, which also included the rules for granting one parent the right to remain with a child in hospital during the period of treatment.

At a meeting in Yekaterinburg we discussed the topic of setting up public councils under the Interior Ministry and other agencies. I signed a relevant executive order in May.

There were some other points we have focused on, including a positive decision on payments to World War II veterans who live in Latvia. But I am sure there is a great deal more to be done and great many issues to discuss, which you will raise in your characteristically open manner today.

* * *

First of all, thank you, colleagues, for preparing these important documents and coming here to Nalchik to discuss them. I think this is useful for our country and useful for me.

Of course we are reflecting on how to make our cooperation even more effective. Many of you noted that this or that instruction has not been carried out yet, but I think that despite the problems that still remain, there are some very positive examples too. In any case, practically all of the appeals sent to me are looked into in one way or the other, and this in itself is a good thing in that it gives the civil servants a better picture of what is actually going on, and also of course, helps to resolve some of the biggest problems.

This does not mean, though, that we have already found the optimum and ideal cooperation mechanism in this area. Of course it is neither optimum nor ideal. I agree with you completely here, and if you think that you should be more actively involved in this work, and say that we meet only once every few months, once every six months, say, and then everything comes to a halt again, this suggests that improvements probably are needed.

The Presidential Executive Office is open to cooperation, and no one has ever refused to meet or discuss different issues. If you firmly believe that such and such an issue absolutely needs discussion, my only advice is that you should be more determined in pressing the matter. If it really is an issue over and above the ordinary, I can even meet with some of you. We have a huge number of various problems in our life of course, but the issues you deal with are some of the most complicated of all, and so it is only natural that we should have the possibility of meeting and discussing these things.

I want to respond to some of the points raised. First of all, I will look through all of the documents I have received again, and give instructions accordingly. I have already issued instructions on some issues, and some others I will examine once again. Second, I am willing to come back to the issue of adopting a federal law on public control.

The only thing is, I would not want this law to just be a collection of fine intentions. We already have enough such laws, and they are largely worthless. This law, if passed, must be a law that works. The problem here is not one of civil servants and state authorities not wanting to work with the public; it is also a question of formulation and setting everything out as a law.

I am not sure what the current proposals look like, but I am willing to examine what has been done so far in this area. As I say, this must be a genuinely functioning law otherwise it would make no sense.

***

Turning now to the subject that is one of the main reasons for us being here today, preventing terrorism and extremism, I listened carefully to what you all said. Some of you were very critical, and many of the things you spoke about at the very least show that we do have problems, big problems too. One of the problems is to ensure respect for the law during terrorism prevention work. I hope that you do realise, however, that your task is primarily to help people and guarantee human rights, but the task of those fighting terrorism is somewhat different.

But to support a ‘tally of corpses’, as one of you put it, would be a road to nowhere. Of course, when we are talking about fighting terrorism, fighting the crimes committed, right on the front line, as it were, all kinds of outcomes are possible, including lethal outcomes, with terrorists being killed. But this is not what we should be aiming for. This idea of ‘an eye for an eye’, and this notion that after any terrorist attack (and unfortunately, they have happened and still can) we will simply liquidate the terrorists, and the more the better, is a thing of the past now.

We cannot simply kill all those who spread the seeds of terror, but need to try to educate them and return them to our society. This is the hardest task of all, because this is always a question of choice, a question of the responsibility they bear in the eyes of the law for the acts they have committed, and also a question of the tact and desire with which the various regional heads are willing to pursue this work. It is far from guaranteed that these efforts will score them any political points. Indeed, the opposite is possible, because people will say, ‘they took up arms to fight against people, fight against the lawful authorities, and now you are letting them return to our midst?’ And so this is a question of choice.

At the same time, I certainly do not want to see this whole issue turned on its head, because my position is that it is our law enforcement agencies who are fighting criminals, and not that our law enforcements agencies are full of criminals who are doing nothing but stopping Russia’s people from living a normal life. We would lose our law enforcement system altogether if we all started thinking this way. Yes, they are human beings and they have their faults, just as do the regional governors. But we all have to understand just what a sensitive issue this is, otherwise we could end up going too far. I think this is very important.

On the question of consultative councils attached to the regional governors that could do something to facilitate civil society cooperation on this issue, I think this is a potentially useful idea and I would support it, all the more so as I have already asked the regional governors to set up special councils that include representatives of the law enforcement agencies. I believe that our regional heads could certainly set up these kinds of consultative bodies.

Whatever the case, it is obvious that the people on these councils should be not those who speak soothing words to the authorities, but those who, first, are actually working on these issues, and second, hold these matters genuinely close to their hearts.

On the question of changing the laws on family matters and children’s affairs, I listened to all of your remarks, and I can say straight out that I do not agree with everything you propose. This is my choice, not because I think your proposals are harmful, but simply because our views differ on some of these issues. For example, I do not think we need to establish an agency dedicated specifically to children’s and family affairs. The more bureaucratic agencies we set up, the worse things get. If you set up a whole new ministry, you can consider the entire efforts doomed from the start. And this is even more true when we are dealing with such sensitive issues.

Yes, of course we want human rights protection activity. We need the children’s rights commissioner and the human rights ombudsman, this council too, and all the other organisations that are selflessly helping us in this work. I visited St Petersburg recently and met there with people from the NGOs helping sick children. This was not a discussion for the faint of heart, but it was a useful discussion, and for me, and probably for them too. And so I think that rather than putting our effort into setting up new bureaucratic organisations, we should concentrate on strengthening the human rights component we already have, and develop the NGOs working in this area, especially those with a social focus.

***

On the matter of economic crimes, you no doubt have heard what I had to say about the investment climate. I think it is very problematic, and I do not want excessively stringent responsibility for the various economic actors to end up affecting the investment climate. But I do not agree with people who say that we have not done anything to change the situation. I say this if only because I, for one, have certainly been trying to change things. You know very well that our Criminal Code was always excessively repressive. This was true during the Soviet years and in the post-Soviet period too. I am trying to do something about this, and I can tell you for sure that I am putting more effort into this than Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin put together. This is not to suggest they did anything they should not have, but simply, I am addressing this issue, and they did not.

This does not mean that everything has been done now, and that an amnesty is not possible. Amnesties, of course, are something that come under the State Duma’s powers, although ultimately, the decision to grant an amnesty is a reflection of the authorities’ policy overall. We should look at which categories an amnesty would apply to. But there is absolutely no ignoring that our criminal law, after decades of inertia, is finally changing and advancing. My hope is simply that you will all do more to help me in this work, help me with your advice and the positions you take.

***

You have raised the issue of Magnitsky’s case. I will just briefly say on this matter that I already instructed the investigators and the Prosecutor General’s Office to gather all the evidence related to this case and go through it all once more. I have also sent your document out to these bodies.

There is one thing that worries me. The Magnitsky affair is a tragic case of course because a person lost his life. Judging from all of the evidence, what we could call criminal actions do seem to be involved, because at the very least we have something that should not have happened: people should not die in prison, because if they are ill, they should be released from prison for treatment, and then have the court decide their fate later. But I would not want the problem of the large number of people sitting in our prisons, not always justly and deservedly, to be reduced to this one case alone. The thing is, I get the impression at times that there are only two problems in our country worthy of the attention of human rights activists, the prosecutors, and ultimately the president too – the Magnitsky affair, and the Khodorkovsky affair. These are big and serious cases of course, but I think we are to see deeper at the same time.

By the same token, our environmental problems do not boil down to the Khimki Forest alone. I have visited a number of places where the situation is frankly dire. If you take a number of our Siberian regions, for example, there is no life out there and there are masses of environmental problems that have built up. But we don’t hear a peep about this. Instead, we hear everyone talking about just this one issue of the Khimki Forest.

I would like you therefore to give all of these matters a bit more attention.

Regarding the law on the police force, it is good that you brought this matter to my attention, because I did not know that the laws drafted and submitted by the president do not go through the anti-corruption expert evaluation procedure first. I think that all laws should go through this procedure. We can make the required changes here. This is easy to do. It is a different problem that these evaluations do not always identify all the problems, but it is better to have them than not to have them, because they at least make it possible to identify and deal with some of the problems. I am ready to look into the problems you think exist in the Law On the Police Force. Moreover, I made it clear from the start that this is not an ideal law. It is a law that we passed in order to carry our reform in our Interior Ministry and police system. We must look into what can be changed and improved. Indeed, I imagine that we will continue to find yet more examples of things in the law that do not work quite as we hoped.

On the subject of extremism, its nature, and the legal side of the whole matter, there are also things to think about here, issues that you raised. Extremism, after all, is not about a way of thinking, but about action. If we broaden the concept beyond actual action, we would end up with serious consequences. But at the same time, we have laws in place now, and we are to respect them while they are in force. Nevertheless, if there are things that require changing, changes can be made.

I believe in general that the canons are important of course, but there are things that change and develop, and our thinking changes and develops too. People spent a long time convincing me, for example, not to abolish criminal liability for what was termed ‘smuggling of goods’. Dating from back in the Soviet times, undeclared goods of any sort brought across the border was seen as a crime. This is not the case elsewhere in the world, where people can be charged only with violating customs rules in such cases, or for traffic of restricted or non-civilian goods, for example. Not so here, where it applies to socks, keys, watches, whatever you want. I quote this example because it was one of the stereotypes, but never mind, we changed it, and we are examining the draft law now.

The same goes for a number of the other solidly established conventions still in place. For example, people can still be charged with slander and defamation under our criminal law. But do we need these provisions? I don’t think so. These are not the kind of actions that should be punished in the severest way, in other words, through the criminal law. But when I was working on the draft law that would change this, people said to me, ‘but what if someone slanders another person, are you going to deprive them of the chance to call their attacker to account under the criminal law?’ In short, there are plenty of these stereotypes as far as our laws are concerned, and this applies to our criminal law, our criminal-procedure law, the legislation on the legislative process itself, and other types of legislation.

I want this kind of work, meetings such as this today, to continue in targeted fashion, because you discuss all these issues not just with me, I hope, but also with my colleagues during trips such as this. This is important for the situation in the Caucasus, and in the country in general. Perhaps we could hold the council’s next meeting in one of the places where the environmental situation is most serious, but not in the Khimki Forest. I can show you hundreds of places on the map where you endanger your health just by going there.

This is something that needs the broader attention of the various environmental organisations. I met with environmentalists recently, and this was a useful meeting too. I think this could be a good thing for our council to do. I want to thank you all sincerely for your work. Instructions will be coming.

Meeting with Adviser to the President of the Russian Federation and Chairman of the Presidential Council for Civil Society Institutions Development and Human Rights Mikhail Fedotov

2015-03-20T18:01:56+04:00

Mikhail Fedotov briefed Dmitry Medvedev on the Council’s efforts in drafting a strategy of involving civil society in modernisation projects. The President will attend an extra-mural session of the Council addressing the subject.