| ||
|
||
|
|
|
HR news |
On the passing by the UN Human Rights Commission of a resolution on the situation in the Chechen Republic
In Geneva on 20 April 2001 the UN Human Rights Commission passed a resolution condemning Russia for the continuing gross violations of human rights in Chechnya. 22 of the 54 members of the commission voted for the resolution, including those European Union countries that are members of the Commission, Poland, the USA, Canada, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Switzerland, Iceland, New Zealand, Australia, Mexico and Guatemala. 12 countries voted against it, in particular, China, Cuba, India and Venezuela. 19 states abstained, amongst them Argentina, Brazil, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru and Uruguay.
There immediately ensued sharp declarations from the Russian representatives that Russia did not consider herself bound by the opinions "of unobjective and unconstructive" resolutions on Chechnya. What exactly had preceded the passing of this resolution?
A year ago the UH Human Rights Commission considered the events of the second Chechen war for the first time and heard the report of the UN Human Rights High Commissioner Mary Robinson, who had just returned from a visit to the Northern Caucasus.
The resolution that was passed contained harsh evaluations of the massive human rights violations committed during the war in the Chechen Republic. It called on all sides in the conflict to undertake swift steps towards an end to the war and the unlawful use of force, and to begin without delay conducting a political dialogue and effective negotiations with the aim of achieving a peaceful resolution of the crisis, that would fully respect the territorial integrity and Constitution of the Russian Federation. The resolution called on the Government of Russia to establish with urgency "in accordance with recognized international standards, a national, large-scale and independent commission on the immediate investigation of the suspected human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian rights committed in the Republic of Chechnya". Furthermore, according to the resolution, Special reporters must be sent to Chechnya on the following issues: torture, non-judicial executions, the issue of internally displaced people, the issue of the physical abuse of women, and also a Special representative of the UN General Secretary on the issue of children and armed conflicts.
In response the official representatives of Russia declared that this resolution was not objective and that Russia would not carry out its recommendations.
Since this year the UN Human Rights Commission will be considering the situation in Chechnya, the International League for Human Rights, which is registered with the UN Economic and Social Council and therefore has the right to speak at Commission meetings, invited three representatives of Memorial (S.Kovalev, T.Kasatkina and O.Orlov) to Geneva. Amnesty International, which also has the right to speak, invited Usam Baisaev, an employee of the Nazran agency of the Human Rights Center "Memorial", to Geneva. He appeared at a press conference and talked about the many cases of disappearances of people arrested by federal forces in Chechnya.
Representatives of "Memorial" have twice had the opportunity to speak at sessions of the UN Commission (see speeches of S.Kovalev and T.Kasatkina) and to meet with delegates of country-members of the Commission at lobbying events. On 3 April six non-government organisations (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, the International League for Human Rights, Médecins Sans Frontières and "Memorial") held a joint press conference at the Palace of Nations, at which statements were made about the human rights violations of which both sides of fighters in Chechnya were guilty. In our joint announcement it was stated that Russia "does not have sufficient political will to carry out its own comprehensive investigations and subsequent punishments of those who are guilty of cruel treatment of the population", consequently it is necessary to conduct an international investigation.
Unfortunately, our country's delegation, even at this session of the UN Human Rights Commission, continued to demonstrate a stubborn unwillingness to accommodate the recommendations of the international association. Our diplomats' declarations were remarkably similar in tone to declarations by representatives of Iraq or Sudan.
The new report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that was presented to the Commission contained extremely toned-down and mild wording. In spite of this, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was quick to make public criticism of the Commissioner, because the report "far from fully reflected the significant positive efforts that the Russian government is making for the normalisation of the political and socio-economic situation in the Chechen Republic". The special representative of the President of the Russian Federation for human rights in the Chechen Republic, V.Kalamanov, declared that "the UN High Commissioner has not yet been able to find her role in the establishment of stability and peace in Chechnya and in giving help to Russia in this problem."
Nonetheless the European delegations hoped that they would manage to come to some kind of mutually acceptable agreements with Russia. At the initiative of a group of EU countries the Swedish delegation began confidential negotiations with the Russian delegation about the possibility of a compromise. It was suggested that it was possible to refuse the passing of the resolution and that it be confined to a declaration by the President of the UN Commission, which would contain a number of recommendations for the improvement of the situation in Chechnya that were acceptable to both Russia and the other members of the Commission. At the same time the Spanish delegation began to prepare the draft of the resolution in case it was not possible to achieve such a compromise.
As became known "from competent sources", the Russian delegation in negotiations with the Swedish delegation put forward a number of strict conditions; the following recommendations were unacceptable to Russia in any form: to begin negotiations with the Chechen forces, the creation of any international commission on Chechnya and the beginning of any international investigation of crimes committed during the current military conflict.
When meeting and talking with the representatives of several delegations from European countries and the USA, the representatives of Memorial tried to convey to them the position of our organisation, which consisted of the following.
Of course a compromise is desirable. A strict resolution can contain a completely true evaluation of events and make fair demands, but if it is unacceptable to Russia then she will not take any practical steps. Therefore, it is advisable and necessary to accommodate the wishes of the Russian delegation, to soften the wording and to remove some demands. But we should not come to a compromise for the sake of compromise and lower recommendations and demands below a certain level. Any agreed document (including a statement by the President of the UN Commission) should contain two mandatory elements: condemnation of the continuing human rights abuses in Chechnya and independent international control over the investigation of crimes. The creation of any international commission for investigation may be unacceptable to Russia, but it cannot refuse a mechanism as traditional to the UN as the sending of special reporters to the conflict zone. The representatives of Memorial asserted that any agreement with Russia must contain the sending to Chechnya of two reporters - on torture and non-judicial executions. The reporter on the abuse of women, which our government had cunningly agreed to allow into Chechnya, scarcely receives much factual information because of local events. In Chechnya there is a huge sweep of work for these two reporters. Without these minimal demands the document would bring more harm than good.
However, the representatives of "Memorial" got the alarming impression from a conversation with the Swedish delegation that a "rotten" compromise was being prepared. Everything was unacceptable to Russia - even the special reporters. In consequence it seemed that they were seriously considering creating some kind of joint commissions instead, made up of representatives of Russia and the UN, with unclear status and internal regulations. In such commissions the representatives of official Russian structures would be able to block any decisions that were unacceptable to our government.
However, members of the other delegations, including the American delegation, demonstrated significantly greater understanding of the real situation in Russia.
As is known, the attempts to reach a compromise collapsed; although they continued until the last moment. However, our country's representatives did not want to reach a compromise, but that the UN actually give up all of its points. Until the final moment our delegation hoped for the appearance of a "balanced" statement by the Commission President. Fortunately, such an outcome was unacceptable to many country-members. Despite attempts to adjourn consideration of this issue, on 20 April the resolution prepared by the Spanish delegation under the mandate of a group of European countries was put to a vote and passed. The resolution, in our view, contains sufficiently accurate and adequate evaluations of events in Chechnya. It proposes wise steps for the improvement of the situation.
The Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs blames the collapse chiefly on the US delegation, who "destroyed the spirit of dialogue and constructive co-operation".
In our view, the responsibility for the occurrence of such a harsh resolution lies wholly with the leadership of our country, who stubbornly refused any actual steps towards the improvement of the human rights situation in Chechnya.
