|
|
S.A.GANNUSHKINA, Co-Chairperson, Civic Assistance Committee, head of the program
First, a few words about our organization. The Civic Assistance Committee is possibly the first public organization to involve itself in refugee affairs. And it did so for a very natural reason: the wish to help people in distress. At first, we had no idea about what to do and how to go about the business we had chosen. We knocked on many a door, we tried to collect money and things, we attempted to strike sources of humanitarian aid, and little did we know that we would ever deal with laws. Disgusted with government inaction we often wondered, «When will they pass a law on refugees?» But deep in our hearts we did not believe in the force of laws. So when in February 1993, the Law on Refugees did appear at last, no-one even bothered to read it.
In the summer of that same year, Larissa Bogoraz entered my report «An analysis of the Laws ‘On Refugees’ and ‘On Forced Migrants’» on the agenda of a seminar of the Moscow Helsinki Group. I was pronounced an expert analyst, while I myself knew that I didn’t know a thing about the whole business. So I had to lock myself with the 1951 Convention and these laws, pore over them and examine how, if at all, they were applied. There was no-one to delegate this task to, for neither the laws nor their application was of the slightest interest to anyone.
Experience taught us that to get over any bureaucratic snag under totalitarian system a senior government official should be found ready to issue decrees necessary for solving the problem. When the system collapsed, the whole arrangement fell apart, too. And on the debris there gradually grew shoots of a new understanding: the only way to avert chaos is to make our huge country into a field of law, and that we must shoulder the responsibility for creating this legal space. We are still troubled by the nagging doubt as to whether we can make the laws work in this country. Well, we are here today, we have put huge effort and money, including the money of our sponsors, into the program of legal assistance, and I take that as an indication that we are on the right track and there actually is no alternative to it.
Our state today can only exist in conditions of the supremacy of law; otherwise Russia is doomed. No return to the totalitarian past is possible, for it has simply breathed its last and is now defunct.
To build a new, law-governed state we need optimism. Not confidence, or trust, but a business-like, level-headed optimism. Half of those present here are not lawyers and would possibly rather pursue their profession. Myself, I am teaching math, and I must tell you my lectures have become for me a retreat and a way to relax.. I feel lucky the science I teach is free from politics, wars or any decrees, so at least for the hour and a half I can get lost in it, shutting out all other problems. However all of us have become involved with the law, for we came to realize that there is no other way of helping people survive the hard time of transition.
Another thing we have come to realize over the years of this drive is that we must cooperate with our official structures — the FMS and the Moscow City Council. Our initial hostility to the authorities, notably the FMS, whose every official seemed to us a foe of the refugees, and hence our enemy, and whom we tried to scathe with our criticisms, has given way to an awareness of the need to work in team. It does not mean that we are ready to give up all that we stand for. But there are several principles which radically alter our relations. First, there is no personal antagonism between us and them, and our criticism is leveled at certain steps made by some official rather than at his person. Second, as often as not we strive to attain the same thing, so we should assist each other. Third, we should keep in mind that whatever flaws migration services may have, they still handle the bulk of the relief accorded to the refugees, and no non-governmental organization could cope with that much work.
Mr. Bisset, the head of the IOM (International Organization for Migration) mission in Moscow recalled that when he had worked with the official migration structures he had regarded NGOs as an obstacle at first. Later he thought that relations between government and non-governmental organizations were not unlike those of a dog and a flea. The flea should bite the dog to make it move. Well, we here are facing a different situation. Our task is not just to prompt the government to take a more active action towards resolving the problems of refugees and forced migrants; we must sway government policy for migrants, so that the migration services, instead of protecting the state from the migrants would defend the rights and interests of those migrants. Our task is to shape public opinion in this sphere. And we also must become intermediaries between migrants and state structures, help refugees and forced migrants get organized, and become vocal on the issues that concern them, so that the authorities would heed their voice.
We work in very close contact with the State Duma. We have our representatives working on law-drafting expert groups. We took part in drawing up a new draft law on forced migrants; another draft law on refugees will soon be made public, and we took part in its preparation, just as we are now participating in drafting a law on assistance to our countrymen abroad. It is already obvious that the Law on Forced Migrants needs to be revised, and amendments are being formulated. It should be born in mind that the text of any law is the result of a consensus between representatives of various government and non-governmental organizations and independent experts. Our law-makers are still quite inexperienced, especially in the area of the law of migration, so amendments are inevitable. We are also using the Duma as an outlet to express our grievances: «our man in Duma», Vyacheslav Igrunov, who is co-chairman of our organization, is always ready to sign a complaint or an inquiry addressed to government structures which still haven’t learnt to respect non-governmental organizations.
We have very lively contacts with the office of the Federal Migration Service: we have established a two-way traffic of our common charges to expedite solution of their problems. We also cooperate, albeit in a strained fashion, with the Moscow City and Regional Migration Services. We often send requests to medical or educational establishments for an appointment or consultation and to the State Department of Internal Affairs for registration at the place of residence.
Our PR department has been active too. Till lately, the Memorial had a program «Your Choice» on Radio Russia, other radio stations are following our work. With television it is not so easy, but even here we can get air time, especially, and that’s rather sad, if we have some scandalous information to offer.
And, needless to say, we continue extending humanitarian and financial aid to refugees and forced migrants; we arrange consultations with psychologists and general practitioners — both where our organization is based and at one of the best outpatient departments of the city: we have a contract with Semashko polyclinic No.5; we supply them with medicines, which we get at discount prices at the pharmacy of the organization Caritas. The Moscow City Council shelled out the first 25 million rubles for the purpose. Attached to our organization is a small center for adaptation and education, where students of Moscow colleges hold classes for refugee children, reviving in them the ability and will to learn.
But I would venture the opinion that our main job is to provide mediatory and legal assistance to refugees and forced migrants.
I must observe that over the past year Russia’s record — human rights-wise and law-wise — has worsened. That opinion was voiced by most participants in the December 10, 1996 conference of human rights organizations. There is a reason for that: the Chechen war, just like any war, blew up the moral props, and so bred lawlessness. Our state annihilated at least 80 thousand civilians, its own citizens, innocent people. In 1994-95 we failed to prevent it, the West reconciled itself to it, thus casting doubt on its commitment to both human rights and the biblical commandment «Thou shalt not kill».
What happened in Chechnya cannot be compared to either the Azeri-Armenian or the Ossetian-Ingush conflict, for the smoldering ethnic conflict between the Russian and Chechen population in the Dudayev Chechnya was dampened, or even put out, the moment the Russian government ruled to restore the «constitutional space» by bombing a peaceful town and triggering a nightmare equally horrible for everyone. So much so that a Chechen woman living next door, who, feeling offended by her Russian neighbor, might have earlier heatedly told her, «We will cut your throats, Russians», was at her doorstep, when the bombings began, saying « Why don’t you come over — my house has a deeper cellar».
Refugees and forced migrants suffer the most from the various violations of human rights. To get a dwelling, a job, medical aid, a place at school for his/her child, a refugee or forced migrant first of all needs to receive the necessary status. And that right of his is currently being violated throughout Russia. Neither the Convention nor the laws are being observed. The situation is the worst with the third world refugees. We must not shut our eyes to that, for there are no groups of people outside the purview of law, people who cannot appeal to law. And violations of laws are never confined to just one group of people — if the society condones them, they spill to any other groups. Up to now the Russian FMS has granted the status to just a hundred refugees from Afghanistan, which means that none of the 46 thousand refugees from third world countries registered at the Office of the UNHCR have been recognized as such. Russia’s migration policy, to all intents and purposes, blocks emigrants from third world countries from getting the refugee status; it is also a hindrance to migrants from the CIS countries getting it. The federal law is ignored, while the federation entities pass their own statutes and regulations in contravention of the laws on refugees and forced migrants. And as is always the case, the «dissent» started fermenting in Moscow. In March 1996, Moscow-issued Instruction No.121 ordained that the city grant forced refugee registration only to close relatives of Moscow residents, and refugee registration to persons who have a place-of-residence registration in Moscow. All attempts to settle the matter in court failed — the courts invariably rule in favor of the Moscow Migration Service, on the strength of the Moscow-issued instruction instead of the federal legislation.
The FMS does not check whether the rule of law is observed in the local regulations although its legal department should by definition carry out expert monitoring, and upon finding irregularities protest their application. Instead FMS deputy chairman Mr. Chulkov in a letter to the head of the Moscow Migration Service writes: «I believe you could reconsider the matter of granting the status to Mr. So-and-so». If that is what he believes, why does Mr. Chulkov write a letter instead of just granting the status to that person?
The executives of the FMS say to us: «We give you all our support». However in fact it is WE that are trying our best to support THEM, whereas they do nothing to erect a vertical structure of migration services and fail in their main duty: to provide the status of refugees and forced migrants to those entitled to it.
A big problem is that persons in authority feel no responsibility towards refugees and forced migrants. Although the laws on refugees and forced migrants state clearly that all structures of state authority bear responsibility within their jurisdiction, our every letter to ministries, agencies or departments invariably draws a response: your application should be addressed to the migration authorities. Whether it is a case of providing a job or dwelling, of issuing documents for transit outside the Russian Federation (the Ministry of Internal Affairs is bound to issue such documents by Article 28 of the Geneva Convention), of granting due benefits to the Chernobyl accident liquidator (the only one among the refugees), of compensating, judicially, the material and moral damage to the victims of hostilities in Chechnya — the government bureaucrats send refugees and forced migrants to the FMS. The authorities and the public in general seem to be unaware that taking care of refugees is the responsibility of the state, and not only of the FMS, whose chief task is to determine the status.
The place-of-residence and place-of-stay registration has actually substituted for the previous permanent and temporary residence permits. Moreover, in some cases it has made the routine of getting it more stringent instead of more lax. Although Regulation No. 713 of July 17, 1995 was meant to be instrumental in the application of the Law on Freedom of Movement and Choosing a Place of Residence it actually restricts freedom of movement more than the residence permit system did. Local regulations further restrict freedom of movement. A case in point is Regulation No. 1030-43, issued by the Moscow municipal and regional legislatures. We are now in correspondence with the General Prosecutor’s office demanding that it ban the practice of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of issuing place-of-stay registrations for up to 6 months per annum only. The above Regulation No. 713 does not contain the term «per annum». Where the regulation states «place-of-stay registration is as a rule granted for a term of up to 6 months», the Ministry introduced the restrictive addition «per annum», which creates confusion as to when one can make a new application for registration, and why it cannot be done right upon the expiry of the previous registration. For instance, the victims of the Chechen war have no right to reside in Moscow at their relatives’ or friends’, as they are denied the status of forced migrant which would make them eligible for a longer-term registration. The situation is compounded by the dwelling space minimum, and that «yardstick» is applied even to place-of-stay registration, so those Muscovites whose dwelling space is below the minimum standard have no right to have relatives or friends as guests. Once we showed Regulation No. 713 (signed by prime-minister Chernomyrdin) to a clerk at a passport bureau, and were surprised to hear: «And who is Chernomyrdin?» We said, «He is the Prime-Minister of the Russian Federation». His response was, «So then, you live in Russia? Well, we here live in Moscow!» Whereby we deduced that Moscow’s Mayor was a more confirmed separatist that Chechen leader Dudayev: he had long since withdrawn Moscow from the jurisdiction of the federal government. In the Ministry of Internal Affairs they just shrug helplessly: «What can we do? Moscow packs a lot of power.» That power, however, is not something one takes pride in, for violation of law indicates a lot of criminal power.
Medical care-wise, the biggest problem for refugees and forced migrants is getting a medical insurance policy. To be fair, we never were refused if we applied to the Health Ministry or the Moscow City Health Department for consultation, hospital accommodation or outpatient services for chronic cases. And we thank them for that. But you will agree it is not a normal procedure, that a parliament member should intercede for every sick person. The whole routine of issuance of the compulsory medical insurance policy is very involved. For refugees, even those granted the status, there is no standard procedure of getting one at all. The head of the Moscow Regional Migration Service wrote that much in a letter to us. And one can only guess, what one is up against if one doesn’t have that status.
I will cite just one example to give you an idea of how things stand with the education of refugees. For some eighteen months we have been corresponding with the Moscow Education Department. We have obtained documents on whose strength Moscow schools refused, from September 1995 onwards, to enroll children whose parents do not have a Moscow registration and the refugee status. A glaring violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as of the Russian Constitution and the Law on Education. A glaring violation of the norms of human behavior! We fought the document at the General Prosecutor’s Office, and it was finally recalled. But the Moscow Department of Education forgot to advise school directors on the ruling to that effect. So now we have to make up for that lapse: we give a copy of the document to the parents and they take it to school.
Just recently, a refugee from Baku, a father of three children, received an interesting note from the school his children attended in the Odintsovo district of the Moscow region: «Kubinskaya High School No.1, Moscow Region, Odintsovo district. Mr. & Mrs. Safaryan, the administration of Kubinskaya High School No.1 brings to your notice that as of November 11, 1996 your children will be expelled from school on the grounds of ordinance No. 624 of September 27, 1996 of the education department of the Odintsovo district.» Now, what is the statutory responsibility of the Education Department? It is to ensure that every child goes to school. Instead it ordains to discontinue education.
I would also like to say a few words about how refugees are provided with a dwelling or a plot of land. The FMS is proud that its officials managed to evacuate members of the Dukhobor and Molokan religious sects from the zone of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. (I would venture the opinion, that it should have been done by qualified Emergency Ministry field officers, instead of chairborne staff of the FMS. But circumstances dictate their own solutions). The FMS resettled the Molokanes in the Tula region, where housing had been built for them, and the money was channeled into a local farming industry. And what happened was the Molokanes, with their century-long traditions of farming, now must work on the local farm, whose local workforce is mostly made up of drunks. The farm management say, «Either you work on our farm for next to nothing, as we are, or you are free to leave. We got allowances for your resettlement from the FMS, and if we have other refugees here, there will be more money coming our way.» So the money missed its target, and the houses are the property of the farm, not the refugees.
But back to the Chechen problem: I’d like to quote from a reply we got from the FMS on what had happened to the files of claims for compensation sent to Grozny. Six thousand documents perished in a fire, and now the FMS, and I quote, ‘in order to prevent the filing of counterfeit documents is setting up its own file of compensation claims by collecting the original documents,’ unquote. In other words, everything must be started from scratch again. Again the originals of the documents perished in Grozny are demanded. I quite understand that there are attempts, sometimes successful, to cheat the FMS, we face the same problem. But what I cannot understand is why the FMS is above all concerned about a handful of swindlers with forged documents, instead of worrying about the hundreds of thousands of people who haven’t till now received the compensation that is rightfully theirs, meager as it is? Can we allow ourselves to act on the proposition that man is basically evil? At a time when the payment of compensations should be expedited, for people are in a critical situation, the President of the RF issued decree No. 1208 «On Urgent Measures to Ensure a Regimen of Stringent Economy in Implementing the Budget in the Second Half-Year». The decree suspends the earlier decree No.86 of January 24,1996 «On Measures to Rebuild the Economy and Social Services of the Chechen Republic in 1996" and the funding of lump-sum and compensation payments to the victims of the Chechen conflict. The question of redressing the moral and actual material damage is not even raised! The meager compensation of 60 million rubles per family for the dwelling, 1.5 million per person for personal property, the measly 20 minimum pay compensation for an injury and 200 for a dead family member, were found to be among those debit items that could be slashed to doctor the national budget.
We have but one way out: to try and make the laws effective, and make the authorities abide by them. And for that cooperation is a must. So we are launching a comprehensive program of contacts and cooperation in the sphere of legal aid to refugees and forced migrants. This program should naturally be broader than the project which covers our current work and the seminar «On setting up a network of legal advice offices for refugees and forced migrants». In the framework of that program we should master the art of coordinated action and of advising one another on what is happening in each and every region. Our country is vast, and we must have a smoothly running communication network if we all want to be in the picture.
Such communication can be effected with the help of E-mail — the cheapest and speediest of all. We want to build up a database on legislation, and make it accessible and open to everyone, so that it could be continuously updated. We want to know of the latest local regulations, and be able to make their comparative analysis; we want to be in a position to react without delay and to speedily find effective instruments of aid.
We must work out instruments of advising the public on what is happening in the regions. Neither the federal nor the Moscow mass media have sufficient information from the regions. Our network will ensure a two-way traffic between the center and the provinces. Each trip to the regions yields a wealth of information on the conditions of refugees there. At times the information released by the federal authority does not reach the regions. As was the case of an ordinance cabled by Tatiana Regent to all the regional migration services on December 27,1994 on ending the issuance of forced migrant status to Chechen nationals. The cable reached us at the Emergency Settlement Center in Novgorod only in late January,1995. Had we had a communication network at that time, we would have reacted to the ordinance a month earlier.
We would also like to make use of our program for educating the young, to bring up a new generation of lawyers, who would adopt human rights protection as their creed and a criterion in their work for the FMS or the Moscow Migration Service. I believe that each lawyer should remember the law exists for the sole purpose of protecting people. I pray for the day when we will have lawyers, and maybe even officials, with a clear understanding that their task is to defend the interests of refugees instead of narrowing their chance to get settled the best they can.
We plan to hold regular seminars, at which we shall share experiences in handling court cases, and offering legal aid and advice and mediatory services to refugees. Those seminars would come up with suggestions of how to influence the law-making and law-enforcement practices, examine the need of initiating new legal acts or contesting the operative acts and court rulings. They might also discuss proposals on amendments to laws in force, and changes in the legislation along with what new opportunities those changes afford. For the seminars to be effective we need to stay in close contact in between. With that aim in view special stations should be opened for refugees and forced migrants to get legal aid and advice and support in courts. These stations should also be charged with analyzing and evaluating the situation in the region migration-wise, including the issuance of the status, the handling of refugee affairs by migration services and local authorities.
We could talk things over on the phone or visit this or that place. For that we would need both financial and communication means. And it is important that it should not be communication with Moscow alone as a hub to and from which all information is dispatched. It should really be a network with everyone having direct access — by E-mail — to any other person, for instance Iolanta Agababovyan who has vast experience, with everyone being able to read about some interesting case, and so on. Of course personal meetings should also be arranged — through organized trips and seminars. But for day-to-day communication E-mail is the most convenient means with its potential to let each development, each event be known to the world at large within minutes.
Even today we could put up five such stations on funds allocated by the UNHCR. But we cannot be confined by the framework of our current project. We should expand our work, and for that we need an office. For a long time the Literaturnaya Gazeta kindly offered us space for work, and now we are sharing the basement of the building which houses the Moscow Helsinki Group with some other people, and we don’t even have a telephone there.
As I said, we are closely cooperating with the State Duma — namely, with the co-chairman of our committee, MP Vyacheslav Igrunov, and a wonderful person — MP aide Marina Larichkina. Recently, Sergei Kovalev offered us his help. The applications we compile are signed by the MP, for our bureaucrats are yet to learn to respect non-governmental organizations, whereas no-one can neglect to reply to an MP. Also, that reply tends to be positive much more often than if it were to our application. Sometimes we change the tactics: we write a query, and accompany it with a brief letter from the deputy, asking to consider the matter, and we found that technique quite effective.
|
|