THE OSCE CHALLENGED - NHC/IHF

PART II: OSCE PRIORITIES AND PERSPECTIVES FROM CIVIL SOCIETY
heading_white

focal group on impunity in the osce area
“The OSCE should effectuate the European Court of Human Rights’ decisions”

heading_white
Although problems in Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan receive attention as well, most of the debate on impunity in the OSCE focuses on impunity in Chechnya. As in the speeches of Mr. Borchgrevink and Mr. Cunningham , the failure of the outside world to address the political impunity as enjoyed by the Russian Federation is again criticized. Implicitly or explicitly this also means criticism of the OSCE.
More examples are given of atrocities and impunity, of Russian complicity and of the spreading of the Chechen problems to neighbouring countries.
Again the European Court of Human Rights is described as the proper institution to address the human rights crisis in Chechnya, and an appeal is made to OSCE-participating states to effectuate the Court’s decisions and to protect its applicants, witnesses and defenders.
heading_white

”Mr. Ulrich Fischer (IHF, middle): “When addressing ‘impunity’, one might discuss several OSCE-participating states.”

Mr. Ulrich Fischer (International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights) opens the meeting by pointing out that when addressing ‘impunity’, one might discuss a number of OSCE-participating states, but that the focus of the meeting primarily will be on impunity in Chechnya. The problem of impunity is a key concern in the OSCE area, and has been aggravated by the general deterioration of the human rights situation since 11 September 2001.

Ms. Tatyana Kasatkina (“Memorial” Human Rights Center, Moscow) underlines that Chechnya is the focal point for the human rights struggle in the Russian Federation today. The so-called political process initiated by the federal government (which included a census, a Constitutional Referendum, and Presidential elections in Chechnya) has been an imitation of a democratic process that has failed to solve the basic problems in Chechnya of which impunity is one. Ms. Kasatkina mentions some examples of how federal forces dispose of the bodies of extra-judicially executed persons by blowing them up (thereby hampering criminal investigations), and how applicants to the European Court of Human Rights have been intimidated and killed. She concludes by describing a case of serious human rights abuse from the Krasnodar region in southern Russia, which indicates that the problems from Chechnya are spreading to other regions of the Russian Federation.

Mr. Imran Ezheev (Russian-Chechen Friendship Society) points out that the federal army’s use of strategic weaponry, for instance certain land-to-land missiles, against civilian targets in Chechnya, indicates that the supreme commander, Russian President Vladimir Putin, is personally responsible for crimes against humanity. Only the supreme commander could have sanctioned the use of such weapons. With this in mind, the political impunity enjoyed by the Russian Federation is paradoxical. Even the most efficient human rights monitors, like “Memorial”, only monitor human rights abuse in 20% to 25% of Chechen territory. So the documented abuses are only the tip of the iceberg.
heading_white

Ms. Eliza Musayeva (“Memorial” Human Rights Center, Ingushetia and Chechnya): “Disappearances and killings are spreading from Chechnya to Ingushetia.”

Ms. Eliza Musayeva (“Memorial” Human Rights Center, Ingushetia and Chechnya) cites official figures from the public prosecutor of the Chechen Republic, which indicates federal involvement in at least 300 abduction cases in 2002, and compares these with the figures relating to trials against federal servicemen, of which there have been very few. Ms. Musayeva offers a number of examples of how investigations are stopped, are dropped or are not even started, even in situations where enough evidence and witnesses are available. She also describes the investigation and prosecution of a case against a Chechen man who was sentenced to 5 years in prison. Although there were a number of irregularities in his case, the man did not appeal, reportedly out of fear that he would be “punished” with a higher sentence by the appellate court for not accepting the first verdict. Ms. Musayeva concludes by describing how the problems associated with Chechnya (disappearances, killings) lately have become more common in Ingushetia.

Mr. Eldar Zeynalov (Human Rights Center of Azerbaijan) denounces the recent presidential elections in Azerbaijan and voices his concern about the Bulgarian OSCE Chairmanship in 2004, as Bulgaria had congratulated the Azeri president Ilham Aliyev with his election. This happened even though President Aliyev refused to meet with Ambassador Strohal of OSCE/ODIHR, who had issued a critical report after the elections. On the issue of Chechnya, Mr. Zeynalov cites the presence of approximately 7000 refugees from Chechnya in Azerbaijan, only 60 to 70 of whom had managed to obtain refugee status. This was allegedly a consequence of Russian pressure, as was the fact that neither Chechnya nor the Karabakh-issue were addressed in any meaningful way by the OSCE.

Ms. Irune Aguirrezabal Quijera (Coalition for the International Criminal Court ICC) pleads for the involvement of civil society from the NIS countries in the ICC. The Coalition aims at getting two or three new members from that under-represented region and seeks the establishment of national NGO coalitions to promote the signing and ratification of the Rome Treaty (?).

Mr. Nurmuhammet Hananov (Republican Party of Turkmenistan in exile) distinguishes between three types of states within the OSCE: those respecting human rights; those who pretend to respect human rights; and those that oppose human rights. Turkmenistan, according to him, belongs in the latter category. Mr. Hananov cites resolutions and measures taken against human rights abuses in Turkmenistan by the OSCE, the Council of Europe, the UN and the European Union. Counter-measures of Turkmen President Saparmurat Niyazov have been the proclamation of two laws, on religion and public associations that have limited human rights even further. Mr. Hananov appeals for a strong response to the human rights predicament in Turkmenistan, such as the freezing of international bank accounts belonging to members of the regime, a ban on their travelling abroad, and the complete political isolation of the regime.

Mr. Egbert Wesselink (Pax Christi Netherlands) maintains that the OSCE is ineffective as a human rights instrument, due to its reliance on consensus in all matters, even controversial ones. Mr. Wesselink points to the European Court of Human Rights as the most appropriate instrument for addressing the human rights crisis in Chechnya and appeals for the support of the OSCE and its participating states in order to effectuate the Court’s decisions, and to protect its applicants, witnesses and defenders.

| page top