THE OSCE CHALLENGED - NHC/IHF

PART II: OSCE PRIORITIES AND PERSPECTIVES FROM CIVIL SOCIETY
heading_white

mr. aage borchgrevink (norwegian helsinki committee) on impunity:
“The OSCE-states have shirked their responsibility”

heading_white
To speak about impunity in the OSCE area, i.e. the absence of the rule of law, is to speak about Chechnya, according to Mr. Aage Borchgrevink from the Norwegian Helsinki Committee. In Chechnya, violence, crime and human rights abuses, perpetrated by a wide range of state and non-state perpetrators, are seldom investigated. Russian Federation initiatives ostensibly aimed at curbing human rights abuses are termed “cosmetic” by Mr. Borchgrevink.
He not only condemns the Russian authorities’ complicity in the Chechen reign of impunity, but also the wider European failure to address the political impunity currently in place within the OSCE, as well as the failure to protect witnesses, applicants and defenders of the European Court of Human Rights, as they have often been threatened, tortured, persecuted, abducted or executed.
Mr. Borchgrevink calls for a concerted effort to end impunity in Chechnya.
heading_white

“Unfortunately, in some places in the OSCE area, the rule of law doesn’t exist. In regions previously torn apart by war and social conflict, positive developments can be observed; for other regions there is at least some hope of improvement. However, some zones remain beyond the law. There, gross violations of human rights and humanitarian law are rampant, flagrantly and consistently without punishment. There, impunity reigns.
Both the OSCE and the international legal system were established in order to avoid the reign of impunity, to ensure that OSCE citizens have recourse to protection and justice. Over the last years we have seen the establishment of international tribunals dealing with grave crimes in areas where domestic legal systems have been unable or unwilling to provide justice for citizens. The idea behind the tribunals was to end impunity for violations of humanitarian law. Most of us present here have worked toward this very aim.

The most dramatic example of the reign of impunity in the OSCE area is found not on its fringes, but in the Russian Federation. To speak about impunity in the OSCE area is to speak about Chechnya, the worst human rights crisis in the region. Under Russian Federation control, Chechnya has become a lawless zone, where violence, crime and human rights abuses are committed by a wide range of state and non-state perpetrators. According to the figures of the region’s most credible human rights observers, about 40 - 70 persons have ‘disappeared’ monthly, while a slightly smaller number of non-combatants are killed. Usually there is involvement of federal forces, although terrorist attacks and assassinations by Chechen formations also claim many civilian casualties. These are minimum figures and they do not represent the full extent of the tragedy for the civilian population. However, they indicate the continuation of the crisis, the fact that there seems to be no way out, that Chechnya has arrived at a dead end.
The reign of impunity is the pillar of the lawless society currently in place in Chechnya. Over the last years, federal authorities have launched a number of initiatives ostensibly aimed at curbing human rights abuses, above all the so-called ‘political process’ of the previous year that culminated in the controversial election of Mr. Akhmat Kadyrov as President of the Republic on October 5, 2003. All these initiatives have been half-measures, cosmetic measures. The ‘political process’ has been deeply flawed and lacks any public legitimacy. Its net result is the consolidation of a new obstacle on the road to a meaningful peace process: the regime of Akhmat Kadyrov. Moreover, unless the ‘political process’ is accompanied by tangible improvements in the key areas of security and human rights, the term is meaningless and will not contribute to stabilization in Chechnya.

Impunity in Chechnya is guaranteed by a number of factors. Prosecutors seldom investigate alleged crimes. Civil and military prosecutors are often unable to determine which agency is responsible for investigating applications, and in the meantime time and evidence are lost. Consequently, while the Prosecutor of the Chechen Republic claimed there was evidence of federal forces’ involvement in approximately 300 of the 565 criminal cases concerning abductions opened in 2002, the Deputy General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation stated in a letter to Duma member Mr. Sergey Kovalyov (April 25, 2003) that 51 military servicemen and 16 policemen had been convicted for various crimes against the civilian population since the start of the conflict. Only 23 of these had received unconditional sentences. Neither the number of court cases, nor the sentences meted out, reflect the scope and gravity of the opened criminal cases. Moreover, there is a widespread perception that launching complaints with the authorities entails danger to the applicants themselves as well as to their relatives.

The case of the Imakaev family is a case in point. Marzet and Said-Magomed Imakaev of the village Noviye Atagi in the Shali district of Chechnya had three children. On 17 December 2000 their son Said-Khusein (born in 1977) was arrested by federal servicemen, according to several eyewitnesses. He has not been seen since. A criminal case for kidnapping was opened on January 4, 2001, under article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. However, the case was not investigated and was apparently suspended some months later under article 195 of the Procedural Code, because of the failure to identify the person to be held accountable. On February 12, 2002, Marzet and Said-Magomed Imakaev sent an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) regarding the abduction of their son. However, on June 2, 2002, Said-Magomed was himself abducted by Russian federal forces. He was taken from his home during a sweep operation in Noviye Atagi. After applying to all relevant official domestic bodies, Marzet Imakaeva sent another application to the ECHR on June 24, 2002, this time in connection with the abduction of her husband. Despite a number of witness statements, and despite the existence of evidence such as the registration numbers of the federal military vehicles involved in the operation, and a signed property confiscation receipt by the commander of the soldiers who detained Said-Magomed, Russian authorities have responded that ‘there are no facts supporting the claim that he was detained by Russian servicemen’. On two occasions afterwards, Marzet Imakaeva was questioned by government officials in a manner she found constituted pressure on her to withdraw the applications to the ECHR. On July 4, 2003, the ECHR communicated the Imakaeva cases to the Russian government and asked for information, including the files of the criminal cases. The Russian government responded in a memorandum of September 26, 2003, but has not yet submitted the files on the criminal cases, despite another request sent by the court on November 17, 2003.
The Imakaeva case illustrates the reign of impunity in Chechnya, but also the wider European failure to protect witnesses, applicants and defenders of the European Court of Human Rights. Applicants to the ECHR and their families have disappeared, have been extra-judicially executed, tortured and threatened. Moreover, the Russian authorities have persecuted human rights defenders who have sought to inform the courts and the public about abuses in Chechnya. Imran Ezheev of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Association, who is among the participants in this conference, is a living example of the danger faced by those who speak up against abuses in Chechnya. Mr. Ezheev has been tortured, illegally detained, kidnapped and some of his family and co-workers have been killed.

As a member of the European human rights community, I value the emphasis placed on close relations with NGOs by the Dutch chairmanship of the OSCE. I hope these relations are maintained during the Bulgarian chairmanship, and that they are extended to include a mechanism to protect NGOs and other human rights defenders working for accountability in Chechnya. I also hope that the participating states will support human rights defenders bringing cases from Chechnya to the ECHR.

Impunity is a problem not only for Chechnya itself; in the Russian Federation as a whole the rule of law is in danger. Developments in Russia have a profound influence on its neighbours. The struggle to end impunity in the OSCE area today should focus on the human rights crisis in Chechnya; events there may determine events in a much wider area. Consequently, in its Resolution 1323 of April 2003 dealing with Chechnya (?), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe states: ‘If the efforts to bring to justice those responsible for human rights abuses are not intensified, and if the climate of impunity in the Chechen Republic prevails, the international community should consider setting up an ad-hoc tribunal to try war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the Chechen Republic.’
Yet, when the Russian authorities refused to prolong the mandate of the OSCE Mission to Chechnya last year, this was a sign that the political impunity currently in place within the OSCE will continue. The Russian Federation knew it could terminate the OSCE presence in Chechnya without facing consequences, and this fact is an embarrassment to many of us present here. States have shirked responsibility, civil society has not managed to put Chechnya on the international agenda, and media have not covered the Chechen tragedy.

The question we face in this conference room today is: how can we unite and make a concerted effort to end impunity in Chechnya?”

| page top